[Aztlan] Alternative to the GMT correlation
David Hixson
aztlandave at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 30 15:04:37 CDT 2009
Below is a forwarded message from a fellow listero, Luuk Buursen <l.buursen at gmail.com> regarding his proposal for an alternative to the GMT correlation of the Maya calendar.
Mr. Buursen has a full text of his thesis available for those who wish to contact him off-list.
Please respond initially to Mr. Buursen <l.buursen at gmail.com>, and not to the list as a whole..
Sincerely,
The Aztlan Moderators.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear sirs,
I send you my thesis. I hope everthing will be receiced in good order
sincerely yours,
Luuk Buursen
l.buursen at gmail.com
My name is Luuk Buursen and I live in the Netherlands.
Some twenty years I've studied the GMT-correlation.
I have developed a whole new correlation of the Maya Calendar in contrast with the GMT-correlation. The correlation I've made is based on a 260-year count, a "May", and has four strong pillars such as radiocarbon dating, the Dresden Codex, statements from 16th century chronicles and native histories from the Colonial era. The correlation I have developed shows a much stronger similarity with these four pillars than the GMT-correlation.
The complete correlation is double checked with the astronomical program SkyMap Pro 10 by Chris Marriott and NASA ECLIPSE HOME PAGE of Internet.
I found many weak points in the GMT-correlation.
Here are some facts, which makes clear the GMT-correlation is not the right one:
1. On page 142 and 133 of the book the 'CHILAM BALAM OF CHUMAYEL' (Ralph L. Roys, new ed. 1967) you can read when the pestilence occured. According to the GMT-correlation the pestilence began in the year 1485 AD.
On page 29 of the book In the 'THE WORLD OF THE ANCIENT MAYA' (John S. Henderson, 1981) you can read when the first encouter between the Spaniards and the Maya took place. This was in the year 1502 AD.
2. In the 'Chronicle of Oxcutccab you can read that the Maya's used 365 day in a year (2001, ed. Nikolai Grube).
3. On page 59 of the book YUCATAN, BEFORE AND AFTER THE CONQUEST (1979, translated by William Gates) you can read:
"In the other method the months had 20 days, and were called uinal hunekeh, of these it took eighteen to complete the year, plus five days and 6 hours."
Diego de Landa got his information from a Maya.
4a. Their Lunar inscriptions show that they must have had an unusually accurate idea of the real lenght of the Tropical year (1956, Morley and Brainerd). They were aware of the length of the solar year and reckoned by it when necessary so that rituals would fall on the same point within it – for example on a solstice (1990, Schele and Freidel).
We all know the Maya astronomers had an extremely precise calendar. In the counting of the GMT there are no days reckoned by.
It was Munro Edmonson, who came with the idea that the end date of the Maya calendar would fall on a winter solstice. In a book written by the Maya you’ll never read that. They believe that the destructions of the world in previous eras all began with an eclipse and a total eclipse will precede the end of this world (Closs 1989: 393). The correlation, I’ve made, begins with a lunar eclipse and will end with a solar eclipse.
4b. 8.4.0.0.0, is equal to the year 120 AD. 11.14.0.0.0 is equal to the year
1500 AD
11.14.0.0.0 - 8.4.0.0.0 = 3.10.0.0.0, or 1400 Maya years.
1500 years - 120 years = 1380 years.
There is a difference of 20 years!
5. On page 13 of the book CHRONICLE OF THE MAYA KINGS AND QUEENS(2000),
written by Simon Martin and Nikolai Grube, you can read:
“The large introductory sign reads tziik haab(?) ‘count of the years’, always combined with the name of the relevant patron of the Haab month.”
On page 24 of the book 'CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN TEXT AND IMAGE AT
CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO'(2005), written by Erik Boot, you can read:
“You will see or already know that in almost every transliteration of Maya Long Count's you will read: WINIKHAB'.
In the counting of the GMT-correlation there isn’t a Haab-counting, bur only one of a Tun.
6. None of the GMT-correlated Maya dates of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Tables are conjunctions or oppositions! I have checked this with Chris Marriott's astronomical program SkyMap Pro10 and NASA ECLIPSE WEB SITE (webmaster Fred Espenak)..
Both in my correlation and the GMT correlation 8.4.0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Pop relates to a date in the same year.
8.4.0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Pop + 3.10.0.0.0 = 11.14.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Pax
3.10.0.0.0 = 1400 Maya years .
120AD + 1400 Maya years = 1500 AD, according to the G.M.T.-correlation.
120AD + 1400 Maya years = 1520 AD, according to my correlation.
The Maya were known as skilful astronomers, taken this in consideration it is impossible that after 1400 Maya years this huge difference of 20 years originates. This proves that a GMT-correlation is a doubtful correlation.
According to my correlation K'atun 3 Ahau with the end date 11.8.0.0.0 3 Ahau 18 Ch'en fell between the years 1380 and 1400 AD (see: Yucatan, before and after the Conquest, 1979, written by Diego de Landa and translated by William Gates, pages 121 and 126: Dover Publications, Inc.).
The correlated Maya dates of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Tables I've made, consists of many conjunctions (most of them are solar eclipses) together with two lunar eclipses (9.16.4.11.3 1 Akbal 16 Muan and 9.16.17.10.8 12 Lamat 16 Zac). I have checked this with Chris Marriott's astronomical program SkyMap Pro10 and NASA ECLIPSE WEB SITE (webmaster Fred Espenak).
Another strong point in my correlation is that I've also found the importance of the 584 and 225 days in the Dresden Codex Venus and Eclipse Tables and the importance of the 780 and 686 days in the Mars Almanac.
Furthermore I’ve also found the importance of the 168 days and the 1820 days of the Paris Codex.
Analysing the Dresden Codex, Ernst Förstemann succeeded in deciphering the Maya counting system and calendar during the last two decennia of the twentieth century. He discovered that the Maya used a vigecimal counting system². It is this vigecimal system that is used as the foundation of the G.M.T. correlation. Förstemann and other specialists failedto recognise the difference between the Long Count including a Haab, and the Long Count excluding a Haab³.
I propose a new correlation method that takes this difference into account. It applies the Uayeb days without affecting the numbers or names of the Tzolk’in and Haab.
My correlation method clarifies that the Maya from 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhú onwards, used an astronomically accurate day-count, and that all mentioned Long Count dates are in fact the dates of historical events.
ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF: K’ATUN 4 AHAU WITH THE PESTILENCE (1), K’ATUN 2 AHAU WITH THE SMALLPOX(2), AND K’ATUN 13 AHAU WITH THE YEAR 4 K’AN(3)
1a.The first encounter between the Spaniards and the Maya was in 1502 AD, in 1511 it was
the first time that they had made extensive contact with the Maya.
1b.On page 138 of ‘The First Chronicle’ from 'THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF CHUMAYEL’ (new ed. 1967, translated by Ralph L. Roys) you can read the phrase:
“4 Ahau was when the pestilence occurred …… ……….”
1c.On page 142 of ‘The Third Chronicle’ there is also a reference to the pestilence in K’atun 4 Ahau, you can read:
“4 Ahau …………………… This was the k’atun when the pestilence occurred. It was the fifth tun of K’atun 4 Ahau.”
1d.On page 133/ Note 11 of this book Ralph Roys wrote:
“Evidently a reference to the epidemic mentioned on p. 142 as occurring in the fifth tun of the K’atun 4 Ahau last preceding the Spanish Conquest. This tun would between 1480 and 1485.
1e. On page 97 of the book ‘THE ANCIENT MAYA’(1956, Morley/Brainerd) you can read the following texts:
a.“Taking the year of his writing, 1566, as his point of departure, Landa says:
Since the last plague more than fifty years have now passed, …………
b.This fixes the date of the plague as 1515/1516, …………
c.The chronicle from the Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin and the first and second (this must be the
third) from the Chilam Balam of Chumayel record that there was a pestilence in K’atun 4 Ahau(1480 – 1500), …………
According to my correlation this K'atun 4 Ahau began in 1500 AD and ended in 1520 AD. The pestilence began five years before the ending of K’atun 4 Ahau{(→ It was the fifth tun of K’atun 4 Ahau). The last year of this K’atun began in 1519 AD and ended in 1520 AD. Five years before 1519 AD gives 1515 AD, and five years before 1520 AD gives 1516 AD (see: 1e.).
2a.On page 138 of ‘The First Chronicle’ from 'THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF
CHUMAYEL’ (new ed. 1967, translated by Ralph L. Roys) there is a reference to the
smallpox, you can read:
“2 Ahau was when the pustules occurred. It was smallpox.
2b.On page 97 of the book ‘THE ANCIENT MAYA’ (1956, Morley/Brainerd) you can read the text:
“The first chronicle from the Chilam Balam of Chumayel describes an epidemic of smallpox as having taken place in K’atun 2 Ahau (1500 – 1520).”
2c.On page 326 of the book ‘MAYA CHONTAL INDIANS OF ACALAN-TIXCHEL’ (second ed. 1968, by France V. Scholes and Ralph L. Roys) you can read:
“It was ascribed to internal wars and to two great epidemics, the last of which was smallpox and occurred some time before Montejo’s first invasion in 1527.”
According to my correlation this K’atun 2 Ahau began in 1520 AD and ended in 1540 AD.
3a.On page 138 of ‘The First Chronicle’ from 'THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF
CHUMAYEL’ (new ed. 1967, translated by Ralph L. Roys) you can also read:
“13 Ahau ………………… It was the sixth year. The year-count was to the east. It was »the year« 4 Kan. Pop was set to the east . . . .
3b.On page 142 of the book ‘MAYA DE GODDELIJKE KONINGEN VAN HET REGENWOUD’ (2001, ed. Nikolaï Grube), you can read:
a.“De passages uit de Chrónica de Oxcutcab (Peabody Museum, Tozzer Library, Harvard University) zijn uit het Yucateeks vertaald door Nikolaï Grube
b.Nu hadden de Maya’s naast de kalender van 365 dagen ook een 260-daagse kalender, die naast de 365-daagse kalender gebruikt werd. De auteur verwijst daarnaar met de dagnamen 13 K’an en 1 Muluk. Dat zijn de dagen uit de 260-daagse kalender, waarop nieuwjaar in 1542 en 1543 viel. Tussen de dag 1 Pop in 1542 en 1 Pop in 1543 liggen precies 365 dagen.
d.De bovengenoemde passage geeft die dag 1 Muluk dan ook als nieuwjaarsdag, 1 Pop, van 1543. In 1544 viel nieuwjaarsdag 1 Pop op 2 Ix, en in 1545 op 3 Kawak. Daarna ging de telling van de getallen door, maar kwam de eerste dagnaam weer terug. In 1546 viel nieuwjaarsdag 1 Pop op 4 K’an.
The last sentenceis equalwiththeearliertext‘Itwas thesixthyear.The year-count was to the
east. It was »the year« 4 Kan. Pop was set totheeast. . . . “(see: (3a.).
According to my correlation this K’atun 13 Ahau began in 1540 AD and ended in 1560 AD.
IMPORTANT NOTE
In 'THE ANCIENT MAYA' (1956, S.G. Morley en G.W. Brainerd: page 97) you can read:
1. “Taking the year of his writing, 1566, as his point of departure, Landa says:
…………, the mortality of the wars was twenty years prior, ……
………… , the date of the mortality due to the wars as 1496, ……
The mortality of the wars didn’t take place in the year 1496, twenty years before 1516, but according to me in the year 1546, twenty years before 1566 (see: MAYA DE GODDELIJKE KONINGEN VAN HET REGENWOUD, Ned. ed 2001, ed. Nikolaï Grube, the article TUSSEN AANPASSING EN REBELLIE – MAYA SAMENLEVINGEN IN DE KOLONIALE PERIODE (1546-1811) written byAntje Gunsenheimer,page 385 and 392; the article DE SPAANSE VEROVERING VAN YUCATAN EN GUATEMALA IN DE 16de en 17de EEUW, written by Christian Prager, page 378).
2.…………., the pestilence of the swelling was sixteen years before the wars, ………
The pestilence of the swelling wasn’t the pestilence, and didn’t take place in 1480, but
according to me the pestilence of the swelling is the smallpox, and this took place in the
year 1530, 16 years before 1546. (see: The MAYA CHONTAL INDIANS of ACALAN-
TIXCHEL, written by Scholes and Roys, 2nd ed., 1968., page 166, 167, 324 and 326)
3. ………, and the hurricane another sixteen years before that, ………
The hurricane didn’t take place in 1464, but according to me in the year 1514, 16 years before 1530.
4. ………, and of twenty-two or twenty-three years after the destruction the city of Mayapan.
According to my correlation the destruction of Mayapan took place in the year 1471 or 1472, forty-three (= two times twenty years + three years) or forty-two years (= two times twenty years + two years) before 1514 (K’atun 8 Ahau: 1460 – 1480 AD, according to the correlation I’ve made), instead of twenty-three or twenty-two years before 1514 (= 1491 or 1492).
A Maya informant had told Diego de Landa about the destruction of Mayapan.
I think, this informant told him that the instruction of Mayapan had taken place two times twenty years together with two or three years, and Diego de Landa only heard twenty years, instead of two times twenty years!
8.19.10.10.17 5 Caban 15 Yaxk’in(= 1.311.439 days) 12/13 – 06 – 431AD
3590 Gregorian years + 217 days = 1.311.437,575 days
(According to my correlation ‘the Julian day Numbers’ of this Maya Long Count date are: 1878643 and 1878644 (from sunrise till sunrise), according to the G.M.T.-correlation the Gregorian date is 4 – 09 – 426 AD and the Julian day Number is 1876901)
COPÁN ALTAR Q
On the 11th of June 431 AD anoppositionbetweenthe Sunand the Moon (12:40:12 hrs., see: SkyMap Pro Version 10) took place, so, on this Maya day the Moon was a full Moon (see:Note). In the morning of the 12th of June 431 AD, ±51 minutes before sunrise, the Moon was visible low in the west in the Maya area.
Note:
On page 297 of “STAR GODS OF THE MAYA”( Susan Milbrath, 1999: page 297) you read the phrase:
“……enz……..; full Moon setting in the west; ……enz…………”.
This Gregorian date of the G.M.T.-correlation has no connection with an opposition.
9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh(= 1.395.225 dagen) 04/05 – 11 – 660AD
(According to my correlation ‘the Julian day Numbers’ of this Maya Long Count date are: 1962431 and 1962432, according to the G.M.T.-correlation the Gregorian date is 12 – 10 – 652 AD and the Julian day Number is 1959486)
PALENQUE, TEMPLE OF THE INSCRIPTIONS & DUMBARTON OAKS RELIËF
PANEL 2
4 (Uayeb-)Days after the sunset of 9.11.0.0.012 Ahau 8 Ceh, on the 8th of November 660 AD, a conjunction between the Sun and the Moon (11:48:05 hrs., see: SkyMap Pro Version 10) took place.
5 Daysafter the sunset of 9.11.0.0.012 Ahau 8 Ceh makes November 9/10, 660 AD. On the 9th of November 660 AD, Venus was visible in Ophiuchus, almost in Sagittarius, as an Evening Star. the Moon was 1 day old, a conjunction between the Moon and Venus (= 16:58:56 hrs., see: SkyMap Pro Version 10) had taken place. On the 10th of November 660 AD Venus was visible low in the west after sunset in Sagittarius, and during the setting of Venus Mars was visible in the Evening Sky above western horizon
On page 297 of the book STAR GODS OF THE MAYA(1999), written by Susan Milbrath, you can read:
“Five days after the appearance of Venus as Evening Star in Sagittarius; first visible crescent Moon; Mars above western horizon. …………………….”
What’s written in this text doesn’t take place on the 12th of October 652 AD.
My bold question is: are you open and curious to the correlation I've developed.
Luuk Buursen
l.buursen at gmail.com
More information about the Aztlan
mailing list