Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2007/January

Requested move
Maya calendar → Mayan calendar – It seems like Mayan is the adjective and so it should be what modifies calendar. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 05:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support all; just for the record, and for ease of counting viewpoints. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I now support the change per the reasons of Kaufman & Justeson. Maunus 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These "Maya" titles are proper; "Mayan" would be inproper or slangy usage. -- Infrogmation 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maya is both a noun and adjective. Mayan should only be used for the language. — Joe Kress 16:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per reasons above and as argued at WP:MESO/G.--cjllw | TALK  04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mayan should only be used for the language --grr 11:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments

There are contexts where "maya" is more widely used as an adjective than mayan. Eg. Maya society (24.200 google hits) but Mayan society (14.200 google hits), Maya archeology (2.350 google hits) but Mayan acheology (526 google hits), maya hieroglyphs (66.800 google hits), but mayan hieroglyphs (19.600 google hits). The last time we discussed this it was agreed that Mayan was only to be used to modify languages > mayan languages.Maunus 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Current naming is per standards decided on by WikiProject Mesoamerica. Any renaming of these articles really needs to be discussed as a change of naming standards by the project. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually askingn around people seem to agree that the adjective should be mayan. If someone can show me the rationale behind this idea I could be swayed to support the maya>mayan change.(although of courdse not as extensively as the now reverted changed would have done) Maunus 09:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Asking around who, where? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * some of my linguistically inclined friends. I still havent heard any reasoning behind their preference though.Maunus 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the field of linguistics the more usual convention would indeed be to use Mayan, so your colleagues may be speaking from that frame of reference. However, in all other fields there's a marked preference for Maya only. For some explicit statements of this convention, see this introductory text at the Mesoweb site, and Endnote #1 in this summary by Mathews at Famsi. Thus the guideline at WP:MESO/G- "Mayan" for linguistics, "Maya" per everything else. This is of course just a convention, and one which is not always observed even in scholarly publications - however a review of the non-linguistic ones will show it is the convention most frequently applied. There are a number of others who consciously prefer Mayan over Maya- see for eg Justeson & Kaufmann's view, explained here. However I don't see a reason to change the current convention in en.wiki. --cjllw | TALK  00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, I'd support a move to Maya calendars, in the plural, since there are really a number of calendric systems covered here.--cjllw | TALK  08:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Maya calendar consists of a number of parts, but all appear together in the typical Initial Series on most stellae. This just means that it is much more complicated than the typical old world calendar, which uses only a day, month and year, each identified in many different ways (the Pawukon calendar used in Indonesia is an exception). But the Maya did not identify the year, so they tripled the month and day info to compensate, using the haab, tzolkin, and long count portions (at least during the Classical period). — Joe Kress 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I was thinking more along the lines of a few other counts and cycles we presently barely touch upon here, such as the 819-day count and its extension into a cycle of 3276 days. Although the inscriptions correlate starting points for this count by counting back from Long Count dates, the relation between it and the LC is unclear. There's also the Postclassic Short Count, which I guess could be seen as merely an abbreviated LC, but its non-repetitive length is different at around 256 yrs. Others which could bear mentioning are the proposed 7-day count, and also for consideration whether to mention in this context other tracked astronomical cycles such as for venus & mars.--cjllw | TALK  06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

0 to 12 Baktuns
There are 13 Baktuns, numbered 0 -> 12 so many of the Long Count Dates in the article are incorrect. Think about it. If the the Baktun number could be 13 then there would be 14 baktuns - numbered 0 to 13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.230 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

No, there were 20 Baktuns, numbered 0 to 19. It is a myth that the baktuns stopped being counted at 13. The previous creation ended on one of many 13th baktun's, but that doesn't affect the argument. (Arguments about the whether 0 really meant zero or completion of the previous unit to be deferred to place.) --grr 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to what sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you just think about what you're saying you will realize that you are wrong. All Maya calendar dates count forward from the creation of the fifth sun on 0.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumk'u - Monday, September 6th, -3113 Julian astronomical. If as you and the author of this part of the article say, there are 20 Bak'tuns and this date was really 13.0.0.0.0 then the Bak'tuns wouldn't have reached zero until seven more Bak'tuns had elapsed and 0.0.0.0.0 would occur on what everyone else calls 7.0.0.0.0 Monday June 8th, -353 Julian astronomical. We would still be in the 7th Bak'tun and the end of the 13th Bak'tun would still be 5 Bak'tuns away (2,766 more years). All the Long Count inscriptions such as 10.0.0.0.0 (Wednesday, March 9th, 830 Julian) would not even have occurred yet. The G.M.T. correlation would also have to be revised by 2,766 years. It is possible that there are 20 Baktuns but if so then the day before the creation of the fifth sun was 19.19.19.17.19 and the creation date of the fifth sun would still be 0.0.0.0.0. If there are 20 Bak'tuns then why would they go from 13 to zero on the creation date? The Calendar Round didn't zero on the creation date so why would the Long Count? I suggest that anyone interested in this read Anthony Aveni's wonderfull book that is cited in the references.

Long Count units K'ins, Winals, Tuns and K'atuns and months in the Haab are all counted from zero but according to the article Bak'tuns use 13 insead of zero and are counted as 13, 1... This is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.161.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Although your argument seems logical, the Maya did not share your logic because they explicitly identified the epoch of the Long Count as 13.0.0.0.0  4 Ahau 8 Cumku (Linda Schele and David Friedel, A Forest of Kings, pp 82-83, including a line drawing of the glyphs; J. Eric S. Thompson, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, p.149, photo of the glyphs at Fig. 53,1). Lest you suspect that this is an aberration, these come from two widely separated cities, Quirigua in the south and Palenque in the west. Thompson states on the same page that when the Long Count was invented during baktun 7 or 8, the baktun was the longest cycle, 1 following 13 endlessly; but as the Maya acquired astronomical and calculation expertise, the baktun and all larger cycles became purely vigesimal, 0 following 19 endlessly. Even though the epochal "completion of 13 baktuns" was retained by the Maya for everyday usage, modern authors treat it as 0 baktuns for the purposes of calculation. Your favorite author, Anthony Aveni, agrees that the Maya used 13.0.0.0.0 but that he prefers to write it as 0.0.0.0.0 (Skywatchers, p.350 n.10). — Joe Kress 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring this article for vandalism
This article has some topics that seem to be controversial. Some people don't seem to get that the world isn't going to end in 2012. I have fixed the information 2012 section several times after vandalism. Each time I check it for modifications, it seems to be messed with inaccurate information. Can this get locked down more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grr (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You think that anyone who edits this part of the article in a way you disagree with is a vandal. This is not vandalism. Locking stuff you don't like is contrary to the idea of Wiki because it's supposed to be a collaboration. Maybe they're right and you're wrong. The 5 in the piktuns place is because we live in the fifth sun and we are aproaching the sixth sun, 5.0.0.0.0.0. If you had read the article you would have seen that all of the other references to the completion of the 13 baktun cycles use 0, not 13. This issue could be debated and a solution could be reached but your attitude that you are the ultimate authority on the subject is not helpful. If you really want to contribute to this article you should register and debate this on your talk page. Also there is evidence that the end of the fifth sun is an end of the world date for example in Diego de Landa's Relacion. I didn't revert your edits but I support whoever did. Another issue for me is that the text about this subject references Linda Schele. Linda was a briliant epigrapher but didn't understand the calendar. In her own writings about this subject she said "you must understand I am not a number person" and described at great length how she really didn't understand this before resurecting the Thompson correlation in her book. Obviously there are better sources for understanding the calendar then her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Please register, sign in, and sign your comments (with four tildes: ~ ). Your statement, "If you really want to contribute to this article you should register and debate this on your talk page." is ironic because Grr is indeed registered and signed in, he just forgot to sign his post. You are the one who doesn't appear to be registered ("Sign in / create account" at upper right of any Wikipedia page) because you did not sign in, so you are only identified in "Page history" by a numeric IP address, which makes you appear to be a vandal. Debating on someone's talk page does not contribute to this article — any such debate belongs here where everyone can contribute. — Joe Kress 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had several conversations with Linda about the Maya Calendar in the years preceding her death, I can attest that she knew quite well how the calendar worked. While she may have stated that she wasn't a "number person", she worked with numbers of the calendar about as well as anybody I know. Examine the Texas Notes she authored to see her proficiency with the calendar. She also used Lounsbury's calendar program, written in Forth, which requires a fair amount of skill with the calendar to use (and for some purposes is still the best calendar program out there). On another note, show me a single place that the Maya recorded a 5 in the piktuns place. You can't because there aren't any. I can show you the monument from Coba that has a 13 in the piktuns place from the last creation (as well as all higher places), and I can show you a 1 in the piktuns place from this creation from Palenque, with a calendar round that requires that there be 20 baktuns before reaching the 1 piktun. Making arbitrary unsupported modifications to the page is vandalism, and as it gets closer to 2012, there is probably going to be a lot more of it. --grr 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)