[Aztlan] Agreements re 13.0.0.0.0 / New era Day Evidence??

Mon Jul 21 11:47:55 CDT 2008

Dear Friends,

Sorry to arrive late to the discussion  of the 13th B'aktun and Era day
texts. As many of you  know I am currently  collecting and analyzing
all known Era Day expressions (by the way, I prefer to call 13.0.0.0.0. Era Day
rather than Creation Day since the latter term is a rather "loaded"
word that implies all world creation takes place on a single day). In the Dresden
Codex,  the day appears no less that 24 times and it is the benchmark for
denoting the position of various cycles and the footsteps of gods. 
For
instance, see Dresden page 51 Section A which is the start of the lunar tables.
Column 1 begins with the 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u Era date and is followed immediately
by a 12 Lamat day- a date that serves as one of four 'lubs' by which eclipses
are reckoned from. Following the day 12 Lamat there is "8 k'in ti
ha'". If one counts forward 8 days from Era date one will indeed fall upon
the day 12 Lamat (we'll leave what "ti ha" means for a future
discussion).

Now,
turn to page 52, Section A, Column 4. David Stuart first pointed out this odd
LC/DN to me. This is a very strange passage that incorporates a giant DN? of 13
x 13 cycles (or is the column acting as a giant LC??) that leads to the Era
date that begins the start of Column 5. Back to the top of Column 4-Here, the
first glyph is effaced but seems be the head of a skull or death head. Next is
" 8 k'ins 1 winal 5 ti haab' 2 ti ha'" and is followed by the DN of
13 x 13.  If one counts forward from Era Day a DN 5.1.8 days they do indeed
land upon 12 Lamat 11 Kumk'u-another 12 Lamat lub. What is so very
extraordinary about this CR is that  if you count 13 B'aktuns above or
below it you will end up on a day 12 Lamat. Count 13 B'aktuns and 13 Piktuns
above or below the day 12 Lamat 11 Kumk'u and one will again fall upon a day
with a 12 Lamat. Keep adding higher cycles with multiples of 13 and one will
land on yet another 12 Lamat (note if the base CR was 11 Imix, or any other 260
day, then following the same addition of thirteen cycles, another 11 day 11
Imix will be reached).

This is
just one instance of an Era Day expression that needs further analysis to
understand how the day is being treated and calculated by scribes. I also would
like to point out that there is preliminary evidence to suggest that the
scribes at Palenque were calculating deep time, past events with the higher
periods set at 13. The internal math of the Palenque House E Painted
Inscription implies (if my analysis of the recorded LC and DN is correct) that
the Piktuns and the Kalb'tuns  must be  counting to 13. Below is my
plausible and partial reconstruction given the information so far (by the way
the entire paper of the Palenque House E Painted Text will be posted online in
August 2008, until then, I'm happy to send it to you upon request): (Note:
numbers within parentheses (#) equal mathematically reconstructed values):

(13.)
(13.) 2. 0. 0. 10. 2. 9 IK’ 0 Sak (Accession of Triad Progenitor)

1.
2. (17.?) (17.) 11. 13. 6? – (subtract) (Distance Number)

(11?.) 10. (4.?) 2. (8?) (14.?) (16?) (? KIB) (Haab?) (Opening LC Date)

What
I find fascinating here is the the values for the Piktuns cycles of the DN (2)
and the opening LC (10) are known recorded values (that are clearly painted) so
that X - 2 = 10.  In this case  X can not  possibly 
equal  20  but must  hold a value of 13. So it  is very,
very tentatively SEEMS that the Palenque scribes in this instance, were
calculating the higher periods above a B'aktun up to a value of 13. We have so
few of these deep time events recorded and a full analysis of their
calculations in connection with Era Day calcs. is badly needed before we can
come to any real firm conclusions.     

It is fascinating to look at how Classic and Post Classic scribes treat this
most important day both mathematically and mythologically.  If "Past
is Prologue" then one wonders if the Era Day events of the past will
repeat themselves in 2012.  If so, it  is then important to
understand fully those events of Era Day and the gods and actions surrounding
them. 

Best,

Carl Callaway

----- Original Message ----
From: "ECOLING at aol.com" <ECOLING at aol.com>
To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:15:06 PM
Subject: [Aztlan] Agreements re 13.0.0.0.0

There are several places where I will agree with John Major Jenkins.

I agree mostly with the short paragraph which 
he writes about the text on the 
Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque.

<<As for the 20-baktun date at Palenque, this is a future marker used for
political reasons by Pacal. As an indication of what baktun interval was
considered to be THE World Age creation interval, it is much less
compelling than the many, many, 13-baktun cycle-ending Creation Texts
mentioned above. In fact, as an indicator of the World Age period, it is
irrelevant. It's use was politically motivated.>>

In fact, one of the two points I was making was exactly that.

The second point I was making was that the fact that a date occurs
in a text does not mean that date was on the narrative event line
(that it was regarded as an important event in a narrative),
because it *can* sometimes merely be a reference framework
to specify other dates.   This can be an argument against
a claimed certainty of *some* interpretations of dates 
notated as 13.0.0.0.0 as well as against dates notated 1.0.0.0.0.0.
(But it seems to me not a valid objection if the round date occurs
in isolation, not in relation to any other dates, 
so not used as a framework to hang the others on. 
Then presumably the date *was* the focus of the narrative 
in the text at that point, it was considered a significant event.)

A third point I will make here is that there is a *presupposition*
built into the paragraph quoted above from John Major Jenkins.
That is the one carried by the little word 'the" which he capitalizes
<<what baktun interval was considered to be THE World Age
creation interval>>   That little word "the" invokes an entire world
of assumptions and arguments.
I don't think that 20 Baktuns was considered
THE World Age creation interval.   (There may in fact have been
*no* "world age creation interval", though I'm not arguing that
either, it has to be argued pro and con separately for the Maya,
without disregarding the other Central Mexican evidence.)
But I similarly don't see why the occurrence of 13.0.0.0.0
in a text shows us that 13 Baktuns was THE World Age 
creation interval.   Just as the occurence of 20 Baktuns in a text
did not show that was THE World Age creation interval.
Much more is needed to argue for that hypothesis.

There appears to be agreement among analysts that there is only
*a single* inscription so far known which uses 13.0.0.0.0 
and which refers to a 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in calendar round, 
thus the one in 2012 AD.  
It is on Torguguero Monument 6.  
Another correspondent has also said this is the only one.

Otherwise, 13.0.0.0.0 refers exclusively (?) to 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u,
which is 3114 BC.

***

It may well be that no baktun interval was considered to be 
"THE World Age creation interval",
in most texts and in most iconography, most of the time.
For each baktun interval we observe referenced, we need to
individually consider whether it was considered to be the
completion of any larger time span larger than a K'atun, 
let alone a World Age.

To show purely from calendric sequence that it was considered
the length of a world age, we would have to show that the next
K'atun after 13.0.0.0.0 was 0.1.0.0.0, 
rather than 13.1.0.0.0 on the way to 14.0.0.0.0,
or something similar to that.
That line of evidence is often not available to us, which does 
not disprove the hypothesis, because it would be unfair to
demand that such evidence always be present,
but it does show a weakness in our arguments, a possible vulnerability.

And don't be fooled by the translation 
"completion of the 12th K'atun" or "of 12 K'atuns"
to refer to 9.12.0.0.0, for example.   That does not mean that
12 K'atuns (12.0.0.0) was considered a World Age.
If we do not conclude that for such a small interval, 
then we must also argue it separately in each example 
for a large interval like 10 or 13 Baktuns or 1 Pictun.  
Why is 1 Pictun not considered a "World Age"?
Making such arguments is one part of the work John Major Jenkins
has been occupying himself with.   Whether he brings together
enough patterns to convince people of his several hypotheses
is not a question I am addressing at all.   That is for others to judge.

So yes, the verb used in a very common Mayan expression
for arriving at the end of a round time period is often
translated as "completion" of that time period.  
But it would sometimes better be translated as "arrived at the end" 
of that time period, or simultaneously at the end of several time
periods of varying sizes when not specified.
That is how we most often convey a similar meaning in English, 
to the extent that we have similar meanings.
That Mayan glyph therefore does not translate directly to the 
"completion of a World Age" in the sense many use it.  
That involves a considerable leap.
The "World Age" is an extra introduction by the analyst in
most such cases, and needs to be argued for separately
in each case.

***

I also agree with John Major Jenkins that one must use 
archaeology, astronomy, iconography, mythology, calendrics,
and explicit hieroglyphic texts which can involve all of these
subjects.   Larger sets of patterns derived from all of these fields
may support further conclusions.   I simply urge that people 
should best not read into records information which is not
in them.  

It is quite another operation to lay out patterns of factual data
(*not* imposing an interpretation so as to confuse facts with wishes), 
and then analyze the patterns to argue for novel 
interpretations and conclusions.  
But this argument from patterns is an argument on how
we should fill gaps when we *do not have* direct evidence,
and thus it is unusually important in such contexts to
keep the facts still visible, not hidden in
verbiage assuming the very conclusion which is being argued for.

I cannot agree that iconography should be referred to
as "texts".   That is only confusing.   Iconography contains valuable
information, but not all information comes in the form of text.
Texts are more explicit than iconography in some ways, 
and iconography is more explicit in other ways.

Astronomy is still greatly neglected, and there is as yet no
systematic survey of all Mayan texts to estimate which dates
are purely historical, vs. which dates are contrived to achieve
some reference to astronomy.   All contributions to this are
a good thing.   Eventually, we will be able to be more 
empirical about this.

It is very good to have many eyes and perspectives looking
at these things, and that includes John Major Jenkins and
anyone else.

Best wishes,
Lloyd

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683

**************
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.
      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
_______________________________________________
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