Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2011/October

New division "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' " created
I am sorry for not having explained the reason for combining two existing paragraphs into a new division. The main reason is that the Year Bearer and 52-Day Cycle sections are not on the same hierarchical level as the Tzolk'in and Haab' sections. By regrouping the two first sections, a new division is created that is on a par with the two latter sections. Another reason is that the Year Bearer section was in between Long Count and Short Count, where it simply did not belong.Retal (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to create a new heading for "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' ". The combination of These two cycles is called the calendar round and it already has a heading. It makes sense to describe these two first and then describe the calendar round. Your edit also makes the year bearer a sub heading of the calendar round, which it isn't. There is no such thing as "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' " - this is referred to by sources as the calendar round. By making calendar round a sub heading of "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab' ", you made it a sub heading of itself. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * True, the Calendar Round section gives the specifics of the combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'. However, I also suggested a new division to give the discussion of the Year Bearers its proper place; for why should it be wedged in between the Supplementary Series of the Long Count and the Short Count, as it is now? So, if you don't want to create a new overarching section called "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'", of which the Calendar Round would be the resulting, specific form, then I think one should integrate the year bearer discussion into the Calendar Round section. Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retal (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem confused about the calendar round. It's not a "specific form of the "Combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'" it *IS* the combination of Tzolk'in and Haab'. Read the article. The year bearer is not really a part of the calendar round but is derived from it. You describe the Supplementary series as "Supplementary Series of the Long Count" which it isn't. It's its own data - not derived from the Long Count. It might make sense to make the year bearer a sub-heading of Calendar round. The problem in organizing the article is that you can't really tell the reader how the calendar round works before you describe the Tzolkin and Haab since they are combined to make up the calendar round. There might be two ways you could organize the article:


 * 1. Describe it the way it appears on a Stela. ISIG>Long Count>Tzolk'in>Haab>supplementary series and then describe the parts that aren't on a typical stela: year bearer, 819 day cycle and Venus cycle and note that the short count was in use by the post-classic Maya at the time of the conquest. I see that the ISIG is not described in the article. Perhaps this should be added.


 * 2. The order of apparent importance to the people of Mesoamerica: Tzolkin>Haab (calendar round) > year bearer > Long Count and the other stuff. This is more or less how it's organized now.


 * In my opinion neither of these is a particularly great idea - The organization is good enough. Maybe it would make sense to make the year bearer a sub head of the calendar round.Senor Cuete (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * I have created a new division "Interlocking of Tzolk'in and Haab'", since unlike "Calendar Round", this caption immediately shows what the division is about; moreover, the Calendar Round is an effect of the Interlocking, rather than being identical with it. I removed the reference to the main article "Calendar Round", since in my view, this article is redundant. I also removed some details about combinations of day signs and coefficients of haab' dates that would only be interesting for specialists.Retal (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ISIG
Neither this article nor the Long Count article mentions the fact that Classic inscriptions are inscribed as rows of two glyphs in columns and that they are introduced by an Introductory Series Introductory Glyph that spans both columns. The illustrations don't show this. I would like to add this information and a description of the glyphs that make up an ISIG and the patron deity of the Haab' month that appears in the center. I am wondering where in the hierarchy of the article(s) this would go and if it would be useful to upload an illustration of a typical complete classic inscription to show this. I can't find a good one on Wikimedia. I'll put this in the talk of the Long Count as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reversion of edits by Retal
Retal: I reverted your edits to the article. I didn't want to do it because it feels rather heavy handed. It's not any more so than your unnecessary re-write of the article. The article has been here in its more or less present form for a long time and nobody has thought it needed a very heavy make over as you did. Your edits contain factual problems like your assertion that the the Calendar Round is not the same thing and the combination of the Tzolkin and Haab. Your rewrite of the Year bearer section contains less information than the old one. You are a terrible writer and your writing about things like how the Tzolkin and Haab are combined to produce the Calendar Round is awkward, wordy and less readable than the text you replaced. I suggest that you register as a Wikipedia editor and discuss proposed changes like the ones you want to make to the article here. I don't completely like the article either; for example if I were writing it, I would combine the Long Count article with this one and remove sections like the ones that tell how to make the calculations and the Maya concepts of time. I haven't done this because other editors wrote most of the articles and I respect their right to contribute what they want as long as it isn't un-helpful poor quality stuff like yours. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * You behave as if you own this article! You have no right to delete my contribution as a whole without giving me a chance to react to your arguments or to make amends where necessary. I will show that your arguments are both mistaken and offensive. (1) Nobody changed it the way I did. - This amounts to the argument that any major change is a dubious change, which is plain nonsense. Moreover, I don't see a "very heavy makeover"; I just brought together what belongs together and I tried to bring more coherency to the text. (2) I asserted that the Calendar Round is not the same thing and [? did you mean to say "as"?] the combination of the Tzolkin and Haab and this assertion is wrong. - I stated that the CR is the result of the interlocking of tzolk'in and haab', which is what you will find in any serious treatment of the CR.(3) My new text contains less information than the text I replaced. - It is true that I removed (a) unnecessary arithmetical details that could only be of interest to specialists and (b) untrue assertions, such as "the end of the Calendar Round was a period of unrest and bad luck among the Maya." I did so to get the basic things back into focus. For example, I explained why the YB were so important to the Mayas. I also added references. (4) My writing is (a) awkward, (b) wordy, (c) difficult to read. Since you give no examples, and make no effort to suggest improvements, these assertions are mere insults. If you don't come up with something more serious and constructive, I will feel free to undo your move. I also made it clear to you that the Year Bearer section was in the wrong place; you did not tell me why I should be wrong in this.Retal (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason that nobody thought that the article needed to be re-structured is because it was correct the way it was. Your assertion that the Calendar round is not the combination of the Tzolk'in and Haab demonstrates fundamental ignorance of this subject. No, no source treats the Calendar Round as anything other that the Tzoklkin and Haab. Since you insist that they are somehow different from themselves, this is original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I didn't contribute the text about the Calendar Round completion being baleful but I felt comfortable leaving it because I knew that for the post-classic cultures it was a huge thing - for example the extinguishing of the fires in Mexico-Tenochtitlan. What you wrote about this confused me and seemed to indicate that you think that it didn't occur on 4 Ahau 8 Kumku - again original research. The older section about the year bearer was more complete, clear and concise than the one you added - for example it explained all four year bearer systems and why they included four year bearers and the fact that they are still important to living cultures in Mexico and Guatemala. The only thing I could be luke warm about was the inclusion of an explanation about the significance of the year bearers. I thought about adding this but I felt that it should be in the Maya calendar divination article. You could boil this down to one well written sentence and add it to the article. An example of awkward wordy writing was the over-written text following the new heading about the Combination of the Tzolkin and Haab. The text describing the fact that only some combinations of the Tzolkin and Haab can occur is actually quite useful because if you look at supposed Maya calendar sites (including some maya calendar related articles on Wikipedia) many of the supposed calendar round dates can't occur. You say that this is not relevant to anyone except technical types. So who do you think we are writing for? I guess we're writing a technical article for non-technical people. Do you really think you can tell who will read the article? As far as saying that I think I own this article, I have gone out of my way not to act like I own it. I've let parts of it stay that I would never allow if it was mine and I've discussed proposed changes on the discussion page (like the inclusion of a description of the ISIG that's on this discussion page now). If you look at my contributions you will see that I've made hundreds of edits to this article and none have ever been reverted because they are clear, concise and factual and supported by citations. I have also refrained from making edits that I wanted because other editors talked me out of it. I want this to be a good article and this means reverting terrible edits like the ones you made and vandalism, which your edits almost are. YOU on the other hand seem to think YOU own the article because YOU feel free to make major changes to the article without discussing them and add them again when other editors tell you not to on the discussion page. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you make bad edits to an article, they will be reverted. If this makes you as furious as you sound, they you should go play elsewhere. Later retal. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * Cuete, I have obviously been too rash. Let’s talk constructively. I suggest the following compromise, taking the text as it is now as our starting point. We bring together CR and YB in a new division called "CR and YB", so that we can lay our quarrel regarding combination, or ínterlocking, of Tzolk'in+Haab' and CR to rest. Then, in section 1, CR: (1a) We add an arithmetical explanation for the duration of the CR; (1b) we remove the passage about unrest and bad luck at the end of a CR; (1c) we make a slight change of wording: haab' coefficient > month coefficient, since the haab' itself has no coefficient, and we add a source reference. In section 2, YB: (2a) We make a change of wording: “If the first day of the Haab' is 0 Pop then each 0 Pop…” > “The first day of the Haab’ is called 0 Pop. Each 0 Pop…”; (2b) we add my paragraph about the YB being a translated Maya concept and about the reasons for the YB’s importance; (2c) we add my paragraph about the YB in the Highlands, Yucatan, DC, and the Classic Period; (2d) IF we talk about the Aztec New Fire ceremony at all, we make it clear that this ceremony took place at the CR’s of a YB (2 Acatl); (2e) we change the final paragraph, since as it is now, I can hardly understand it; moreover, we need references to literature here. Please let me know what you think about these amendments.Retal (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me take some time to look at the text as it is and study your proposed edits. Let me start with new fire: What I've read about Aztec mythology is that new fire happened on a Calendar Round Completion - in this case Tuesday July 6,1512 (Julian). I've never heard of it being on a year bearer. The only Aztec myth concerning a 2 Reed year that I've ever heard of is the legend that Topiltzin would return during a 2 Reed year. Malinalli knew this and told Cortez about it and that it was a 2 Reed year. He was happy to use this to convince the Mexicans that he was a god. This is described in the histories of the conquest. I think you are either confused about your Aztec history or reading an un-reliable source. If you can site some reliable source like Sahagun or Duran I'll believe it. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete
 * Hill Boone, Cycles of Time and Meaning, p. 17: "the Aztecs held the New Fire Ceremony and ushered in a new 52-year cycle in the year they called 2 Reed"; p. 255 note 18: "The Aztecs used to drill the new fire in the year 1 Rabbit; but because that year was always difficult for them (often being a year of famine), Moctezuma moved the New Fire Ceremony to 2 Reed" (from a gloss in the codex Telleriano-Remensis (4IV). The fear and unrest preceding an Aztec New Fire ceremony may thus have coincided with the 5 nemontemi, and this coincidence may have led to the bizarre statement in the article, that fear and unrest preceded "the" Calendar Round (CR of which day?) among the Maya. It should be made clear that a Calendar Round is not the same as a New Fire cycle.Retal (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The current creation started on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumku - Monday September 6, -3113 (Julian astronomical). The Calendar Round repeated every 18980 days. This is a Calendar Round Completion. A Calendar Round Completion occurred on 11.14.12.5.0 Ahau 8 Kumku - Tuesday July 6, 1512 (Julian). This was during the reign of Moctecuzoma II which lasted from 1502 to 1520. A 2 Reed year bearer occurred on 11.14.19.7.1 3 B'en 1 Pop Saturday July 23, 1519 (Julian). If Hill is correct then the Aztec new fire ceremony did not happen on a Calendar Round Completion. The sentence "The end of the Calendar Round was a period of unrest and bad luck among the Maya, as they waited in expectation to see if the gods would grant them another cycle of 52 years.[citation needed]" was probably added by an author who was confusing it with the unlucky days of Uayeb. Since a citation has not appeared for a long time, it is probably a good idea to delete it. The Aztec new fire should probably not be mentioned in this article.  Senor Cuete (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete


 * I will delete the sentence concerned. I hope you will soon consider the other proposed edits as well.(In connection with point (2a) above, we should probably also mention the discussion as to whether the YB falls on 0 Pop or on 1 Pop.) By the way, I am not familiar with the expression 'Calendar Round Completion'; do you mean the CR 'anniversary' of a given base date?Retal (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the Calendar Round section is worthless. It says "Neither the Tzolk'in nor the Haab' system numbered the years." What year is the author talking about? I suppose it means that there was no system to count the Haab' years. Then the second sentence is very POV. Who says it was sufficient for most people? Maybe it should say that for fixing a date in a longer period of time the Long Count was used. Also a parenthetical expression could mention that 52 Haab' years is 18980 days. The current creation started on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau  8 Kumku. When another 4 Ahau  8 Kumku occurred a 52 Haab' year Calendar Round was completed. This was a big deal for the Maya. I'll look at the Year Bearer Section.  Senor Cuete (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I think that you are more or less correct about changing the hierarchy of the part of the article about the Calendar Round. I think it should look like this

Calendar Round
 * text describing the calendar round as an18980 day cycle made up of the Tzolkin and Haab
 * Tzolkin
 * Tzolkin text
 * Haab
 * Haab text
 * Calendar Round Completion
 * text describing a Calendar Round Completion
 * Year Bearer
 * Year Bearer Text

Notice that this makes the Year Bearer a sub-heading of Calendar Round.

Also an interesting piece of original research - as I recall the accounts of the conquest describe the fact that Cortez arrived during a 2 Reed year. 1519 is only a Reed year if one uses either the Campeche or Mayapan Year Bearer system. The problem with this is that the coefficient of the Year Bearer will be 3 with the Campeche system and 4 with the Mayapan system. I'm wondering if I'm remembering this wrong or if the Aztec empire used a fifth system. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Retal - concerning your other suggestions. If you really feel that it improves the article you could put in the text explaining that 18980 is the LCD of 260 an 360. Personally I prefer to say that the Calendar Round repeats itself every 18980 days or 52 Haab years. I think it's enough. Yes, the Haab DOES have a coefficient 0-19. What do you mean? Text explaining what the Year Bearer means can be plagiarized, with a citation, from Tedlock. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Cuete, I have now made the YB a subheading of the CR section and removed the sentence "Neither the Tzolk'in nor the Haab' system numbered the years." Plagiarizing is not my style, using and rephrasing existing information is another thing. I will keep working on this article and I´ll keep you informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retal (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cuete: I have made the following new changes: (1) A rephrasing of the paragraph introducing the CR. Originally, we had: "Because the two calendars, Tzolk'in and Haab', were based on 260 days and 365 days respectively, the whole cycle would repeat itself every 52 Haab' years exactly." In this sentence, "the whole cycle" had not been previously mentioned, so that the reference missed its mark. Therefore, the new paragraph starts by explicitly stating that the two calendars together constitute a new cycle. Also, a reason is now given for the duration of the CR. (2) A paragraph explaining why the Mayas should pay such attention to the first day of the year. (3) Additional references, including Coe 1965 and B. Tedlock.Retal (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Retal: You should try to write clear, concise, simple declarative English without all of those parenthetical expressions. It would be much easier to see what you've done if you would edit a section once instead of doing it as a series of small edits. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Headings Haab' schema
I slightly changed the headings in the Haab' schema to preclude a possible misunderstanding: the given meanings are generally NOT those of the Post-Classic Yucatec month names, but of the glyphic Classic month names! Even so, ambiguities remain: e.g., 'Mat' is certainly not the translation of the glyph, but of the Yucatec name! This matter remains to be clarified.77.162.130.139 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I removed the text about the Aztecs believing that the world would end on 12/21/2012, citing Susan Evans because it's half correct. The part about the Aztecs believing that we live in the fifth sun is correct. However she then goes on to say that the Maya thought that the fifth sun would end on 13.0.0.0.0. This is wrong. It's specifically debunked in this article and the one about the Long Count. There's exactly *NO* evidence for this and a lot of evidence to the contrary in the form of distance inscriptions which use 20 Baktuns to make a Piktun. If anybody can come up with any evidence for a Mayan doomsday prophesy I'd like to see it and I'd like to see where Susan Evans found this in the form of her footnotes or other research other than hearsay. In absence of this I think she is an unreliable source. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Senor Cuete