Comments on: Bak’tuns and More Bak’tuns

By: Jorge Méndez

Jorge Méndez — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:31:13 +0000

Hello, Professor Stuart.
Some final comments:
1. Contra the Wikipedia article on the ha’b, it is far from transparent with how much accuracy the ancient Maya knew the length of the tropical year. So, there is little reason, if any, to think that they anticipated that our bak’tun change would fall (if in fact it did) on a solstice day. On the contrary, I now see that there is every reason to agree with you that it was a complete coincidence that the said bak’tun ending was the day of the winter solstice, if indeed the (modified) GMT correlation is correct.
2. As becomes clear from the explanations in your book, if we go back thirteen bak’tuns from the year 3114 BC to the year 8239 BC, we get 0.0.0.0.0 (preceded by a string of thirteens) and not 13.0.0.0.0.
3. It does seem probable to me that the full Long Count encompassed infinitely many units, not just 24, and that Coba’s Grand Long Count inscriptions are as incomplete as the Yaxchilan step inscription, which you illuminatingly describe in your book and which “only” includes eight thirteens above the bak’tun.
4. In this post, you correlate 13.0.0.0.0 with August 13, 3114 BC. Unfortunately, this is inconsistent with the (modified) GMT correlation (584,283), which you consistently if tentatively seem to follow in your book and indeed in the rest of this post. The correlation according to which December 21, 2012, was 13.0.0.0.0, and according to which October 13, 4772, will be 1.0.0.0.0.0, implies that it wasn’t August 13 but August 11 (3114 BC) that was the proleptic Gregorian equivalent of 13.0.0.0.0. I repeat that no such inconsistency seems to be found in your book, where you consistently but of course not dogmatically correlate 13.0.0.0.0 with August 11.
5. I find it exciting and impressive how much progress has been made, by you and other scholars, in understanding ancient Maya inscriptions in general and the Long Count in particular. And for that, as a Guatemalan citizen, I am grateful.

By: Jorge Méndez

Jorge Méndez — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:39:34 +0000

If I may, two more questions, Professor Stuart, and I’m done.

Last December the Long Count seems to have reached the date 13.0.0.0.0. Going back thirteen bak’tuns (some 5125 years to the past: to the year 3114 BC), we also seem to get 13.0.0.0.0, not 0.0.0.0.0. My penultimate question is: If we go back thirteen more bak’tuns (some 5125 years more to the past: to the year 8239 BC), this time do we really get 0.0.0.0.0, that is:

13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0.0 (nineteen thirteens and five zeros),
or do we also get instead 13.0.0.0.0, that is:
13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 (twenty thirteens and four zeros),

as we did in 3114 BC and in 2012 AD?

And one last question: Is it probable that the full Long Count encompassed not just 24 units, but more units, perhaps infinitely many units, and that they were always omitted in the same way that the nineteen units before the bak’tun position were usually omitted? After all, Thompson did write (in page 316 of Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, a book that contains, as you said in an interview, “brilliant descriptions of the Maya calendar and the mechanisms of the calendar that really can’t be beat even to this day”), concerning certain stelae at Quirigua, the following: “I feel reasonably confident that when these stelae came to be erected at Quirigua, the Maya priest-astronomers had accepted the idea that time had no beginning”. Your thoughts would once again be very much appreciated.

By: Jorge Méndez

Jorge Méndez — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:16:45 +0000

Thanks from Guatemala for the illuminating post.
The Wikipedia article on the solar year Haab’ or ha’b says something whose reliability I would like you to assess. It is relevant to the question whether the ancient Maya knew that the recent bak’tun ending would coincide with a solstice, even though, as CBC News has quoted you as saying, “other bak’tun endings don’t really fall on important astronomical dates”. What Wikipedia says is the following:
“Inscriptions on The Temple of the Cross at Palenque show clearly that the Maya were aware of the true length of the year, even though they did not employ the use of leap days in their system of calculations generally. J. Eric Thompson wrote that the Maya knew of the drift between the Haab’ and the solar year and that they made ‘calculations as to the rate at which the error accumulated, but these were merely noted as corrections; they were not used to change the calendar.’ There are at least two inscriptions with periods of 1508 Haab’ from Palenque, which equates to 1507 tropical years, or 550420 days. This gives the Maya approximation to the tropical year at being 365.2422 days, being more accurate than the Gregorian Year currently used across the world. 1508 Haab’ also incorporate 29 full Calendar Rounds, and two codices, the Codex Laud and Codex Mexicanus, also record the 1508 Haab’ intervals.”.
I would very much appreciate it for you to weigh in. Thanks again.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:10:56 +0000

My wife and I went out to Mixco Viejo for the calender/solar cycle event, an enjoyable event it was. A little tense for me but no trouble between the Army and the Maya, the army brought 300 or so of their numbers to keep things safe-or so they said. The message from the Maya clergy was one of peace and getting along with each other. They erected a new monument, unveiled it as the sun was coming up, used polymer based material for the glyphs. The army presence was discerning; there was no drinking, fireworks, the normal carrying on that our Maya friends are so fond of, yet in the end the message was PEACE. Reporting from the Guate highlands, norm kwallek .

By: David Stuart

David Stuart — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:42:41 +0000

Of course people believe what they choose to believe. However, my own understanding of Mr. Tah’s philosophy and teachings shows little deep connection to what scholars know of ancient Maya religion. He’s a modern spiritualist, I’m not.

By: David Stuart

David Stuart — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:27:55 +0000

My guess is that it’s a coincidence. The only cycles of the Long Count that are directly tied to an astronomical phenomenon is the day, of course, and the “vague year” of 360 days, which isn’t very astronomical.

By: Pacal votan

Pacal votan — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:40:17 +0000

Are the teachings of Ac Tah false or true?

By: Kermit Frazier

Kermit Frazier — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:52:04 +0000

Great information! So, I can schedule my week, without ‘End-of-World’ Conflicts!

Really, this is a fascinating in depth study. Thank you!

By: David

David — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:56:31 +0000

Really interesting article! Thanks for the elucidation.
My question: is it random coincidence that the pik tun cycle of 13,000 years coincides with 1/2 of a cycle of the precession of the equinoxes? I know the wormhole that pseudo scientists will often dive into regarding galactic alignment and other B.S., I was just wondering how these two cycles correlated, if at all.
Thanks.

By: Francisco

Francisco — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:40:54 +0000

Hello Dr. Stuart,

I am from Honduras and I just ordered two copies of your book one for me and another from my dad. I look forward on reading it! I congratulate you on your work along with many of the other Mayanist uncovering the past.