Why The 52 Years Became a Reality.

Why The 52-year Cycle Became a Reality

When Spain conquered the New World, the decision was made by the rulers of Spain, because the native population counted only on their fingers and maybe even used their toes there was no way they knew what a 360-day year was or when a 365-day year evolved. Only the glorious ancient Roman ruler, Julius Caesar, was supposedly capable of re-adjusting the stars by mand He named process Swindenating a longer year of 445-days in the first century, so the seasons would realign with European farming methods.y one, 

The whole of both Americas, supposedly was only inhabited by primitive natives[?]  The Trecena was taken [appended by one] from three sections of four circles within small triangles [Green] directly under three fire glyphs {Orange] of the two serpents on the stone. The large star between the four circles probably was meant to be a knot on the cords of a single year  [Brown].  So the 52-year cycle was "an independent invention" decision made for the strange stone calendar age 676-years and was thought to be very appropriate. 

Especially since 676 divided by 13 equals 52. Who did the original math on that aspect. It seems odd that the 676 is only repeated three times, not four.  It is in the Codex Ramirez that the set of 676 the calendar count here. The stone itself does not record any such number sequence, only the events indicated by glyph.

Tlaloc's wife, Chalchiuhtlicue, of the great waves of water

The extra number of the Trecena, the 13th at the end of the count, is only a repetition of the very first. It is for the continuation of the first twelve numbers and it is called in computer programming, a "loop command.". The actual data is in the horizontal agricultural system written out as five weeks with only four days in each week in the Madrid and the Borgia Codices and on the stone quarters themselves.

Our Saturdays and Sundays (as glyphs in a Maya agricultural calendar) not found on the Madrid M-12 to M-18 were not to be confusThere were only considered. to be working days, The new schedule was to have begun in the IXth century AD. during the Classic Maya period. Karle Taube in [1983,7] named the process after the Norse "Swiddin" farm method,:in his paper titled "The Classic Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal"  [In  Fifth Round Table, Pre-Columbian Art. Ed.: Merle Greene [1985, 171-181], San Francisco, California.]   

The second number of the count is necessary the first is when was milpa of a native to be planted. The land should lie fallow for at least two years so that until it can assimilate the nutrients necessary for another good harvest of maize. The other two years [#5 and #9] follow the same three-year cycle with each new revolution of the Trecena which is an agricultural cycle similar to the Norse method.

The raw question is "Why would farmers who always followed the stars to plant, and reap their crops ever considered a 52-year cycle, when they lived in a 52-week, 360-day world before a major disaster struck the land?

As a theoretical question, it tells us that the formulae for computing the calendar glyphs are done in a manner which does not honor the agricultural time scale of the Trecena. This could be compared to our common almanac for farmers. The Aztec version with weekly corrections can also be found in the Madrid Serpent pages but only, as a stripped-down work schedule without the two days extra days of the weekend.

The Madrid was set up to read the Ik, Manik, Eb, Caban sequence with insertions of 20 days of 4 days per week between each of the four Trecena markers across the horizontal 52-weeks in every normal year. It was a new set, beginning with IMIX., Thus, the first day of the new month called 0 POP in 1583 by church 'mandate', which indicated the 52-week schedule as an impossible item. The sequence across the 360 days failed to create 52 weeks. and made it impossible to insert the extra five days which were added after the catastrophe.

The church effort to align the Mesoamerican Calendar was illustrated in front and back of the Serpent pages to be the very first day of the year. As can be seen on the last page of the Serpent sequence, [M-12  to M-18] the effort to create such a pattern failed miserably. It failed mostly because month names had never been named in the Trecena calendar until the Church decided that such names would assist researchers later to compare the two systems. As it is stated in, The Book of the Years by Edmonson stated:

"Mixtec Month Names remain linguistically' undocumented." (1968, 211)

It may have because there never were any month names ]just god festival names [similar to our December festival named is Christmas..etc.] before that time in the Mesoamerican calendars. Rome decided to take 0 POP from July 26 of the European year while IMIX was taken from the same year on February 8, 1583.  IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN  was no longer considered to be valid by Rome.

This new horizontal sequence now read downwards the same way. Both across and down weeks revolved as individual roll-overs, just as the lemons and cherries on the One-armed Bandits of Gambling halls in Reno, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, et cetera. Only the vertical Trecena was more sedate. It only changed in proper sequence from year one to year four and the group was only repeated three times vertically.

The Trecena count was reported by Jose Castillo-Torre who claimed he used the Imperial version: which appeared to be the same as the.Guatemalan's count: IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN. For this reason, I decided also to stay with that version of the vertical Trecena count.

The Maya version is IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN. Diego de Landa's version may have been a different group that began with AKBAL. It only failed when the new glyph artist attempted to add the IMIX and the extra "dead" days.

It should be noted,  Diego de Landa's manuscript which was revised by William Gates, included POPP as the first month.. Gates also claimed different euro-dates as the year included by de Landa before h died in 1575. It became clear that Landa's report to Rome was altered at a later date since Rome had not yet introduced  0 POP to Mesoamerica until 1583-4. This seems to have been a common procedure through the era of such translators.

The Borgia Codex count succeeded because it isolated the 260-day count of the Trecena in the middle of the 364 + 1.  It inferred that the top and bottom rows were the Saturday and Sunday of our common calendar.

Landa's version was: AKBAL, LAMAT, BEN,  ET'ZAB.  No matter which is being used, there is little done with the vertical "Year-Bearer"s except with the Mixtec translations by John Pohl and Robert Williams. They worked out the years with the 13 count for each of the 20 days and years for each of the Mixtec Codices that were available.

By doing the Trecena with each group of the vertical list of 20-days, it makes an uneven count throughout the centuries, which probably was what Rome had determined to be proper at the time. with such a strange way of counting, there would be no conflict between European dates and Mesoamerican attempts at correlating the calendar with Eurasian dates  No one ever questioned our current scholars from back as far as the 1930's. 

The Madrid, if it would be followed horizontally across the seven pages [M-12 to M-18], one can read the Trecena in the manner that it was used for Swidden farming; by leaving off the Saturday and Sunday, days for community action within the Maya communities. It can be seen that each and every column of 20 day names rotate individually just as the One-armed Bandit" slot machines in gambling.

Conclusion

This allows for every day of the four years necessary to plant harvest and rejuvenate the soil.  It is completely different from year one to the next. In this way, for the whole four years, a farmer is able to determine what e has to do with each of his three fields, when they are rotated correctly.

If one accepts the 364+ 01 days of our current 365-day year, while the center of the Borgia which give the Trecena count over eight pages as a 260-day cycle. This step confused later calendar makers. Festival days. then, should be considered only as community activities. The correct 30 day month count for the 360-day year and the 30-31-28-day cycles of the 365.25-day years mean little or nothing to the Mesoamerican natives, even though they have to use them as our current daily day counts.

The strange vertical count of four-year bearers X 03 + 01 = 13 can be considered as a computer generated a program to create a LOOP, a long time before computers had even been a dream. When the 676 was divided by 13; the answer was 52. The Trecena then became a yearly item through Independent Invention. The 4-year Swidden "slash and Burn" re-cycle agricultural method of the Madrid Codex has been the honored method of the farming of the land which has been ignored as a useless calendar. Is it possible to return to ordinary 52-weekly year count instead of the inferred 52-year cycle? Our spinning earth can never accomplish a 52-year harvest because it cannot change its orbit. 
                                    ___________________________________

That is what has been inferred for years as the 52-year cycle of the earth. Since it is an impossible feat, it was concluded that the Fire Ceremony was the paramount rite to be celebrated every 52-years. We should be able to return to our true cyclical nature of the earth instead of a computerized version of what might have been.