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

[Carl callaway]

Dear Dolores,

Its clear that "Zero Day" events refer to "real data" in that celestial cycles such as the moon and Venus are tied to it.  Yet when these celestial orbs are referred to by their diety titles and images, the cycles and associated take on the trappings of  myth. 

Best,

carl



----- Original Message ----
From: D. M. Urquidi <deamayaspin at yahoo.com> 
To: Carl callaway <ahchich1 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:09:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Agreements re 13.0.0.0.0 / New era Day Evidence??

Carl:

Why not consider that the codices and stelae have real data on them instead of imaginary data.  Somewhere between 600 and 638, there is a "0" date when the information actually occurred. Everything before that "0" is 360 day years and everything after that "0" is 3655.25 day years.

Will make for more accurate calendars, I would think, but you have to believe the data that you can see in the mss, the codices and the stelae.

Dolores

D. M. Urquidi  P. O. Box 49485  Austin, Texas 78765  http://www.mayalords.org    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/


--- On Mon, 7/21/08, Carl callaway <ahchich1 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Carl callaway <ahchich1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Agreements re 13.0.0.0.0 / New era Day Evidence??
> To: ECOLING at aol.com, aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Date: Monday, July 21, 2008, 11:47 AM
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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