Talk:Mesoamerican Long Count calendar/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

13.0.0.0.0 = August 13 (not Aug 11)

With newer researchs it seems 13.0.0.0.0 fits better to August 13, 3114 BCE (offset: 584285, first proclaimed by Lounsbury):

comparison of the various correlations (german)

so, next 13.0.0.0.0-date will be Dec 23 (midday), 2012. 109.250.51.57 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Lounsbury is *NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE* for this subject. Also this is not new "researchs", it's old news. Please read the section on correlating the Long Count with the western calendars carefully. Lounsbury's reason for advocating the Thompson correlation was that using only two of the heliacal risings of Venus in the Dresden codex, The Thompson correlation did a better job (by a very small fraction of a day) of agreeing with the data from a modern astronomy program. This is bogus for several reasons: If one uses all of these the GMT correlation does a better job of matching the data in the codex; These can only be observed within several days with the naked eye; There are other objections as well. Schele and Freidel did a real disservice to those who are interested in this subject by using the Thompson correlation in their books. I guess it's worth mentioning that these August dates use the proleptic Gregorian calendar, which is only in use by mayanists. 13.0.0.0.0 is equivalent to September 6, -3113 (3114 BC) using the mainstream proleptic Julian calendar. Please don't edit the article to use the Thompson correlation. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Senor Cuete

Also I forgot to mention that Lounsbury was aware of the fact that the Thompson correlation was contrary to all of the historical evidence. He assumed that the Long Count was corrected by two days some time during the post-classic period so it could agree with the historical evidence. There is of course exactly zero evidence for this. This was before it was discovered that the modern Maya in the Guatemalan highlands were using the Tzolk'in today and that their count agreed with the GMT correlation. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Pictun 4772

Re Pacal's '4772' inscription, the article states that 'The inscription notes that this day would fall eight days after the completion of the 1st piktun.' Are we sure that it is the inscription that states this, and not merely Schele and Freidel (1990) in their note 39 on page 430? The answer, clearly, is of importance for the '13 versus 20' debate. --PL (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the inscription that notes it, by any standard understanding of the calendar and inscriptions. There are many, many Maya date inscriptions that can have alternate readings due to eroded or broken inscriptions, but this isn't one of them. There are no alternate readings that make any sense, and there are no reputable Maya scholars that I know of that have ever proposed an alternate reading for this date. grr (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern use

According to Tedlock, who cites Miles, Not only do many modern Maya communities in Guatemala still use the calendar round but also the year bearers and hundreds of communities in Veracruz, Oaxaca and Chiapas do as well. I removed the text about only a few correlations can agree with the evidence about the Tzolk'in because I couldn't remember where I read that and find the citation and so I thought it was POV. Since hundreds of modern ethnic groups still keep the calendar round and year bearers and all of these agree with the GMT correlation it seems irrelevant anyway because there can be absolutely no doubt that the GMT correlation is correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

ISIG

Neither this article nor the Long Count article mentions the fact that Classic inscriptions are inscribed as rows of two glyphs in columns and that they are introduced by an Introductory Series Introductory Glyph that spans both columns. The illustrations don't show this. I would like to add this information and a description of the glyphs that make up an ISIG and the patron deity of the Haab' month that appears in the center. I am wondering where in the hierarchy of the article(s) this would go and if it would be useful to upload an illustration of a typical complete classic inscription to show this. I can't find a good one on Wikimedia. I'll put this in the talk of the Maya calendar article as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nonexistent "Syntax" Section

The first sentence of "Piktuns and higher orders" section has a link to a nonexistent "Syntax section... Q43 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Senor Cuete (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Future 13.0.0.0.0 dates

If the creation date was 13.0.0.0.0 and the following b'ak'tun is dated 1.0.0.0.0, then after the next 13.0.0.0.0 (12/21/2012), the b'ak'tun ending on 3/26/2407 should also be 1.0.0.0.0. Alternately, since we are told that there is 20 b'ak'tun to a pictun, then the first b'ak'tun after the creation date (11/13/2720 BCE) should be 14.0.0.0.0, and 12/21/2012 should be 1.6.0.0.0.0 or just 6.0.0.0.0. Otherwise, the Long Count to Gregorian date correlation table doesn't make sense. Kats8thLife (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, logically that SHOULD be the case but it isn't. The creation date is actually ...13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0. All known inscriptions use 20 Baktuns for future Long Counts. The table is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.247.48 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone help at the article on the tv series Ancient Aliens

See [1] - my concern is to ensure that the description is correct, not to argue the issue of ancient aliens as all this should do is describe the show/episode. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Calculating the Haab' date portion

The example given makes a lot of sense, but I think there is a mistake in calculating the numeric day.

1383120 / 365 = 3789 and (135/365)

The problem I see is with the 15 remainder days. (135 % 20 == 15).

The article says this gives you the 15th day of the month, 14 Yaxk'in.

But I think it gives the 16th day, which is 15 Yaxk'in, since that math yields 0 to 19, not 1 to 20. 0 is the first day, 0 day, the seating. 1 is the second day, etc.

This is a case where the 0 day actually helps. Maybe that's why it exists. :p

If I am correct, then there is another date in the article with the same problem. It says 9.8.9.13.0 is 8 Ajaw 13 Pop, but should be 14 Pop instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.85.14 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 14 Yaxk'in is the 15th day of the month Yaxk'in since zero is the first. the % operator is modulo which returns the remainder as zero -> 1 less than the number by which you divided. 9.8.9.13.0 is 8 Ajaw 13 Pop is correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I can concede that the conversion is correct, since I don't know any better yet. Maybe there is a problem in the explanation. I see it like this. The remainder is 0-364. It starts at 0. It's never 365. So if the remainder is 0 then I say that is 0 Pop and remainder 20 I consider 0 Wo'. If I count from 0 until remainder 135 (which is the 136th day, since 0 is the first), then I get 15 Yax'kin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.5.49 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I have verified the explanation is lacking. The problem I found goes away if I subtract another 1 from the days before calculating the remainder. So, the example becomes ( 1383120 - 1 ) / 365 = 3789 and (134/365), where the remainder is in the range 0-364, so 134 represents the 135th day, which is 14 Yax'kin. Or you can start by subtracting 17 instead of 16. Maybe this is needed because 0.0.0.0.0 is day number 1. (in math) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.5.49 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You can also look at this problem in other ways. For example, in the explanation, what happens when the remainder is 0? If, according to the explanation, a remainder of 15 means you are at 14 Yax'kin, then remainder 0 is what?. This dilemma is caused by the problem I am describing. The remainder is always 0-364. When it is 0 then you are on day 1. The day after remainder 364 you are in the next year. In this way a remainder of 15 does not represent the 15th day (14 Yax'kin), but the 16th day. So, the calculation when following the explanation is off by one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.85.14 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

NO! When the remainder is zero you are on the first day. The first day is zero not one because the days are numbered starting with zero - the Maya didn't count a day until it was completed. Day one means that the first day - zero - has been completed. You're severely confused. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The explanation says a remainder of 15 gives 14 Yax'kin. You cannot say a remainder of 15 means 14 Yax'kin and a remainder of 0 means 0 Yax'kin. Something has to be wrong in the explanation. The explanation is most obviously wrong when the remainder is 0. I fixed this problem in my own math by subtracting 17 instead of 16. In terms of math, (0 Pop) - (8 Kumk'u) is actually 17, effectively 25 - 8. Please consider these things. I am not as confused as you think. Working through the explanation using long counts 16 and 17 may be helpful in seeing the problem if you don't already.

Maybe you're correct. I didn't read it very carefully as you did because I understand it and I wrote the code to do it in C. Also I question the importance of having it in the article. If it's wrong, fix it. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I updated the section using 17 instead of 16 as the offset. 71.204.5.49 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is mathematically awkward. It's much simpler to calculate it as:

void TzolkinNumbers(int mDNum, int *tKNum, int *tKNameNum)

{

int a;

a = (mDNum + 159) % kTzolkinCycleDays;

if( a < 0)

a += kTzolkinCycleDays; //Makes it work with negative maya day numbers

*tKNum = (a % 13) + 1 ;

*tKNameNum = a % 20;

}

void HaabNumbers(int mDNum, int *haabNum, int *haabNameNum)

{

int a;

a = (mDNum + 348) % kHaabCycleDays;

if( a < 0)

a += kHaabCycleDays; //Make it work with negative maya day numbers

*haabNum = a % 20;

*haabNameNum = a / 20; /* int/int = int, the fraction discarded */

}

Where

% is the modulo operator

mDNum = days elapsed in the LongCount since 0.0.0.0.0 including negative Long Counts (i.e. Maya day number)

kTzolkinCycleDays = 260

kHaabCycleDays = 365

159 is added to mDNum to get the first day of the tzolk'in before 0.0.0.0.0 (Maya day number 0)

348 is added to mDNum to get the first day of the Haab' before 0.0.0.0.0 (Maya day number 0) Senor Cuete (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I assume the section is written for people who are not programmers and who are not dealing with long counts under 17. In other words, it is simplified since they are assumed to be performing a manual calculation. It's good to see 348 in your code though, since that is 365-17. 208.73.85.14 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The way it's written it's not simplified and it allows you to verify that the Tzolk'in and Haab' are correct for the example Long Count but doesn't provide a simple general algorithm for finding them for any Long Count. A clear English explanation of the code would be better than what's in the article. Making the calculation work for negative Long Counts is mandatory if one wants to consider distance inscriptions and long reckonings (which are described in the article). Personally I question the inclusion of this section in the article anyway. Where does one draw the line? If you think this is obtuse you should see the code for astronomical algorithms such as lunar phases. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete.

Reversion of edits by IP editor

15th should not be spelled. According to my books about English style one through nine are spelled and higher numbers are written as numbers.

"Higher orders" ARE NOT "COUNTED BY" 13s. This makes it sound like there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun, 13 piktuns in a kalabtun, etc. This is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Look at the examples of distance dates and long reckonings. They only work if there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun, 20 piktuns in a kalabtun, etc.

Discuss "improvements" on talk page. How do you propose to "improve" the section?

"Over detailed"? What do you propose to remove? Senor Cuete (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

actual date is not 2012-12-21

I heard somewhere that the actual date already passed, since the Long Count calendar didn't account for leap years. Probably a teacher. The article doesn't account for that. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You are misinformed. Read the article. The Long Count is a count of days since a creation date. It has no relationship to the solar year. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reasons for two edits

1. The addition of the extra line breaks broke the example of long reckonings.

2. A typical Long Count inscription does not appear in a vertical column as stated in the section and text I removed. The illustration is an example of an early Olmec Long Count. A classic Long Count is written in two columns preceded by a two column wide Initial Series Introductory Glyph. This is shown in the illustration of Quirigua Stela C and explained in its caption. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Proposal to move two illustrations

The illustration of La Mojarra Stela 1 and the illustration of Tres Zapotes Stela C are examples of the earliest known Long Counts in epi-Olmec script. They are not examples of Maya Long Counts. The illustration of Quirigua stela C is an excellent example with a good caption explaining the ISIG. I propose to move the two epi-Olmec inscriptions to the earliest Long Counts section. Really only one of them would be enough. Obviously this confused at least one editor. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to this change so I made it and also there were two sections that described calculating Long Counts so I removed the first one in favor of the second more complete one. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I moved one image to avoid excessive white space (temporarily). They could be combined into a gallery. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

New find at Xultan

See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6082/714

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/science/archaeologists-unearth-ancient-maya-calendar-writing.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=xultun-mayan-calendar

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120510-maya-2012-doomsday-calendar-end-of-world-science/

http://news.discovery.com/history/mayan-calendar-discovery-doomsday-120511.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-ancient-maya-calendar.html

http://artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=55294

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Team-with-Skidmore-archaeologist-makes-major-3549108.php

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0511/Mayan-calendar-discovery-suggests-world-might-not-end-in-2012

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0511/Oldest-Mayan-calendar-found-and-it-goes-way-beyond-Dec.-12-2012-video

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18018343

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ancient-mayan-workshop-for-1435307.html

http://spacewatchtower.blogspot.com/2012/05/ancient-mayan-workshop-for-astronomers.html

http://news.yahoo.com/earliest-mayan-calendar-shows-no-hint-world-end-185153809.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-guatemala-never-before-seen-mayan-artwork-is-discovered/2012/05/10/gIQAPic5FU_gallery.html Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This article - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141953.htm has a good description of what's really there. The links you have provided are great examples of the fact that the popular media generally get it wrong and sensationalize stories like this one. For example they say that this is the "Oldest 'Mayan' calendar". Senor Cuete (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Piktuns and higher orders section - last paragraph

The reference to the Yaxchilan temple stairway is wrong. There are many inscriptions that refer to the creation date as (a whole bunch of 13s).13.0.0.0.0 but in dates after the creation date all of these higher places are reset to zeros. 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.9.15.13.6.9 3 Muluc 17 Mac should refer to a date 3.4.6.11.11 before ...13.0.0.0.0. (Julian day number 121092 - Sunday July 14, - 4381), not a date in the current creation. However the calendar round should be 3 Muluk 2 Kumk'u. Since the Haab' is apparently incorrect the text is right that this doesn't agree with Thompson's calculations. If I've calculated this incorrectly please tell me. This also does not cite any references.

The text also seems to say that the creation date on Coba Stela one does not agree with Thompson's calculations, which is absolutely wrong. The creation date as a whole bunch of 13s.13.0.0.0.0 is right. It even says so earlier in this section. This cites Schele and Freidel who INTERPRETED these creation dates as indicating that there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun, 13 piktuns in a kalabtun, etc. but all Long Reckonings and distance inscriptions use 20. It would be very difficult to overstate Linda Schele's contributions to the understanding of Maya writing but the calendar sections in her books are wrong, using the Thompson correlation, etc. As a source for the Maya calendar, Schele and Freidel is not a reliable source.

Can anyone add a citation for the part about the Yaxchilan inscription? Can I eliminate the the text that says that the Coba stela doesn't agree with Thompson? Can I add a sentence to the start of the second paragraph that generally describes distance inscriptions? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Nobody objected to these changes so I edited the section. I eliminated the part about the Yaxchilan temple stairway because it's not referenced and may be incorrect. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

14 after 13 or 1 after 13 ??

Why?

after 13.0.0.0.0 August 11, 3114 BCE

comes 1.0.0.0.0 November 13, 2720 BCE

while

after 13.0.0.0.0 December 21, 2012

comes 14.0.0.0.0 March 26, 2407 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.177.9.54 (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All known references to the creation of the current world give it as a number of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. 13.0.0.0.0 functions as 0.0.0.0.0. There are 20 bak'tuns in a pictun so the next bak'tun after 13 is 14. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Not helpful

The new note added describing modern numbering systems is not helpful. Yes what you say is correct but this article is not about how modern numbering systems work. One must try not to over-write Wikipedia articles and in my opinion this is over-writing and not relevant to the subject of the long Count. For example you describe big-endian vs, little endian. I'm a programmer and even in writing code I ignore this. My old machine was risc and my new one is cisc. If I wrote code that depended on endianism it wouldn't be platform independent. Please describe how you think that you addition of the description of modern numbering systems improved the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

12.19.19.17.19 - Shouldn't this be 12.19.17.17.19?

If 0.0.1.0.0 is 360 decimal, as stated in the article, and 0.0.0.17.19 + 1 = 0.0.1.0.0, then wouldn't the highest possible number starting with a 12 be 12.19.17.17.19 (since it is also stated that the third digit from the right cannot be 18 or higher)?

Thus, references to 12.19.19.17.19 would be incorrect, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.208.19 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It used to say the second digit but the article was vandalized. I reverted it to the unvandalized version. The article is correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Julian Calendar

Senor Cuete, To which edition of Aveni do you refer? I refer to the 2001 Edition of 'Skywatchers' Texas p.138 where he writes without qualification that 'the next cyclic overturn will take place on December 8th 2012' without specifying Julian or Gregorian. I thought he meant 'Gregorian' and it took a little time before I found that he must have meant Julian. So to avoid anyone else being confused, and this article is currently getting a lot of interest, I added this. Moreover it may be rather interesting for those with an interest in Orthodoxy to note that the new cycle begins on the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mary. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have both the older "The Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico" and the rewrite "Skywatchers" but not at my desk right now. I'm extremely surprised that he would write that. If so it's almost certainly a typo. Everyone uses the Julian/Gregorian calendar for everything except for some mayanists who still use the foolish Proleptic Gregorian calendar. This has caused a huge amount of confusion. For this reason the authors of the Maya calendar articles have tried to state carefully weather dates are Gregorian or Julian so as not to confuse astronomers, historians, etc. There is absolutely no doubt that 13.0.0.0.0 occurs on 12/21/2012. You should consider reporting this to the publisher as errata and also see if there is a later edition with this corrected. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I looked at the earlier edition, it doesn't give a date for 2012 in the section on 'Long Count'. December 8th cannot be a typo, if it was another date in December other than 21st or 8th, I'd say yes. Aveni must be quoting the Julian calendar. I'd assume this is because he is thinking in terms of Julian Day numbers. Anyway because this confused me, and led to me considering cancelling a proposed trip on Friday to mark this event, I thought it might be helpful to some others to make this clarification. I well appreciate what you say elsewhere about not overwriting Wikipedia articles. (BTW this topic has given me an interest in such things as the Egyptian 365 day year and Julian Day numbering. Also I've spent the majority of in Russia where the Julian calendar is not such a strange concept.)Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Aveni must be quoting the Julian calendar" is speculation. How do you know? Did he say so? I assure you that he's NOT "thinking in Julian day numbers". Julian day numbers and the Julian calendar are not the same thing at all. Finally since your edit is not referenced I think it should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete - the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars at the present time is 13 days. I will put in a link to the Wikipedia article Julian calendar which contains the following "Thus, in the year 1700 the difference increased to 11 days after February 28 (Gregorian); in 1800, 12; and in 1900, 13. Since 2000 was a leap year according to both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, the difference of 13 days did not change in that year: 29 February 2000 (Gregorian) fell on 16 February 2000 (Julian). This difference will persist through the last day of February, 2100 (Gregorian), since 2100 is not a Gregorian leap year, but is a Julian leap year. Monday 1 March 2100 (Gregorian) falls on Monday 16 February 2100 (Julian)." I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that Aveni is is thinking in terms of the Julian Calendar, but as this is not quoted in the main article there's no point in getting bogged down over my use of 'must be'. Please note that my change has been supported by a senior editor. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthony is a faculty member at Colgate University and I thing he has a web site about his books as well. You can find his e-mail address either way and ask him about that page of his book. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

So can you, and we probably wouldn't get an answer before Friday. The point is that given what is written in his book some readers may find my edit helpful, because it offers an explanation which reassures them that this coming Friday is the correct date. I find there is already a link to the Wiki article on the Julian calendar, so I think putting in a further reference to give the 13 day difference next to my edit is superfluous. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I already have his E-mail address but I don't feel like bothering him because I hope that all the hoopla surrounding 2012 won't be as big of a hassle for him as it is here. If you and the Russians, Greeks, etc. Think it's important to give the date as Julian, OK as long as it's referenced. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

How do you propose referencing it? Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be worth pointing out the discrepancy to him, the book must have sold quite a few thousand copies and there must be a few people turning to it right now and reading this section. He might be glad to have it pointed out. I'd assume he was calculating the date by Julian day numbers, whether he intended to give it as Julian or not I don't know. However if you won't email him I will. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I emailed himSceptic1954 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course he calculated it using Julian day numbers. The way you convert a Long Count to a calendar date is to find the number of days elapsed in the Long Count. Then you add a correlation constant (a Julian day number of the start of the current creation). Then you convert this Julian day number to a calendar date using an algorithm like the method of Meeus. This will NOT result in a Julian calendar date. You seem quite confused about how Julian day numbers, etc. work. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

There seems little point in continuing this as my edit has been agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar

I think that the new illustration titled "Visualization of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is awful, adds nothing to the article and is redundant. It should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also it doesn't belong in the correlations section. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Mass reversion by Senor Cuete.

The edits you have reverted en masse are by three editors, I think you should revert them one by one explaining your reasons why each is unhelpful Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit to the lead which was an example of editorializing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be out until this afternoon and I'll be happy to discuss this later. Why not discuss your edits here before making them? Un-informed, mis-informed dis-informed editors are making so many unhelpful changes that I would have to sit here all day and revert them - hence my suggestion to mass revert all changes back to say a week ago and start again after the world doesn't end on the 20th. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I'm not aware of any stipulation that editors should discuss changes before making them, there is a guideline 'be bold'. Also I do not see how by making edits anyone is forcing you to stay at home. I don't accept your suggestion at all.Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I do however agree about this morning's edits to the lead, I can see that the title of the article is the Long Count and not the 2012 phenomenon. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I inadvertently reverted the Edit by ·ʍaunus because I had the page history loaded when he made the edit. Sorry ·ʍaunus, my mistake. ·ʍaunus: thanks for removing the "This Calendar is incorrectly thought..." text by User:Hridith Sudev Nambiar and Sceptic1954. Edits to Wikipedia should be encyclopedic and cite reliable sources, NOT "Some people think..." The math given in the text is redundant since it is discussed later in the article. There is already a section about the 2012 Mayan Doomsday prediction hoax see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#2012_and_the_Long_Count which has a link to the hoax so this is redundant. Sceptic1954: arguing against a Straw man does not contribute anything to the discussion about improving the article. Edit waring is also not helpful and can get you blocked. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Another small point: Days weren't counted in the Maya calendar until they were completed so 13.0.0.0.0 is actually the first day of the 14th bak'tun. If the world was going to end it would happen on 12.19.19.17.19. If we live until 13.0.0.0.0 we will already be in the next bak'tun. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Could you please understand that statement "the creation date is 0.0.0.0.0" is valid, if you consider that the notation is relative to the actual notation "....13.0.0.0.0"? So, please don`t revert my edits! Without my edits, the mass media still misunderstand the length of 1 Piktun is 13 B`ak`tun... UU (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

3O declined

3O Response: A third opinion was requested on this discussion, but more than 2 editors are already involved, so this is beyond the scope of 3O. If one or more of you still want outside opinions, I suggest you try RFC or DRN. —Darkwind (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

correlations and large numbers chart

The table with the various (e.g., " For the N correlation, to calculate the Gregorian date of X, add y to z" - ) would surely be appreciated. Kdammers (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a table, rather it would be a description of an algorithm and it seems unnecessary since there is only one valid correlation - the GMT. You can get an application that does this. Senor Cuete (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Something happened to my text. It should start, "An explanation of the table with the various proposed correlations...". This table with an inscrutable title beginning with "JDN" should be explained and/or an algorithm given on the page. Also, just because Mayanists are settled on one correlation doesn't mean there is no interest in others. Kdammers (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

JDN is a Julian day number. This is explained in the text of the section where is says that a correlation constant is a Julian day number of the starting date of this creation. Maybe linking the "JDN" in the table to the Julian day number article would be helpful. There is not much interest in other correlation constants because only the GMT fits the historical, astronomical and archaeological evidence. Never the less to make the article encyclopedic the table was included to mention some of the other ones that have been proposed. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Visualization of Mesoamerican Long Count time units

I created and added the illustration on the right so that it is much easier to compare the large range of sizes of the units, but was reverted by Senor Cuete implying that it was original research (based on his comments "Please don't add original research as you did to the Maya calendar articles." on User_talk:cmglee and edit summary "Revert to last un vandalized and no OR version" on Mesoamerican calendars). All the information in it is derived from tables in Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count and Maya_calendar#Long_Count — I just organized it in a graphical form. Does anyone think that the image is useful and non-OR? Thanks, cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't adding your own creation to an article constitute Original Research? No, I don't think it adds anything. Senor Cuete (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also the table in your illustration adds material that's already in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Just making a graphic is not original research in the sense that Wik talks of OR. On the other hand, the skew views really put me off: they would make it hard for me to visualize if I didn't already have a good grasp of the system. Kdammers (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this does seem closer to OR since I've never seen any similar graphics in any presentations of Maya calendrics. Also, as a representation it only works because of the text, so it seems just as easy to me to simply describe it with prose.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of the Full Long Count Date

Calculating the full Long Count date has been variously edited to be either x 18 (as in the table below) or "x 20" in the reverted edits.

9	× 144000	= 1296000
12	× 7200	= 86400
2	× 360	= 720
0	× 18	= 0
16	× 1	= 16
	Total days	= 1383136

If "Thus 0.0.0.1.5 is equal to 25, and 0.0.0.2.0 is equal to 40" can someone please explain how these can be so if the second (least significant) digit is multiplied by 18. Yes, the digit itself is base 18 but this is reflected in the calculation of the value of the next significant position (x 360), where 360 = 18 * 20, and 18 is the maximum value at this position. If it were not "x20" then 12.19.19.17.19 would not have a Long Count of 1871999 and be the day before 13.0.0.0.0 (1872000). I propose the calculation ought to be

9	× 144000	= 1296000
12	× 7200	= 86400
2	× 360	= 720
0	× 20	= 0
16	× 1	= 16
	Total days	= 1383136

...and appreciate that when multiplying anything by "0" its multiple becomes rather arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you're correct. There are 20 days in a Winal not 18. It can be hard to read tables as source not interpreted. The confusion is over the number of Winals in a Tun - 18, not 20 but the table is based on the number of days in a cycle and 20 is correct. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

"14th baktun"?

As far as I understand it - there's no such thing as a "14th" baktun. Rather, 13.0.0.0.0 is the beginning of the first baktun of the new era, no? (since 13.0.0.0.0 is, in effect, the same thing as saying 0.0.0.0.0). Therefore, shouldn't all references to "the 14th baktun" be changed to "the first baktun of the new era"? BigSteve (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense but unfortunately the ancient Maya didn't see it that way. If you read the article you will see that all distance inscriptions, long Reckonings , etc. Use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. Senor Cuete (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

How many Mayan inscriptions do you know of that give more than 13 in the bak'tuns position? --PL (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, two follow-up questions in that case –

Since 21 Dec 2012 is considered as the 14th baktun, does that then mean that it is also the beginning of the 2nd Piktun? ^{(Assuming we take the 13 baktun = 1 piktun understanding, rather than the 20 baktun=1piktun)}
And if 21 Dec 2012 really is the 14th baktun and the 2nd piktun, then why was 31 Aug 3114 BC also written by the Maya as "13.0.0.0.0", and not as "0.0.0.0.0"?

Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong and you could read this article to answer your question. All inscriptions say that the start of this world occurred on a whole bunch of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. All known inscriptions use 20 bak'tuns in a pictun and there are examples in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

To judge by the article, this appears to apply to 'distance numbers' only. Am I wrong? I mean, if the creation click-over date is all 13s, why not 20s?--PL (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, Merry Christmas!

Second of all - it's not really about "being wrong" - I don't actually have an argument either way - I'm interested in understanding what the deal is. I would like an explanation for my two above questions, which you haven't answered, and now you raise more questions - why is the 13.13.13...13.0.0.0.0 creation not mentioned earlier in the article, if it's that important? What's the explanation for this world beginning at such a random number, and what do the Maya say came before that? And how do we therefore define "world", and therefore how many "worlds" have there been...? And does that mean that we are still living in the 14th piktun of the 14th kalabtun, etc...?

As far as I can see, some scholars support the 13 baktun=1piktun theory, while others, as well as yourself, support the 20baktun=1piktun theory. But both camps' arguments have not been addressed in the article! This isn't a hands-down argument about whether the world is round or flat, but a vague scholarly argument about mayan astronomers that died off more than half a millenium ago! Therefore you cannot say (as you are saying) this is right and that is wrong!

Look, Senor Cuete, I'm asking legit questions that have not been addressed in the article, because this is a topic I'm interested in. More importantly, I don't have a horse in this race, so there's no need to get shirty with me, like I've seen you getting angry and reverting other users' edits...without giving good explanations for your reverts. You seem to be attempting to own this article, as you do not allow others to add anything that you personally do not agree with, and your only "explanations" are along the lines of "this has already been proven"...yes, by people you agree with! But other scholars are of a different mindset. So, if you believe 20 baktuns = 1 piktun, then say so, say who says that and why; but then also mention the 13 baktun=1piktun theory and the arguments given by those scholars that support that, etc etc etc, like in a normal encyclopedic article. Don't just erase shit you don't agree with. And please answer my questions, because they are not addressed in the article. I'm not against your theories, I'm getting miffed at the way that you do not allow anyone else to add anything to the article, but you don't even explain why.

Because, if there are "so many 13's", as you say, then why do the 20's start precisely at the baktun stage...? And WHY does this world begin at 13th baktun, which is now at the number 13 again?

Thanx fella! BigSteve (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Oh, and I'm returning the link you got rid of..."unreliable"...?????? Are yu out of your mind?! the author of that site's a PhD who spent half his life studying Maya ruins! He DISCOVERED a Maya city!!! Unless you yourself are an ancient Maya astronomer, I don't think "unreliable" is really a word you are allowed to use in this context. Get wit it, dude! BigSteve (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

p.p.s. and, no, in fact that link does not contradict your theory, because it says in the explatnation: "Another widely held belief about the Long Count is that the bak'tun in fact does not reset at 13, but is rather another cycle of 20 like all the other place values", but you seem so blinded by your rage at any suggestion of 13's rather than 20's that you just erase even the smallest suggestion of anything different. That is not the attitude of an encyclopedian, Señor Cuete! BigSteve (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. and you cannot disregard a site simply because it "contradicts what's in the article", as you say - because it is a WP article that has to agree with a source, and not vice-versa. Scheesh... BigSteve (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr, Edwin Barnhart may be an authority (although he is certainly not one of the main authorities on Maya calendrics and is rarely cited, he also has professional appointment as an "explorer" and not as a researcher), but in any case his webpage is not a reliable since it is not peer reviewed (and also it doesn't give any sources, which is a problem since this is clearly not his own research).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

WHY did the Maya start their calendar on ...13.0.0.0.0? None of us will ever know but the fact is that they did. 20 bak'tuns in a piktun is not a theory. It's what's used in all inscriptions. If you can find a reliable source (any inscription for example) to contradict what's in the article you can add it. Careful reading of the article and the reference you want to add could go a long way towards resolving this issue. Unfortunately the internet is a vast abyss of inaccurate information by well-meaning but mis-informed web page authors. This article is an attempt to write a factually accurate article supported by reliable sources with examples in the form of Mayan inscriptions. Naturally it will disagree with the apocryphal information on most web sites. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

BigSteve: The last reference you added should also be removed as an unreliable source because it contains obvious errors such as 13.0.0.0.0 is the start of the 13th bak'tun and we're using the Julian calendar. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Hi! Thanks for the replies, fellas! Like I say, I don't want to contradict anything - as far as I have been able to see, both theories have support among many scholars. And, ·ʍaunus, "peer review" is something we need if we are trying to prove something beyond all doubt - but the whole point with this is that a) both theories have many supporters, and, perhaps more importantly, b) Dr. Barnhart explains both theries, and even says that one of the most important Mayan scholars in the world, Sir J. Eric Thompson, believes the 20 baktun theory, and includes Thoompson's reasoning. This last bit is the most important thing, since it addresses both theories. So I'm not contradicting either of you guys, I'm saying we put both, because Thompson himself says "the Maya likely started off with a 13-piktun idea, but changed it when they realized they needed more years" (I consider that similar to our Julian-Gregorian shift. Clearly, though not the same thing, they both refer to an alteration of a calendar in order to fit a new understanding (in our case) or a new need (in the Maya's case). 's all I'm saying.) BigSteve (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

J. Eric Thompson has been dead for 40 years and is mostly famous for being wrong about Maya glyphs. Selfpublished sources are not reliable for contentious issues and this is one such. You will not be getting your will by editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, quit the edit war, whatever. The question is this - why did the Maya begin their calendar at 13.0.0.0.0? I'm not looking for an answer, because I believe you when you say that "no one knows". But, like you say they did. That has to be taken into account, and explained. And the link you are so bent on removing contains information - not so much info that proves one theory over the other, but info that discusses the way the calculations were made. And for the life of me I cannot understand why you two are so hell-bent on removing it. I keep re-adding it because I was interested in the calendar, could not find the necessary info in the article, and found that site on the net, which explained to me that the whole reason why everything is so confusing is that there is contradictory evidence, even amongst scholars. You have to at least acknowledge that in this article! Because then no-one that reads this article will understand where the whole misconception comes from... (And Thompson seems to have been respected - as far as I can see he is said to have been wrong about his linguisticts stuff(?) and, more importantly, of using his influence to suppress info...kinda like what you two guys seem to be doing ;-) don't take it personal!) BigSteve (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to find out what sources Barnhart draws on and then include them. I will look in the introductory texts I have at my disposal and see if I can find references to sources about the discussion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What puzzles me (who, similarly, am not trying to assert either position) is the repeated assertion that '20 bak'tuns in a piktun is not a theory. It's what's used in all inscriptions,' contrary to the article's assertion that the higher orders such as piktuns were 'rarely used.' So far as I can see, piktuns aren't mentioned in most inscriptions at all. And even when they are, there is no indication in the baktun position of any number higher than 13, whereas one ought to be able to find plenty of examples of 17, 19 and so on. To me, this (plus the evident click-over limits suggested by the 13.0.0.0.0 creation date) suggests that 13 was the regarded as the baktun limit, as of each higher order of numbers too. Enlighten me, please?--PL (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Simon Martin writes, "The second and even more important consideration is that we have clear evidence that the current Bak’tun cycle does not conclude at 13, as the last one did, but advances to 20. In other words, 13.0.0.0.0 will be followed by 14.0.0.0.0, 15.0.0.0.0, and so on to 19.0.0.0.0. A text at the site of Palenque, Mexico, makes this very plain when it records the completion of 1 Piktun, the next unit above the Bak’tun, in 4772 CE. We do not know why the Maya counted the previous Bak’tun cycle in Base Thirteen and the current one in Base Twenty, but, according to a new idea by David Stuart, all of the higher units of the Long Count calendar cycle first through 13 before resetting to zero and counting a second time all the way to 20. Time, for the Maya, was a magical realm in which conventional arithmetic need not apply—things do not have to “add up” in a religious system."[2]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Has consideration been given to the possibility that the scribe you mention simply got it wrong, as did sometimes happen? Could he have been as understandably confused about it as we evidently are? ;)

Oh, and what word did he use for 'piktun'? --PL (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

PL: The fact that you *INTERPRET* the 13s in creation inscriptions as saying that there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun is irrelevant. The point is not to interpret anything. The article gives an example of the Palenque ruler's inscription that goes into the next pictun and there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. The article also gives an example of a long reckoning in the Dresden codex with a base date in the previous era. To make these work you also have to use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. There are many distance inscriptions at Palenque that go back to dates in the previous world and they will only work if you use 20 bak'tuns. It's difficult to do these by hand because we use a base 10 number system. A computer program is really the way to check these. BigSteve: The home page of the site you insist on adding is a commercial site selling calendars. Wikipedia frowns on linking to commercial sites - a second strike against it. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

What is being said here is precisely my point - different people say different things! And I agree with PL that the 20 baktuns is being presented as fact, not theory. ·ʍaunus, what you say about David Stuart proves that there is such a thing as 13 baktun! So why not just add that :-) and the Ed Bernhardt site also discusses the existence of both 13- and 20-baktun piktuns (if you follow me!). That's what I've been saying all along - mention the dichotomy in the article! BigSteve (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And, Senor Cuete - the "selling calendars" thing is something I've literally only noticed once you pointed it out, and by that logic we shouldnt link to any newspaper sites, because all papers have promos on all the time! And you've only come up with that argument because you keep avoiding answering any of my questions with proper arguments... Let's talk Maya guys, not browse the small print for loopholes... BigSteve (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. ·ʍaunus: please add the penn musemu pdf as a reference somewhere in the article, it is very informative! (I would, but I'm sure you'll find the best place for it!) BigSteve (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I have to say that many of the recognized experts in the field of all things Maya have an ignorance of the Maya calendar. These people are brilliant but are primarily interested in epigraphy and things other than the calendar. They are not mathematicians or astronomers and they don't devote any time to the actual study of the calendar. Aveni, Coe (particularly in his early books), Lounsbury and Schele and Friedel for example have all made embarrassing, awful mistakes in writing about the calendar. This was all figured out by Thompson and his colleagues by the 1930s and nobody has ever found anything to contradict it. 20 bak'tuns in a pictun is presented as fact because there is zero evidence for 13 and 100% evidence for 20. Until someone actually finds an inscription that uses 13 it should be 20 in the article with examples of all types of these as it is now. Even if it's David Stuart his THEORY should not be in the article. Maybe the examples should include a note mentioning that this only works if there are 20 bak'tuns in a pictun. The authors that have theories should actually study the subject instead of inventing theories about it but of course inventing theories is a lot easier than actually studying it. Once again I ask you WHERE IS A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF AN INSCRIPTION THAT USES 13 BAK'TUNS IN A PIKTUN? Senor Cuete (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete, you are being unreasonable here. If there is a discussion among experts (among which we should not count mathematicians or astronomers but only Maya epigraphers) about whether there are 13 or 20 Baktuns in a Cycle or as Stuart suggests whether previous cycles had 13 and the current 20 that NEEDS to be in the article. And yes any theory by David Stuart, who is among the foremost Maya epigraphers, should be in the article if it it mentioned in reliable sources such as the one by Simon Martin (another expert to be reckoned with). Frankly to suggest that David Stuart "should study instead of invent theories" seems ignorant in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a blog post by David Stuart[3] who describes the problem (arguably this isn't a reliable source (except for his own view), but his 2011 book is).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not being unreasonable. David Stuart's contention that there were 13 bak'tuns and then 20 is clearly labeled as a THEORY. His 2011 book is not a reliable source. It was rushed into print to capitalize on the hoopla surrounding the 2012 doomsday hoax and he's a brilliant epigrapher but not an expert on the calendar, mathematics, astronomy, etc. It's David Stuart that's ignorant. Does his book have an example of an inscription that uses 13 bak'tuns? of course not because there aren't any. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ok, that ludicrous statement disqualifies you from having your opionon considered useful. From now on I will discount anything you say on this topic unless you produce a reliable source. You are claiming that your personal authority is a more reliable source than well respected mayanists. We have provided sources written by respected mayanists that say that the previous baktun ended on 13 and the current doesn't it is up to you to provide sources to the contrary. Astronomers and mathematicians have no authority in this because it is not about math or astronomy but about understanding Maya inscriptions and Maya culture. Wikipedia relies on sources written by experts and couldn't care less about what you Senor Cuete thinks is the right interpretation or whether you know of an inscription that uses a piktun with 13 baktuns - if Stuart and Martin does then that is good enough for Wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the blog I see that David Stuart agrees with me that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun and that those reading his book have mis-interpreted it when reporting it here. Read the part of the article about Long reckonings and you will see that the Maya used 20 bak'tuns in a piktun even in the previous world and that the creation of this world was a special event in which the Long Count was reset to 0.13.0.0.0.0. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Then you need to read it again. He very clearly states that the Piktun that ended on august 31st 3114BC had only 13 baktuns but that the CURRENT one clearly has 20. And that is also exactly what Simon Martin says when he summarizes the data and Stuarts theory about it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

·ʍaunus wrote: "We have provided sources written by respected mayanists that say that the previous baktun ended on 13 and the current doesn't it is up to you to provide sources to the contrary." No, read what I wrote. I agree with that completely. The debate is weather the recently completed bak'tun is the start of a new pictun because there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun and the answer is no. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The implication of that obviously is that SOME Piktuns have or have had 13 baktuns and others 20. That is what Stauart's theory seeks to account for. And what the article needs to reflect.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had some work to do, missed part of the convo. I agree with ·ʍaunus on this very last point, as well as on what you said earlier - that respected scolars' work should not be disregarded. This is especially true since they themselves don't claim it is the only truth, but a theory worthy of consideration. My question has not changed - Senor Cuete, why do you keep refusing to add this? The fact it began at 13.0.0.0.0 is the proof you are looking for that 13 baktuns exist. note this: i am not claiming that 21 Dec 2012 is the beginning of the 2nd piktun - I am asking if a piktun of 13 baktun can or has ever existed, and under what circumstances. The answer, by your own admission is "yes", since 13.0.0.0.0 is where it began! And, since it has, then we must mention it and explain this. Furthermore - you yourself say above that "the Maya used 20 bak'tuns in a piktun even in the previous world and the creation of this world was a special event in which the Long Count was reset to 0.13.0.0.0.0". As far as I understand it, that means that this was, for some unknown reason, an exception. Well - precisely!That is a really important thing, and I do not see how we can leave it exclusively in the talk page. It goes towards explaining a lot. BigSteve (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunus: You have become angry and lost track of why this discussion is happening and what I said. If I have expressed myself poorly I apologize. Bigzteve edited the table of bak'tuns to say that there are 13 bak'tuns in a piktun and cited unreliable sources. What I said was that the article correctly presents the FACT that there are 20 baktuns in a piktun and gives examples in the form of Mayan inscriptions. Coba stela 1 and similar inscriptions say that the current world started on a whole bunch of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. This does not actually say that there were ever 13 bak'tuns in a piktun at least the author(s) of the Dresden codex didn't think so because the serpent numbers (which go back something like 35,000 years) only work if there were 20 bak'tuns in a piktun even in the previous world. The article has an example of this from Thompson. Since the article correctly states the FACT that there are 20 bak'tuns in a pictun and there are no examples of any other scheme, the article should not be edited to reflect any theory or mis-interpretation that says otherwise. Off topic: interestingly Coba stela 1 says that there were nine days elapsed in the lunar cycle. This was clearly calculated not observed. This is the same result you would calculate using modern astronomical algorithms if the lunar cycle was based on the first evening when you would observe the thin crescent moon. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Yes I become angry when you arrogantly libly dismiss experts based on your own opinion about what is a misinterpretation and what is fact. It is not a fact that there is 20 baktuns in a piktun, it is apparently a fact that there is 20 baktuns in THIS PARTICULAR piktun, and that there were 13 in the previous one. The article should be edited to reflect ALL notable theories that have a presence in the scholarly literature whether or not you think they are right or wrong. I am not taking your word for the correct reading of the Coba stela or of any other stela, but I do take the word of David Stuart and Simon Martin. The only thing that is FACT in Maya epigraphy is that there are signs carved ins stone, from there on everything is interpretation, and in wikipedia the only think we do is to summarise and present what the main interpreters say. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at examples from the Dresden codex. It looks to me like all of the higher places were reset to zero at the creation of this world but before that they were 20, otherwise the Long Reckonings won't work. For example try to calculate this:

Ring number (12) 12.12.17.3.1 13 Imix 9 Wo (7.2.14.19 before (13) 13.0.0.0.0)

distance number (0) 10.13.13.3.2

Long Count 10.6.10.6.3 13 Ak'bal 1 Kank'in

I think that this makes sense if there were 20 bak'tuns in a piktun even then. Tell me if I'm wrong. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

It doesn't matter what you think the drsedeb codex says. It matters what published experts say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting to see a simple Mayan date (as opposed to a date arrived at by invoking 'distance numbers') with more than 13 in the bak'tun position. Are there none? (simple question -- simple answer, please) --PL (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Maunus: Do you really want "theories" and "interpretations" in the article? The Dresden codex is not a reliable source? There really isn't a single source for information about this subject except for this article. That's why it's important to get it right and yes, even famous mayanists have gotten it wrong when writing about this subject. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Yes, that is how wikipedia works. We represent notable interpretations and theories. We do not make our self the arbiters of which interpretations are "fact" and which are "misinterpretations" as you are attempting. We let expert scholars decide on that. And no (your personal interpretation of) the Dresden codex is not a source that can be used for writing wikipedia articles because it is a primary source that requires specialist knowledge to read and understand. And even if you had that knowledge that wouldn't matter because we only accept interpretations that are published in reliable secondary and tertiary sources. These are basic points in how wikipedia works that I do expect a senior editor like you to understand. Also when even famous mayanists "get it wrong" that is exactly a reason not to trust the judgment of anonymous internet amateurs like you or me, but to follow the literature published by experts and let the experts decide what is right and what is wrong and when there is doubt among the experts we include both. It really is basic wikipedia practice and policy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile I deduce from the reluctance to answer my question that the answer is 'No, none (i.e. there are no known Mayan inscriptions in which there are more than 13 in the bak'tun position).' In which case OK, 'nuff said! The consequences for the position stated in the article are obvious: namely that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that there were 20 bak'tuns in a pik'tun (discuss?), and all the recently-published combination-dates based on distance numbers are therefore false (and certainly not something on which arguments about the question can therefore be based!), as is the statement that the calendar system was basically vigesimal. Unfortunately, however, Wikipedia is bound to restrict itself to what its chosen sources say, and so... --PL (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is this: You can think of five place Long Counts as a sort of short hand in which the greater places are omitted. Frequently inscriptions that require more places are written as distance inscriptions or Long Reckonings. Look at the article - you will see examples of this. To say that all of the distance inscriptions and Long Reckonings don't count is nonsense unless the Maya themselves didn't know what they were doing. You can only prove a positive by a preponderance of the evidence, not a negative. Since no inscriptions use 13s, there is not any evidence for this. Didn't you publish a book that says there were 13s? Do I sense a reluctance to admit you got it wrong? Senor Cuete (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

You do love the word 'wrong', don't you? -- almost as if it were all black and white and you were personally under attack!

'No inscriptions use 13s'? Extraordinary! The most cursory search through the article yields: '13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw, 8 Kumk'u… two references to the current creation's 13th b'ak'tun… 13.0.0.0.0 was actually ...13.13.0.0.0.0 in the extended version... The date of creation is expressed as 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0... 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...'

As for examples of distance inscriptions in the article, it states: '‘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.' Only a slight problem here, whichever numerical base is being used, since it actually leaves minus 1.8.13.0.0.0.0.0.0 -- though the Gregorian equivalent is open to dispute. But then it goes on: '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.’ May I respectfully suggest that you actually do the math? There is no way that the sum can be (13.)13.0.0.0.0.0.0.0, whether you use base-20 or base-13 -- though if you subtract the former from the latter...

Also please don't misquote me (no excuse for that with digital technology!). I didn't suggest that there was anything wrong with Mayan distance inscriptions, merely that 'all the recently-published combination-dates based on distance numbers are ... false.' As for your kind reference to the (evidently correctly-titled) book 2012: It's Not the End of the World by Peter Lemesurier [Derwen Publications, 2011] -- to cite the full publishing details as Wikipedia requires -- this merely states (p.181), 'I personally deduce, for what it is worth, that thirteen was indeed the maximum possible number of units in each of the baktunian and transbaktunian registers.' So, as you can see, I'm not being dogmatic about it, but would be delighted to see any counter-arguments from people who know what they're talking about, with a view to finally getting at the facts, which could then be reflected in the article...

And meanwhile you still haven't told us which inscriptions contain numbers in the bak'tun position of higher than 13 -- thus suggesting strongly that it couldn't be done. Otherwise it would be a huge coincidence if all references to bak'tun numbers of 16, 17, 18 and 19 were inexplicably entirely missing! (Similarly you can, I suppose, insist that there are really fairies at the bottom of your garden, but that we just haven't been looking in the right place...) ;) --PL (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good article about this subject: http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/20_or_13_Baktuns_in_Pictun.pdf. I only checked some of the examples in the article, for example the Palenque ruler's inscription and Thompson's (Forsteman's) Long Reckoning and they were correct but I'll check the ones you cite. Also I'll find a link to the online catalog of the inscriptions at Palenque. You can read it and analyse them to see if you think they used 13 or 20. This will be quite tedious if you try to do it manually. I suggest a computer program to analyse them. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thanks for your entirely positive response, and for the fascinating link which makes it clear (with its 'symbolic', 'expressed' and non-'expressed' 13s and its possibly either esoteric or exoteric applications) that things are by no means as black-and-white as might be assumed! In fact it offers more questions than answers. Its very existence testifies to the fact that the whole thing remains very much a matter for debate. In fact the idea that there might have originally been a 13-based system which was subsequently modified to a 20-based one muddies the water even further -- though I'm not entirely convinced that this would have been because the 13-based system wasn't up to the job, given the huge timespans that even this could have covered! Most impressive, of course, is the supposed Creation Date itself, with its whole row of unresolved 13s -- all apparently equivalent to zero either before or after 1 is added -- which to my mind suggests that 13 was the point where each higher unit automatically clicked over to 1 in the next position. And if then, why not now? Perhaps the article should be modified to reflect the remaining doubts and the continuing debate surrounding them? --PL (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, fellas, was away for a bit. First of all, however, to put the record straight: Senor Cuete, I never edited any tables of baktuns or piktuns. All I have ever done on this article is add 4 links after the first mention of "piktuns and higher orders", leading to sources which give more info on these higher orders. You initially removed all 4, and when I reverted that you left 3 of those and removed the 4-th - namely the Ed Bernhardt link we've been arguing about all this time. So, let's be straight about that.

Now, I agree with Manus when he says that "it is apparently a fact that there is 20 baktuns in THIS PARTICULAR piktun, and that there were 13 in the previous one", and PL says it equally succintly with "Most impressive, of course, is the supposed Creation Date itself, with its whole row of unresolved 13s". Senor Cuete - why do you refuse that this is reflected in the article...?

I especially agree with Manus here "The article should be edited to reflect ALL notable theories that have a presence in the scholarly literature whether or not you think they are right or wrong"; "[Wikipedia] represents notable interpretations and theories. We do not make our self the arbiters of which interpretations are "fact" and which are "misinterpretations" as you are attempting"; "Also when even famous mayanists "get it wrong" that is exactly a reason not to trust the judgment of anonymous internet amateurs like you or me, but to follow the literature published by experts and let the experts decide what is right and what is wrong and when there is doubt among the experts we include both". (my highlight)

I can't really add anything to these arguments, as they say it all. BigSteve (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. and, again, you seem to be attempting to own the article. Here's us, three people presenting arguments based on experts' opinions, which you're disregarding. And we're not even saying you're wrong (as you keep saying that we are!), we merely want both theories to be included, instead of your one... BigSteve (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Three people is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are published experts like Thompson. Also PL's deduction that there were 13 bak'tuns is original research. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Er, no -- it's published research (albeit by me -- Wikipedia allows that). Moreover, it is not just mine (see above and below). You seem to be backing yourself into a corner again... --PL (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Three people against one is pretty much a WP:CONSENSUS which is what we use to make editorial decision here in wikipedia. Stuart and Martin are reliable sources for the material that we are going to include. Thompson was a reliable source something like 30 years ago. Not anymore, now he is of primarily historical interest.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Stuart uses 20 bak'tuns so it sounds to me like you're going to add references supporting the article the way it is. I'm not familiar with Martin. Perhaps you could direct me to some information about him. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

As has been copiously documented Sabove tuart uses 20 baktuns in THIS piktun and 13 in the previous. Simon Martin (Mayanist) is the author of the article I linked above and he summarizes Stuarts view and states clearly that there are 13 baktun piktuns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the article is in any case barking up the wrong tree if it tries to give a single, definitive response as to what THE Maya believed or did. For a start, there's the question of which Maya -- practice may well have varied from centre to centre and from generation to generation (I'm not sure that this aspect of the question has ever been properly researched). Then there's the question of which usage is being referred to --

Pre-'change' usage (as per Thompson)?

Post-'change' usage?

Esoteric usage (i.e. for priestly eyes only)?

Exoteric usage (i.e. for public information)?

Purely symbolic practice

Archaic survivals

or any of these in combination, to say nothing of others. The article needs to reflect ALL the reputable published disagreements and uncertainties (both on-line and off it), or it will not be fulfilling all Wikipedia's ground-rules. A measure of appropriate uncertainty needs to be introduced into the text. --PL (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely correct and important to note that we do not know to what degree the calendar system was homogeneous across the Maya polities, a point also made by Mark van Stone in this article: Mark Van Stone (2011). It's not the End of the World: emic evidence for local diversity in the Maya Long Count. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 7, pp 186-191. doi:10.1017/S1743921311012610. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's worth knowing! Thanks. --PL (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes PL, your book IS original research and you're not a recognized expert in the field. I looked at the two examples that you got from the article and I can't make them work either. I didn't add them to the article and they're unreferenced so I don't know where they came from. Maybe they shouldn't be there if they're not referenced. Maunus: doesn't Van Stone also use 20 bak'tuns? Senor Cuete (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I don't see where OPL suggests we should refer to his book. Van Stone does not explicitly mention the length of a Piktun, but refers many times to "the 13 Baktun cycle".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok having reviewed Van Stone's article this stands out: He states that there is variability between sites and inscriptions about what happens after 13.0.0.0.0 the Palenque inscriptions keep counting up to 20. But at the Yaxchilan Hieroglyphic stairway: "The surprise here is that the coefficient of the Piktun (the next higher order above the Bak�tuns) is (still) 13. As mentioned above, one might expect that, when the Bak�tun coefficient reset to 1, the Piktun coefficient would also have reset, triggering the nexthigher- order coefficient, etc. Alternatively, it might perhaps have risen to 14. But Yaxchilan HS2 Step VII’s Piktun coefficient stays stuck at 13. Apparently the calendar-priests of Yaxchilan (and perhaps also at Cob´a) considered these higher-order coefficients as purely symbolic; they do not accumulate time like the ‘real’ lower-order coefficients."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to an excellent article about the inscriptions at Palenque Temple XIX by David Stuart: http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/stuart/TXIX-spreads.pdf and here's an article about the calendar by Mark Van Stone. Perhaps this is what you are referring to: http://www.mesoweb.com/publications/stuart/TXIX-spreads.pdf. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Comments: The temple XIX inscriptions: Many of these are distance inscriptions that start at a date in the earlier era and add a distance number to arrive at a date in this creation. These use 13 bak'tuns because all higher places of the Long Count were reset to zero at the creation date for this creation. This doesn't shed any light on whether the Long Count used 13 bak'tuns in the prior era. It's likely that this was regarded as a special event. I added the text about the Long Reckonings and the Serpent Numbers in the Dresden codex from Tompson [[4]] who got them from Förstemann [[5]]. Yes, I should have added footnotes about the provenance of that section and I will. Before adding that text I analyzed the examples of Long Reckonings with a computer program to see if they worked numerically - they go back far enough to ascertain whether the piktun before the 13.0.0.0.0 in the prior era reset after 13 or 19 and they only will work if it's 19. I didn't add this to the article because I thought it was original research but I did feel better about adding the text about Long Reckonings to the article. I've think that two sources are not really reliable and I'd like to see them removed from the article. These are Schele and Freidel and Malmstrom. Schele and Freidel used the Thompson correlation and theorized that creation inscriptions like Coba stela 1 implied that all inscriptions use 13 bak'tuns in a pictun. Schele admitted that "I'm not really a numbers person", she used the Thompson correlation in deference to her mentor Lousnbury and people who knew about this like Dennis Tedlock told her not to put this in her book but she did anyway because it wasn't really important to get it right since it was written as a book for casual readers not experts in the field. Malmstrom isn't an expert in the field and came up with way too many wild theories for my comfort instead of studying the experts. This is the basis for my comment that even the supposed experts get it wrong. Maunus is correct that Thompson is out-dated. He was also a terrible writer but his book is still very useful for its many examples of inscriptions. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Your computerized analyses are interesting but not something we can use as an argument for anything. Schele and Freidel's mistakes are well known and have been corrected for by experts - this does not account for Martin, Stuart and Va Stone's statements to the effect that some inscriptions use 13 baktun cycles instead of 20.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that this conversation is taking place at all reveals that there are unresolved uncertainties. At very least, then, this would suggest the need to include a referenced paragraph headed 'alternative views.' --PL (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The Martin article says (without any reference) that there's a second GMT correlation based on astronomical observations. This is just an uncritical rehashing of Schele's foolish misinterpretation of Lounsbury's careless, superficial examination of two of the heliacal risings of Venus in the Dresden codex. Please tell be that this complete baloney won't be in the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

If you are in indeed a position to call Lounsbury, Schele, Stuart and Martin's work for careless and foolish baloney, then I think you are wasting you're energy by contributing to wikipedia, when really you should be published groundbreaking studies in peerreviewed journals. Otherwise I think you would do better to loose the invective when referring to better scholars than yourself, and base your critiques on rebuttals published by other scholars. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Stuart. Martin's article has no bibliography, which doesn't do much for his credibility, so you have to speculate about what he's talking about but obviously it's this: http://alignment2012.com/fap9.html. You won't like this because it's on Jenkins' site. Jenkins probably is one of the leading authorities on the calendar but his refusal to draw the line between what is really known and speculation is troubling. Here's Linda Schele's reason for using the Thompson correlation in Maya Cosmos and A Forest of Kings. http://www.pauahtun.org/Calendar/correlation.html. "First of all, you must understand I am not a number person", "Floyd ... knows I am not a number person", "Maya Cosmos" was written for the general public first and professionals secondarily...", "Dennis Tedlock argued with me about this. He argued that there are other hierophanies just as good for the Venus pages as the ones Floyd Lounsbury presented. Dennis assumed as many others have, that I prefer the 285 for the same reasons as Floyd does. But you have to understand that I have never fully understood Floyd's reasons." "astronomy does not help because almost all of the known events have a one or two day or greater fudge factor in them. You cannot use them to select between the one or the other." Linda goes on to describe her mis-understanding of the fact, described in the Wikipedia article quoting Thompson, that the zero date of the lunar cycle is either the disappearance of the old moon or the appearance of the new moon, not conjunction. You don't have to take my word for it because there it is in her own words, admitting that she didn't really know what she was doing and didn't really care. Senor Cuete (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

It is not the case that a scholar looses their credibility because they also publish work aimed at a general public in journals that do not include bibliographies. And no, I don't like Jenkins site, and especially not your suggestion that he is more of an authority than the aforementioned scholars, as he has no peer reviewed publications and no academic degree. Regarding, Schele yes, she did not hide the fact that numbers and calendrics were not her interest, and precise correlations was not important to her work. This does not make her foolish, sloppy or careless. I am not interested in discussing your views of which scholars are good and which are bad - I am interested in the article coming to reflect the fact that scholars often disagree on things related to Maya calendrics, including the correlation and the coefficients of the higher order time units. Go write in your blog about how stupid the professional researchers are and how excellent Jenkins would be if he just would not be so speculative. It is of no relevance for wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Lounsbury's peers reject his conclusion that two heliacal risings of venus support the Thompson correlation. Schele uses his correlation in her books in spite of her own rejection of it. Suggestions for improving the article: Don't include a description of Lounsbury's hypothesis except the already existing reference to it as an alternative astronomical correlation in the section about correlating the calendars. Remove Note 6 regarding Schele and Freidel because her books are not really about the calendar, contain material which she says in her own words is questionable and are contrary to mainstream scholarship. Also the part about interpolation is hard to understand. I included the link to Jenkins because it's the only on-line description of what Lounsbury wrote that I know of and it's worth reading. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Maunus: You are correct in tagging the section about the ring numbers in the Dresden Codex as ^{[citation needed]}. In order to get this right I have ordered Forsteman's commentary, bypassing Thompson. I'll add the necessary citations and examples but this will take a while so be patient. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Also This would be great but I can't seem to get a copy: http://books.google.com/books?id=OSpiFhkfLooC&dq=inauthor:%22Michael+John+Grofe%22&hl=en Senor Cuete (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Here is a good online reference about distance dates that refer to dates in the prior era: http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/Distances_across_Era_Date.pdf I have downloaded Grofe's PHD Thesis about the Serpent numbers in the Dresden codex: http://www.mayaexploration.org/pdf/Serpent%20Series-Grofe2007.pdf I intend to take some time to study Grofe carefully before editing the article but Grofe makes two things clear: page 55: "On occasion, the Maya also recorded intervals of time even greater than 13 B’ak’tuns, such as one Piktun, composed of 20 B’ak’tuns. This is relevant to the current discussion concerning the Serpent Series." and page 63: "Taken as a numerical whole, this new reading of the first component of the introductory distance number from the Serpent Series gives 1 Piktun, 18 B’ak’tuns, 1 K’atun, 8 Tuns, 0 Winals and 16 k’ins. In Maya notation, this reads: 1.18.1.8.0.16 = 15,228 Tuns and 16 days = 5,482,096 days." The use of 18 bak'tuns clearly shows that the author(s) of Dresden were using 20 bak'tuns in a piktun in the prior era. Stuart discusses some of these dates here: http://decipherment.wordpress.com/category/dresden-codex/ Senor Cuete (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

A statememt which of course applies to the authors of the Dresden codex, and not necessarily to THE Maya. --PL (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dresden Codex was written by THE classic Maya. You are in Denial. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

No it was written by postclassic Itza Maya.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean they ALL had their pens in the pot? ;)

[copy of personal message received via my User Page] PL, if you continue to research this you will continue to find more and more evidence corroborating the statements in the Long Count article that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun and examples of inscriptions both on monuments and the codices. The classic Maya civilization collapsed in about 900 AD so no five place Long Counts were written after the 10th bak'tun. This is why there are no five place Long Counts written with a bak'tun of 10-19. Many inscriptions exist that refer to dates in the past and future using various systems of distance numbers like the ruler's inscription at Palenque. The ones that go far enough into the past and future to need piktuns use 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. You keep saying that the converse could be true but are unable to cite any sources. Science is the quest for truth - what can be proven by the evidence to be true, not what could be true. You believe that the abundant evidence must be wrong. For example the ruler's inscription at Palenque and the Dresden codex (written by THE classic Maya) must be wrong. You are in denial. The way to proceed after making a mistake is admit that you erred, correct your mistake and go on, not delude yourself irrationally with denial. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

There you go again... 'wrong'... 'wrong'... 'wrong'... (When does any true scholar use this term in respect of competing theories?) I am denying nothing, merely asking for any appropriate uncertainty to be reflected in the article. If it's 20, then somebody has to explain why the 'previous age's' piktuns (to judge by its alleged 'terminal date') were evidently limited to 13 baktuns... And why this personal approach, when the topic is of interest to all?

Meanwhile, you state that 'The classic Maya civilization collapsed in about 900 AD so no five place Long Counts were written after the 10th bak'tun. This is why there are no five place Long Counts written with a bak'tun of 10-19.' It's a good point (glad you've thought of it at last!). Trouble is, it also means that there are no five place Long Count dates (which I assume is what you mean) written with a bak'tun of 20, either. Ergo, as far as actual dates are concerned, the usual total lack of evidence! So could this result from the fact that different rules applied to distance numbers from those applying to plain dates? The point needs to be considered -- since the Maya were certainly inconsistent enough to permit of such things. --PL (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As you all can see, I've pretty much left this discussion. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall. Senor Cuete, you're using selective hearing. I said to you: "Here's us, three people presenting arguments based on experts' opinions", yet you conveniently replied "Three people is not a reliable source". You intentionally did not hear the end of my sentence - based on experts' opinions. Therefore, I will now stop arguing. We have been polite enough not to merely revert your edits, but to attempt reasoning with you. Since that is not working, I'm out of here for now. Manus & PL: Thank you for your input! (I also think it'd be legit if you override Senor Cuete based on WP:CONSENSUS, or just ask for mediation, you fellas decide.) I'll come back if I see the need, but for now, I just don't see the point. BigSteve (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankz, BigSteve, and commiserations! Just for your entertainment, how about this for a theory? (the 20-baktun piktun being, equally, only a theory, albeit the currently most academically popular one)...

When inscribing dates, THE (??) Maya had an absolute taboo against using a figure higher than 13 in any baktunian or transbaktunian register -- which means, of course, that a piktun (as they didn't call it) consisted of 13 baktuns (as they equally didn't call it). So, to get around it without going into a further register when forecasting far distant things like Pacal anniversaries, they invented the idea of 'distance numbers', to which no such taboo applied (why else would they do it?). A 'secular' modification to an essentially sacred calendar, in other words. Hence the situation as we actually have it today...

You may think this silly, or impractical, or unlikely (as Senor Cuete undoubtedly will!), but consider the case of the British pre-decimal money system of pounds shillings and pence, where it was absolutely forbidden to write more than 19 in the shillings column -- yet, if you were pricing things in guineas (such as bespoke suits or legal services) you could happily write '21/-'.

Equally silly, or impractical, or unlikely? -- but yet it happened, as I knew to my youthful cost! There's no limit to people's ability to reconcile the irreconcilable, as tradition runs up against practicality.

Does any of the specialists advance a theory of this kind? Does it fit the available facts? Do any of them even consider the question of 'Why?' at all?

Discuss? --PL (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The math in the following paragraph is still wrong: 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. 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.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that arguments from distance dates are simply cases of researchers and would-be researchers using the theory they are trying to prove, to prove the theory they're trying to prove. And we all know where that leads!! ;) --PL (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

They're still the unreferenced ones that were there before. I've been reading the definitive references on this and I plan to replace the examples with ones that will cite reliable sources and can be verified. The purpose of this exercise is to improve the article, not to complain that the experts in the field are engaging in a conspiracy against your original research. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ah -- I did that, did I? ;) --PL (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I added new distance dates to the article. I chose those three because: They cross the era date and the first pictun. They add up. They're discussed on Lloyd B. Anderson's site so it was easy to add references to pages that discuss them in greater detail. Senor Cuete (talk)Senor Cuete

Thanks. Mind you, all your examples are from quite late, after the time of Pacal, which leaves open the possibility that the distance-number math was a quite late development.--PL (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC):

The Pakal article says that he reigned from 9.8.9.13.0 to 9.12.11.5.18 so those are from the time of Pakal. The last one commemorates his accession. Lots of things are possible, so yeah, whatever. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete