Talk:Mesoamerican calendars

First calendar?

I've removed the following claim, which (although provided with a reference) is incorrect:

They are the first to have created a calendar. Alisau, Patricia (November 11, 1990). "Not just a pretty face". Business Mexico. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

While the provided source probably does say something along those lines, an article in Business Mexico is not an authorative source for this kind of information. Just when the Mesoamerican calendar system was first developed is not known, but the earliest-known examples date from around the (mid-) 1st millennium BCE; a number of other calendar systems (eg Egyptian calendar, Babylonian calendar) are attested at least a thousand years before this.--cjllw | TALK 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mesoamerican Calendars

(copie from user:talk pages) You reverted my edit to Mesoamerican Calendars. This article is pretty bad and repeats information in the other articles about the Maya calendar, Long Count Calendar, etc. Also it repeats information in the same article. You comment that there's "no need to correct something that isn't wrong". If you want to use the phonetic spelling of "coatl" as "cohuatl" that's OK but it's not pronounced that way in the areas of Mexico where I've been and listened to Nahuatl, such as Cuetzalan, Puebla or in literature about the Mexicans, place names, etc. As for the addition of the zero date of the Mesomerican calendars in Julian, the Julian calendar was in use until 1582. It really is important to carefully state what calendar you are using when discussing the Mesoamerican calendar because astronomers, historians and in fact everyone except mayanists uses the historically accurate Julian calendar rather than the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is important because the study of the maya calendar is an interdisiplinary one which for example includes astronomy. The use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion for people studying the Mesoamerican calendars and obviously continues to do so today. In addition the paragraph entitled "52 year cycle" is absolutely wrong in its assertion that the calendar round wasn't wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. Furthermore the calendar was never reset for political purposes. An example of this is that the Aztec calendar Tonalpohualli is consistent with the Tzolk'in which was 1 Chicchan on the date of the conquest of the Aztec empire. The year given for the conquest in the article is a year bearer (starting date of the Haab'). This is the only aspect of the mesoamerican calendar that is inconsistent. There were several year bearer systems in post-classic civilizations. This whole paragraph should be removed. The Long Count IS a modified base 20 system because there are only 18 Winals, not 20.Senor Cuete (talk)Senor Cuete

You are right about the importance of distinguishing the julian/gregorian calendars and that the long count was a modified base 20 calendar. However you are not correct that cohuatl is a "phonetic" spelling cohuatl (or cōhuatl) is the spelling used by experts in the classical language because it is known to have a long vowel and an intermediate [w] - Launeys, Andrews' and Carochis grammars all write it this way. How it is pronounced in Cuetzalan or any other modern day Nahua communities is beside the point since this is about a precolumbian phenomenon that is only known in classical Nahuatl. You have made other modifications to the article which are incorrect and unhelpful. You have removed a paragraph stating that "The correlation of the 52 year day count cycle to the European calendar is problematic, mostly because the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. This means that one must know its origin and the specific correlation applicable for that place. Secondly it is made difficult by the possibility that the cycle might at times be "reset" for political purposes - for example if a ruler wanted to mark his rule as the beginning of a new dynasty.Often the best correlation can be made when both european and indigenous sources give a specific date. For example we know from Spanish sources that the day the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan fell was on august 13, 1521. Indigenous sources from central Mexico agree that this was a day Ce Cohuatl (1 Snake) in a year Eyi Calli (3 house)." This information comes from Alfonso Casos article in the Handbook of Middleamerican Indians, and is corroborated by any number of sources. If you believe that there was one single synchronized calendar in all of mesoamerica you are simply wrong. In the basin of Mexico alone different calendars were used - and the date called Ce Cohuatl in Tenochtitlan would have another name in for example Cuitlahuac. It is well documented that calendrical "resettings" were used as a political instrument in central Mexico where for example the New Fire Ceremony was moved out of sync at least one time in order to coincide with a major political event (it was moved from 1 rabbit to 2 reed in 1507 ) - and much suggest that it was the political powers who controlled the calendar to a wide degree. (see eg. Hassig 2001)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrews spells it cōātl actually. Really there's no reason to choose either spelling over the other, because the difference between oa and ohua only matters in verbs. --Ptcamn (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Andrews - I shoudln't quote him from memory anymore since I seem to be wrong everytime i do it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that at least as far as the Calendar Round in concerned, all of the people in Mesoamerica used the same system. I believe that this was studied by Munro Edmonson. You say that the new fire ceremony was moved at least once, in 1507. Supposedly the new fire occurred every 52 years. There are two cycles that occur every 52 years in Mesoamerican calendars. These are a calendar round completion and a year bearer and its coefficient.

A calendar round completion occurs when the calendar round is the same as it was on the first day of this creation: 4 Ahau 8 Kumku. This occurred on 11.11.19.10.0 - July 19, 1460 and 11.14.12.5.0 - July 6, 1512. Neither of these seems like a good candidate for your revision of the calendar.

There are four known systems of year bearers. These are the Tzolkin (Tonalpohualli) days that coincide with the starting day of the Haab (xiupohualli). In the Campeche system (the year bearer coincides with 1 Pop) rabbit could be a year bearer but there was no 1 rabbit year bearer in 1507. The year bearer for the Haab year was Lamat (rabbit) for the Haab year starting on 11.14.6.4.8 - 3 rabbit - July 26, 1506. Notice though that the coefficient was 3 not 1. The next rabbit year bearer was 7 rabbit - 11.14.10.5.8 - July 25, 1510 . The next 1 rabbit year bearer was on 11.15.10.10.8 - July 20, 1530 and the previous one was on 11.12.17.15.8 - August 22, 1478. There were two 1 rabbit Tzolkins in 1507: 11.14.6.13.8 1 rabbit - 1 Yax - January 22, 1507 and 11.14.7.8.8 1 rabbit 16 Zotz - October 9, 1507. I can't see any particular significance of why either of these would be the occasion of the new fire since they occur every 260 days. Also 2 reed occurs every 260 days. There was a 2 reed tzolkin in 1507: 11.14.7.0.13 2 Ben 6 Muan - May 7, 1507 but this is not a year bearer.

In the histories of the Conquest that I've read the Aztecs expected Quetzalcoatl to return on a 1 reed year. 1519 was not a 1 reed year. Reed can be a year bearer in the Campeche system but the 1 Reed year bearers occurred on 11.13.11.0.13 - July 30, 1491 and 11.16.3.13.13 - July 17, 1543. It seems then that the Aztecs must have revised the year bearer.

Perhaps you can shed some light on just what the aztecs were using as the date for the new fire and the reliable source for this. It must be in some post conquest codex. If you can research this it would improve this and the Aztec calendar articles. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Trecena

it is writen : "The 260-day period was divided into periods of 13 days called in Spanish a "trecena" (no indigenous word for this period is known). The days of a trecena were counted from 1-13 (except in the Tlapanec area where they were counted form 2-14). The first day of the trecena, and the god who was its patron, ruled the following thirteen days. If the first day of a trecena was auspicious then so were the next twelve days."

PLEASE : where is the source and the proof of the settlement "in the Tlapanec area where they were counted from 2-14" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.73.236 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Handbook of Middle American Indians article by Alfonso Caso. Pace Seler, Caso was the first to systematically study and compare calendars of mesoamerican peoples so I think he is reliable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tlapanec info is also given by Munro Edmonson, another Mesoamerican calendar scholar. He also notes the numeration in the system at Teotihuacan went from 2-14. Have added the cite, and also given the full citation reference to what (I presume) was intended for Caso 1971, as it seemed to be missing. Correct me if I'm mistaken. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras que con ocasión del nuevo empedrado que se está formando en la plaza principal de México, se hallaron en ella el año de 1790-1b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An illustration depicting an ancient Mexican calendar. The Maya and Aztec calendars are the most familiar of the Mexican calendars, but similar ones were used by other cultures. Common to all Mesoamerican cultures was the 260-day ritual calendar that had no confirmed correlation to astronomical or agricultural cycles. These were used in combination with a separate 365-day calendar to create a 52-year cycle known as a calendar round.Artist: A. de Leon y Gama; Restoration: Garrondo/Lise Broer

52 year cycle

The article says: "the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica." Munro Edminson studied this and came to the opposite conclusion. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar

The new illustration titled "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is stupid. It add nothing to the article, is redundant and it should go. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Correlations 52 year cycle

The citation needed tags in this section have been there since 2012, 2008 and 2013. Since nobody can provide a reliable source for these extremely dubious claims, this whole section should go. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aztec calendar

This article mostly describes the Aztec calendar. The 260 day calendar was universal but the Mexica altered their 365 day calendar sometime during the post classic period so it doesn't coincide with the Mayan Haab'. This is a pretty bad article. For example the correlation section is really wrong. 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by user: Eio-cos

These edits mostly cite Miller and Taube. In my opinion, Miller and Taube is a horrible source for articles about Mesoamerican culture. If it were up to me, It would be considered an unreliable source. Consider what it says about this in the Tlaltecuhtli article: "Miller and Taube provide an extensive bibliography but use no footnotes so it's impossible to know what sources identify Tlaltecuhtli as a female figure. They identify their main source for Aztec mythology as the Florentine codex however Book 1 of the codex, the Gods, does not include this god.[5] In order to be a reliable source a publication has to be a primary or secondary source. Since Miller and Taube does not refer to either of these, it does not qualify as a reliable source." There is more in the article as well. The article in Miller and Taube about the Mesoamerican calendars suffers from the same problems. In addition Miller and Taube give two dates in the Long Count and some western calendar (possibly the Proleptic Gregorian calendar) and neither one is correct. The Maya calendar, Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Aztec calendar articles are pretty good and cite much better sources than Miller and Taube. The Mesoamerican calendars article is pretty bad and needs a lot of work, but hopefully it can cite reliable sources, not Miller and Taube. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Senor Cuete, I didn't change anything in this article except making the intro shorter. So this matter has nothing to do with me. Good editing! Eio-cos (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)