Talk:Baktun

14th baktun?
the mayan long count calender ends on the 13th baktun, why would scholars make up a 14th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.143.51 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC) \

14th baktun is incorrect the Mayans have a circular calendar, like astrological calendar or a year calendar. Adding a 14th baktun is like adding a mouth in-between December and January. It is like adding a astrological sign in-between Pisces and Aries. It just goes back to 0.0.0.0.0 for one you can look at the shape of the calendar circle it's not a pin up that you throw away at the end of the year. It is a mostly Jewish – Christen - Islamic concept to think of time as a line. when you have ancient societies look at the sky as a method for explaining the functioning of the universe and they start to see orbit time seems circular. Please Remove 14th baktun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.46.218 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * just for the hell of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 74.72.130.137 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2011


 * 2012_phenomenon — 216.160.102.151 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2012

13th baktun
"The 13th baktun will be completed (13.0.0.0.0 in Long Count notation) on December 21, 2012, which also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun?"

Is that quite right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.130.17 (talk • contribs).


 * That is a result of naming the baktuns in two different ways by Maya scholars. It could be reworded. — Joe Kress 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So the Mayans counted the "0th" Baktun as being the first? I guess they were way ahead of Europeans. --86.148.57.131 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, their system starts with 0.0.0.0.0 Shii (tock) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The Maya specified that their Long Count began with the "completion of baktun 13", hence 13.0.0.0.0. Specifying that the "first" baktun was 0 as in 0.0.0.0.0 is an invention of modern scholars to be consistent with subsequent baktuns which were numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Main text in error
the main text is wrong, tropical years are 365.2424 days, Mayan 365.2422 days, NOT 360 days so how can 400 tun equal 400 tropical years 6 years early! "The 13th baktun will be completed (13.0.0.0.0 in Long Count notation) on December 21, 2012, which also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun?" This is false. completes 13x400, doesnt start it. 5200 tun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk • contribs) 16 October 2009


 * No, it's not. The article's text said " nearly 400 tropical years ", not "exactly". One tun = 20x18 days = 360 days. Not 365.2422 days; possibly you are confusing the Long Count with the haab' calendar (Maya version of the Mesoamerican 365-day count, which isn't equal to 365.2422 days anyways).


 * So 400 tun = 400x360 days = 144,000 days, which divided by 365.2424 (#days in a tropical year) yields 394.25 tropical years; this is indeed "just shy of six years short" of a round 400 tropical years. The article is correct.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Mardyks, the tropical year is 365.2422 days. The Ancient Maya only used a vague solar year of 365 days, the Haab'. I think this article and the Ka'tun article should be nominated for speedy deletion since this is is discussed on the Maya calendar and Long Count articles and so is redundant. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

ipa
should this article has an IPA for the word so people can correctly pronounce? --223.207.130.173 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename
Look, I'm no expert on this, but I think it's properly spelled b'ak'tun. We should rename it to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.130.137 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the proper spelling. SpecialHelper234 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How are those apostrophes pronounced? Are they aspirations or clicks or what? 83.253.131.89 (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by IP editor 216.58.1.102
The article as it is now:

A baktun (properly b'ak'tun) is 20 katun cycles of the ancient Maya Long Count Calendar. It contains 144,000 days, equal to 394.26 tropical years. The Classic period of Maya civilization occurred during the 8th and 9th baktuns of the current calendrical cycle. The current (13th, numbered with a 12, as the first was '0') baktun will end, or be completed, on 13.0.0.0.0 (December 21, 2012 using the GMT correlation), after 12.19.19.17.19. This also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun. There is disagreement on whether such a baktun was meant to exist at all, as the last 14th baktun never occurred due to the civilisation being wiped out.

The classic period occurred during baktuns 8 and 9 - the 9th and 10th baktuns. The first parenthetic expression is awkward and over-written. "end or be completed" could just be completed. After 12.19.19.17.19 could be eliminated. 12/21/2012 marks the beginning of the 14th baktun (0-13 = 14). The last paragraph is complete nonsense. No reliable source can be cited for this. This article is redundant since this is described in the Long Count article. It should be marked for speedy deletion. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * I agree with this perspective on the revisions, although I am curious about the research/understanding that motivated them. I would favor keeping the "baktun" article, since I can imagine more images and information being added here but not to the main article on long count. groupuscule (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible IPA suggestions
Some ideas for some IPA that could be added:

My IPA isn't good but you could try these anyway.


 * Eh, just use Wiktionary's (referenced!) pronunciation transcription, /ˈbɑkˌtun/. -sche (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note section
Should it be removed? Blackdiamand (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)