[Aztlan] No Apocalyps in 2012

[lahunik.62 at skynet.be]

Cfr.: Digest, Vol 26, Issue 10, Message 3;

Of Antoon Vollemaere.

It is indeed so that the CR-notation of 4 Ahaw 8 Kumku, 13.0.0.0.0 of August
11 3114BC felt on the 9th day of the last full vinal of Kumku in the
Haabyear of 7 Eb.

That is 17 vinal en 8 kin before 4 Ahaw 8 Kumku, or 12.19.19.0.12 of the
previous baktun on  August 3115BC. 

The new Haabyear began 17 days later, on 8 Kaban 0 Pohp, or on 13.0.0.0.17.

By this it is clear that Ik, Manik, Eb and Kaban the Yearbearers are of this
LC, or the Tikalyearbearers.

Since there are 18980 kin in every CR, is it possible to find the absolute
position of 4 Ahaw 8 Kumku in the CR, his position in the Tzolkin and in the
Haab and to find how many Haab were passed since the beginning of the CR,
starting from his place in the year 7 Eb 0 Pohp or 12.19.19.0.12 or August
28 3115BC.

4 Ahaw= kin 160 of the Tzolkin.

8 Kumku is day 348 of the Haab.

In consideration with the Tikalyearbearers we must go back 19 Haab from 7
Eb.

So we arrive by 1 Kaban. Since every Haab begins with 0 Pohp, 

is the beginning of this CR 1 Kaban 0 Pohp, or Kin 157, if one count
starting with 1 Imix.

The absolute position of this CR began on 12.18.19.13.17, 1 Kaban 0 Pohp or
Kin 157 of the Tzolkin or Gregorian September 2, 3134BC. That is 7283 kin
less than 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 kumku, or 1.0.4.3, or 1 katun, 4 vinal and 3
kin.

In fact the CR of 18980 kin could start on either moment of the LC. If one
begins on 4 Ahau 8 Kumku with kin 0, than this CR ends with kin 18979 or 3
Kawak.

Maybe it isn't important to know when the LC really began, and are the
CR-cycles of 52 years more adapted on human cycles. Above it they are
similar to the bundles of 52 years of the Aztec kalendar. 

To test the GMT-correlations of 83 and 85, I have tried to link them to
astrological date or events, in paticular to lunar and solar eclpses.
Therefore I have consulted, like you did, the pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden
Codex.

The eclipstabel in the Dresden Codex goes from page 51 to page 58. The tabel
must be read half by half, first on the top and than on the bottom. One
should named the tabel or pattern, that was noticed here, the 12
Lamatpattern.

To determine the exact beginning of this pattern is not an easy task. Above
it on page 51a and 52a different possible countings are suggested, who
propably refer to several different starting points.

On page 51a one can read from top to bottom, 4 Ahau 8 Kumku, 12 Lamat, 8 Kin
ti Imix.

When one counts 8 kin starting from 5 Imix in the Tzolkin, the day before 4
Ahaw, than you will arrive on 12 Lamat or 13.0.0.0.8 in the LC.

The LC-notation in black, 9.16.4.10.0 could be the beginning of the
Lamatpattern. When one adds 0.0.0.8 to this than one becomes the notation of
9.16.4.10.8, 12 Lamat, who one could see on page 52a. This fits with the 83
GMT-correlation of Grgorian November 10 755AD.

15 days later, on November 23 755AD, on 1 Akbal, a lunar eclips occurred.

30 days later, on December 8 755AD, on 3 Etznab, a solar eclips occurred, if
we substract 2 days of the GMT-correlation of December 10.

12 Lamat, 1 Akbal and 3 Etznab are the 3 Tzolkindates on page 51a.

With the Lamatpattern, starting from 1 Akbal all the lunar eclipses could be
set in line, and starting fron 3 Etznab all the solar eclipses.

9.16.4.11.18, 3 Etznab 11 Pax or December 8 755AD.

9.16.5.1.6, 8 Kimi 14 Sek or May 4 756AD.
9.16.5.10.3, 3 Akbal 11 Kankin or October 28 756AD.

9.16.6.1.0, 11 Ahaw 3 Sek or April 23 757AD.

9.16.8.9.6, 13 Kimi 19 Keh or September 26 759AD, etc
. etc
.

The function of 12 Lamat, or November 755AD, is than only noticed in a
predictable manner for the lunar eclipses of 15 days later and for the solar
eclipses 30 days later.

Remarkable that none of both of this eclipses were visible in Yucatan region
and therefore impossible to see with the naked eye by the Maya observer. 

The difference of 2 days is explainable by the fact that the Maya observed
with the naked eye. Remarkable to that 755AD is to be situated in the middle
of the Classical Maya Period 500 years earlier than the period in which this
Codices were written down.

12 Lamat, 1 Akbal and 3 Etznab are definitely the 3 LC-notations which can
found on pag 52a. On the left in black 9.16.4.11.18, 3 Etznab or Gregorian
December 10 755, or the solar eclips of December 8 755 (-2 days). On the
right, in black, 9.16.4.10.8, 12 Lamat.

And in red, 9.16.4.10.8, 1 Akbal or Gregorian November 755. 2 days earlier
on November 755 a lunar eclips occurred.

The 4th notation, on the left in red, 9.19.8.7.8 is possible a wrong
notation, because it  doesn't fit with the Tzolkinday of 7 Lamat under it.

The notation 9.16.4.10.8, 12 Lamat is noticed in a predictable manner to the
other two.

The 2nd notation of 9.16.4.11.18, 3 Etznab is 2 days of the New Moon of
November 23 755 and can easely be used as a starting point to reconstruct a
whole solar eclipstabel. The 3rd notation of 9.16.4.11.3, 1 Akbal is 2 days
of the Full Moon of November 23 755 and can easely be used as a starting
point to reconstruct a whole lunar eclipstabel. Lunar eclipses occur on a
Full Moon.

Generally eclipses occur every 6 lunar months or 177 days. Due to the
recessions of the intersections the last cycle is 148 days long.

The Lamatpattern is made of 70 eclipses, with intervals of mainly 177 days.
There are 9 intervals of 148 days, every one with picture.

So I may conclude that the GMT-correlation 83 and 85, in account above it
the different propositions and associations known by every one, are not so
bad as some people claimed, to link the Mayacalendar to the Julian and the
Gregorian Calendar. Moreover there are accepted by a great majority of the
Mayanists. I am fully aware that this is not a very clever statement, and I
know that many had tried to determine "better" correlationconstants. There
are those you have mentioned. There are a lot of others, like the Böhm
Brothers, or Felix Verbelen or Antoon Vollemaere for instance. And all of
them have proposed constants who fit perfectly with the Mayacalendar, it
couldn't be otherwise.

But if one had to determine a starting of the Maya calendar, one can't for
ever change of possible date. One must chose among the different
possibilties, like the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Jewish, the Greek, the
Romans, the Moslims and the Christians did. But ironical here by the
Mayacalendar, it aren't the Maya themselves, but people who have beside
their interests and admiration nothing in common with the Maya, who want to
decide the beginning of their civilization. 

It is still very unclear why the LC of the 5th Great Cycle has started with
the CR of 4 Ahaw 8 Kumku. Maybe because the Haab was still in use for many
centuries before they started wthe the LC. That could be a explanation of
the Classical Maya Steles and insriptions which always began with 9.0.0.0.0,
as noticed in Quiriga: 9.18.5.0.0,4 Ahau 13 Keh.

There is above it no indication that the beginning date nor the end of 2012
something had to do with some solar or lunar eclips nor zenitpassage.

Maybe the beginningpoint was not so important, because there doesn't exist
an absolute zerpoint of 0.0.0.0.0, because every baktun doesn't begin with
this absolute number, but with 13.0.0.0.0, and endless go through in the
past as well in the future.

And maybe that is the lesson we have to learn from the Maya LC-notation.    

Lahun Ik 62

Baert Georges

Flanders Fields