[Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

[vgray (gotsky)]

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.

<prior communications deleted for the purposes of posting to the list>