Re: calendars (was: samhain?)

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:29:04PM +0000, Tim May wrote:
> (According to the Mayan long count, the end of the world - to be
> followed by the birth of a brand new one - will take place on Dec
> 21, 2012.  So we only have a little over 8 years to prepare. :))
>
> That's not true.  Or, at least, it's only one possible interpretation,
> and not the one held by the actual Mayanists I've read.
Well, aren't you Mr. Spoil-Sport. :)

Thanks for the post, though.  I had been confused by the 13 vs. 0 thing
and the various sources I used to research the Mayan calendars seemed to
disagree on the implications.  I didn't realize there was more general
evidence that they used the 13 glyph to mean 0.    Seems odd that they
didn't use 19, though.

> Now, the zero day of this calendar is August 13, 3114 B.C. (by the best
> correlation we have).
First, that's August 13th in the retrojected *Gregorian* calendar.  In
almost all contexts, B.C. dates are given in the Julian calendar, so you
need to signify when you're doing otherwise.  In the Julian calendar,
your correspondence date is September 8, 3114 BC.

Further, there seems to be some dispute there, as well.  My Dec 21,
2012, date for (the next) 13.0.0.0.0 was using the
Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation for zero date, which places it two
days earlier (on August 11th Gregorian = Sept 6th Julian).

> The alternative interpretation, that there is a cycle of 13 baktuns at
> the end of which the world is destroyed and recreated, is popular with
> kooks on the Internet.
I'll try not to take that personally. :)  But I should point out, in
case it's not obvious, that I have never taken this theory seriously and
do not expect the world to end in 2012.  That is, of course, unless Gaia
herself objects to the reelection of Hillary Clinton for a second term
as President . . . ;-)

-Marcos

Reply