[Aztlan] 7 ahau, 5 chen

[Michael Finley]

Sid Hollander wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Janice Van Cleve <janicevc at seanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Can somebody verify a date for me?  I do not have a calendar calculator.
>>The date is 7 ahau, 5 chen and I'm thinking it should be about 450 CE.
>>Thank you.
>>
>>Janice Van Cleve, MA
>>Author of "Eighteen Rabbit: The Intimate Life and Tragic Death of a Maya
>>God-King."  available through Xlibris.com or Amazon.com.  2006
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>This will be a extremely difficult date to verify unless it was miswritten
>by a scribe etc.  I believe that Ahau can only fall on the 3,8,13 and 18 of
>a Haab month. The rationale is easy (if my understanding is correct)..We
>know that 4 Ahau fell on 8 Kumku of 13.0.0.0.0 and because comes back every
>20 days it must fall on 8 of every 20 day month in that Haab cycle.
>Because  Wayeb has only 5 days Ahau will advance to position 13 in the next
>Haab cycle, then 18 in the next Haab cycle and then 3 in the next Haab cycle
>and pnc;e again return for a round of 8s.  This leaves no room for a "7
>ahau, 5 chen"
>  
>
The relationship between tzolkin and haab depends on the "year bearers:" 
The possible first days of the haab. According to Edmonson's  book on 
Middle American calendars, there were several sets known to be in use at 
different times and places.  In the classical "Tikal" calendar, Ahaw 
falls on only haab days  3,8, 13, or 18, but in the "Mayapan calendar" 
(used I believe  in the Madrid Codex and Conquest-era sources  such as 
Landa),  the year bearers and thus relationship between the haab and 
tzolkin are shifted one day:   Ahaw falls on  a 2,7, 12  or 17. Of 
course, 7 Ahaw 5 Ch'en doesn't work in either of these  . . .

. . . but strange things happened post-Conquest.  Is this date from the 
Books of Chilam Balam, were there are several Calendar rounds dates that 
do not fit either the Tikal or Mayapan pattern?  This may reflect 
deteriorating calendrical knowledge, or be attempts to reform of the 
calendar .... For a discussion of calendar "reforms," which just might 
throw some light on this date, see  See Edmonson, "Some Postclassic 
Questions about the Classic Maya" (Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1978), 
on-line at
http://www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT04/Edmonson.html

Anyway, I'd think it's going to be hard to assign an absolute date to 
this .... if a plausible explanation of  5 Ch'en is discovered, it might 
be possible to "convert" to a Classical CR date .... but of course CR 
dates repeat every 52 years, so additional information is required to  
assign  an absolute date  to a CR date .... And then, Sid  may be right 
that the date is just a scribal error.