The 52-year Cycle: Should It Still Be Used?

The 52-year Cycle

Should It Still be Used?

        

        In order to clarify and not confuse the count of the Trecena I have only placed a quarter

section of the Sun stone as an example because, under the fire glyphs of the serpent, there are

three units of four bound by a star-glyph that I believe indicates the actual count of the Vertical

Trecena. The number 13 is only a “loop” to make a continuous count of three separate years.

I have gone as far back as the Madrid Codex to emphasis the comparisons between various

translators and their beliefs about the date and story changes that turn up when they rely on

current documents for their theories.

                                      ************************************

        A decision was made by Rome, after the Friars, who accompanied the soldiers

to Mesoamerica, reported the natives counted on their fingers and maybe even used their toes.

They then inferred there was no way the natives could have known 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 agricultural stars by mandating a longer year of 445-days in the first century, so the seasons

would realign with European farming methods. This was a strange belief since the comet that

changed the calendars had never appeared in Caesar’s 100 +/- BC era.

There was another Julius Caesar in the 15th century who could have created such a calendar.

But was this JC too late in years to do anything about an ancient calendar system?

        Was the whole of both Americas only inhabited by primitive natives?  The Trecena was

shown on the three sections directly under three fire glyphs of one of the two serpents on the

stone. The large star under the four circles probably was meant to be a knot on the cords of a single

year.  So the 52-year cycle was a decision made for the strange stone with four Ages of the Sun,

each determined to be 676-years.

        The number 676 multiplied by 4 equals 2704 which is the square of 52. But if the numbers

of the Sun Stone are only 3 X 676, then what? The answer only equals 2028. Would that mea

that the 52-year cycle is only a 39-year cycle?

Diego de Landa (1566, 59) edited by William Gates (1937 & 1978, 59 note*)  Yucatan Before

and After the Conquest, [Dover Editon]. Although the 52-year cycle is mentioned in this book,

it is only in Wm, Gates’s Footnote* on pages 59-60. Gates, there stated that the Maya "never

used a 30i-day month."

[My Note: Does anyone in modern offices, used a 30 or 31 day month to schedule their office

hours? Or do they just use the Monday thru Friday part of the week]: It was not until de Landa

died in 1579, that Rome readjusted the Mesoamerican calendars to include month names for

the year 1584, [See J. Castillo-Torre (1955) for how those dates came to be.] The Madrid Codex

might give more information.

Madrid Codex

a. Cortesiano  (1867, M-12 to M-19) It contains the Horizontal Serpent Trecena pages in proper

English reading order (i.e. left to right) IMIX was the first column, introduced by Rome in 1583-4.

It is necessary to understand why two KIMI’s were in columns 45-46.

        A KIMI or Death glyph was an indication that the ending at 52 weeks would not mesh with

the Vertical Trecena, the second unit of a 4-day week, nor the third unit of a 4-day week. Yet, the

Serpent pages one can also read about the myth of the Sovereign Serpent found in the Popol

Vuh] by reading the figures associated with the Madrid Serpent Calendar. They are to be read

Right to Left. [M-18 to M-12]

b. Troano 1866 is the original Madrid Codex starting from M-112  reading the Heavenly Bees in their

homes marked with sky bands. They  represented Tlaloc’s “Burning Ash of Resin or of Turpentine”

for 52 X 7 [= 364-years] on the Sun Stone to the carving of the Wooden Manikins [M-101] and

Chalchuitlique’s “Water” of 52 X 6 [= 312-years] The two Ages of the Sun when added together;  

the 364 plus the 312 equals 676]. These two versions of mathematics are found below in the History.

1870-1878-1883 and J. Hemry Phillips (1945, 8)  The History of the Mexicans as Told by Their

Paintings. contain segments of the Codex Ramirez. It is on page 8 that verifies the above

calculations: [52 X 7 and 52 X 6].  This indicates that 52 is a coefficient of 676, as is 6 + 7 which

combined gives the other coefficient as 13.

        Because it is an Aztec manuscript and not a Maya one, where the names of all participants

in Part I and Part II of the Popol Vuh were not an Aztec myth, the Maya story and calendars have

become separate and distinct versions and are seldom connected to the Aztec/Olmec/Toltec stories.

George C. Vaillant, (1941, 1962, 75, n,1, 244; 154, 164. 165) Aztecs of Mexico, Page 75 emphasized

the 52-year cycle had used the Planet Venus cycle as its confirmation. Page 154 also accommodated

the 1-13 numbers without names against the 20-day names as a continuous rotating sequence over the years.  

        Page 157 detailed the same 1 to 13 numeration (see chart below for error] used within the

Tonalpohualli with a different set of 159-weeks which are not connected to the 52/13 coefficient

pattern.

The 52-year cycle is now established [mathematically]. Has it become incised in stone forever?  

Even so, page 154 agreed with the Horizontal Trecena version for the 1 - 13-day cycle.

        Each week rotated separately but only using the 4-day names found in each week. This error

of number 13 throws any Horizontal Trecena calculation out of sequence. The chart here illustrates

why it does not work in four different languages.

Chart for The Trecena in four different Languages;

sing the NUMBERS ONLY creates a minor problem of one extra day at the end of three Vertical years.

 l

        Vaillant also mentioned the Calendar Stone on pages 82-3; 133-4; 139; and 188; with two

versions of the Sun Stone placement: i.e the round disk and a disk above an abbreviated

temple staircase. None of his pages follow the Maya Popol Vuh sequence. However, the storyline

is still the same. The First and Last Ages of the Sun with the four 676 numbers are still stated contrary

to the Popol Vuh version of the proper sequence.

José Castillo-Torre (1955, 98) Por La Seňal de Hunab Ku,on Page 98 in his book illustrated

how the Trecena was set-up in the first set of these four names as the Vertical Trecena

countdown: Ik, MANIK, EB, CABAN. The Horizontal set of the four names tell us which would

start the first column of each of the 20-day units for the total of 20-day names,

        Each would combine to add up to a 52-week sequence of the Vertical Trecena within the

Horizontal version. It is then laid out on page 100, to show the true use of the number 13.----that

of a “pre-computerized loop” [Noted in the above chart} so that three milpas can be rotated

every three years to ensure nutrients can be restored to the previous milpas in proper order

so each can have a good harvest for the fourth year of planting

.

Oscar Rueda, (1976 ) “El Secreto de la Piedra del Sol” Even though the Sun Stone was moved

into the Museo Nacional de Arquoelogia E Historia in 1885, it remained only an image to be

admired. In the year 1976, Oscar Rueda decided to do a complex study of all the possible

measurements that could be obtained.

        In his heart he knew there had to be something special about the monumental Sun Stone,

he could not quite put his finger on the underlying story of the Stone. He completed more

than 18 diagrams of different vector combinations, but still did not understand what exactly

the Sun Stone was inferring by its silent glyphs. The glyphs seemed to point to specific details,

but, the details were not stated in any particular order.

Editor: Micheal P. Closs, (1986, 213-259)  Native American Mathematics. By this time, the 52-year

cycle called the “Sacred Bundle,” was found on page 222, as a firmly established numbered cycle

that sequence was to be used in Mesoamerican mathematics.

Munro S. Edmonson, (1988, 20) The Book of the Year: Middle American Calendrical Systems.

This author started out referring to his early sources for verifying his premises. Two statements

on page 20 explained his rationale. The first: “It is not always possible to reconstruct the ‘reasons

for a date that does not fit. . . “

         And the second date that begins the explanation for the inferred year 679 BC:  “If Caso

and Bernard (1965, 871) are right about the dating of Cuicuilco and if the inhabitants of that site

used dot numerals instead of the digits of Oaxaca and Chiapas, and if this figure is read as an

Olmec year, then this is the earliest calendar-round date known.”

The date was found on an earspool now at the Museo de Cuicuiloco. It reads: “679 BC,

I2 IX J, or 6.3.10. 9.0 or 2 Ahau 3 CEH T (2 Lord, 19 F, Olmec.”

The next inferred year of 667 BC claimed that the Olmecs used the Type V Year Bearers

which are determined by using the 1-13 down a list of days as a repeating loop through

eternity. From these few pages, all the way to 1584 on page 83, every date had the year,

month and the 1-13 day count applied to each year the author identified. The European

calendar scholars had created coefficients and other calculus features. Even though the

earliest AD/BC years that had no month names until 1583-4.

Thereafter, from the above pages to the 1584 date to page 83, there are various reasons

why the dates do not agree with the computations known to present scholars. The excuses

run from transcription errors to dates calculated to 23 years earlier OR one that was 27 years

later; OR native scribal errors.

A statement on page 211 gave a statement that might have explained the Mixtec reason:“

"month names remain linguistically undocumented.”

        When Rome, in 1583, did send the new Calendar month names, the First day of the first

month was taken from an odd source. It is necessary for this study to refer to the Records of

José Castillo-Torres for the Imperial Era. He stated on page 193 that Rome took 0-POP from

July 26  and 01-IMIX from February 8th. That means there was a 6-month difference between

the first-day IMIX of the first month and the first-month name POP placed in July; This was

a great way to obscure date comparisons.

        He also stated in detail on page 97, how the Horizontal Trecena applied to the agricultural

cycle. First was choosing the milpa to be denuded of the brush; Second was the burning of the

larger vegetation like trees; Third was planting the seeds in the ‘renourished land’ and lastly,

the harvest and celebrations.for the new year: [assuming December 21 when the end of autumn

occurred.]

        The above statements call out for yet another author for verification.

Sylvanus Griswold Morley, (1946-1947-1956, 220-21). The Ancient Maya, Third edition.

Since this book had been around quite a few years, why was this following quote ignored?

        Native Maya Calendar Makers, after much discussion, decided:

“Let us permit our calendar to gain on the true year; as fast as it will. We will allow our calendar

to function without change, but when we erect a monument, we will engrave upon it, in addition to the official calendar, date of its dedication, a calendar correction for that particular date. In this

way, no matter what date our calendar may register, we will always know, whenever we erect

a monument, the position of its corresponding date in the true year.”

        The adjustment mentioned would be the Distance Numbers which follow the normal

Maya Calendar notation method. 1.0.0.0.0.  On page 235, Morley also laid out the Classic

Era Year Bearers: IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN for the full 13 numeric count; ending with

number 13 reading: IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN. Just like my chart. I may have read it previously,

but I do not remember reading since I was not interested in the dates at the time I bought the book.

        The use of the Trecena against the day names as a continuous cycle,  and using the month 

names that did not exist before 1584 is a major problem when calculating dates that had

no month names nor a 13-day count.

John Bierhorsta (1992,26) History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca,

This book is basically history based upon the myths connected with the Sun Stone and the

Sovereign Serpent’s arrival.

        The stone representing the four Ages of the Sun found on page 26:

                  FIrst: the Age of 4-Water;           

                  Second: the Age of 4-Jaguar;

                  Third: the Age of 4 Rain;      and

                  Fourth: the Age of 4-Wind.    

        Even though the Ages of the Sun were laid out very clearly at the INAH Museum. INAH

began with the Age of the Jaguars, Second was the Age of Tlaloc’s Fire [Ash] Rain; Third was

Chalchuitlique’s Age of Water and lastly, the Age of the Wind, Each of the Ages was given the

number of “years” as 676. Yet, both versions were incorrect.

        Comet occurrences recorded in modern times indicate the light and the roaring wind came

first. In Russia, on February 2013, the comet came from the direction of the sun, it was not seen

until it was heard roaring throughout the town destroyed windows in public buildings of Chelyabinsk,

and ended at  Lake Chebar, Russia.

        This was similar to the 2008 comet 5:00 AM. People awoke from the noise and light

of the comet as it roared across Mount Rainier in Washington state. They assumed, at first,

that they had overslept, but the noise convinced them and their children otherwise.

        Nevertheless, even with actual comets brushing the NW corner of the United States,

the Codex Ramirez, gave a different set of numbers for the four ages of the Sun. numbers

for those calculated at 676, 354, 312 and 676. Since 354 and 312 equals 676; are there only

Three Ages of the Sun? Leon-Portilla picked up those two odd numbers and concluded they

were actual numbers of the event.

Conclusion

        My research, cross-referenced as often as I can do so, does indicate a specific consistent

misrepresentation of dates, dating materials, and altered story-lines. The Maya calendar was

and still is an excellent calendar which can be used jointly with other calendars in the known world.

        The 52-year cycle was and still is a computer calculation. When the 676 was divided

by 13, the answer was 52.  And if it had been divided by 52, the answer would be 13. No one

considered that 52 X 7 or 52 X 6 would actually be informing us that those numbers hold the

two coefficient of 676. Hence, the Trecena became a yearly calculation in error.

        The Popol Vuh of the Maya and The Chumayel of the Maya had determined that the

Wind had to come first because the Sun Stone was representing the Day and Night Comet

that almost destroyed the Maya world.

        This agrees with records of modern comet arrivals: i.e. the comet of 2008 that flew over

Mount Rainier in Washington state and that of February of 2013 in Chelyabinsk, Russia, the

roaring wind was the first sounds that came with the brilliance of the comet that destroyed

windows in public building’ injuring many who had wanted to see what the noise and brightness

was all about…. Etc.]

        So if it should be the screaming Wind; then the “Fire of Resin” or “ of Turpentine,” before

the stones dropped into the sea and sent an enormous tsunami that climbed over mountains

in its path. The impact of the comet also created the West Indies Islands.

        When the water subsided, people in the caves, the hungry ones, who had listened to

their Astronomers, left their safe havens to begin to recover whatever they could . . . even\

as the Jaguars, who had also retired to caves, emerged and attacked any single person walking

back to where he thought his milpas were located.  This sequence of events was more accurately

recorded in the Popol Vuh. Because the Popol Vuh was not an Aztec story, it was not even

considered as history for the AztecMixtec world.

        It was a bad time in recovery, but the survivors lived on to create the god called the

Sovereign Serpent of the Sun Stone.  But all later researchers use the 676 for each of the

four Ages of the Sun with no regard to the coefficient numbers 13 and 52 of 676.  

        Many have searched years for a coefficient to match somewhere in Floyd Lounsbury’s

819 number that was included as a MOD unit, with five different subscripted “n-#” to be pulled

up when needed to find the glyph date. He used the 52-year cycle which had become set in “stone,”

even though his paper was full of all his doubts about its accuracy, He felt that something might

have been wrong.

        Dates and sequences had been changed with each translator. No one seemed to notice

the Calendars did not get months until 1584 so those who did not look for the reason never could

figure out why nothing seemed to be right.

        The Vertical Trecena could never be meshed with the Horizontal because of the added IMI

column, even though the Madrid Codex put into columns 45 and 46 a KIMI [Cimi] glyph to warn

any reader to triple check their information.

        As a final note, the extra number of the Trecena,  the 13th at the end of the count, is only

a repetition of the very first. It was for the continuation of the first twelve numbers; which

can be seen in the Calendar Stone as four points, bound by what may be a star glyph.

[Modern computer programming,  call it “a loop” command.]

        The first set of the four names in the count was necessary so that the first milpa

should lie fallow until it could assimilate the nutrients from the burned land; a necessary

downtime for a good harvest of maize.

        The next two years segments [beginning with numbers #5 and #9] follow the same

four-year cycle with each new revolution of the Trecena. In northern Europe, such a method

was based upon an Agricultural schedule called Swidden. This “slash-and-burn method was

used extensively in Sweden, Norway and in Saxon England.

        The process called Swinden did not begin during the Classic Maya period until the

IXth century AD, according to Karle Taube in [1983,7] 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 main question is "Why would farmers who always followed the stars to plant, and

reap their crops ever consider a 52-year cycle, when they lived in a  6-day/week;

52-weeks/year; 360-day/world before that double comet disaster struck the land?

        The Madrid was set up to read the IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN sequence with insertions

of 4-days per week between each of the four 13-Trecena markers across. It was the IMIX

introduced by Rome, that started in 1583 so that the Horizontal sequence failed to mesh

correctly with the final Vertical set of 4-days a week of the 52-week Horizontal version.

        The church effort to align the Mesoamerican calendar system with the European

meant that 0-POP was designated as the first month of the year. IMIX was added in front

of the Serpent pages on [M-12] to be the very first day of the year. As can be seen on the

last page of the Serpent sequence [M-18] the effort to create such a pattern failed miserably.

        It failed mostly because no month names had ever been given until Rome decided

that such names would assist researchers later to compare the two systems. As it is,

The Book of the Years by Edmonson stated:

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

        It may have been because there never were any months before that time in Mesoamerican

Calendars. 0-POP began on July 26 of the European year, as was IMIX taken from the European

date of February 8, 1583.  IK, MANIK, EB, CABAN was no longer valid.

        THE 3-year  SWIDDEN “SLASH AND BURN” CYCLE OF THE Madrid Codex
HAS BEEN IGNORED, as was the 13/52 coefficients of the 676 number for the Ages of the Sun.