[Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

[John Major Jenkins]

Marcos,

I see no reason why the moderators would not want this discussion to
take place. First, since I provided the caveat “by this method”, my
statement that follows is not in fact categorical or all inclusive as
you stated, but provisional. By the methodology under consideration –
that of utilizing not only the surviving day-count in the highlands of
Guatemala, but Carbon 14 and the entire set of interdisciplinary data as
a previously sketched – the 584283 is, in fact, the only candidate. My
“provisional” assumption, which of course can be called into question,
is therefore that an interdisciplinary set of criteria is a more
rigorous test than one criterion  (astronomy), as stated by Dr.
Vollameare.   

What I termed an “accusation” is perhaps better phrased as “mistaken
assumption” – it referred to your labeling of a supposed “fatal flaw” in
my work, that “it assumes that the precession calculation contained in
the LC is accurate.” As I explained in my subsequent email in response
to your mistaken assumption, an extremely high degree of accuracy is not
a requirement of my alignment theory. Your comments are therefore
irrelevant. Furthermore, since your critique of my alignment theory has
nothing to do with my argument presented in my response to Dr.
Vollamaere regarding the correlation question, I referred to your
critique as “misplaced.” As for your issue with my use of the word
"alignment", I think we all know what that means; I've seen plenty of
common everyday terms used on this list. 

Now, having cleared away the semantic minutiae, your paragraph that
promises to sketch the sources for the tzolkin sketches not the
development of the tzolkin, but the LC. This is a bit of a conceptual
disconnect, since the surviving "tzolkin" under question is the 260-day
calendar that ethnographers have documented for some decades now,
whereas your paragraph exclusively focuses on the "LC" (Long count). I
therefore do not know how to proceed further on this point.  

Your comments on my brief article that I linked to
(http://alignment2012.com/rationalapproachto2012.html), which provides
information that addresses your critique of my alignment theory, are
best taken up in another thread, since they deal not with the
correlation question, but with a different topic. However, I note that
you assert that I do not try to demonstrate the validity of December 21,
2012 but instead attempt to show the invalidity of the other arguments.
This is simply not true; I already established the validity of the
584283 correlation that results in December 21, 2012 by showing how it
meets the multiple criteria of the interdisciplinary methodology
previously discussed, and then proceed to demonstrate the flawed
rationale of the other major candidate, the 584285. Your observation
that LC cycle endings (tuns? or katuns?) sequence progressively and
predictably through the solar year calendar, and will eventually strike
a solstice, is an observation that goes without saying. (I observed many
years ago that each katun begins 260 days further into the solar year
than the previous one did.) Although this may suggest calendrical
methods by which a future solstice day was calibrated, you seem to be
using it as justification for an interpretation of coincidence. I'm not
sure how this provides evidence that mitigates anything I presented. We
are still confronted with the 13-Baktun cycle ending falling on a
solstice date, in the widely established and accepted 584283
correlation. In my article, I assert that this simple fact invites
further rational investigation, because it suggests a level of
astronomical and mathematical sophistication not generally credited to
the people who lived during the era of the Long Count's inauguration.

Finally, by Cygnus Rift, do you mean the Great Cleft / the Dark Rift? I
always placed the Cygnus Rift further north along the Milky Way, where
the Cygnus constellation is located, whereas the southern end of that
long rift terminates at the ecliptic in the constellation of
Sagittarius. That's the one of significance because it is that part of
the rift (near the Crossroads) that plays a role in the Creation
Mythology. That's the only area of the rift that the sun can touch.
Thank you for the engaging dialogue; I am willing to stand by my
arguments for the 584283 being the best candidate and my reasoning
behind categorically rejecting all the others because they do not meet
the criteria established by the interdisciplinary methodology. 

John Major Jenkins
http://Alignment2012.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Villaseñor [mailto:villas at anawak.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:25 PM
To: John Major Jenkins
Cc: 'AZTLAN'
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

John, Listeros:

I am glad the moderators are allowing this discussion to take place. My
response was prompted by JMJ's last sentence in his comment:  "...and by
this methodology the 584283 is not only the best candidate, it's the
only candidate: 13.0.0.0.0  4 Ahau  December 21, 2012". We as scientists
and scholars know that categorical affirmations don't really belong to
scientific discussions, so I was making the point that, we actually do
not know yet when the current LC ends, and even if we knew there are
several other considerations before we can affirm that this or that
celestial moment is what they were looking for.  

John: I am in no way making accusations, as to accuse someone implies by
definition that they have done something unlawful, offensive or
criminal. It is also not clear to me what part of my e-mail you are
refering to in your "accusation" comment, please clarify. 

To address the argument that highland Maya(s) posses an uninterrupted
count of the Choenilkin Sansamal (Tzolkin) we should indeed look at the
ethnographic, linguistic and archaeological sources. Here is a brief
look at the linguistic considerations in this issue. 

The Proto-Mayan language emerges around 1,500 BCE in the highlands of
Guatemala. Huastec and Yucatec Maya split from the main linguistic trunk
around 1200 BCE, the Western and Eastern branches (the subfamilies of
this branch are spoken by Guatemalan Maya) split around 1,000 BCE. This
highlights the fact that the Guatemalan Maya (Eastern linguistic
families) split from the rest of the Maya before the adoption of the LC
by any of the Maya(n) people. The LC is then first adopted by the
Western Maya after the Eastern Maya had already split. The Eastern Maya
(Guatemala Highlands) then adopt the LC from the Western Maya(s),
sometime afterwards. So we in fact cannot be certain that the LC kept by
the Highland Maya(s) is the same as the one adopted (or created) earlier
by the Western Maya(s). It is quiet possible that it is a variant of the
original LC with different beginning and end dates. 

I have little doubt that the answer to the questions of what  the LC is
and when it ends can only be answered by archaeastronomical means. Given
the previous and other considerations and the fact that the common
people of any society have very limited understanding of celestial
movements or celestial calculations. 

John: as I read what you say is an article that addresses my "misplaced
critique" of your alignment (not an astronomical word) theory (in
reality a hypothesis). I am struck by the insistence not on the validity
of the 21 December 2012 (which has yet to be categorically proven) but
on the invalidity of other arguments. Stating that other arguments are
wrong does not make yours correct. Take for instance this idea that a 21
December end date cannot be a coincidence. But if you consider that by
counting consecutive LCs, the end date moves forward in the civil
calendar (any solar calendar) 133.6 days, then eventually you will get a
LC that ends on 21 december, regardless of where you begin. 

While I regard your work as the most scientific or academic of all the
popular press authors on the subject, and defended your research and
integrity vehemently in a e-mail exchange with Joseph E. Lawrence, (he
will probably never again correspond with me) whose accusation (the word
here does fit Lawrence's diatribe) in his unscientific book "Apocalypse
2012" on your integrity is completely unacceptable. I must insist that
your categorical statements dismissing any other possibility other than
your own is unscientific. As we all know the LC's end date is still an
unresolved issue and even if the 21 December 2012 end date is correct,
the conjunction it indicates is not the Solsticial Sun-Galactic Equator
(1997) but the Solsticial Sun-middle of the Cygnus Rift conjunction
(2031).

best to all,

Marcos Villasenor

 





On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:32 PM, John Major Jenkins wrote:


Marcos,

I did not once mention my solstice-galaxy alignment theory, which I
would not even suggest using as a proof for the 584283 correlation -
that would be putting the cart before the horse. My correlation
analysis, in response to Dr. Vollemaere, involves the interdisciplinary
criteria by which we can and should test proposed correlations. If you
would please reread my comments, you will find that your accusation is
unfounded. Your critique of my alignment theory should therefore not be
considered part of this thread, and I would prefer that we stay on track
– can you perhaps respond more directly to the argument I presented
regarding the importance of the ethnographic evidence for the survival
of the tzolkin count in highland Guatemala, as a test for any proposed
correlation? Thank you,

John Major Jenkins
P.S. For a brief article that will address your misplaced critique of my
alignment theory, see:
http://alignment2012.com/rationalapproachto2012.html



-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Villaseñor [mailto:villas at anawak.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:17 PM
To: John Major Jenkins
Cc: 'AZTLAN'
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

Dear Listeros:
 
21 December 2012 is not the only candidate, the strongest candidate is
23 December 2012, particularly since it puts the beginning of the LC on
13 August 3114 BCE, and 13 august is the date of the zenithal southern
passage of the sun at Izapa; 13 August is the sunset alignment of the
Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacán; 13 August is the sunset alignment of Cinco
Pisos at Edzna; 13 August is the sunset alignment of the axis between
Temple I and Temple IV at Tikal. Other correlation of importance is the
Bohm correlation, which puts the end of the LC on December 2117. The
fact is that nobody knows for certain yet when the current LC ends. 
 Mr. Jenkins makes the erroneous assumption that the 21 December 2012 is
significant to the Maya(n) people due to the astronomical (mis)alignment
that he talks about. Alignment is not an astronomical word that is ever
used to describe a conjunction (except for Mr. Jenkins who uses it
freely). In any case his assumption has a fatal flaw, it assumes that
the precession calculation contained in the LC is accurate. This is not
so. Let me explain:
 By multiplying the Long Count's 5,125.36 years by 5, we can see that
the Olmec (the creators of the LC) calculation for the Great Year or
Precession of the Equinoxes is 25,627 tropic years and its value of
precession is 50.57 arcseconds a year, which is .19 arcseconds more than
the modern value of precession of 50.38 arcseconds a year or 25,724
years for the Great Year. Due to this difference (equal to 19 years, in
one Long Count or less than half a pinky nail) we can safely assume that
the galactic conjunction that the Olmec were aiming for at the end of
the Long Count in 2012, will occur 19 years after 2012. In 2031!!!
 Put in other terms, say you have a known distance from A to B (1/5 of
the celestial dome) lets say it is 100 miles and you want to estimate
how long you will take to get from A to B. In order to do this you plug
in the speed at which you believe you are traveling, lets say 100 m/h,
so you estimate it will take you 1 hour. But later you realize that you
are actually traveling at 98 m/h, this means that at the end of the hour
you will still need to travel 2 miles or 1.2 minutes. 
 So if Mr. Jenkins is correct in his assumption that the LC is a
"Galactic Alignment" cipher, then he needs to revisit his entire
argument, because that "alignment" won't happen until 2031.
 Interestingly on 21 December 2031, the solsticial sun will actually be
at the precise center of its transit through the Cygnus Rift of the
Milky Way. And on 23 December 2031 the Sun will be exiting the Dark Rift
of the Milky Way; a virtual birth of a new sun. 
 NOTE: 60 arc/seconds make 1 arc/minute and 60 arc/minutes are 1 degree,
which is about the width of your pinky nail set against the celestial
dome, the stars will take 71 years to transit your pinky nail on the
same yearly date.

Marcos Villaseñor

On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:34 AM, John Major Jenkins wrote:


Dear Dr. Vollemaere,

Your correlation (making 13.0.0.0.0  December 12, 1546) contains one
insurmountable flaw. It does not correspond to a 4 Ahau day in the
tzolkin. From the various creation monuments, we know that the era
ending Long Count date of 13.0.0.0.0 must correspond to a 4 Ahau day in
the tzolkin calendar. This is an internally consistent relationship
between those two calendars, irregardless of the correlation we propose.
We have three tzolkin dates documented at the time of the conquest, each
from widely separate regions of Mesoamerica (Central Mexico, Yucatan,
and Guatemala). All three are in agreement and all three would make your
date of December 12, 1546 fall on 10 Caban (if your date is in the
Julian calendar) or 13 Manik (if in the Gregorian calendar) - not 4
Ahau. Either way, it is 100+ days out of alignment with the above
mentioned evidence for the tzolkin's placement at the time of the
conquest. If we count forward into modern times with this documented
tzolkin correlation, we find that the modern highland Maya, most notably
the Quiché Maya, are still following a tzolkin placement that is
congruent with this documented relationship. If we count forward to
2012, we find that December 21, 2012 falls on 4 Ahau.

This correspondence is extremely important but often overlooked by those
proposing correlations based only on astronomical statistics. It is a
precise litmus test for any proposed correlation. This survival of the
tzolkin's correct placement in modern highland Guatemala, being
congruent with conquest-era data and documented by ethnographers, is the
final test. Only the GMT-2 584283 correlation satisfies the entire
spectrum of criteria that a proposed correlation must address. For
example, your correlation is 100+ days out of phase with this tzolkin
placement. How do you explain this dislocation? Even Lounsbury's much
cited 584285 argument is 2 days off, and would need to be explained by a
simultaneously orchestrated Pan-Mesoamerica shift of two days in the
tzolkin placement. This is not only extremely difficult to imagine
accomplishing, but would violate the sacred sequence of days and would
therefore be anathema to any self-respecting Mesoamerican  day-keeper.

You wrote: "The truth is that only astronomy can solve the Maya
correlation problem."  I disagree; only an interdisciplinary set of
criteria can validate any proposed correlation. Reducing the number of
criteria that are meaningful only gives the illusion of correctness.
Meeting several sets of criteria established by different disciplines,
including Carbon-14, historical documents, ancient documents, modern
ethnographic data on the tzolkin, and astronomy, makes the verification
more rigorous, and by this methodology the 584283 is not only the best
candidate, it's the only candidate: 13.0.0.0.0  4 Ahau  December 21,
2012.

John Major Jenkins
http://Alignment2012.com



-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
[mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Antoon Vollemaere
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 3:07 AM
To: AZTLAN
Subject: [Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

No APOCALYPSE Maya in December 2012. Why?

The special aspects of the Maya correlation problem are for example :
1) What is the real signification of the date 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU?
2) The period BEFORE 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
3) The period AFTER 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu till the Spanish Conquista.
4) The end of the Maya calendar, after 5200 Tun cycles of 360 days.

This message concerns only the first part. The zero point for our
calendar is theoretically the birth of Jesus Christ. Every important
ancient ethnical group had its starting point for their calendar. This
was the case for the Egyptians, Chinese, Jews, Greek, Romans, Muslims,
etc., as well as for the Maya. In their monument texts and in their
pictorial manuscripts (codices) the Maya scribes indicated the number of

days passed since a base day called 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU. The Maya astronomer
took in account every single day, without losing a day. If we are able
to place this famous day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in our Julian calendar system,
it would be easy to pinpoint all the codices and monuments dates on our
old Julian calendar scale and we will be able to write eventually a
correct and honorable Mayan history. There are today at least 52
different Maya calendar correlation propositions! The most striking fact

is that there are more than 1,000 years between the first correlation
(Bowditch 14.01. - 3632) and the last correlation proposition (Vaillant
2 259.04. - 2593) for the Maya base day 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU. This means that
Maya history can be moved back or forwards, with a maximum of 1000
years, depending of your choice of correlation number! In other words,
one can falsify Maya history with many many centuries. And that is what
unfortunately and sadly has happened. Since more than 100 years (1905 to

2007), every date and calendar information of monuments of, for example,

Palenque, Copán, Yaxchilan, Chichen-Itza, etc., or codices, is very
wrongly calculated following the Goodman - Martinez - Thompson (GMT)
correlations, with one of the following Julian Day Numbers (JDN). JDN
584,280 03.09. -3113 GOODMAN (1905), first proposition
JDN 584,281 04.09. -3113 MARTINEZ (1918)
JDN 584,283 06.09. -3113 THOMPSON 2 (1950)
JDN 584,284 07.09. -3113 BEYER (1937)
JDN 584,285 08.09. -3113 THOMPSON 1 (1935)
JDN 584,286 09.09. -3113 LOUNSBURY (1978)
(2008 - 1905 ?? years.) Since long, many courageous students (more
than 40) have tried to find a better and more correct correlation
between the Maya calendar system and our European Julian (not
Gregorian!) calendar. But the GMT correlations are very hard to die for
so many human reasons. Nobody likes to correct their publications.
Nobody seems to like the truth. Nobody is perfect, even mayanists;
that’s very human.

When you use one of the GMT correlations, without an in-depth checking -

what almost every Mayanist seems to do, then you end the Maya calendar,
after 13 BAKTUNS, or 5200 TUNS (cycles of 360 days), in december 2012.
But... that is totally wrong. Why? Because everybody pays no attention
to the fact that 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU is absolutely NOT the real zero point
(0.0.0.0.0) of the Maya calendar, but it is a corrected solar position
for a new count of the Maya days.
Let me explain why.

4 AHAU 8 CUMHU was indeed certainly not a real zero day because it was
the 349th day of a Maya solar year starting with the day 7 EB. The
question was to know how many days/years there were from the first real
zero day of the Maya calendar till the new corrected day 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU?

As far as I can know, nobody has made before me an in-depth study of the

date signification, of the real meaning of the day 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU. By
preparing my contribution for the International Congress of Americanists

at Rome (in 1972, yes I’m now heading for the cape of 80), I tried to
reconstruct the period BEFORE 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU. It was an exiting research

without a computer, with a simple calculator. After a long busy
Saturday’s work it was for me fantastic to find out that, after exactly
1000 years of 360 days (2 BAKTUN + 10 KATUN), plus the normal 239 solar
correction days, the Maya astronomers reached the famous day 4 AHAU 8
CUMHU.

In other words, it means that, AFTER 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU, the Mayas needed
only 10 BAKTUNS + 10 KATUN to reach the end of their amazing calendar. I

can tell you already that the end of the Maya calendar fell already on
12 December 1546 (following the Vollemaere correlation), amazingly
enough is this exactly a winter solstice.The Maya calendar is for me
really a marvellous “Symphony of Time”! What were the consequences of
this misleading choice of the GMT correlations? First of all, they were
not based on astronomical facts but on incorrect Mayan/European date
relations. The truth is that only astronomy can solved the Maya
correlation problem. This is what we already did. We solved the Maya
correlation problem in 1984 (see our bibliography on website America
Antiqua III). We have on pages 51 - 58 of Codex Dresdensis a long
sequence of a start day called 12 LAMAT 1 MUAN, 1400873 days after 4
AHAU 8 CUMHU, followed by 69 columns of warnings (windows) for a very
serious possibility of a coming eclipse. If one use, for example the
Thompson correlation for this table, then we see clearly that his
correlation is very wrong, because he warned only for 7 of the 14 solar
eclipses correctly for a period of 11960 days (about 33 years). This is
only 50 procent. Therefore alone must the GMT correlations be rejected.
But there are so many other astronomical (eclipses) and ethnical reasons

(Aztecan Mexican presence in Maya region, etc) for rejection, to long to

explain now in one E-mail. Our correlation solution is 100 procent
correct. You can find details in my 27 special correlation publications/

34 books and monographs, plus almost 200 contributions
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/voll3kat.htm
and also very briefly on my website AMERICA ANTIQUA III
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/corrlkat.htm
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/indexkat.html
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/forgtgtm.htm
http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/thtable3.htm

I will gladly answer precise questions, individually or collectively,
and if necessary point by point. I can enlarge my website at the end of
the month and I’m preparing a series of Correlation .pdf files (ready on

short term) and the publication of a compact synthesis of all my
correlation publications : “Codex Dresdensis 51-58 and TriTritos solves
the Maya correlation problem”. Furthermore, I have the intention to come

to the USA, to visit my two (American) sons in the first half of 2008,
and to give PowerPoint conferences, open for a correct scientifical
debate, about “NO MAYA APOCALYPSE IN 2012 !” in planetariums and
universities. It is a great and honorful challenge to give a correct
history to the Mayas, after more than 100 years (a century) of wrong GMT

correlations.

Dr. Antoon Leon VOLLEMAERE
AMERICA ANTIQUA III
De Noterstraat 21
B.2800 MECHELEN - Belgium - Europe
antoon.vollemaere at skynet.be


_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Click to view Calendar of Events
http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php



_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Click to view Calendar of Events
http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php