Conflicting Essays in scholarship which have been the most engaging research job I have ever done. I have also added, over the years, queries about our "dated" geology with their "computerized" confirmations together with climate changes denied since 1963. The Ten-O'clock News have been telling us to change our clocks for DSL and back again BUT no one as noticed it has been changed, more than a few years ago, from March 31 and October 31, to a week or so earlier or even a week or so later.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The 360-Day Year: How it Was Butchered

From; Wauchope, R. (1975) Handbook of Middle American Indians  vol 14:  Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, part 3, Austin, T exas: Inioversity of Texas Press. Fig. 73 #2: after Valadés,  Rhetorica cristiana, 1579.  
        Since the meteorite that hit the world was calculated to have arrived about 65 million years ago, no one yet has explained the collective memories of the world who have described the greatest disaster ever to befall it. Humans, even if they existed 40 mya could never have recalled an event that occurred at least 25 million years earlier in earth time.

     And again, why were the calendars of the Maya re-created to read differently then the original researchers were able to determine, just by reading both the myths and texts that were available to them? Why would there have been such a "cover-up" of the data that, by the way, is still available to all? (See the above calender from 1579 or so.)  The Veytia Chart is an excellent example of the native calendar even in 1579 and later scholars such as: Manuel Leon-Portilla, Jacques Soustelle, the Madrid Codex, have since confirmed such a calendar.

     Since a 13-month year would only make a 260-day calendar, the actual number of months has to match Sahagún's number of months, i.e. 18 months,  Yet, somewhere along the line, someone decided that the only calendar of worth was the 260-day calendar of the horoscopes.

      Such calendar features were never useful to history nor have they been useful in any modern calendars, no matter how many rulers believed [or still believe] in the "luck of the [good] stars and the "evil portends" of the bad ones.
     These concepts would only agree with the gestation period of a pregnant women, AND with the church doctrine, that Mary's Immaculate Conception was in March and Christ's birth was in December. However, this is NOT a religious or a medical definition blog.

      The 260-day horoscope calendar is the only other "numeration" that gives us any verification that the 13-week is also the four agricultural seasons, from burning the milpas, planting the maize, and the final harvest, with a whole extra season to celebrate a good harvest to be eaten, sold, or traded for necessities, and to thank their God for it.

      The five extra days were added outside of the four quarters,  even though they had to be taken into account after the years that produced no food. Yes, the skies had changed and the growing season also had to be accommodated to fit these odd days that had been added to the years.  

      The current concept of the calendar in Mexico proper is touted by those who learned the calendar from their parents and ancestors.  Near El Tajin, the Voladores spin from their poles and the waiters and concessions nearby are equiped with some excellent information based on the ancient glyphic calendar system:
       The four flyers, who are hand-picked to start their training at age 10, circle the pole 13 times each, he says, giving a total of 52 revolutions. The number 52, aside from being the number of weeks in a year, was important in Mesoamerican culture, which had two calendars -- the 365-day solar year and a 260-day ritual year. The calendars coincided every 52 solar years.……………" (See Flights of FancyJOURNEYS - THE SPIRIT OF DISCOVERY: BRENDAN SAINSBURY at  Side Panel)
       Nevertheless, it was still necessary to retain the old calendar of the Maya (and the Aztecs, Mixtec, etc); otherwise, the glyphs and ancient histories in the Codices and on monuments can never be read properly. The horoscope has its place in the world, of course; but if the 13 are the number of weeks in a season, not the numbering of days, and the 52 revolutions are the current 365.25 number of weeks in a year, does one follow the 20 days per each of the 18 months that is found in the Codices, or are scholars to follow the information given out for the later centuries in Mesoamerica?

     The ancient solar calendar, world wide, was originally 360 days, even in those  codices. And, as above, in the VII century AD, the Copan Academy of Science changed the calendars to fit a 365-day year.  Is that information to be destroyed by an overabundance of computer calculations that does not know to differentiate between the centuries of change? Even the Julian count does not accommodate the archaic calendar since it does not know when or how the calendar had to be altered to begin with.

       So when was it decided that the original calendar had to be ousted? As far as I have been able to research the calendar, there is a new note in Jose Castillo-Torre (1955. 193) Por la Seňa de Hunab Ku in which he gives some very interesting data about the first day of the first month of the year 1583/4.

      It has been believed that Hunab Ku was a New Age movement in Mexico that is way off base from the original beliefs of the native population. Yet, this particular book is a very short but concise history of various monks, and locations in Mexico up until the calendar was completely altered by the church in 1583/4 AD.

        The method used by the church at that time, was ;first to create month names so that it would make it easier to match the Eurasian years.  Then it was necessary to choose the first day of the first momth.  The name of the first month of the year was 0 POP from the date July 26 the Eurasian year.  The first day had to be a match so it became One IMIX from the Eurasian date February 8.

        Now how that was supposed to "match" the Eurasian year, I do not know and Jose Castillo-Torre could not explain it either.  He was just a historian who wrote out the data he had researched and when he could not explain it, he only added all his references in the back of the book so that anyone could do the research on their own. The new search might pick up information that his had missed.