Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2007/April

"Divination References"

I would like to know specifically where this information comes from.

"For example, a child born on the day of Akabal was thought to be feminine, wealthy, and verbally skillful"

Where can one verify this information and find what the other signs meant? TALK

• (grr 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)) I believe that info is in Thompson's Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. See the references in the article.

I added that, and it comes from Tedlock, Barbara: Time and the Highland Maya. I'd tell you so on your talk page if you'd signed your comment with four tildes. (There is a program called "Tzolkin" for PalmOS handheld computers that includes more data from this source; you'd need a palmOS emulator to run it on a desktop computer.) --Homunq 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best for any and all mentions of divinatory associations with calendric elements to be accompanied by specific citations, since the specifics of such associations vary considerably from region to region (eg highlands vs lowlands) and time to time. Many that are floating around come from more contemporary (rather than actual pre-Columbian) Maya accounts, and it would be important to also note from when and where Tedlock (for example) attributes the association, as well as the association itself.--cjllw | TALK 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll check out that book. Should there be a footnote there? I'm still learning all this wiki editing technique(Goodrob 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

OK so I got the book Time and the Highland Maya. I found the reference in the chapter called The Day Lords. I'm a bit confused however that The Day Lords do not correspond to the days in the chart on this page. Is there some way to match them up? Besides Ak'abal an Ix very few are familiar from the chart. Names like.. C'at, Can, Came, Quej, K'anil, Toj, Tz'i', Batz', E, Aj, No'j, Tijax, Junajpu... like where's Etznab? ideas? (Goodrob 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Those would be highland Mayan language names, which differ from the Yucatec Mayan names we've inherited from the Colonial era.--cjllw | TALK 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's k'iche names. That book is about the quiché maya.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

" MYTHICAL STARTING POINT "

You should note that the "mythical" starting point is 3115 B.C. also when Egypt began (THE FIRST NATION) Coincidence ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.165.241 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

There may be some conspiracy theory credibility to this statement. I'm looking into it... OK, according to The Mayan Code by Carl Johan Calleman, he says "History shows that civilizations suddenly appeared around 3115 B.C. in Egypt, India, and Sumer that used calendars based on systems similar to the Mayan Calendar, reflecting what was once a universal and sacred understanding of time."[1] Calleman also believes the "national" (katun) cycle ("consciousness of law") began in 3115 BC.[2] This bible chronology site mentions:

0885 AM - 3115 BC - End fifth Sabbatic Week of Eighteenth Jubilee - No sow, no reap

0886 AM - 3114 BC - The date the Mayan peoples claimed that the planet Venus was born

But nothing about the birth of Egypt (which states "A unified kingdom was founded circa 3150 BC by King Menes"). Interesting...

-Eep² 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calleman is at the fringe of fringe speculators, I'd be highly dubious about making any mention of his novelties here...--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the on the following: " the Long Count is based upon the number of elapsed days since a mythical starting point". I suppose the was targeting the word "mythical", but I can't think of how else to describe this "starting point". Certainly when the Long Count calendar was first devised, this 3114 BC starting point was already 3000 years in the past. Maybe this date was based on a Venus cycle, but why that particular date? Suggestions for editing are welcome, Madman 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I already gave you my suggestion but, apparently, you and others don't want to open up to its possibility... Doubt all you want, CJ, but until you research it for yourself I'd not be so close-minded if I were you. -Eep² 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not researchers, Eep, we just report on others' research, and the closer that that research is to the consensus or the "mainstream", the more we report on it. The further away it is, the less mention it receives. CJLL is saying that Calleman is so at the fringe of fringe speculators, that he should not be mentioned in this survey article. Thanks, Madman 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Calleman is published; this isn't my research. And we are researchers in that we research what info to add to the article. Hence, when left with a myth, I'd rather have a theory--no matter how "fringy". As Michael Tsarion said, "Perhaps the greatest myth being purveyed is that myths are just myths." -Eep² 20:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Eep, I am quite well acquainted enough with the alternative calendar/2012 musings of Calleman, Jenkins, Arguelles, Hancock, Furst, the McKennas, the supposed contemporary Maya shamans, and other New Age fellow travellers and populist authors. Perhaps more importantly I'm also familiar with what modern and appropriately accredited published scholarship has to say on the subject; certainly enough to realise that the associations put forward by Calleman et al are by no means supported or accepted in the scientific literature.

Indeed, a number of these alternative theorists readily admit that their reinterpretations and syncretic creations are not intended to actually describe the workings of the ancient Maya calendar itself -eg Arguelles is on record as saying his "Dreamspell"/ "13-moon" calendar is a novelty, not an historical interpretation. This article is intended to describe the historical calendar system, not its modern-day recycling into New Age calls to awakenings and visions of apocalypses.

Possibly you are misreading what is meant by saying the LC calendar has a 'mythical' starting point. As Madman notes, all this means is that the Long Count was not actually started by some canny individual in the year 3114BCE, but rather it was created much, much later and the "starting point" projected back in time. It is not only modern Mayanist scholarship which asserts this, but also most if not all of those alternative theorists; so placing a {fact} against the 'mythical' statement does not seem to be warranted.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly warranted; provide a source for that statement--it's that simple, CJ. Calleman actually denounces Arguelles' "Dreamspell" calendar (and notes differences--see his other debate articles). Discredit Calleman, please, if you can. For that, alone, I feel Calleman is worthy of inclusion in this article... -Eep² 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation request for the date, August 11, 3114 BC, because on 32nd century BC is the date August 13 for "Starting date of current Long Count in the Maya calendar"... -Eep² 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)