INTERVIEW WITH JOSE ROMAN ROBERTOS MOGUEL
José Roman Robertos Moguel has a degree in Anthropology with Specialization in Archeology from the School of Anthropology at the Autonomous University of Yucatan:
“A NEW VISION OF THE MAYAN CALENDAR”
The question I asked was innocent and almost superficial, as if something was sensed but did not know exactly the importance of its intuition. The topic of discussion was another, different for me from the last question I had decided to ask, one last question and the resulting response, which intrigued me, subjugated me, and forced me to build further on the subject.
I formulated the question to the Czech astronomer Jaroslav Klokocnik in an interview dealing with the knowledge of the compass by the Maya in a time well before its alleged invention by the Chinese civilization. Aztlán: You said that if you research concerning the Mayan calendar is true, the Mayan Empire did not fall in the ninth century of our era, but much later. Can you explain this theory?
Jaroslav Klokocník: The GMT correlation, which connects the Mayan calendar with our calendar, is obviously incorrect. But some archaeologists are still using it and not want to hear astronomical evidence indicating that the GMT correlation is incorrect and that the whole history of Mesoamerica have to travel 104 years into the present. The new evidence is based on research of astronomical phenomena described in the Dresden Codex. What is certain is that it will be extremely difficult to convince our non-astronomers colleagues about the necessary change in the Maya chronology
What was the truth behind that statement? Was he the only person who advocated for it or was it actually a school of thought other than up to now official version?
OTHER EXPERT’S OPINIONS
Luckily I found another person who had many good arguments to defend the same idea: The correlation between the Mayan Calendar and our current calendar postulated by Goodman, Martinez and Thompson is incorrect. That other person is Jose Roman Robertos, who has lived firsthand experiences that manifest quite more often than we think. How official science despises and ignores a change in vision about what is believed to be immovable.
THE MAYAN CALENDAR
One common feature throughout Mesoamerica was the use of a common calendar, at least in its fundamentals. But the Mayans went further and perfected the system of counting time, creating the so-called Long Count. In general, the common calendar for all the people of Mesoamerica, which may have its origins in the Olmec culture, is based on the combination of two different cycles. The 365-day solar cycle called Haab in Mayan and a second cycle of 260 days called Tzolkin, which together have a period of 18,980 days (which is the least common multiple of 365 and 260) or a 52 years period , that some authors call the Mesoamerican century.
This account system, requires that upon the expiration of those 52 years, the time count begins again and the days are referred to with the same name they had 52 years ago, which no doubt reflects the cyclical view of time in the Mesoamerican worldview, but that is down sided when a specific date is cited and does not indicate which of the 52-yearcycles are being referenced, which should not had matter much to most of the ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica because they believed in repeating the cycle again and again.
But this system is ultimately impractical. If we were to use this calendar system now, we would read things like the First World War began in the year 25 and the Second World War began in the year 15. Since a date did not registered to which 52-year period accounted for, at the end of each cycle, the exact moment in time when something happened was completely lost of track.
THE NEED FOR A LONG CALENDAR
The Mayas must had understood the need to record a particular day and differentiate it from any other and that’s why they created the Long Count, which is to have a start date from which to start counting the days with no possibility of repeating the same date until 5125.36 years elapsed. The long count, in the traditional version, consists of five figures that mark the days (kin), months (uinal, 20 day months), years (360 days year or tunes), katun(7,200 days, just under 20 years) and the baktun (144,000 days, a little less than 400 years) that have elapsed since the starting date of counting time, or what is the same as the zero date.
For example, if we take a long count date 220.127.116.11.1 showing this translates as:
- 9 baktuns
- 12 katuns
- 8 tunes
- 0 uinals
- 1 kin
To calculate the exact day you only need to perform the following operation: (9×144.000) + (12×7.200) + (8×360) + (0x20) + (1×1) = 1,385,281 days since the origin of the long count (the 0.0.0.0.0)
Obviously, once how to calculate a day of the Long Count was deciphered, the next step is to learn how to match that day to our calendar and that’s where the GMT balance comes in.
Aztlán: Can you explain, in your opinion, why do you say that the relationship between the Mayan calendar and the Gregorian calendar created by Goodman, Martinez and Thompson is wrong?
José Román: The question seems easy, but actually not, because you can’t make a small and convincing summary of a job so big that requires many mathematical proofs.
To quote the basics, let’s say the Mayan Calendar most laymen say is the most accurate invented by man, or at least that is one of the most accurate, but always with reference to the Gregorian calendar we use now almost universally, that is inaccurate.
THE GMT CORRELATION
The GMT correlation establishes a link between the Mayan calendar and the Gregorian calendar, which is what governs our current calendar, first passing through an intermediate correlation with the Julian calendar. It was in 1890 when Goodman decrypts the long count in some Mayan monoliths, that had already been deciphered in 1887 by Forstemann in Mayan codices. In 1918, John Smith changes the correlation established by Goodman in 1905 and in turn Thompson corrects in 1927 the correlation established by Martinez
In fact there are a lot of correlations, although the most accepted today is the one created by Goodman, Thompson and Martinez. But it is only one of many proposals. Something that seems to support the incorrectness of the GMT correlation is precisely the study led by astronomer Jaroslav Klokocnik, attempting to relate astronomical events recorded in the Dresden Codex with the dates we know about them when they could happen through informatics tools and comparing them with the expected date that provides the GMT correlation, resulting that the correct correlation is known as BB, which is a forward displacement of 104 years of dates given by the GMT correlation. Jaroslav Klokocnik himself starts from assumptions that must be true for the BB correlation to be correct (for example that some glyphs in the Dresden Codex fact correspond to the Sun, Planets and Eclipses)
HOW ACCURATE IS THE GMAT CORRELATION?
The Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) correlation parts from several false assumptions. As it can be seen in any compendium on the Mayan calendar, these researchers made an artifice that omits the important fact from Fray Diego de Landa’s contribution, who says that at the time of the conquest, the year loaders (in other words, the days the solar years began) were Kan Muluc, Ix and Cauac, but they are still using for today dates, and until the year 2012 the year loaders from a time called ‘classic’ that are Akbal, Lamat, Ben and Etznab.
With the GMT system, days on the Mayan calendar are shifting so that one month like ‘UO’ (the second on the calendar) which means ‘frog’ or ‘pitahaya’, which evidently refers to the tropical rainy season in August shifts to the winter or spring, and the same happens with ‘POP’ (the first month), which starts the solar year when the sun passes over the Zenith in Yucatan. Also, it’s called the base date or ‘zero’ mayan of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku (August 13, 3114 BC) is an invention or a convention to be taken as absolute, but really there is no valid evidence for that date.
It is highly unlikely (almost ridiculous) that the correlation GMT (which is just a hypothetical calculation) would have coincided perfectly with the 13th of August that the Mayas would have registered nearly a thousand years before Christ, and almost a wonder that on August 13th of the year 3114 (according to Schele Fraidel) the Mesoamerican world had been created and that August 13th, 1521 had ‘effectively’ finished the Mesoamerican world with the fall of Tenochtitlan. But more remarkable still is that the GMT ‘accuracy’ has stated that the Mayan astronomers would have predicted or prophesied the date of the fall of Tenochtitlan “thousands of years before.’ All this without counting that the month Cumku (according to Landa) falls in June or July, not in August.
We see no reason not to think that if the Mayas reached the convention of zero would not have placed a zero point as the beginning of their calendar, starting the ‘Tzolkin’ (year of 260 days), the ‘Haab’ (year of 365 days) and the ‘Tun’ (year 1460 days) from the same date 1-Imix 1-Pop and did not require a leap year like ours to correct the calendar, but a cyclic change of loaders. The names given to periods of time are inventions after the katun. The date of origin is conventional, although we have tried to support them with hieroglyphic pseudo lectures.
According to the GMT the ‘tun’ consists of 360 days periods, but this is absurd if they move the count of the days of the year farther from the sidereal year. The representation of the numerals on the registrations does not mean that a progressive vigesimal pattern was being used with an intentional exception, simply because it had not been necessary to put glyphs next to it if days were what was counted, as it would have sufficed to represent the numbers alone. This is just to name some of the inconsistencies in the GMT”
Aztlan: What gap does really exist between the GMT interpretation and yours?
José Román: The gap is tremendous, because while the GMT one sets December 21, 2012 as the endpoint of the Mayan calendar, according to it on 4 Ahau 3 Kankin (which should fall in the month of April, according to Fray Diego de Landa ), whereas in our correlation always the month falls within an acceptable range to those said by Landa. We believe that the Mayan Calendar is a numbers game that projects to time from a basic core that is:
- calendar day (kin)
- the thirteenth of days, (the figures)
- the twenty days (the ‘uinal’)
- year ‘Tzolkin’ or ‘Bucxok’ of 13 or 260 days uinals
- the solar year (Haab) of 18.5 months or 365 days
- the ‘tun’ four ‘Haab’ (1,460 days, three years of 360 days and a 380 days year)
- Katun, 20 ‘Haab’ equivalent to 7,300 days
- the fiftydozen years or 13 ‘tunes’ (18,980 days)
- time periods (three of 360 years and one of 380 years)
- eras of 1,460 years (532,900 days)
- and a full course of five eras totaling 7,300 years (2664500 days)
CONSIDERING THE HISTORIANS’S ACCOUNT Fray Diego de Landa affirms:
‘The Indians say that the Spaniards had just arrived in the city of Merida the year of the Nativity of Our Lord 1541, that was just the first year of the Buluc era (11) Ahau which is the one in the house where the cross is and they came the same month of Pop, which is the first month of their year.
Landa arrived in Yucatan in 1549, in 1552 was the guardian of Izamal, in 1556 keeper of Yucatan, in 1560 guardian of Merida, in 1561 provincial and in 1562 the illegal shrines were discovered that led to the Auto-da-fé of Maní. Landa gives a ‘model’ or ‘typical’ year of the indigenous celebrations to be quite inaccurate, but if we take for granted he was a witness, if only indirectly, that some of the beginnings of the year were on July 16th that must have been between 1552 and 1555, 6-Cauac year, 7-Kan, 8-Muluc, 9 Ix, while he was guardian of Izamal (as the Spanish had arrived in Merida in the year 8-Kan at the beginning of Katun 11 Ahau)
However, Landa’s typical year begins in 12-Kan but do not put names or numbers to those fateful days, but when reaching 7 Akbal jumps and starts the month Pop in 13 Kan, when in fact it should be 13-Muluc . This is due not to Landa making a faithful reproduction of a calendar, but him setting Kan as an example of the first ‘Sunday Letter’ to coincide with A, Sunday and the number 12 is arbitrary.
BISHOP CRESCENCIO CARRILLO Y ANCONA
Bishop Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona says that when Tutul Xiu and his court arrived to T’ho where Montejo was seated, the priest Francisco Hernandez held a ceremony worshipping the Holy Cross, since ‘not being sure’ it was the right time for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or being the celebration of Mass the largest and most essential of Christian feasts, the Indians were not in a position to understand the meaning of its sublime mysteries, the priest rightly preferred to hold before the indians the solemn adoration of the Cross , a rite practiced in the sacred offices of Good Friday, and most certain accordingly to the circumstances, since it is at once a majestic objective teaching, real and moving. Or maybe just Tutul Xiu and his court arrived in the 11th T’ho-Cib 13 Chen (January 6, 1542, day of the founding of Merida) and agreed to participate in a ceremony of the new religion and the Adoration of the Cross was held because that day was just Friday.
Taking into account the Julian Calendar that was used in times of Landa, who supposedly studied the Mayan calendar in Izamal, and the worship of the Holy Cross would have been on Friday January 6th, 1542, day of the founding of Merida, the beginning of the following correlation is obtained.
On Monday July 18th, 1541 (day 562,623 of the Julian Calendar) accounted for day 2,000,201 of the Mayan Calendar and the year was 5.481 (year 8 Kan / 11 Ahau) of the Mayan Era (18.104.22.168.4/8-Kan 1 Pop) Usually the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, January 1st of year 1 of the Julian calendar took place on day 1,437,514 of the Mayan Era which was the year 3938 (plus 147 days) of the Mayan Era, day 11th 7-Mol Hix of year 12 Lamat (10.14.18.4.14 / 11 7-Mol Hix) and would have been born (eight days before) in 4 Manik 0 (20) Yaxkin the same year.
January 1, 2000 in the Mayan calendar corresponds to day 2,166,075 (1,437,514 + 1,226,986 = 2,664,500), the year was 6294 and 165 days, or 2 Cauac 01 Chen Year 9 Men.
The end of the world envisioned by the Mayas would be by the end of its year 7,300 (day 2,664,501); in the long count it would be 22.214.171.124. 7 Cimi 1 Pop, when Vucub Came (7 Death) sits at the head of the Katun’s mat. It would be 498,426 days after January 1, 2000, the Christian year 3,364,507 (year 3364 plus 201 days), or on July 19, 3364 at dawn). Or to put it another way (2,664,501-1,437,514 = 1,226,987 days after the birth of Christ; so, despite what GMT says, we still have plenty of time left and will not see it when it comes”