Calcul matematic in incercarea de a verifica data de

21 Decembrie 2012 din Calendarul juliano-gregorian , ca

data a finalizarii tranzitiei prin cei 13 BAKTUN si
incheierea uni Ciclu de 5125 de ani conform Calendarului
Maya
* sunt posibile erori de calcul fiindca in nici un
caz nu sunt un matematician…insa per ansamblu, am dorit sa vad daca datele se apropie cat
de cat. Concluziile le puteti trage si singuri!

Maya au folosit 3 sisteme de calendare:

1. Tzolkin – un calendar « bisericesc » cu 260 de zile
2. Haab – un calendar civil cu 365 de zile, alcatuit din 18 luni cu cate 20 de zile
3. Tun – un calendar cu 360 de zile, folosit fiind la numaratori lungi in timp, cum este
ciclul de 5125 de ani.

La fiecare 52 de ani, zilele Tzolkin-ului se suprapun cu zilele din calendarul civil Haab si
marcheaza inceputul unui nou ciclu.

Maya au folosit sistemul cu 20 de numere ( 0-19), fata de noi care innumaram in sistem
zecimal (0-9)

Acum:

1 Kin= 1 zi

20 de Kin = 1 UINAL=20 de zile

Calculul A :
20 de UINAL= 1 TUN=400 de zile dar fiindca maya foloseau calendarul TUN, bazat pe 360
de zile in armonie cu anul solar, atunci se calculeaza asa :

20 de UINAL= 1 TUN= 360 de zile acum mergem mai departe

20 de TUN= 1 KATUN=7200 de zile

20 de KATUN= 1 BAKTUN=144 000 de zile

1 Baktun este un Ciclu

13 BAKTUN = 144 000 X 13= 1 872 000 zile aceastea inseamna aprox 5125 de ani cat ar
dura translatia prin cei toti 13 Baktun…

Calculand de la data de 3114, 8 luni si 11 zile pana la data de 2012, 12 luni si 21 de zile…ar fi
o perioada de 5125 ani…
Calculul B:
ok! Acum voi calcula luand in considerare ca 20 de UINAL = 1 TUN = 400 de zile
Atunci avem urmatoarele date:
20 de TUN= 1 KATUN = 8000 de zile
si

20 de KATUN = 1 BAKTUN = 160 000 de zile

Reiau 1 BAKTUN este un Ciclu

13 BAKTUN = 13 X 160 000 zile = 20 800 000 de zile

20 800 000 / 365 ( zile anului nostru) = 5698,6301 ani la care voi adauga ani bisecti care in
total sunt 1426,575 . De aici rezulta inca 1426,575 zile care trebuiesc adaugate la suma totala
de ani, deci:

5698,6301 + 0,1426 = 5698,77

Acum putem face calculul final …luand in considerare aceeasi data mentionata adica anul
3114, 8 luni si 11 zile( i.e.n)…si sa incercam sa ii scadem din numarul de ani obtinuti mai sus:

5698,77 – 3114,8 = cu aproximatie 2583, 97

Acum vom mai scadea inca un an, datorita faptului ca in calendarul Juliano-gregorian nu
exista anul 0, se trece direct al anul 1 e.n, si obtinem anul final 2582,97…

Si acum intervine factorul surpriza! )

Exista o intreaga dezbatere contradictorie intre scolarii calendarului mayan…si aceasta

datoritaConstantei de Corelatie care s-ar aplica la transformarea datei
calendarului maya in calendar julioano-gregorian…
584283
parerile sunt impartite. unii sustin ca ar fi 584285
iar unii spun ca ar fi …
))))))
Pentru intelegerea mai bine a Constantei de Corelatie cititi mai jos.
Prin aplicarea acestei constante se ajunge la concluzia ca 13.0.0.0.0 (data maya de finalizare a
celor 13 BAKTUN si care marcheaza inceperea unui alt mare ciclu cu data de 0.0.0.0.0) ar
corespunde cu data de 23 Decembrie 2012 ….
Personal, inca nu am verificat aceasta, dar daca o sa ma treaca sa ma mai scald prin calcule
matematice atunci …I’ll let you know!

PS: practic data de 13.0.0.0.0 este una si aceeasi cu 0.0.0.0.0 intrucat prima marcheaza
sfarsitul si ultima un nou inceput. E precum la ceasuri: ora 24,00 noaptea e totodata ora 0,00.

Dana Stefania Ludwig

The Lunar Glyphs In The Maya Calendrics
Supplementary Series Correlation Constant
by Robert Kihm

THE CORRELATION CONSTANT

We need to briefly gloss over the "Correlation Problem", also named the "Ahaw Equation"; I have
stated above that 9.0.19.2.4 2 Kan 2 Yax is October 16, 454 A.D. Gregorian (regressed; recall that
Pope Gregory XIII decreed, during his reign, that the day following Thursday October 4 1582, would
be Friday October 14 1582 (Teeple, 1930, p99); this had for intent the restoration of the Spring
Equinox to March 21, which had by then slipped to March 11 under the less accurate Julian Leap Year
system; actually, it's more complex than this: First Point of Aries, the Spring Equinox, had slipped by a
full 14 days under the Julian Calendar; only 10 days were restored AND Spring Equinox was moved
from its then March 25 position to the new March 21 position!!). This date, October 16, 454 A.D. for
9.0.19.2.4 is true under the "Correlation Constant" 584285; this means that this date assumes that the
Maya Creation Date, August 13 3114 B.C. Gregorian, Zero Day, occurred on the 584285th day after
day 0, J.D.N., 12 o'clock noon (the astronomer's Julian Day Number).

Don't confuse the Julian Day Number with the Julian Date! The JULIAN DAY NUMBER System,
"J.D.N.", established by Joseph Justus Scaliger in the 16th Century, and possibly named in honor of
his father, Julius Scaliger, begins at Greenwich, at 12 o'clock noon, on January 1, 4713 B.C., Julian,
(January 1, 4712 B.C., Julian, with a year "zero" (Aveni, 1985, p204); it is based on the multiple of a
28-year Solar Cycle (every 28 years, the same day of the week will reoccur on specific date), a 19-year
Lunar Cycle, and a 15-year Civil Roman Indictment/Tax Cycle (Moyer, 1981). In converting back and
forth between Maya dates and Gregorian dates, Mayanists typically use the Astronomical J. D. N. as
an intermediary, and so do computer conversion programs such as Marc and John Harris's "Maya3, a
Mayan Calendrics Program (v3.00.01-Nov 10 1992)".

The controversy lies in that numerous conversion constants have been proposed, some differing from
others by hundred of years. The correct correlation constant should fit most if not all available Maya
documentation, including the Maya's astronomical observations of the Moon, planetary events such as
Venus Heliacal Risings and Settings, conjunctions of Sun, Moon and Planets, Lunar Glyphs in the
calendrics, historical dates of the Spanish Conquest in Mexico , Guatemala, Belize and Honduras in
the 15th and 16th Century, and even the dates of today's living Maya who still use the same calendar;
the correct correlation constant MUST place the Moon Age within 2 or 3 days of the calculated value,
because the Moon Age was an Observational Record (Schele notes that when the Maya attempted to
calculate Moon Ages rather than to observe them, they typically did not do very well; since the
example of Yaxchilán Lintel 21 describes an ancestral event which occurred on 9.0.19.2.4 - 16 October
454 A.D., and was actually "written in stone" around 9.16.1.0.9, or around 12 May 752 A.D., the lunar
data was not observed data, but rather calculated data; the 298 years difference between these two
dates makes the lunar data on the lintel questionable as to its validity! Coe (Coe, 1992, p132), quotes
Teeple as stating that Copán astronomers used a formula where 149 lunations equaled 4,400 days ..
this works out to be 29.53020 days per lunation, barely 33 seconds off from modern calculations; this
would compound to less than two days over a period of 298 years! Aveni notes that Palenque used an
equation that gave 81 lunations = 12.4.0 days; this is an average lunation of 29.53086, or within 1
thousand of 1 percent of the modern value (Aveni, 1980, p169)).

The Copán Formula assigns "24 E/D, 6 C" to Day Zero 13 August 3114 B.C., that is the 24th day of
the 6th Lunation, and the Palenque Formula assigns "22 E/D, 6C", that is, the 22nd Day of the 6th
Lunation (Linden 1986, p122); you'll need to read below on the meaning of E/D and C. This
demonstrates that even a stone age culture can obtain near-computer accuracy simply by keeping good
stone age records, such as pebbles in a basket, if the observation time is long enough. Many
correlation constants based on scholarly research have been proposed; some correlation constants
which have received acceptance and followers include Makesom (489138), Spinden (489384) and
Goodman-Martinez-Thompson "GMT" (584283 and 584280 to 584286); today's acceptance is
generally on the Modified-Thompson-2 constant of 584285. Teeple says (Teeple, 1925, p547) that any
correlation constant must account for a new moon on 9.16.4.10.7, or 9.16.4.10.8, and an ecliptic
conjunction as attested by Copan Stela M and Quiriguá Stela J, and by Stela M which shows a moon
group ending on 9.16.4.10.7 11 Manik. See Table 1, below, for a summary of these dates in various
modes.

J.D.N. Day January 1, 4712 B.C. is Julian, with a

Zero year "0"
J.D.N. Day January 1, 4713 B.C. is Julian without a
Zero year "0"
Long Count Aug 13 3114 B.C.Gregorian without a
0.0.0.0.0 year "0" (584285)
Long Count Aug 11 3114 B.C. Gregorian without a
0.0.0.0.0 year "0" (584283)
Long Count September 8, 3113 B.C. is Julian with
0.0.0.0.0 year "0" (584285)
Long Count September 6, 3113 B.C. is Julian with
0.0.0.0.0 year "0" (584283)

TABLE 1: Expressing same days in time with various calendars in various modes.

12.19.19.17.19 3 Kawak 7 Kumk'u Aug 12, 3114, B.C. Last day of previous Maya
Era
13.00.00.00.00 4 Ahaw 8 Kumk'u Aug 13, 3114, B.C. Completion of previous Maya
Era
13.00.00.00.01 5 Imix 9 Kumk'u Aug 14, 3114, B.C. 1st day completed, current
Maya Era
13.00.00.01.00 11 Ahaw 3 Poph Sep 02, 3114, B.C. 20th day has completed
13.19.19.17.19 2 Kawak 12 Ch'en Nov 14, 2720, B.C Last day, 1st K’atun
01.00.00.00.00 3 Ahaw 13 Ch'en Nov 15, 2720, B.C. 1st day, 2nd K’atun
08.07.19.10.19 8 Kawak 17 Yax Jan 1, 199, A.D. First Lunar Glyphs
08.14.03.01.12 1 Eb 0 Yaxk'in Sep 17, 320, A.D. Date on Leyden Plaque
09.00.19.02.04 2 Kan 2 Yax Oct 16, 454, A.D. Date on Yaxchilán Lintel 21
09.12.15.00.00 2 Ahaw 13 Sip Apr 14, 687, A.D. Begin Period of Uniformity
09.12.18.05.16 2 Kib 14 Mol Jul 23, 690, A.D. Conjun Jup Sat Mars Moon in
Scorpius
09.16.01.00.09 7 Muluk 17 Sek May 12, 752, A.D Date of Writing Yaxchilán
Lintel 21
09.16.05.00.00 7 Muluk 17 Sek Apr 12, 756, A.D. End Period of Uniformity
09.17.00.00.00 13 Ahaw 18 Kumk'u Jan 24, 771, A.D. New Moon, Quiriguá Stela E
12.19.02.09.09 5 Muluk 7 Kankin Oct 3, 1995, A.D. Today's date
12.19.02.13.12 10 Eb 0 Kankin Dec 25, 1995, A.D. Xmas day, 1995
12.19.19.17.19 3 Kawak 2 Kankin Dec 22, 2012, A.D. Last Day Current Maya Era
13.00.00.00.00 4 Ahaw 3 Kankin Dec 23, 2012, A.D. Completion Current Maya Era

TABLE 2: Some Maya Long Count Dates, converted to Gregorian Dates, using the 584285
Correlation Constant.
 References

1. Kelley, David H., “The Maya Calendar Correlation Problem,” in Kolata, Alan L., and
Richard M. Leventhal, eds., Civilization in the Ancient Americas, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, 1983, p. 157.
2. Kelley, David H., “Eurasian Evidence and the Mayan Calendar Correlation Problem,”
in Hammond, Norman, ed., Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches:
Proceedings of a Symposium on Mesoamerican Archaeology Held by the University of
Cambridge Centre of Latin American Studies, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1974.
3. Lounsbury, F. G., “The Base of the Venus Table of the Dresden Codex, and Its
Significance for the Calendar-Correlation Problem,” Maya File 123, Maya File 316h.
4. Lounsbury, Floyd G., “Maya Numeration, Computation, and Calendrical Astronomy,”
in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed., Charles Coulston Gillespie, Vol. 15,
Supplement 1 (1978), Scribners, New York, 1978 (Maya File 316e). (Note: This is the
reference Linda means when she refers to the “Encyclopedia of Science” article.)
5. Lounsbury, Floyd G., “A Derivation of the Mayan-to-Julian Calendar Correlation from
the Dresden Codex Venus Chronology,” in Aveni, Anthony F., ed., The Sky in Mayan
Literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, p. 184. (Maya File 316g)
6. Lounsbury, Floyd G., “A Solution for the Number 1.5.5.0 of the Mayan Venus Table,”
in Aveni, Anthony F., ed., The Sky in Mayan Literature, Oxford University Press, p.
207. (Maya File 316f)
7. Owen, Nancy Kelly, “The Use of Eclipse Data to Determine the Maya Correlation
Number,” in Aveni, Anthony F., ed., Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America,
University of Texas Press, Austin, 1975, p. 237.
8. Tedlock, Dennis, “Myth, Math, and the Problem of Correlation in Mayan Books,” in
Aveni, Anthony F., ed., The Sky in Mayan Literature, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1992, p. 247.

Thompson, J. Eric, “Maya Chronology: The Correlation Question,” in Contributions to

American Archaeology, Volume III, Nos. 13 to 19, Carnegie Institution of Washington, No.
14, 1937, pp. 51-104.