Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2006/November

Date of the supposed end of the world
I always heard it was December 23, 2012, not December 21. What's up with that? December 21st is the solstice, maybe someone got confused. Perhaps there is a debate, but I have heard Decemeber 23 from several sources, including a video on the Mayan calendar. The Ungovernable Force 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between the two dates (dec 21 & dec 23) in 2012 for the completion of the current cycle is attributable to a slight difference in the base correlation factor used (for which there is not universal agreement). The great majority of reputable Mayanist scholars support a correlation between the Maya and Western calendars known as the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) correlation; however, this correlation allows some latitude over three successive days for the starting point, and which of these three possible days is "correct" has not been decisively proven (at least not to the satisfaction of all parties). In the GMT correlation, the "starting point" of the cycle occurred on either 11, 12, or 13 August 3114BC (proleptic Gregorian dates). Depending on which of these is adopted (and each have had their proponents), a correspondingly-different end date will be arrived at, hence the different alternatives of dec 21 & 23. I agree that there's scope for expansion upon this point in the article.
 * As to the cycle ending at or near the December solstice, this is generally believed to be no more than a coincidence (ie, the calendar &mdash;the Long Count in fact is not a novelty of the Maya, but is known from earlier inscriptions in Mesoamerica&mdash; was not specifically designed to end at a solstice point). Nor is there any specific contemporary evidence from the inscriptions or codices that the cycle completion portended the end of the world, for the Maya. Hope this helps.--cjllw |  TALK  01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it help to disprove the claim actually having the date for the "13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0" 'end of the world' to show how off the 2012 date is from the Mayan end of the world. Incidentally the Mayan 'end of the world' date appears to be far too large if 1.0.0.0.0.0 is in 4772 and would most likely correspond better to the end of the universe, which also ties in with the end of their last creation. Just a thought. --83.100.130.53 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Question for folks. I've noticed this on article and in the comments. The system described is vegesimal (base-20), yet the article and the comment above show 20 13's and 5 0's. Should it not instead be 15 13's and 5 0's? Or is there some other reason why there would be 25 entries in a base-20 system? If it isn't just a mistyping, there should be some clarification as to reasoning.
 * Bdevoe 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the date recorded on the monument at Coba. The number of 13's is irrelevant, as it is obvious that they meant 13's in all higher places. No reasoning needs to be given, because that is what is written. --grr 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When the Maya (or any other) number system is described as vigesimal/base-20, this means that when any given individual number is represented in a place-value notational number system, each digit is multiplied by the base (in this case, 20) raised to the nth power, where n is the position (starting with 0) of that digit's place in the representation. For example, in our own decimal/base-10 system, the number 1234 is equivalent to 4×100 + 3×101 + 2×102 + 1×103. A base-20 notation system requires 20 distinct symbols/groups of symbols to represent all of the digits which could occur in any given place (0,1,2,...19), for which the Maya typically used "bar-and-dot" symbols.


 * However, the number of places which could appear in a number's representation is not restricted by the base, and so the Maya base-20 has nothing to do with how many positions can be represented for their numerals, only how many values or digits there are to choose from to use in each individual place (ie, because ours is a base-10 system, this does not mean that our numerals have to have ten places, or that we would have to write "1234" as 0000001234).


 * To add to the confusion, the Maya Long Count system is not a purely vigesimal/base-20 system anyway, since the second-order place (tun) uses a multiplier of 18×20, instead of 20×20. Hope that helps.--cjllw | TALK  02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Long Count may be considered purely vigesimal, if you consider the tun to be the primary unit, not the kin. The winal and kin are only the count of days since the start of the tun. In some (mainly older) western texts, you will see a long count written as 9.17.2x3.4, with the x marking the difference between the count of tun's and count of days within the tun. --grr 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Month names & agrarian association
I've removed the following passage from the text claiming month names have a seasonal/agrarian association and/or origin: The Haab' was the foundation of the agrarian calendar and the month names are based on the seasons and agricultural events. For example the thirteenth month, Mak, may refer to the end of the rainy season and the fourteenth month, K'ank'in, may refer to ripe crops in the fall. While it probably comes from some source (perhaps the Foster reference), I do not think this is a standard (certainly not the only) interpretation. It can be re-added if the source is identified, and an appropriate context or note of relative standing and acceptance is provided.--cjllw | TALK  01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)