Talk:Mesoamerican Long Count calendar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Calendar Round thoughts

The information about cross checking the calendar round with the long count could work just as well (or better) in the Calendar round article which badly needs expansion. It is also worth noting that the Maya, at least, always included further information in Initial Sequence long count dates such as the lord of the night (Glyph G) and lunar data. Not to take anything away from an excellent article—just suggestions for further improvement. Eluchil404 08:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Maya did not always include lunar data. I'd say that most long counts are followed by just the calendar round, with no G glyph or supplementary series. grr (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Galactic center"

the Maya chose the start date for their long count so that the alignment of the Sun with the Galactic Center will occur on the end date -- what does this mean? As two points determine a line, is the Sun not always in alignment with the Galactic Center? Or does it mean that the Sun, the Earth and the Galactic center are in alignment?

I don't know, and I'm very skeptical of that statement. Unless there is some explanation/clarification I will remove it from the article and move it here to talk. The Maya calendar articles and the Aztec calendar articles, IMO, are something of a mess at present, and I've so far been reluctant to jump into the major work they need. -- Infrogmation 16:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As no objection or expanation has appeared since, I've moved the statement below from the article to here. -- Infrogmation 21:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

According to some students of the Maya calendar, the Maya chose the start date for their long count so that the alignment of the Sun with the Galactic Center will occur on the end date, although according to astronomers it is not possible to specify such an "alignment" with a precision of less than a few years.

I think what they mean is that the rising sun on a certain date would be in line with the galactic center as viewed from earth, so there are three points in the line, earth, sun, and galactic center. Unfortunately I don't have a source. I'd also be curious what is really meant by "galactic center"; I assume the thickest part of the Milky Way as seen from earth, or a significant constellation in it. The Mayans were very advanced astronomers for their time, but I doubt they knew the earth was in a disc-shaped galaxy with a center. 67.130.11.100 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See the explanation given by Joe Kress below, clearly sets out the considerable practical and theoretical issues with any galactic centre alignment and the obeservation of same. I believe much of the galactic aligment proposal comes from theorising by John Major Jenkins; while he's certainly no crank or oddball like a number of other amateur Maya calendar 'enthusiasts' that could be mentioned, his views lack substantive support among the professional Mayanist community. By definition, it's a fringe proposal, at best. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I think that statement is a confusing attempt at summarizing the Jenkins explanation. (See the Jenkins link at the end of the article).

Let me try to paraphrase Jenkins:

If you look at the stars (or at a map of the stars), the Sun and all the (visible) planets are always found along a straight line on the map called the ecliptic. The Milky Way (as seen in the sky from Earth) lies along another line on the map called the galactic plane. (Some people call the intersection of these 2 lines the "galactic center". But I think the true Galactic Center is somewhere else along the galactic plane, right?) The sun makes a complete circle all the way around the ecliptic every year. The exact day of the year that the sun crosses the galactic plane, however, is very slowly changing. (On that special day, the Milky way points exactly at the sun just before sunrise, and continues to point to the sun just after sunset). Over the past roughly 3000 years, the day the sun crosses the galactic plane has changed from early November, to nearly the winter solstice. In 2012, the sun will cross the galactic plane on the day of the winter solstice.

Jenkins claims that the Maya choose the start date for their long count, such that that long-awaited, never-seen-before event (the "special day" of the sun crossing the galactic plane, and the day of the winter solstice, both occuring on the *same* day) will occur on the end date.

Does that make sense? Is this worth moving into the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.75.148 (talk • contribs) 20 Nov 2005.

No one can observe the Sun crossing the Galactic plane because the Sun is too bright. Indeed, you cannot even observe it just after sunset. The Sun must be at least 18° below the horizon for the Milky Way to be seen at all. Nor can any stars be observed near the Sun. The typical link used by pre-modern astronomers was the Moon—as the Sun is setting, the full moon is rising (both have a refraction error of 1/2° and the full moon has a parallax error of 1° compared to their meridian positions). But even a full moon is too bright to observe the Milky Way, only bright stars are then visible. The Moon must be below the horizon to observe the Milky Way. Thus the Milky Way is twice removed from Sun: Sun → Moon → bright stars → Milky Way. The point here is that any error in the speed of the Sun along the ecliptic will be compounded by any error in the speed of the Moon, which does not even follow the ecliptic, but can deviate from it by up to 5°.

Based on about 400 years' worth of written observations, the Babylonians had a highly accurate value for the average speed of the Moon, but although they knew that its speed was highly variable, they could not assign any decent value to it. The first to offer any reasonable value for these variations was Ptolemy, and his values were off by several degrees. Not until about 1750 did anyone develop resonably accurate (within a fraction of 1°) predictions for the true position of the Moon.

The ancient Egyptians thought the sidereal year was 365 1/4 days, if we are to believe that they knew of the Sothic cycle, which is far from certain. Their calendar, like that of the Maya Haab calendar, used a year of only 365 days with no leap days at all. But the 365-day Haab is a later creation than the Long Count—only the 260-day Tzolkin is contemporaneous.

To find the length of the tropical year, we must subtract precession from the sidereal year. But Jenkins offers no evidence whatsoever that the Maya knew of precession. But even if they knew of it, there is no way that they could have had an accurate value for it. Both Hipparchus and Ptolemy underestimated the speed of precession by about 40%, by far the worst 'accuracy' of the three required speeds. They thought an equinox would move 1° every century, whereas its true value is about 1° every 72 years. Both Hipparchus and Ptolemy assumed that a tropical year (which includes precession) was 365+1/4–1/300 days long. We can use Robert van Gent's Almagest Ephemeris Calculator to determine when Ptolemy would have placed the winter solstice of 2012. The result is near midnight Maya time at the beginning of 16 December (Julian) or 3 December (Gregorian). So if the Maya had Ptolemy's knowledge and all of his errors and ideosyncracies, they would have placed the epoch of the Long Count about 19 days earlier than they did to make sure that it ended on a winter solstice. I doubt that Ptolemy assigned any plane or great circle to the Milky Way, so was probably not able to calculate when the winter solstice would cross it to an accuracy of a year.

David Ulansey has the conjunction of the winter solstice, ecliptic, and galactic equator occurring 21 December 1999. Another view on the Maya conjunction, admitting that it is 12 years late according modern Galactic coordinates, is that by Alias Jones. Still another analysis by Shepherd Simpson stated that the conjunction occurred 21 December 1997. Finally we have another New Age astrologist/philosopher (like Jenkins), Carl Johan Calleman, who destroys Jenkins' arguments, partially using Jenkins' own words, for Jenkins himself stated that the end of a one fifth precession cycle (5125 years) occurred 12 December 1998 and that the conjunction occurred 12 December 1999, in agreement with modern astrologists and astronomers (Jenkins obviously ignored his own statement to arrive at his 2012 conclusion). A major part of Calleman's criticism is that Jenkins totally ignores the Maya Creation stories, which describe the events near 3114 BC, not those near 2012.

Jenkins does not even mention most of the lunar and solar positioning errors, asking us to believe that the Olmec (who developed the Long Count several centuries before the Maya adopted it) had knowledge that not even the Old World had until several centuries later. But that is insufficient—the Olmec must have had precise modern knowledge of all astronomical calculations in order to predict the winter solstice with an accuracy of a single day over two millennia later. I reject that as utterly preposterous. The end point of the Long Count being at a winter solstice is pure coincidence. Even if we surmount this insurmountable barrier, precession is so slow and the Milky Way so wide that any winter solstice in a 30-year period (about 1/2 degree) can be chosen as the Sun's arrival at the Milky Way, depending solely on the discretion of the astrologist.

— Joe Kress 01:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Joe, a masterly demolition, very nice work. I had in mind to register my own objections, but these are now rendered superfluous. It only remains to add that despite his namedropping of reputable scholars like Schele and Lounsbury, Jenkins is himself neither credible nor accredited in this field, one of many such "enthusiasts". Apart from where he has pestered Mayanists on some Usenet groups, no-one has taken a blind bit of notice of his theories, and as such they do not really warrant mentioning here, even as an example of erroneous but widely-circulated interpretation.--cjllw | TALK 03:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jenkins does get one fact right: He states that the epoch of the Long Count was in 3114 BC—most Maya scholars insist, or used to insist, that it occurred in 3113 BC. This is because they included a year zero between BC and AD. See, for example, Linda Schele, The proceedings of the Maya hieroglyphic workshop (Austin, Texas, 1992) page 173. — Joe Kress 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe: There are two methods of calculating negative years - historical and astronomical. In historical the year 1BC is followed by the year 1AD. In astronomical dating there is a year -1 followed by zero followed by 1 so -3113 is the same as 3114BC. 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

While I seriously doubt the Maya knew the relative movements of astronomical bodies with greater accuracy than modern astronomers (because you'd expect to find remnants of the technologies needed to keep such accurate tabs in addition to evidence of knowledge of predictive physical theories), there is no reason to believe that they didn't know more than "Old World" astronomers--they were working with the same technology (the time they were making these observations is irrelevant, since they were independent societies. It is quite concievable that the Olmecs refined the art of astronomical observation long before Ptolemy, I don't know why you think its so ridiculous). Of course there is ALSO no reason to believe that they did know more accurately the relative movements. But nonetheless your argument that because "Old World" astronomers didn't have a very accurate view so therefore the "New World" astronomers couldn't have surpassed them doesn't hold a bit of water. It is possible that the Olmecs knew some tricks that "Old World" astronomers didn't. I'm not saying they did, I'm just saying "its possible", and your implicit assumption that the ancient "New World" astronomers must have had atleast as much inaccuracy as the "Old World" astronomers is completely unwarranted.

If you were to make a good upper limit argument on thier accuracy it would have to start from assumptions about the technology they likely had to work with and thier knowledge of physics. It might be safe to assume they didn't have glass grinding technology, and therefore no telescopes (and even if you allowed for that, it would be safe to assume it wasn't incredibly accurate glass grinding technology, because glass doesn't appear to be a technology that was widely used enough for archaelogists to have found some remnants of it). Likewise there is no apparent knowledge of say relativititic effects. With those two assumption you could find some upper and lower limits of the accuracy of thier measurments and predictions. But NOT by comparing them with "Old World" astronomers. Brentt 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brentt: Ancient Mesoamerican astronomy was based on the azimuth of the rising and setting of heavenly bodies so your speculation that they might have had more accurate data than later old word astronomers is wrong. You can read about this in Anthony Aveni's classic book which is listed in the bibliography. Also it is unnecessary for you to put so many terms in quotes. 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

All I was sayign is that what Old World astronomers did was completely independent of what mesoamerican astronomers did. The relative times they did it is irrelevant to. What is relevant is thier methods, Ptolemy's and Hipparchus's method's are completely irrelevant to mesoamerican methods. The methods themselves will provide upper limits on accuracy, and you can't glean any information about thier methods from Old World methods (atleast not that you couldn't glean from the methods themeselves). I didn't mean that speculataion in any more than a trivial sense. (like "its possible they were the descendents of the Great Spahgetti Monster") The point was that what Ptolemy did had nothing to do with what the Olmecs or Maya did. Brentt 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Boris Spasov. I did not create my own account with you, because I am not an expert in this field. I admire you, guys for the work on this issue and for the expertise. I would like to share with you only 3 remarks: 1. The conjunction which happens on this date is truly remarkable and the related information should be included in the article. My suggestion is just to quote Jenkins, "December 21st, 2012 (13.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count) ... represents an extremely close conjunction of the winter solstice sun with the crossing point of Galactic Equator and the ecliptic, what the ancient Maya recognized as the Sacred Tree.". Because the probability for a blind coincidence is very low, the only option left is that Maya new about this event, from their own observations, or from somebody else. 2. The second remark is that in the Origin of the Long Count calendar TABLE, the Gregorian Date for Stela C, listed as September 3, 32 BCE is wrong. It probably should read September 1,... (see the same date in the previous text in the same article). However, if this is an error indeed, the other dates in the same table can be wrong also. 3. The third remark I have is the fact that the Maya's calendar begins at August 11, 3114 BC, just about 12 years before the beginning of the current Kali-yug of the Hindu calendar, which begins on January 23, 3102 BC. If consider that at about the same time sprang the human historical civilization, the difference of 12 years probably deserves further investigation. Regards, Boris, bspasov@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.39.220 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Boris, you make interesting points. However, Wikipedia does not support speculation or original research and so we can only write the facts. Madman (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Boris, read the wiki pages about John Major Jenkins and consider another possibility: That this theory is complete nonsense.Senor Cuete (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This is Boris again: Thank you very much guys for the rapid response. I completely agree with you that in the article should be included only solid facts and verified opinions. Because I can not verify the claims of Mr. Jenkins, I would like to withdraw my first (1) remark. I would like also to withdraw my third (3) remark, because it is just a wishful thinking, not supported by anything. However, my second (2) remark points to an error in the "Origin of the Long Count calendar" TABLE. In the same table I found another error also. The value in the column "Long Count digits" for La Mojarra, Stela 1 is shown in the table as 8.5.16.9.7 and is wrong. From the first picture in the article one can clearly see the correct Long Count digits on the Stela 1 as 8.5.16.9.9. I think that two factual errors in a single table cast doubts about all data in the entire table, so the errors should be fixed or explained out as misunderstanding. Regards, Boris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.209.206.1 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right Boris, that particular LC date on La Mojarra St. 1 should be 8.5.16.9.7 (elsewhere on the stela is another LC date, 8.5.3.3.5 (143 CE). Probably just an error of transcription here, have fixed in in the img caption. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate calendars

It's been reported the Maya caledar was the most accurate until the Gregorian. Trekphiler 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

True, that is a statement frequently encountered, and perhaps equally often it is claimed that the Maya calendar was/is much more accurate than our present Western one. However, both of these statements are untrue, or at least need to be highly qualified. As shown in this article, the portion of the Maya calendar which approximated the tropical year took account of 365 full days, and the calendar itself had no mechanism or adjustment such as 'leap years' which would keep it in synch with the "true" year. However, even though the Maya did not see fit to update their calendar with the appropriate compensatory mechanisms, it is evident that they were well enough aware of its gradual precession for they would from time to time realign certain ceremonies which were supposed to correspond with astronomical and seasonal events- but did not adjust the calendar itself. I think that when people (rather too loosely) speak of the Maya calendars' "remarkable accuracy", what they are really referring to is their prowess in observational and mathematical calculations, with which they could indeed pinpoint certain astronomical events with considerable accuracy. For eg, by extending the number of observation cycles of the moon (as is done in the Dresden Codex's eclipse tables) to 405 lunar months, this corresponded to a mean synodic month of 29.53086, whereas the modern mean value is 29.53059. This is a little more accurate than the corresponding Ptolemaic calculation, for example. However, it should be noted that these calculations were done more so to "fit in" with numbers and cycles they found significant, rather than for accuracy's sake alone, and that the calendars themselves were not adjusted. Perhaps it could be said that they possessed highly accurate almanacs, rather than calendars.--cjllw | TALK 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if the Maya understood the 4:1 ratio of 4 day to 8 day Venus table corrections in the Dresden Codex (an arguable point, but my research indicates that they did, Thompson and Lounsbury would disagree but they are dead and I don't have a chance to convince them otherwise), then their predictions of the heliacal rise of Venus are accurate to a point where it will take 6025 years for their predictions to be off consistently by one day. The Gregorian calendar will consistently be off by one day after 3333 years. This is somewhat comparing apples to oranges, since one deals with Venus cycles and the other with Solar cycles, but they are similar in concept in trying to keep two cycles in sync using whole number arithmetic. --grr (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem for Astronomy Software?

The article states: The use of software that is based on the proleptic Gregorian calendar can be problematic for.... Astronomical research. For example, to study ancient observations on stelae or in the codices, one may convert a Long Count to days, months, and years. This date would then be entered into an astronomy program. The astronomy program will use the standard Julian/Gregorian calendar so this will cause a major error.

I've read and reread this section, but it's not at all clear to me why this should be so. Perhaps it could be clarified for the less sharp among us. Lusanaherandraton 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Read about the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Consider that the proleptic Gregorian calendar isn't used in astronomy (or much of anything else except Maya calendar software). A brief explanation of this was in the article but was removed in favor of refering people to articles about these calendars. 204.227.223.63 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Important information about calendars:

In 46 BC Julius Caesar decreed that the calendar would consist of twelve months of approximately 30 days each and that there would be an extra day in February every four years. This is the Julian calendar. The length of the year in the Julian calendar was 365.25 days - close to the length of the solar year of 365.2422 days. By 1582 there was a significant distance between Christmas and the winter solstice and Easter and the spring equinox. Pope Gregory XIII, with help from astronomer Luigi Lillo, reformed the calendar. Ten days were removed from October so that the fourth was followed by the 15th and the system of leap years was changed so that centuries are only leap years if they are evenly divisible by 400 so for example 2000 was a leap year but 1900 wasn't. This is the Gregorian calendar. Dates before 46 BC are converted to Julian calendar dates. This is called the proleptic Julian calendar.

Another important factor in calculating calendar dates is the fact that there are two ways of naming years before one. In historical dating the year 1 BC (or BCE). is followed by 1 A.D. In astronomical dating there is a year 0 so -1 is followed by 0 which is followed by 1. Since numerical systems have a value of zero this makes sense for anyone trying to do calendric calculations.

The Julian/Gregorian calendar is the standard way of doing these calculations and is the way that people doing Maya calendar calculations convert Long Count 0,0,0,0,0 to Monday, September 6 -3113 (3114 BC).

Many of the books about the Maya and most of the software available for Maya calendar conversions uses a revisionist system of calendrics called the proleptic Gregorian calendar. In this system all dates before October 15th, 1582 are converted to the Gregorian calendar, including Gregorian leap centuries, as if it had been in use all along. This is how one converts Long Count 0,0,0,0,0 to August 11th, 3114 BC.

204.227.223.63 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Since different cultures adopted the Gregorian calendar at different times, using the proleptic Gregorian calendar provides a consistent scheme in talking about western dates. It's not just 1582 (the date that Catholic states switched) that's the problem. If you are looking at a date written in the 1600's, and it happens to be an English document, it's still in the Julian date system since the English (and their colonies, including the United States) didn't make the switch until 1752. No matter when you want to apply the switch, there is a date when you must drop days from the calendar. The proleptic Gregorian calendar has the advantage that there is never a time when 10 or so days just vanish from the calendar that you have to take into account. The Julian/Gregorian thing is especially problematic since Spain (a Catholic state) made the switch in 1582, right at the time that many colonial documents about the Maya were being written...so if trying to figure out calendrics, you need to be very aware of what date system they were the using when they wrote the document. A good Maya calendar program avoids the issue of the switch by showing both proleptic Gregorian and Julian dates side by side. --grr 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way to provide a consistent scheme for talking about wastern dates would be to use the Julian calendar for modern dates. The Orthodox church never accepted Gregorian calendar reform and still uses the Julian calendar today.

Some additional comments about proleptic calendars. Using the Julian calendar for modern dates isn't practical. Most of the time when people want to talk about a date in contemporary terms, they want date as it is in the calendar system they normally use, i.e. Gregorian. I know, for example, translating their birth date is the most common purpose for which people want contemporary Maya dates. Since few people know what their birth date is in the Julian calendar, using that isn't helpful. I am loathe to condemn this sentimental practice of using Maya Dates for non-Maya events, especially since I am putting the Calendar Round of my wedding date on my wedding announcements. The Maya calendar has a mathematical elegance to it that the Gregorian doesn't have for me.

Secondly, let's talk about why astronomers tend to use proleptic Julian dates:

• A) The date system is consistent...there is no period where days don't appear in the calendar
• B) They are somewhat easier to calculate than Gregorian dates since the leap year rules are simpler
• C) For the period between the consistent adopting of Julian calendar sometime after 45 BCE (see the complexities of the adoption date in the Julian Calendar article) and the switchover date to Gregorian in whatever country you are talking about, historical documents with dates in them can be used directly as the input date for astronomic calculations

Proleptic Gregorian dates have the same advantages as reason A--they don't have any missing days, and B) Computers have largely removed the necessity of performing date calculations by hand, thus alleviating reason B since a computer can deal with complicated rules as easily as simple ones. Computers make it easy to change calendar systems from Julian to Gregorian and back, also alleviating reason C. So the main reason we use proleptic Julian dates for astronomy are now largely historical, not practical. In truth, the Julian calendar is also problematic to astronomers, which is why they usually deal with the Julian Day Number (JDN), not the Julian Date. Performing Julian to JDN calculations is as easy as performing Gregorian to JDN calculations.

So getting back to my main point: Nobody should care which calendar system is used for expressing western dates as long as the system is clear from the context. This can be either be stated up front (All western dates in the proleptic Gregorian calendar system unless otherwise noted) or on individual dates, such as one of June 2, 1553 (Julian) or June 12, 1553 (Gregorian). It is only problematic if the date is expressed in ambiguous terms. grr (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Monitoring this article for vandalism

This article has some topics that seem to be controversial. Some people don't seem to get that the world isn't going to end in 2012. I have fixed the information 2012 section several times after vandalism. Each time I check it for modifications, it seems to be messed with inaccurate information. Can this get locked down more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grr (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

You think that anyone who edits this part of the article in a way you disagree with is a vandal. This is not vandalism. Locking stuff you don't like is contrary to the idea of Wiki because it's supposed to be a collaboration. Maybe they're right and you're wrong. The 5 in the piktuns place is because we live in the fifth sun and we are aproaching the sixth sun, 5.0.0.0.0.0. If you had read the article you would have seen that all of the other references to the completion of the 13 baktun cycles use 0, not 13. This issue could be debated and a solution could be reached but your attitude that you are the ultimate authority on the subject is not helpful. If you really want to contribute to this article you should register and debate this on your talk page. Also there is evidence that the end of the fifth sun is an end of the world date for example in Diego de Landa's Relacion. I didn't revert your edits but I support whoever did. Another issue for me is that the text about this subject references Linda Schele. Linda was a briliant epigrapher but didn't understand the calendar. In her own writings about this subject she said "you must understand I am not a number person" and described at great length how she really didn't understand this before resurecting the Thompson correlation in her book. Obviously there are better sources for understanding the calendar then her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Please register, sign in, and sign your comments (with four tildes: ~~~~). Your statement, "If you really want to contribute to this article you should register and debate this on your talk page." is ironic because Grr is indeed registered and signed in, he just forgot to sign his post. You are the one who doesn't appear to be registered ("Sign in / create account" at upper right of any Wikipedia page) because you did not sign in, so you are only identified in "Page history" by a numeric IP address, which makes you appear to be a vandal. Debating on someone's talk page does not contribute to this article — any such debate belongs here where everyone can contribute. — Joe Kress 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had several conversations with Linda about the Maya Calendar in the years preceding her death, I can attest that she knew quite well how the calendar worked. While she may have stated that she wasn't a "number person", she worked with numbers of the calendar about as well as anybody I know. Examine the Texas Notes she authored to see her proficiency with the calendar. She also used Lounsbury's calendar program, written in Forth, which requires a fair amount of skill with the calendar to use (and for some purposes is still the best calendar program out there). On another note, show me a single place that the Maya recorded a 5 in the piktuns place. You can't because there aren't any. I can show you the monument from Coba that has a 13 in the piktuns place from the last creation (as well as all higher places), and I can show you a 1 in the piktuns place from this creation from Palenque, with a calendar round that requires that there be 20 baktuns before reaching the 1 piktun. Making arbitrary unsupported modifications to the page is vandalism, and as it gets closer to 2012, there is probably going to be a lot more of it. --grr 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know about this baktun stuff. But i have this car. One day, I was driving down the highway and i noticed my odometer said that i had gone 13 000 miles. Then, as i watched, the crazy thing just rolled back over to zero again. I'm not really sure why that happened, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen again, because the odometer is not designed to do that. Yourliver (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude the calander is an almanac?

Yeah weather patterns baktuns yeah the calander is an almanac. It is really kind of obvious. The alamanac deals primarally with the mexican weather but you could also, I am sure, predict the majority of west coastal americas weather from it. Makes sense to the maya were farmers.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to be sure it is, even the utization of the 13 in baktuns, similiar to the lunar month cycles and such. The calander can predict great rains and periods of rain. Long periods relative to the to the deserts far to the north. Although it would seem not intentional with the farther northern latitudes relative to mexico city and such, the almanacs utility that is. Those great "ancient" rivers and such that adorne the desert southwest and utah, montana regions. If they where so ancient they would have been covered with silt and dust and have already been rolling hills. As far as I can tell the jet stream shifts eastward and one complete cycle takes approximatelly 400 years. Sound fasmiliar? And as it shifts it will change the cosmoplitan appearance of the the U.S. deserts bringing elongated periods of rain cutting and funneling through those "ancient" waterways. The maya may have arbitrarally chosen 13 as a reference to lunar months(the moon can affect tides and such) or something to do with an earth goddess of sorts for similair reasons.--207.14.129.217 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

please dont say dude, its not cool anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.32.102 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why 3114?

After being dragged into a discussion about the subject of 12/21/2012 by a friends, I have become very interested by the subject. After doing a little math, I have come to the conclusion that March 17th, 3116 B.C. is the beginning of the long count calendar (keeping in mind that I believe the end is the twenty-first of December, 2012). Since 'Doomsday', as my friend called it, is 12.19.19.17.19, I subtracted (12 x 144000)+(19 x 7200)+(19 x 360)+(17x20)+(19x1) days from December 21st. After getting a total of 1,871,999 days, I divided that by 365 to get 5,128 years and 279 days before this date. 5,128 years beore 2012 is 3116, with the 279 days bringing the date to March 17th, 3116 as the beginning of the calendar. I am going to guess that my error arose from dividing by 365 instead of 365.2425 for a more accurate number, but even after doing that I get August 21st, 3113 B.C. Could someone please explain where I went wrong? IngeniusDodo (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways of dealing with calendar dates before October fifth, 1582. These are the Julian and proleptic Gregorian calendars. There are articles about these in Wikipedia and discussions of these on this talk page and others on the other related Maya calendar sites. The way to do calendar conversions is to convert dates to Julian day numbers using standard astronomical algorithms like the method of Meeus and then convert to the target calendar. You are reinventing the wheel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can get a program for your computer to do Maya calendar conversions. I have a Mac so I use this free program: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/25773/chac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Julian calendar

There is no rational or useful purpose to providing dates on the Julian calendar here. It's not the civil calendar of any modern nation and only exists nowadays for religious purposes. It adds needless confusion to an article that many people will already find confusing; base-20 counting is not intuitive for most. Let's prioritize comprehension over niggling details that are of real interest to no one. 192.91.172.36 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Julian calendar was in use during the time when ALL of the dates in Mayan inscriptions were written. Who cares if it's not the civil calendar now? Using the Julian/Gregorian calendar is historically accurate and it is the system used by historians and astronomers and everybody except for Maya calendar conversions. Mayan inscriptions contain astronomical content (ever heard of the Dresden Codex?) and it's important for astronomers to know that Mayanists use the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Not noting this will actually cause confusion for scholars of subjects other than the Maya calendar as it has done for years. I've got articles in Sky and Telescope magazine that are totally wrong because the authors were astronomers and assumed that mayanists knew what they were doing. If it were up to me I would use only the Julian/Gregorian calendar and abandon the foolish proleptic Gregorian calendar, however I would note this so as NOT to confuse readers. Also this has been debated to death already on this and other talk pages about the calendar. It's always a good idea to read the talk pages so you aren't making the same edits that have been made and rejected over and over again.Senor Cuete (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Pictuns and beyond

I modified the article somewhat to remove referring to Thompson's higher order units beyond the Baktun. Most of the material that is used in that section for this comes from, I believe, Thompson's Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, Appendix IV (Thompson 1971:314). In that chapter, every instance of dates that appear are shown as something like (1.13.0)9.9.2.4.8 5 Lamat 1 Mol. In other words, the 1.13.0 does not actually appear on the monument, but are being supplied by Thompson. The calendrical math in that chapter would all work with any values in the higher order units, not just 1.13.0 (try it with 13.13.13, for example, which actually do appear on monuments). Thompson's only justification for these numbers seems to be basing this number strictly on his one reading of Quirigua Stela F (shown on page 315), although he doesn't say so. Citing a Schele reference here is also insufficient, since she is obviously just quoting Thompson. It's all a house of cards of bad citations. As another opinion on the reading of Stela F, Matthew Looper, says in Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua (2003:125-127):

The east text begins with a Long Count date of 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ajaw 3 Sip (March 17, 761)...The clauses that follow are presented in a different time frame, however, associated with dates in the dates in the distant past that constitute a supernatural precident for the current period ending. The shift backward in time frame is indicated by the affixation on the "completion" verb at C14. The scale of the shift, however, is truly astonishing, recorded as the passage of 0 alawtuns [20⁶, completion of 19 x 20⁷ tuns, ending on a Calendar Round of 1 Ajaw 13 Mol. Placing this date in the Long Count proves problematic, in that there is not enough information to firmly associate it with a particular period ending in the past...The passage which terminates the east-face text of Stela F gives a second mythic prototype for the 9.16.10.0.0 period ending. It begins with 0 piktuns (20³ tuns), 13 kalab'tuns (20⁴ tuns?), followed by a Calendar Round date of 1 Ajaw 13 Yaxk'in. Like previous supernatural period-ending records, it is not possible to place this Calendar Round in the Long Count, according to standard arithmetical rules.

Since different scholars have different readings for the calendrics on this stela, and that is the basis for the content that I removed, I took it out. The higher order units that Thompson mentioned are irrelevant to the discussion of piktuns units and larger and I think it is better to say nothing than to say something that might be wrong. We can argue about how they worked back here, but the main page should stick to the facts that are either agreed to by most scholars, or the controversy appear in the article. Since stating the controversy here is pointless, I think removing it was the right course. grr (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proleptic=??!

What on earth is 'proleptic'? Is it like epileptic??77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From my dictionary:

The representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so, as in "he was a dead man when he entered".Senor Cuete (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

..and as specifically used here, to quote from proleptic Gregorian calendar article's opening line, it's definition is "The proleptic Gregorian calendar is produced by extending the Gregorian calendar backward to dates preceding its official introduction in 1582." --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

14th Baktun

I would do this myself, except I don't have the "date conversion" tool.

Can someone please post the date of the end of the NEXT Baktun? I know there is a cery small (but somewhat vocal) minority of people who think the end of this cycle is going to be the end of the world, and the way the chart looks now, it does nothing to discourage that theory (in fact, even encouraging it, since having the graph end there makes it look like it ends there for a reason). So, there is no reason NOT to add the next date on there, and one (if not a very important) reason To put it up there, so i think we should put it up there.

Again, I would do it, but don't have the tool. 74.252.65.2 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One wouldn't need a calendar conversion tool for that calculation; since 1 b'ak'tun represents 144,000 elapsed days, you could just add 144000 days to 21 December, 2012 to find out what would be the date after one more b'ak'tun passes by. So, what (might be) written as 14.0.0.0.0 in LC notation would fall on 26 March, 2407 in our current gregorian calendar.

However since it's not really known (ie there's no direct evidence) how in precolumbian times that date would have represented in LC notation, would rather not include it in that table. Perhaps it could just be noted in the accompanying text.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the list should end there. Wouldn't it make more sense to list the start date of the 20 Baktuns? Cjllw, what is the ambiguity about writing the dates? The section "Inscriptions beyond 2012" states that October 21, 4772 would be written as 1.0.0.0.0.8. Hence wouldn't the count of Baktuns go to 20 just like the Tuns and Katuns? 128.135.40.62, 13 January 2009

possible typos in dates?

Hi, just passing by reading up on this fascinating subject. However, I've found a few small things I don't quite get, and due to the remote possibility that the reason could be some sort of typo (rather than me not knowing some pertinent fact) I thought I'd mention it here. They are all in the last paragraph, on the higher orders.

The inscription on Quirigua stela F, or 6, shows a Long Count date of 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip (March 15, 761 Gregorian). The huge distance date of 1.8.13.0.9.16.10.0.0 is subtracted and the resulting date is given as (18.)13.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 1 Ahau 13 Yaxkin, which is equivalent to a day over 90 million years in the past.

Should the distance date actually begin "1.8" and the resulting date "(18)"? If my understanding of the principles at hand is correct (which of course need not be the case), both probably ought to begin with the same numeral(s).

However, there is another distance date on Quirigua Stela D or 4, that gives a date of 9.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop (February 17, 766 Gregorian), to which is added 6.8.13.0.9.16.15.0.0, to give a date of (13.)13.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.

Here, on the other hand, I am at a complete loss. This doesn't work out at all - 9.16.15.0.0 + 6.8.13.0.9.16.15.0.0 should be 6.8.13.0.18.13.10.0.0. Of course, since the last five numbers of the latter date are the same as the former date, perhaps they are simply misread? On the other hand, to get the given end result the distance date would have to be 13.12.19.19.10.3.5.0.0, so there probably is something else involved, perhaps related to my last question:

It was by calculating a number of these distance dates that Eric Thompson was able to determine that the date of creation in 3114 BCE – 13.0.0.0.0 was actually 0.1.13.0.0.0.0.0.0 in the extended version.

Huh? Where did the zeros at the end come from? 0.0.0.1.13.0.0.0.0, I would have understood, but this? Or is there some other reason that the numeral 13 reappears, but in another place?

Well, that's all. Keep up the good work, folks!--213.112.238.107 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar using CE and BCE

Slightly hypocritic? I mean, using one or the other (terms, not calendars, seeing they're the same) seperately would be meritable, but using them together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.153.3 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not really; there is no conflict here. Both BCE/CE and BC/AD are merely alternative numbering or notational conventions, and neither one is exclusively associated with the Gregorian calendar. Both can be applied equally to the Julian or Gregorian calendar systems. It is particularly appropriate in this article to specify whether the correlated dates between Long Count and western ones are given in the Julian or Gregorian system. That's nothing to do with whether CE or AD are used; BC/AD is not synonymous with the gregorian calendar, and neither is BCE/CE antonymous.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Western calendar talk moved out of lead

By the way, I pulled the alternative date calculations out of the lead paragraphs and put them into a footnote. Goodness knows this material is complicated enough without throwing terms like "proleptic", "Gregorian", "Julian", and "astronomical year numbering" at the reader the first thing. As WP:LEAD says, we need to "provide an accessible overview" and discussion of Western calendars and correlations can better be addressed later in the article. Thanks, Madman (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we don't need to cram the lead with 'technical' terms if it's all explained in detail later in the article. But equally, what correlation is used and what calendar system it is being compared with are important points, which left unspecified have been causes for confusion and error, even in some of the published Mayanist literature. I think at a minimum, the lead could stand mentioning that the correlated "start date" is a Gregorian date, & that the correlation is based on one worked out by Mayanist researchers. Other niceties could stay in a footnote, and the detail be expanded in an immediately following section, or one near enough to the top anyway. What d'you think?--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum, the date must be stated to be "Gregorian", because such a date is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Calendars, which requires that all dates before 1582 be in the Julian calendar. The correlation being used is far too important for a footnote, and it must be mentioned before any Long Count date is converted into a Western calendar. I suggest the required information be included in the Long Count periods section which already includes most of the information formerly in the lead. — Joe Kress (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate your suggestions. Please let me know what you think.

I don't focus a lot on the actual starting date of the Long Count as calculated/correlated into the Gregorian calendar because it doesn't really mean anything. To anyone but a committed Mayanist, it doesn't make any difference whether it's August 11, 3114 or August 13 or 3111 BCE, etc. At this distance, it just doesn't make any difference. Madman (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks madman. I tweaked it a little more, open to other suggestions as to what needs highlighting in the opening couple of sentences. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 section

"Ernst Forstemann, who is understood to have discovered for the modern world the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar". This is wrong. The Long Count was known to post-conquest authors such as Diego de Landa. De Landa and other authors noted Julian dates when Long Count dates occurred and these are the basis for the derivation of the GMT correlation so Mardyks' assertion that Forstemann discovered the Long Count is off by about 400 years. Furthermore the assertion is un-attributed, original research and weasel words.

Personally I would like to see the size of this section greatly reduced. Anyone who reads the article will see that the Long Count does not end on 13.0.0.0.0. It's getting to the point where this section duplicates the material in the 2012 hoax article. That's the proper place for this information. I suggest that the text be eliminated in favor of: "Mis-interpretation of the Long Count calendar is the basis for the 2012 phenomenon" and maybe in some place "Obviously the Long Count does NOT end in 2012". Senor Cuete (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

13.0.0.0.0 or 0.0.0.0.0

Since the 2012 date would have been written as 13.0.0.0.0 by the ancient Mayans, and since the “creation date” (the beginning of the Mayan Calendar) was also written as 13.0.0.0.0, how should we write the 2012 date and the creation date? I think the creation date should be written as 0.0.0.0.0 since this makes more sense mathematically and doesn’t give us the peculiar case of having both August 11, 3114 BCE and December 21, 2012 using the same date. The less fodder we can give the 2012 fringe movement, the better.

The fact of the matter is that the Mayan long-form calendar stopped being used nearly a millennium ago and any speculation about how contemporary dates would be written is, well, original research unless we can find reliable secondary sources discussing the issue. We can speculate about how that ancients Mayans would have handled dates after December 21, 2012 if their calendar was still being used today, but it’s pure speculation: possibly 13.0.0.0.0, possibly 14.0.0.0.0.0, possibly 1.0.0.0.0.0, possibly something else. Samboy (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, The 3114BC date is written as 0.0.0.0.0 but is noted to be actually written as 13.0.0.0.0 in a footnote wherever the 0.0.0.0.0 notation is used in this article. Samboy (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Samboy: you are wrong. The current world did start on 13.0.0.0.0. Yes, it makes more sense mathematically to call it 0.0.0.0.0 but that's not how the Maya did it. If the 2012ers need a rectal crainiectomy that's their problem. Yes, we DO know how dates after the start of the 13th Baktun are written, from the study of distance numbers. This is covered in the Mayan Long Count Calendar article. There are 20 Baktuns in a Piktun. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

No, the article does not explain how dates were written with distance numbers. The article explains there were distance numbers, but doesn't discuss exactly how the dates were written. Perhaps you can add this information to the article. Samboy (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see you have reverted this article twice in the last two days: [1] and [2]. In addition, you are violating the WP:NPA policy by placing personal insults in edit summaries, such as you have done here and here. Unfortunately, it looks like you are developing a pattern of edit warring, so I am going to have to report your behavior. If this type of behavior will continue, it would become necessary to temporarily block your editing privileges. I see you're a fairly new editor, with under 500 edits, and have a lot to contribute to the Wikipedia, but you need to assume good faith with other editors. Samboy (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You added original research to an article and it was removed. Telling you that the information was wrong was a statement of fact and it was discussed on this talk page. This is NOT a personal attack against you. The second one was not a personal attack either, since the edit was not done by füls, et. al. The füls/fools edit title was a pun, one of the most basic types of joke. Where's your sense of humor? The 13 vs. 0 issue has been discussed at length on this talk page but it has been archived and unfortunately you didn't read it. This issue was resolved in favor of the present content long ago. Also see my talk page. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I’ve responded to your concerns on your talk page. Samboy (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Long Count abandoned before conquest

According to the Joe's editing title: "recover correct note. Landa stated that a Katun 13 Ahau ended during the Conquest, GMT proposed this was 11.16.0.0.0. This should be expanded in correlation section." 11.16.0.0.0 is equivalent to November 2, 1539, Julian. In addition The Chronicle of Oxcutzcab states that a tun ended on 13 Ahau 8 Xul in the year 1539 (Teeple 1930:101). This would have been Sunday, November 2, Julian. The Conquest ended on August 13, 1521 so both of these were definitely post-conquest. In addition the Maya didn't live in South America as claimed in the text. The Mexicans weren't using the Long Count so this could be where the confusion arises. These and other post-conquest cross-references were used to derive a correlation between the Maya and Julian calendars. The footnote links this statement to Michael Finley's site. Usually he is a good source but in this case, if he says what you claim he is absolutely wrong. This text should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

OK, here’s the deal. The reference supporting the statement the long count calendar wasn’t in use when the Spanish came comes from here: [3] scroll down and it says “[The long count calendar] was no longer in use when the Spanish arrived”. So, here is how I understand the issue:

• Michael Finley looks to generally be a reliable source
• Said reliable source feels that the long count calendar was no longer in use when the Spanish arrived.

Wikipedia, as a general rule, doesn’t care what the truth is. Wikipedia only cares about what what can be verified using reliable sources. Michael Finey can very well be dead wrong here, but since he’s a reliable source, we need to find at least one other reliable source which contradicts him. Samboy (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I cited DeLanda's Relacion, the Chronicle of Oxcuzcab and Teeple. I guess that's not at least one reliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I didn’t see where any of these sources have been cited in this article. DeLanda’s Relación does look reasonably but not completely reliable; Google says there isn’t any mention of the “Chronicle of Oxcuzcab” anywhere in the Wikipedia, and “Teeple” is only briefly mentioned as one of the possible correlations between the Maya and modern calendar in this article. I’m sure these sources are reliable; if, for example, Relación says the Mayans were still using the calendar, it’s probably right (even though, yeah, it screwed up the Mayan alphabet). It’s just a matter of citing the relevant passages in one of these sources. Samboy (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, if the only information available isn’t in English, that’s OK as long as there isn’t an English source handy. Samboy (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comments: Maya Hieroglyphic Writing by J. Eric S. Thompson devotes a chapter to this subject. The date of the conquest is from A True History of the Conquest of New spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo. There is an article about John E. Teeple in Wikipedia.

How would I cite these sources in a paragraph of text that I propose to remove?

Cite them here on the talk page so people know not to put this mistaken information in the Wikipedia article; we can simply point to the discussion if anyone tries to do so. Samboy (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Using your rule about reliable sources, I guess I would have to accept the fact that Yucatan is in South America because Finley says so, or maybe someone that has it wrong not a reliable source. This is also a the problem with using Linda Schele as a reliable source. She was a brilliant epigrapher but wrote poorly about the Maya calendar. There's room to argue about who is or isn't a reliable source because they are, as you mention, not completely reliable.

If Finley claims the Yucatan is in South America, we should take everything he says with a grain of salt. Samboy (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

De Landa didn't "screw up the Mayan alphabet". If it were not for his chart of glyphs and their respective phonemes it is very unlikely that Maya writing would ever have been deciphered. There is a wonderful book about this, Breaking the Maya Code by Michael Coe. You would really like it. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I inadvertently ignored "South America"—that is obviously wrong. Finley never refers to South America—that error was made by the Wikipedia editor who added the note. The Yucatan peninsula is more appropriate because the conquest of the Aztec empire in 1521 is not directly related to the Maya. Furthermore, Landa stated that katun 11 Ahau began when the Spanish arrived in Merida in 1541, so this is the relevant "conquest". Because the Spanish actually arrived in Merida toward the end of 1540 and Landa refers to the first year (not tun) of the katun, Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) regard the end of the preceding katun 13 Ahau to have occurred sometime between the latter part of 1539 and the latter part of 1540. Finley stated: "Long count names: The last initial series was recorded at Tonina, on 10.4.0.0.0 (20 Jan 909 AD). Since it was no longer in use when the Spanish arrived, we are uncertain about some LC terminology." Finley states that the "initial series" (Initial Series glyph plus Long Count plus Calendar Round date) was no longer in use, although he focuses on its Long Count names (terminology). I do not regard an unnumbered katun ending as a part of the Classic Long Count. Similarly, an unnumbered tun is not a Classic Long Count tun. Both are crippled. Two online references for the "Correlation Question" are Thompson's 1935 article and the chapter in the 1950 edition of his book Maya Heiroglyphic Writing. — Joe Kress (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sword-Wielding Skeletons

Sometimes, experts in a given subject get frustrated when non-experts edit a Wikipedia article. This frustration was expressed in a Wired article, where someone feels the Wikipedia works like this:

For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

Although some frustrated experts may feel this way, this thankfully isn’t how the Wikipedia works. if some 12-year kid or what not tried adding sword-wielding skeletons to the Peloponnesian War article, the change would be promptly reverted. Other edits, whether experts or not, would point out that there isn’t a reliable source in the world which states anything about skeletons fighting the Peloponnesian War, and would probably block our imaginary Randy for disruptive editing should he continue to place unreferenced original research in the article.

The issue is this: We don’t think experts are scum. However, expert or no, it is up to the expert to demonstrate that something is wrong. For example, if some average Joe found a website stating, say, that the Egyptians fought in the Peloponnesian War, and added this information to the article citing the website stating this, the discussion would then revolve around whether the website in question was reliable, and whether other reliable sources support that assertion.

Just because experts know something is wrong isn’t enough. The experts also have to find reliable sources showing that such-and-such inaccurate fact is wrong. There is an excellent overview of this in WP:EXPERT. Samboy (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Theory on Correlation

As I am in no way competent to judge the validity of work in the field of Maya Studies or of Historical Astronomy, I want to draw the attention of somebody who is to this work, that I incidentally learned of today (2009-10-26), and that seems to be relevant to the correlation question. Wells, Bryan and Fuls, Andreas: "Correlating the Modern Western and Ancient Maya Calendars". ESRS (West) Monograph no. 5, Berlin 2000. Fuls has a web page at: www.archaeoastronomie.de/ He proposes a correlation of 660208. This is about 208 year after the GMT Correlation. I hope this helps you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.167.84 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss on Talk:2012_phenomenon#Andreas_Fuls_-_year_2208_in_stead_of_2012. Wiki-uk (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted to above:

Wooden lintels from doors at Tikal and other organic items that can be assigned to Long Count dates have been carbon dated and these agree with the GMT correlation to within the limits of the accuracy of the dating process, a few years. This confirms the GMT correlation and casts grave doubt on correlations that are not close to the GMT. In addition, one of the correlated dates that is used to derive the GMT is the conquest of the Aztec empire. This occurred on August 13th, 1521. The Tzok'in was one snake. A correlation could not be correct unless it differs from the GMT by a multiple of 260 days. This is not true of the correlation of 660,208 days proposed by Fuls, et. al. The date of the conquest would fall on 9 Ajaw. Many hierophanies have been proposed by attempting to use astronomy programs but the methods used by ancient astronomers were not accurate enough to use their data to get dates that accurately record astronomical phenomena to test these hypotheses. A very large number of correlation constants has been proposed by many authors but there is very little doubt that the correct one is the GMT. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

More criticism of Fuls, et. al.: Fuls' chart at: http://www.archaeoastronomie.de/mayaeng/corrtabl.htm has a glaring error. It uses 584,285 as the GMT correlation. THIS IS NOT THE GMT CORRELATION. The GMT correlation is 584,283 days. If fuls didn't know the GMT correlation and analyze it then his work is useless in selecting a better constant then the GMT.

Fuls' note on Moon age says "The Moon age was counted by the Maya as given on various inscriptions (using glyph D and/or E). Ethnohistorical sources and the analysis of the Eclipse Table working for Solar eclipses at New Moon leads to assumption, that the Moon age count started at New Moon or one day later at the first visibility of the Moon." Using the wrong correlation constant and this methodology, Fuls finds that the (not really the) "GMT" correlation doesn't agree well with classical inscriptions. Thanks to Copernicus we know that the Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth. For this reason modern astronomers (including Fuls) refer to the conjunction of the Sun and Moon (the time when the Sun and Moon have the same right ascension) as the New Moon. This is wrong. The New Moon is the first evening when one can look to the west after sunset and see the thin crescent Moon. Even today it can be difficult to predict this and it's important because for example the Feast of Ramadan starts on the New Moon. Given our modern ability to know exactly where to look, when the crescent Moon is favorably located, from an excellent site, on rare occasions observers can see and photograph the crescent Moon less than one day after conjunction. Generally, most observers won't see the New Moon until the first evening when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5. If one bases his lunar calculations on the rule that the New Moon is the first day when the lunar phase day is at least 1.5 at six in the evening in time zone -6 (the time zone of the Maya area), the GMT correlation agrees very well with classic inscriptions, for example: An inscription at the Temple of the Sun at Palenque records that on Long Count 9.16.4.10.8 there were 26 lunar days completed in a 30 day lunation. If Fuls didn't know the correct definition of the New Moon, his analysis is worthless.

A lot of correlations between the Calendar Round and Julian calendar are known from post-classic sources. A Tzolk'in is known for the fall of Tenochtitlan. A number of modern groups in the Guatemalan highlands have been found to be keeping the Tzolk'in to this day. All of these are consistent with each other and with the GMT correlation. Any proposed correlation that does not differ from the GMT correlation by a multiple of 260 days is at odds with the historical record.

Please do not edit the article to reflect this very dubious analysis by Fuls. If someone wants to add the Fuls correlation to the chart of suggested correlation constants, OK. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Claims of a translation error

Supposedly in the November issue of the journal Nature Science & Technology it is stated the Mayan calendar years originally reported are inreality translation errors and the actually years are nearly 200 years of (ie 2012 is really 2208). Does anyone have any English reliable sources that tell us what the "correct" Gregorian dates are?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can propose a new correlation constant but this doesn't make them correct or a reliable source. Is this, by any chance an article by Füls, et. al? They analyzed the astrological content of inscriptions and proposed a new correlation constant based on finding one that matched up better than the GMT based on their (dubious in my opinion) methods. If you want I can tell you why they are wrong at length. The story of the derivation of the GMT Correlation and its supporting evidence is a long one - too long for this talk page and too long for inclusion in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I Googled "Nature Science & Technology journal" and didn't find it. Here is a link to Fuls et. al,'s analysis: http://www.archaeoastronomie.de/mayaeng/corrtabl.htm Senor Cuete (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nature Science & Technology is the translated name of the Dutch journal Natuurwetenschap & techniek. The Dutch article is at [4]. An English translation using Google translate is at [5]. It is indeed the correlation by Andreas Fuls also discussed above at Another Theory on Correlation. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. “Cuete”. It doesn’t matter whether you think Fuls is wrong or not. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals and therefore belongs in the Wikipedia article. It can be shown to not be the mainstream viewpoint if you can show significant other reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, etc.) disagreeing with him. The Wikipedia is about showing what reliable sources say about a subject; the Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Mr. “Cuete”'s (or anyone elses) version of The Truth. Samboy (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Symptomatic of the correlation problem

It is examplified in a section that is quite convincing about the GMT correlation that the fall of the Aztec empire "occurred on August 13, 1521". But is this date Julian or Gregorian? --Xact (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously is was Julian because the Gregorian calendar wasn't invented until 1582. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Calculating a full Long Count date

The Calendar Round is not really part of the Long Count. There are separate articles about the Calendar Round and the Tzolk'in and Haab'. Shouldn't the article just describe these briefly and refer the reader to the other articles? Senor Cuete (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I don't see how Calendar Round dates can be removed from this article because they are part of the initial series (inital series glyph, Long Count, and Calendar Round) on most stellae. The sections of this article which calculate the Tzolk'in and Haab' from the Long Count also seem appropriate here. Conversely, such calculations would not be appropriate within their individual articles. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well taken since these calculations are done based on using a number of days elapsed in the Long Count and modular arithmetic. If it is important to include these calculations in Wikipedia they would have to be here. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Alternative correlations for the Long Count

There are many, many alternative correlation constants. Since astronomy software became common, astronomers have had a lot of fun finding correlations that match the astronomical data in the Dresden Codex. Examples of these include: Fuls, et. al. http://www.archaeoastronomie.de/mayaeng/corrtabl.htm

Bohm and Bohm: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4xlTq4LV8JMJ:www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/maya/boehm/korelaceangl.doc+Böhm+Correlation&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Lounsbury: http://www.alignment2012.com/fap3.html

There are many others such as this: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2008-04/msg00085.html

There are probably about 50 of these that have been proposed. The correlation question is too complex to be included in the Long Count article and should have its own article. The author that added this section has expressed his opinion that these two correlations are credible. I doubt that these are any more credible that many other proposed correlations and at best, this is just one author's opinion. Correlations are stated as a correlation constant which is an integer that is the Julian day number of the long Count starting date. I don't understand how the correlations in this section can be understood because they give a Long Count that is correlated to what??? Computer programs that can be used to study correlations use a correlation constant so these are useless for computer analysis. In any case, the table of proposed correlations in the preceding section demonstrates that there have been many proposed correlations. I would like to see this section eliminated or revised to generally state that many authors, particularly astronomers have proposed a large number of other correlations. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Here is a good list of alternative correlation constants: http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/correl13.htm If anyone wants to expand the table this could be helpful. Unfortunately this is on the site of Antoon Leon Vollemaere: http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/forgtgtm.htm who is certainly a fringe researcher and and not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Certainly it would be a bad idea to link to his site. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Senor cuete

Editing

Someone has tampered with the intro of the article, please change it. Jaundiced Zippo (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Julian / Gregorian dates

The Julian calendar was in use before October 15, 1582. The standard way of writing dates in every field including history, astronomy and in Wikipedia articles is to use Julian/Gregorian dating. Since the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar is only used by Mayanists for Maya calendar dates, it is important to provide western calendar dates that use the standard dating system and to state which system is used on dates before 1582. This helps to avoid confusion. This has been discussed at length here and on the discussion pages of the Maya calendar article but the discussion has been archived. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The standard for dates in Wikipedia is given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Calendars It reads: "Dates before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar on 15 October 1582 are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar..." Senor Cuete (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thanks for clarification. In my view, a revisionist/ proleptic Julian dating (there was no Julian calendar in 3114 BC in Mesoamerica or elsewhere) that is not used by the scientific community in question is not much use - but it shouldn't do much harm as long as the accepted usage of Maya scholars is presented as well. Both are, of course, arbitrary conventions. --16:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.62.151 (talk)

Proleptic Julian dates are the standard for dates before the Julian calendar. Astronomers use astronomical dating for negative years. In astronomical dating there is a year zero and negative years have a minus sign, so 3114 BC is the same as -3113. This was explained in the Maya calendar and Long Count articles but editors removed it because they thought it was confusing. The explanation included a caution about using the proleptic Gregorian calendar for checking the astronomical content of mayan inscriptions and studying the correlation question. In my opinion it is more confusing now without the explanation of how these calendars work and which one is used in the article. The fact that many mayanists use their own historically inaccurate, revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion and will continue to do so. Until they abandon it, it will be necessary to be clear about what calendar is used in converting dates to/from the Maya calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

IP Vandalism by 24.109.48.71

This user, identified only by an IP address of 24.109.48.71 has vandalized the Correlations between Western calendars and the Long Count section three times in the same way. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.109.48.71

I am not an administrator so I can't ban him from posting but I think a warning from one would be in order if not a ban. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I do not consider this vandalism, but a difference of opinon. He obviously believes Maya astrologers who state that the Long Count will end in 2012, so he considers any entries beyond 2012 to be erroneous. He probably ignores the citation given. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Long Count

I'm wondering a little bit, why Position 6 in this List (La Majorra) is showing the Date July 14, 156 with the LC-Digits: 8.5.16.9.7, followed by an elder Date (Position 7, La Majorra) with May 22, 143 and the LC-Digits 8.5.3.3.5 -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 23:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Those two are out of order in the chart. If that's a problem they could be reversed. Also the dates should be Sunday, May 20, 143 and Sunday July 12, 156 if one converts them using the GMT correlation and the Julian/Gregorian calendar which is the standard one for Wikipedia. Obviously the author converted them using the Thompson (Lounsbury) 584,285 day correlation which according to the article is wrong. This should be corrected. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I checked these using a computer program. The first three are two days later than what I calculate. The fourth and fifth are the same and the sixth, seventh and eighth are two days later than what I calculate. I don't think that this would be explained by use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar since they don't seem to encompass a Gregorian leap century. No source for these date conversions is given. perhaps they are wrong. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

This section was added by Madman2001 on 18 February 2007 "based on Aug 13". Madman2001 changed that to Aug 11 the next day without changing any Gregorian or Long Count date. The current version is virtually identical to the latter. These eight Long Counts (with only one other "reading") appear in Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon (Chapter 6) by Vincent H. Malmström with the given Gregorian dates except for the second where Malmström's 5 is 3 and the fourth where his 22 is 20. These may be typos by Madman2001. Malmström states that he uses a correlation of 584285, but his first three use 584287 while the last five use 584286 (his wording implies that 10 December 36 BC was due to Gareth Lowe). I used Calendrica (584283) when checking these dates. I recommend that Malmström be cited as the source but that all Gregorian dates should use the article's standard 584283, possibly noting that change. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

first of all: thank you both for your fast response to my Question. But I'm not able to "calculate" or "correlate" something, because I don't know too much about it; also my english is very bad so I did understood only the half of your answers (my mistake). The reason why I had this question was not directly, because the Dates are maybe wrong (something I cannot prove), but because they were a difference to the form of the list. All other dates are ascending (is this word correct?) - every next date is younger than the one before and this two dates fall out of this system. If I found by surprise a mistake anyway - good. Thanks again and please forgive me my bad english -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 10:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hartmann: I agree with Senor Cuete that the dates should be in ascending order, even though Malmström did not strictly follow that policy during his discussion. I also apologize for using too much jargon, but felt it was necessary on this talk page to keep my response reasonably short and because I was responding to Senor Cuete who knows that jargon quite well. Other editors reading this talk page should read the article for an explanation of that jargon—if the article does not explain it sufficiently, it needs more editing. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe: no problem I see that you both are involved in a interessting debatte so I read sometime here on this side and try to understand as much as I can. It is ok to me because it looks like, this debatte was necessecary :-)) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe: Once again Malmström proves to be an unreliable source. I agree that he should be cited as the source for the table. It should probably say something like "after Malmström (date)" but the dates should be corrected. Since the Julian calendar is the standard for dates before 1582 in Wikipedia, I advocate using them and saying so in the table header. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Joe: I have used Calendrica before but this time when I clicked on your links in Camino it reported an error: java applet failed to load. I tried it in Safari and it reports an error as well: Java Plug-in 1.5.0_24 Using JRE version 1.5.0_24-b02-357-9M3165 Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM User home directory = /Users/my name Safari is probably the most standards compliant browser. Have they made Calendrica IE only or something? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Ceute

I don't agree that Maya dates should be converted to Julian calendar dates in this article. Because the vast majority of sources use the Gregorian calendar, such as Malmström did here or Freidel, Schele & Parker did in their list of baktuns since the epoch of the Long Count, this article should also use Gregorian dates as its standard. WP:MOSNUM#Calendars states "The dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote." Of course all of these dates should be flagged as Gregorian because they differ from the standard for historical dates used in virtually all other fields.

I have also had problems with Calendrica. Even though I usually use IE, Calendrica refuses to open if the computer was only hibernated or placed on standby since the browser window containing Calendrica was last closed—the computer must be turned off or restarted before Calendrica can be reopened. Not even this worked for several months until I installed an updated version of Java. I just opened Calendrica in Firefox without any problems. I do not have Camino or Safari installed. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems acceptable to correct the table as you have discussed. I don't consider Schele & Freidel to be a reliable source since they used the Thompson correlation and the proleptic Gregorian calendar. I would like to move articles about the Maya calendar to the standard calendar to avoid the inevitable confusion caused by the use of the non-standard one but I realize that I don't own the article. I can't correct the dates because I have no software or algorithms to convert Julian day numbers to the proleptic Gregorian calendar. My Maya calendar program doesn't support it and my astronomical algorithms books don't even acknowledge its existence. Perhaps you should make the edit. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Using different conventions like the Gregorian calendar or another correlation does not make a source unreliable. That would eliminate the vast majority of Maya literature! Unreliable means its facts are wrong. But all sources have some errors, so I would only classify a source as unreliable if a significant percentage of its facts are wrong (what percentage is significant is subjective). An alternative to Calendrica is the Fourmilab calendar converter which also interconverts multiple calendars, including Gregorian, Julian, Maya and Julian day numbers. Its Long Count uses a correlation of 584283 (actually 584282.5 because all its dates begin at midnight), but its Julian calendar uses a minus sign to indicate a BC year, without a year 0, thus the year before Julian year 1 is −1 (its Gregorian calendar does use a year 0). Unfortunately, it requires a lot of scrolling after entering a date in one calendar and clicking Calculate to see the corresponding date in another calendar. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Joe: This version of the table eliminates the typos made in copying Malmström's article and puts the Long Counts in order. The dates are Julian because I can't convert them to the proleptic Gregorian calendar:

Archaeological site	Name	Julian date GMT (584283) correlation	Long Count	Location
Chiapa de Corzo	Stela 2	December 8, 36 BCE	7.16.3.2.13	Chiapas, Mexico
Tres Zapotes	Stela C	September 3, 32 BCE	7.16.6.16.18	Veracruz, Mexico
El Baúl	Stela 1	March 4, 37 CE	7.19.15.7.12	Guatemala
Abaj Takalik	Stela 5	May 20, 103 CE	8.3.2.10.15	"
"	"	June 4, 126 CE	8.4.5.17.11	"
"	"	May 20, 143 CE	8.5.3.3.5	"
La Mojarra	Stela 1	July 12, 156 CE	8.5.16.9.7	Veracruz, Mexico
Near La Mojarra	Tuxtla Statuette	March 13, 162 CE	8.6.2.4.17	"

Senor Cuete (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

All columns in your table except "Julian date" match the corresponding columns in the article, including the Long Count column. For converting a Julian date to the corresponding Gregorian date see Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. Applying the listed differences results in the Gregorian date already given in the article, so no change in that table is needed. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

hi there again. There is something new what I don't understand. Here in the list: dated to May 143 (Stela 5/Abaj Takalik) and July 156 (Stela 1/La Mojarra) relate to different Stelas. If I go to La Mojarra Stela 1 than both dates "correspondend" with the Mojarra. My engish is really not so good and maybe I misunderstand something but it looks like there is a discrepancy in the facts - or? -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! That is my fault. When I swapped 143 and 156 I did not realize both were in La Mojarra as both the previous table in this article and Malmström stated. I'm correcting the table. Hopefully nothing else is wrong. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you Joe for your response. I will tell if I find something new :-) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 01:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

help for 2012 phenomenon

Since 2012 phenomenon is the main article for the section "2012 and the Long Count", it should have all its information, but it currently does not. Since I am not quite confident to fiddle with this article's referencing system, I was wondering if whoever wrote that section would be kind enough to transfer its info over to 2012 phenomenon. Serendi^podous 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did it myself. Serendi^podous 08:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs to include the fact that the Mayans used a year 0 in their calendar, whereas the Gregorian calendar (The standard in the U.S. another countries) listed 2012 as the doomsday, even though with a year 0 makes it 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.195.7.14 (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mayan date correllation with Young Earth Theory

I just stumbled upon this subject because it was in the "This date in history" section. After reading that "August 11, 3114 BCE marks the Creation of the world of human beings according to the Maya", I couldn't help but notice that this date corresponds closely to adherants of the Young Earth Theory. (The belief among mostly fundamentalists christians that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old) However, I didn't see anything about that in the article. Surely, I'm not the first to notcie this. Is there any information on the correllation between these two topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Br tigerfan (talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are partially correct. The answer lies in Septuagint dates and pagan timelines. 3114bc is not creation of Adam but creation of world by the Flood. In fact comparable years are Hippolytus 5500bc Adam with 3258bc Flood, Africanus 5500bc Adam with 3238bc Flood both use Babylon as year 3600 in 1900bc; then Moslem 5378bc Adam with 3122bc Flood; Mayan 5370bc Adam with 3114bc Flood, Egyptian LXX 5346bc Adam with 3090bc Flood; Japan 5316bc Adam with 3060bc Flood, Hindo 3102bc; Greek 2958bc; NeoBabylon 2947bc, etc. Every one of them is astronomy, the Mayan based on 1770bc as year 3600 for Hamurabi is also based on being 744 years 180 solar leap days before 2370bc (true Flood) because it is 744 years noted in 1626bc at the death of king Amizaduga. This article came up because i was seeking the 90 million year claim, and i came across the claim Pcal's date is 4000 years in future. This inspires me to find the true date because Pop 1 used to be Egyptian Tot 1 and like our world which keeps Julian with Gregorian, there are also Maya late in changing who will keep their old before changing to the new. Likewise, though 360-day calendar 0.1 (day Imix) is Noah's 1st month 21st day, the Mayan date 1.1 (20 days later) is 40 days of Noahs calendar. So both 360-day and 365-day had former original positions THAT WERE NOT 4000 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.102.3 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Is there any information on the correllation[sic] between these two topics?" No, they have nothing to do with each other. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Usher. Please read the whole Long Count article. I predict that if you edit the article to mention young earth creationism that your edit will be reverted in approximately one nano-second. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I had no intention of editing the article. Why would you assume that? Also, I did read the whole article and the date just reminded me of an article I read on Young Earth Theory. I read Wikipedia every day, but this was the first time I ever wrote anything in the discussion page. Is everyone usually this rude in the discussion section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.112.99 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 August 2010

Is everyone this rude? Well, there's the Rude Man of Wessex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_giant Senor Cuete (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Why s the long count correlation to the Gregorian calendar,based on only ONE source and that it has been criticized as possibly being incorrect (http://www.independent.com/news/2010/oct/05/2012-prophecy-mayan-calendar-correlation-questione/) Being stated as fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhrico (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What b'ak'tun represents the present day?

The article states that the last creation ended with the beginning of the 14th b'ak'tun, but that the present creation will end with start of the fourteenth b'ak'tun... I'm gonna change that last one to 15th to provide some consistency, but please revert if I'm overlooking something. Can't seem to find a source to answer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.165.43 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article actually states: that the last creation was completed on 13.0.0.0.0 and that this was the start of the first b'akt'un, the current creation won't end on the completion of the 13th b'ak'tun. Based on inscriptions with distance numbers there are 20 b'akt'uns in a pictun. This pictun won't be completed until 4772. There's no mayan doomsday prophesy that says when this creation will end. Long Count periods are numbered starting at zero not one so the current b'akt'un, 12, is the thirteenth b'aktun. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Piktuns and higher orders = Two Errors?

"It is a matter of dispute whether the first piktun occurs after 13 or after 20 b'ak'tun[sic]." As noted in this section of the article inscriptions using distance numbers use 20 bak'tuns. Where is the evidence that there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun? I don't think it's a matter of dispute, there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun.

According to Thompson, who gives examples of this, both distance numbers and Long Reckonings in the Dresden codex are based on a creation date of ...13.13.0.0.0.0. It looks to me like that actual creation date in the article is a typo (by me?) since it has to end in four zeros, not six. Would anyone object to my changing this? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete