[Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date
vgray (gotsky)
vgray at gotsky.com
Sun Dec 17 15:01:07 CST 2006
Hi John and others on this list
I also support the '83-GMT correlate in preference to the '85-GMT correlate,
but there is much more to this issue between the two correlates. Many
Mayanists today that support the '85-GMT did not do this out of a lack of
understanding of the correlation issue as you imply. Linda Schele by her own
admission was not a numbers person, but there are strong reasons why she
adopted the '85-GMT correlate. What is of paramount importance is that the
JDN 584283 correlation constant (i.e '83-GMT) does not work when a Lunar
Series date is also associated with an Initial Series date, and Schele was
interested more in Lunar dates which necessitated the adoption of the
'85-GMT correlate. The famous example of a (9.17.0.0.0) Initial Series
which also provided the supplementary glyphs of a Lunar Series, defining
that day as the start of a new lunar cycle is a case in point (also a solar
eclipse). Using the '85-GMT correlate in Schele's mind seemed absolute
here, because that day was also a New Moon, and given that many Mayanists
consider the New Moon as the Mayan lunar cycle base, the '85-GMT correlate
works while the '83-GMT correlate fails to yield a satisfactory result. A
moon age of zero in that date corresponded with the New Moon when using the
'85-GMT correlate. Michael Coe and many others did not simply blindly follow
Linda Schele in the use of an '85-GMT correlate, but rather simply adopted a
proper Lunar Series correlation, in preference to either Thompson's
ethnographical evidence or the elusive tropical station dates. In other
words they took the easy road of not addressing the deeper issues of the
correlation debate, and simply used a correlation constant that provides
proper Lunar Series resultants. Floyd Lounsbury's dual correlation solution
(i.e. 85-GMT correlate before the Spanish Conquest and '83-GMT after) only
deepened the confusion in this area, and this was possible only because a
proper perspective concerning tropical station dates has not been given the
attention it deserves. So what has transpired over the last 30 to 70 years
is that Mayanists adopted the '85-GMT correlate, because a proper
application of the '83-GMT has not been sufficiently developed to the point
of resolving the dichotomy relative to Lunar Series dates.
John Teeple, Sylvanus Morley and even Eric Thompson used the '85-GMT
correlate, but when Thompson introduced the '83-GMT correlate in 1935 on the
basis of ethnographical evidence, it was also painfully obvious that this
did not work for the supplementary glyphs of the Lunar Series. Many
Mayanists today simply adopt the '85-GMT correlate because this offers a
proper result for Lunar Series dates, without addressing the deeper issues
associated with the 2 day difference between the two correlates. For example
what they do not realize is that tropical station dates work much better
when using the '83-GMT correlate, while Lunar Series dates work better with
the '85-GMT correlate. However, this dichotomy has never been satisfactorily
resolved, and the importance of just two days is not considered of
sufficient importance in the overall scheme of things. The advocates of
other correlation constants I have discovered have not resolved this
dichotomy either, but only changed its character.
So if the '85-GMT correlate is "absolute" in terms of Lunar Series dates,
then why do many scholars still use the '83-GMT correlate? Well simply
because they find the ethnographical evidence sufficiently compelling as did
Eric Thompson (and as do I), and go about their business without resolving
this correlation dichotomy. It is well to remember that there are two
'85-GMT correlate solutions - the pure application of that correlate and
Floyd Lounsbury's dual correlate solution - and while the '83-GMT and
Lounsbury's solution both earmark a Dec 21st, 2012 CE 13-baktun cycle
ending, the pure '85-GMT correlate marks that event as occurring on Dec
23rd, 2012. Schele in effect by admitting to a Dec 23rd, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0)
ending for the Mayan calendar, rejected Lounsbury's dual correlation
solution, preferring to adopt the pure application of the '85-GMT correlate.
But the fact remains that this dichotomy has not been adequately resolved,
because tropical station dates work better when using Thompson's '83-GMT
correlate. This is perceived by some as evidence that the GMT is not a
legitimate correlation solution, but I have come to realize that this is not
so, because those other correlation solutions introduce other anomalies
similar in character to the GMT anomalies.
Why this dichotomy exists I believe rests with the assumption that New Moon
is the lunar cycle base, and even Thompson accepted the New Moon base even
though this clearly meant that his '83-GMT correlate could not work with
Lunar Series dates. Linda Schele in Texas Note 29 has proved this point
beyond all doubt, and the champions of the '85-GMT correlate are increasing
in number as a result. After long deliberations on this dichotomy it is
clear that only one resolution is possible, which must reject the New Moon
as a lunar cycle base, and rather adopt the Full Moon as a reference for
deriving moon age. This 15 day lunar cycle base reorientation plus the 2 day
difference between the two correlates means Lunar dates are expressly stated
as an event 17 days into the future basis the '83-GMT correlate. More
precisely, all Initial Series are seen as expressive of a date scripting
methodology as a dual date metaphor, where all scripted Long Count dates are
expressive of two event object dates separated by 17 days, and the Lunar
Series is always stated as 17 days passed the Initial Series (for the Mayan
case). In other words to accept the '83-GMT correlate behooves one to
explain this dichotomy, and offer a solution that resolves moon age for the
Lunar Series dates, and therefore an offset must persist between the Initial
Series and the Lunar Series. This is difficult to prove but not impossible,
and as much as it is a peculiar solution nevertheless resolves ALL GMT
ANOMALIES! Using the above example, (9.17.0.0.0) also points to a
(9.17.0.0.17) Full Moon basis the '83-GMT expressive of a moon age of zero.
I will not go into the specifics of this claim here, because the subject
matter is large and complex, but only wish to point out that adoption of the
'83-GMT is not as simple as adoption of the '85-GMT correlate, because
tropical station dates remain elusive while Lunar Series dates disavow an
'83-GMT correlate.
The proponents of the '85-GMT correlate are right about one thing: to adopt
the '83-GMT is not possible without first resolving the moon age issue of
Lunar Series dates, and Eric Thompson himself was never able to resolve
this, and Linda Schele's Texas Note 29 must be properly explained in terms
of the '83-GMT if the proponents of the '85-GMT are to be overturned. No
Mayanist has had the resolve to accept the inevitable - the '83-GMT
correlate implies a 17 day offset persists between the Initial Series and
the Lunar Series, and a Full Moon cycle base must be used for gauging moon
age. The acceptance of a dual date metaphor for all Initial Series dates is
just not sufficiently developed, and so the easier route of the '85-GMT is
adopted. Many Mayanists have simply adopted the '85-GMT correlate pending
resolution of this dichotomy, for the ethnographical evidence is just as
compelling today as it was when Thompson introduced the '83-GMT correlate in
1935. In essence many prefer to ignore this ethnographical evidence, because
they prefer to have readable Lunar Series dates, and this is the proper
perspective as regards Linda Schele's use of the '85-GMT. John Major Jenkins
errs by believing that Linda Schele and others did not properly consider the
correlation question, and certainly Floyd Lounsbury's solution did much to
confuse the issue here.
Given that correlation of Lunar Series dates is broken when using the
'83-GMT correlate, it behooves an advocate of the '83-GMT to explain this
aspect of the correlation debate. I accept the '83-GMT correlate as
definitive because I accept the truth about the 17 day offset that persists
between Initial Series and Lunar Series dates. Anybody using the '83-GMT
correlate cannot do so without also addressing Linda Schele's Texas Note 29,
and only then may the '85-GMT proponents be definitively overturned. The 2
to 3 days of invisibility of the moon around conjunction with the sun (i.e.
dark moon), and the variability of the precise moment of New Moon (i.e. last
or first moon crescent), is not sufficient cause for suggesting an
acceptance of the '83-GMT correlate - a better resolution of this problem is
needed before adopting the '83-GMT correlate.
So you see John it is not a simple matter of just accepting the
ethnographical evidence that points to an '83-GMT correlate as definitive.
Proponents of the '83-GMT have been saddled with traveling the higher road,
and the burden has fallen upon their shoulders to prove a resolution of the
correlation debate. The proponents of the '85-GMT simply rest upon the
efficacy of Lunar Series dates basis the '85-GMT, and may proceed without
undue gymnastics as regards the correlation question, but the proponents of
the '83-GMT camp cannot proceed in this manner. Once it is understood that
Linda Schele used a pure '85-GMT correlate, and not a misapplication of
Floyd Lounsbury's dual correlation solution, then the true meaning of
Schele's work emerges - Lunar Series dates are broken under a simple
application of the '83-GMT correlate, and the '83-GMT camp must now resolve
the GMT correlation question from here on out.
I am confident that the '85-GMT correlate will be retired, when this 17 day
offset between the Initial Series and Lunar Series is finally realized as
the key to resolving the GMT correlation debate. Using this same 17 day
offset between the twin event objects associated with all Long Count dates,
I can show that all the other competing correlation constants achieve
nothing more than a remapping of the GMT correlated environ, and hence their
success only confirms the very GMT that they are trying to overturn.
Cheers
Clifford Emeric
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Major Jenkins" <kahib at ix.netcom.com>
To: "'Aztlan'" <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date
> To those involved in this thread and anyone interested in the end date /
> correlation question:
>
> Hi,
> If you'd like a more detailed and definitive assessment of the
> underlying factors in the debate between the two correlations that are
> two days apart, see:
>
> http://www.alignment2012.com/fap3.html
> http://www.alignment2012.com/fap9.html
> http://www.alignment2012.com/app5.htm
> http://alignment2012.com/scheletoGardner.html
>
> In a nutshell, the end date is December 21, 2012. The earlier
> correlation that results in December 23, 2012 was corrected when
> ethnographic material on the surviving 260-day calendar become available
> in the 1930s and 40s. The logic is that the surviving day-count evinces
> an unbroken continuity with the Classic Period count, and projecting the
> surviving count forward to December of 2012 should result in 4 Ahau (or
> the equivalent day-sign in the Quiche Maya language, 4 Hunahpu) falling
> on the correct end date. Thus, a separate confirmation of which
> correlation best fits is possible. The test results in 4 Ahau falling on
> December 21, 2012. Thus the 584283 correlation is supported. The
> arguments of Floyd Lounsbury, who revived the earlier Dec 23rd
> correlation, have not withstood analysis. His date, however, although
> erroneous, has great currency because his student Linda Schele repeated
> it and used it her books. Michael Coe followed, and so on. The issue is
> not considered relevant to many Mayanists. But for the sake of clarity,
> the 584283 correlation (13.0.0.0.0 = December 21, 2012) remains by far
> the most feasible of all correlations proposed, including Lounsbury's.
> When confronted with the ethnographic evidence that put his correlation
> two days out of line with the surviving day-count, he suggested that
> there must have been a two-day shift sometime just before the conquest.
> Other scholars have commented that this scenario of a coordinated
> cross-country shift is almost impossible to imagine, but what this means
> is that Lounsbury's correlation would have to be shifted back 2 days for
> all post-conquest dates, resulting in the end date falling on December
> 21 anyway. So, from this vantage, there isn't even a debate, or a
> practical difference: both point to December 21, 2012.
>
> John Major Jenkins
> http://Alignment2012.com <http://alignment2012.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
> [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of mario malo
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:54 AM
> To: Aztlan
> Subject: [Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date
>
> Amigos: I am setting a timer/clock for the end date of the 13 Baktun
> cycle of the Mayan long count/great cycle, but i keep reading two dates.
> Is it December 21 or the 23, 2012? please help, M.F. Malo
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>
More information about the Aztlan
mailing list