[Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

Mon Dec 18 19:45:48 CST 2006

Hi Cliff,

I read with great interest your email. I agree that it is indeed likely
that different Maya groups may have counted the moon periods in
different ways. It's not surprising that there were variations in this
practice. Perhaps one method was preferred for astronomical
calculations, while one was used for the timing of planting. Variations
of this sort will be identified and clarified as our understanding
improves. We will be able to transcend generalizations that close the
door on deeper investigation. I took notice of your mention of a
1.7.0.0.0 periodicity between katun beginnings and seasonal quarters. I
noticed that too, and how it could provide a mechanism by which future
solstice dates could be projected. I have charts for tracking this and
other periodicities in my 1992 book Tzolkin. However, I hadn't taken it
further than that and I see you've identified a methodology of simple
iterations with which the Maya mathematician-astronomers could have
identified a solstice date over two millennia into the future. Your
method strikes me as the kind of oddly brilliant yet simple approach
that the Maya themselves used to solve problems. I've seen other
treatments of Long Count math that is much different than this approach
--- too over laden with modern assumption about how such a thing would
be accomplished. And therefore unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome.
Edmonson, in his 1988 Book of the Year, mentioned the solstice end date,
and how it would not be impossible for the ancient Maya astronomers to
have known the tropical year via the year-drift formula (1508 haab =
1507 tropical years). Of course I take this further and have argued in
my books how and why the ERA of the end date was also an intentional
choice, because of the rare precessional alignment of the solstice sun
and the center of the Milky Way / ecliptic cross (the “Sacred Tree”),
which is located at the southern terminus of the dark rift “xibalba be”
between Sagittarius and Scorpio. I have more questions for you about the
galactic alignment calculation (that is, the precession of the
equinoxes, which Marion Popenoe Hatch argued as early as La Venta ca.
1200 BC, and her recent work at Takalik Abaj, ca. 100 bc.) But perhaps I
should launch into that with you off list. 

John Major Jenkins
http://Alignment2012.com <http://alignment2012.com/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: vgray (gotsky) [mailto:vgray at gotsky.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:09 PM
To: 'Aztlan'
Cc: John Major Jenkins
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

Hi John, and others on this list

My previous post of necessity greatly simplified the elements I
introduced 
on the correlation question, because I wished to keep the body of the
text 
as brief as possible, in order to recast Linda Schele's work in a
different 
light than the one you painted. One theme is constant though: there is a

definite offset between the Initial Series and the Lunar Series, and all

Long Count dates exhibit a dual date metaphor - Mayan dates are
structured 
and any given date invariably points to two event objects simultaneously

separated by 17 days. This uncomfortable conclusion is avoided when
adopting 
the '85-GMT correlate, which explains in part why many avoid the '83-GMT

correlate when expressly considering the correlation question. The
'85-GMT 
camp, by simply focusing on a New Moon cycle base, ensures the
correlation 
question remains simply structured (as befits a stone age civilization
in 
their opinion) albeit with many anomalous features. No proponent of the 
'83-GMT correlate however, has had the resolve to table the proposition
that 
all Long Count dates are inherently structured, using a definite fixed
date 
scripting methodology, and the Full Moon must then also be admitted as a

lunar cycle base. A date scripting methodology inherent in all Long
Count 
dates is what has gone unnoticed over the last 75 years or so, since
John 
Teeple first deciphered the Lunar Series. Once I discovered this
important 
missing element, an analysis of all Long Count dates not only confirmed
its 
existence, but also provided a means of finally distilling that elusive 
tropical station event date. In short the '83-GMT correlate resolves all

anomalies when used in conjunction with this structure embedded in all
Mayan 
dates, and overturns the '85-GMT definitively, but the proof is
difficult 
and the search continues for iconographic details which would simplify
the 
proof. So while the Full Moon cycle base must be admitted as an element
when 
using the '83-GMT, together with the inherent calendric structure
embedded 
in all dates, it is not that simple in the overall development of this 
solution to the correlation question. In other words the 17 day offset
is a 
fixed element of the design, but there are variants in choice of lunar 
reference which make the overall application complex. All this must be 
detailed in the proof.

In completely rewriting Linda Schele's Texas Note 29 using the '83-GMT
an 
interesting fact emerges, when applying this notion of structured Long
Count 
dates. The Full Moon is the preferred lunar reference (e.g. at Tikal),
but 
certain Mayan sites preferred a New Moon reference (e.g. Palenque), and 
what's more many Mayan sites (including Palenque and Tikal) actually
used 
both lunar references at different times. The Mayans also made use of
last 
appearance and first appearance of the moon crescent in establishing a
lunar 
orbital segmentation model, with a base 13d on either side of Full Moon.

Indeed the offset event object of any Long Count date was sometimes not
used 
to mark a lunar event, preferring instead to forego the Lunar Series
offset 
(although this rare). How these variants were differentiated in the 
iconography is still only weakly developed, and work on this continues.
My 
previous post implied that all that is needed is to simply adopt the
Full 
Moon as a cycle base, when using the '83-GMT, and while this is true in 
essence, the solution is much more complex because it appears both lunar

references were used at the majority of Mayan sites. Armed with this
newly 
developed element of the correlation question, an analysis of all Mayan
(and 
epi-Olmec) dates yields a satisfactory resultant, largely devoid of 
anomalous elements, that is not achievable with either GMT correlate
when 
applied without using a dual date metaphor for the Long Count. Details
of 
this work of course are better communicated off the list, because there
is a 
lot of material associated with the proofs. Another satisfactory result
is 
epi-Olmec Long Count dates may be interpreted in a different light than
that 
described by Justeson and Kaufman, where instead of a time-line 
oriented -19d in arrears in absolute terms basis the '85-GMT, the offset
is 
only -17d basis the '83-GMT, which introduces two different date
scripting 
methodologies. The epi-Olmec used a Full Moon 17d prior, as opposed to
the 
Mayan case which uses a Full Moon +17d into the future for gauging moon 
age - the same offset is used by the two cultures but oppositely signed.
In 
other words the Mayan and epi-Olmec Long Count variants are seen as 
identically aligned in absolute terms, and differ only in their
respective 
date scripting methodologies. Four distinct Long Count variants have
been 
discerned, and the relationships between them described in firm
calendric 
terms (one of these is a newly derived variant).

This work obviously impacts the area of great interest to yourself,
namely, 
the significance of the 13-baktun cycle ending date, and indeed the new 
insights afforded as regards the dating of tropical station events,
leads to 
the corresponding question of the 13 baktun cycle's absolute alignment
in 
terms of its means of construction. The Chinkultic Disk ballcourt
marker, 
the Copan Valley Stelae and many other examples across many Mayan sites,

prove the significance of tropical/lunar conjunction events as the
primary 
means of measuring calibrated intervals, and the importance of intervals

that are both integral lunar spans and integral tropical spans. For
example 
the haab seasonal round of 1507y or 29 Calendar Rounds is also an
integral 
lunar span, and the seasonal katun alignment period of (1.7.0.0.0) days
or 
532.25 years is also an integral lunar span. Also of significance are 
calibrated divergences between tropical and lunar stations, not just
exact 
conjunctions between the two, where 1461d is seen as 1d past a haab
period 
and 1462d is seen as 1d past a tropical span, which leads to a corrected
16y 
& 198 lunation span and a corrected 272y & 3366 lunation span. A
solution 
has been developed that uses specific tropical/lunar conjunction events
as 
celestial markers (i.e. Full Moon/Winter Solstice conjunctions), which
shows 
why and how a precise winter solstice ending for the 13-baktun cycle was

established. The arithmetic is so trivial in deriving these calibrated
spans 
of time, that it is no longer possible to suggest that a stone age 
civilization armed with a vigesimal positional notation system, would
not or 
could not have accomplished these feats. The proof lies in the relative 
relationships of the whole gamut of Mayan dates.

For example the Chiapa de Corzo Initial Series - the oldest monument
date 
yet found - heralds a date of Dec 6, -35 CE basis the '83-GMT, which is
17 
days prior to a winter solstice/Full Moon conjunction event (a 1d 
conjunction divergence). It is trivial to use either calibrated span 
mentioned above to establish a specific winter solstice end-date for the

great cycle, and how this would relate to the start-date of the cycle is
now 
also better understood as a controlling element in setting up the
end-date. 
It is now considered significant that an Aug 13th vertical sun transit /

Full Moon conjunction event occurs 3 days past the start of the great
cycle. 
Mayanists invariably consider an '83-GMT correlated environ dates to Aug

11th, -3113 CE in the Gregorian calendar, but the calendar's long term
drift 
and calendar jitter due to unevenly spaced leap years, makes this 
mythological epoch date one that is confusing at best, implying as it
does 
that the cycle starts 2d before an Aug 13th vertical sun transit. The
fact 
is the great cycle must start 4d (actually 3.5d rounded upwards relative
to 
the nearest sunset) prior to an Aug 13th vertical sun transit event, or
the 
daylight hours of that transit event occurs at (0.0.0.0.3) - a Full
Moon/Aug 
13th zenithal sun transit conjunction event 3 days past the start of the

great cycle. Yes John, this addresses another long held assumption among

Mayanists. How could the Mayans establish these facts?

The 29 Calendar Round calibration interval easily proves that a great
cycle 
is no more than 134 days longer than an integral tropical interval, and 
therefore 134 days backwards in time from a winter solstice ending
reference 
places the great cycle starting event no more than 4d prior to an Aug
13th 
vertical sun transit (i.e. 4d to a sunset event or 3d rounded down for
the 
daylight hours). Smaller calibrated intervals may be used to extrapolate
the 
period residuals of yet longer spans, with greater ease than Mayanists 
typically give the Mayans credit for. So (13.0.0.0.0) - 3*(3.16.8.17.0)
= 
(13.0.0.0.0) - (11.9.6.15.0) = (1.10.13.3.0) or 604y with a period
residual 
of 133.7 days, reduces the question of the great cycle's tropical period

residual to one covering only 604y. Or adding in a half haab seasonal
round 
interval reduces this question to one spanning only (1.18.4.8.10) - 
(1.10.13.3.0) = (0.7.11.5.10) days or 149 years with a period residual
of 49 
days, and therefore subtracting 49 days from a half year yields 183 - 49
= 
134 days at most for the great cycle's tropical period residual. The
crux of 
the above arithmetic devolves to the notion that 149y contains 36 leap
days 
rather than 37d, and knowing this is sufficient to arrive at the 134d 
tropical period residual resultant for the great cycle. Such trivial 
arithmetic is well within the capabilities of even Formative Period
Mayans, 
and it is this 134 day period residual of the great cycle that dictates
the 
choice for a winter solstice ending reference, because this closely
matches 
the 130 day span between the Aug 13th vertical sun transit and winter 
solstice. An exact winter solstice ending date is extremely trivial to 
establish, which is the same thing as establishing the start of the
great 
cycle 3d to 4d prior to an Aug 13th zenithal sun transit. All that is
needed 
in addition is the derivation of a specific winter solstice ending
event, 
which is where the lunar element enters the equation, and the primary 
tropical anchor for the time-line is that Aug 13th / Full Moon
conjunction 
event 3d past the start of the cycle. I will not detail this second step

here which is the more interesting, using preeminent lunar calibration 
spans, but suffice it to say that conjunctions between tropical and
lunar 
stations are instrumental in establishing this anchor in a surprisingly 
trivial manner.

Year ago I attempted to prove your conjuncture about the significance of

precession in the derivation of the end-date reference, which I was NOT
able 
to accomplish, but what I did accomplish in the interim was a trivial
means 
of erecting the great cycle with a specific winter solstice end-date,
based 
on tropical/lunar conjunction events as a means of harnessing the
precision 
of astronomy. I am now convinced the Aug 13th / Full Moon conjunction
event 
3d to 4d past the great cycle's start, was used to select a specific
winter 
solstice end-date, because the arithmetic is so trivial. Looking at the 
entire set of all Mayan dates in light of a date scripting methodology
that 
forms dual date metaphor structures, and this tropical/lunar anchor of
the 
time-line, shows intent at establishing exotic calendric structures
which 
are only discernable when using the '83-GMT correlate. It is becoming 
increasingly clear Mayans appreciated the existence of this
tropical/lunar 
anchor, as evidenced by many fine calendric and astronomical structures 
established by such as the Copan Valley Stelae. The '85-GMT
correlation's 
days are most assuredly numbered, and the work necessary to accomplish
this 
will be quite formable, but the good news is that much of this work has 
already been done in large measure over the last 5 years.

With all this in place it remains only to determine tzolkin and haab
basis - 
how were these two calendar's oriented in absolute terms relative to the

Long Count's alignment? This too may be derived using the underlying 
foundational calendric elements of the above mentioned work. A new
discovery 
relating the TUN period to the vertical sun transits, in terms of the 
interval between the two annual zenithal transits, explains the
foundations 
which led to the derivation of both haab and tzolkin basis, using
tropical 
period residuals of three important calibration spans - the haab
seasonal 
round, the tun seasonal round, and the tzolkin seasonal round. This
explains 
why the 17d offset factor was selected in the first place.

I suspect the list arbitrators will soon be looking to limiting further 
exchange on this topic in the near future, and hence more detailed
exchanges 
will need to take place privately.

Cheers
Clifford Emeric

P.S. The Aug 13th vertical sun transit event is expressly the event 
occurring at Izapa (14.8 deg N. latitude), and the Aug 13th Gregorian
date 
attached to that event is merely a convenient moniker for naming that
annual 
solar event.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Major Jenkins" <kahib at ix.netcom.com>
To: "'Aztlan'" <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

Hi Clifford,

Thank you for a much appreciated and needed clarification on the
correlation question --- and your contribution to how it can further be
resolved, not only by understanding the importance of the ethnographic
info on the surviving day-count, but by a suggested correction to a long
held assumption on how the moon periods were counted. This correction of
a long held assumption is usually how breakthroughs occur, and progress
happens. In one of my links I offered comments on Schele's presentation
of the lunar series argument. In terms of supporting a two-day
distinction, I've never considered the argument that compelling, because
we couldn't be sure if the Maya count from moon dark or the first
appearance of the new moon as a sliver in the western sky after sundown.
The difference could be 1 or 2 days. In fact, I deferred to the
Tedlocks' observation that the latter appears to be the case among the
Quiché Maya.

I can see that you've taken the point further and have come up with a
more complete solution --- a 17-day correction. Thank you for that. I
didn't mean to oversimplify, but I'm glad you were inspired to correct
me on that point and offer your findings. Although Schele did grapple
with the correlation issue, I still believe that the importance of the
ethnographic info was neglected, not given the weight it deserves, and I
can see why considering the points brought up. The question is whether
we can resolve for certain how the moon periods were counted. It seems
that the way the lunar series falls into line when the assumption is
full moon rather than new moon, provides very compelling confirmation
for the 283, as well as counting from full moon. Happily, there is no 1
or 2 day observational ambiguity in counting from full moon.

In addition, the surviving correlation remains a compelling test that
should be treated seriously. It would also be significant to point out
that Lounsbury's analysis and data in his article in The Sky in Mayan
Literature (1992) provides better support for the 283, although he
skirted around saying that in so many words. (This is explored in my
previous link: http://alignment2012.com/fap9.html). All these items
together should go a long way to support the December 21 correlation.

Then, the next question that arises is: is it a coincidence that the end
of the 13-baktun cycle falls on an accurate solstice? If not, to what
extent, and why, was there an interest in the end of the cycle? This too
confronts a long held assumption --- that the Maya had no interest in
the end of the cycle, only the beginning. Best wishes,

John Major Jenkins

-----Original Message-----
From: vgray (gotsky) [mailto:vgray at gotsky.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:01 PM
To: 'Aztlan'
Cc: John Major Jenkins
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

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 =ecember 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/>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan