Talk:Aztec calendar

In-text References and Citations

As I was reading through the article I keep asking myself where these pieces of information where coming from. I then realized that the article is missing in-text citations. The references are all at end and they need to be linked to the appropriate text in the article. Also, after referring to a featured article I noticed that the Note section is currently being misused. They should be an expansion of simplified sentence. Currently the Notes has two citations. --Esqm8 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think we could add something to the page, that shows how the aztecs used the calendar to practice religion or how they interpreted it. I think the article does a great job showing the way the calendar functions, but is missing how it was interpreted. Smp5gd (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions to which is The First Month

How is the other Wikipedia topic XIUHPOHUALLI different than this one AZTEC CALENDAR! Why is it split! One should be the subheading of the other. That topic XIUHPOHUALLI has a conflict with itself, and also with this topic AZTEC CALENDAR. Because of so many contradictions, I found 1519AD Friday April 15 to be Passover full moon, for what sources say makes a Good Friday April 22 (despite other sources claiming April 21 is the day 1-Reed of Good Friday on Thursday).Feel free to consider it original research for some to actually see Fridays do not occur on Thursday. But two facts must also occur and that is a day 1-Reed of Good Friday (someone else says Easter which is Sunday) must by Aztec cycle have its 365-day new year as 260 days earlier.Thus this is the ONLY correlation and I am happy to be the student-scholar to be THE DISCOVERER of this in the past 200 years where i see no publication at all fixing the Aztec dates. Do understand that Mayan-Aztec cycle 365-day haab and 360-day tun and 260-day tzolkin and 780-day Mars to an exact match every 936 haab of 949 tun. Thus this chart shows Julian dates which wow awesomely link to Sothic star of Ramses (not that it can't be done without Ramses). http://elijahs-armageddon.org/doc/Cortez%201Reed.jpg (for you, public domain) I just now found this link speaking of three correlations https://www.azteccalendar.com/prefnormal.html for this calculator https://www.azteccalendar.com/

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU FOUND A SCHOLAR (Demands of WikiPedia Moderators)

Online Calculator versus Good Friday 9-Wind

This link above to a very professional looking Calculator, (which may be Rene Voorburg): Something is totally wrong with this calculator. Before i explain let me make a factual statement about WikiPedia Moderating. They seem to think that a TALK page is NOT a discussion of the subject. They even dare now to bicker and moderate that a TALK page must be sources. (Question: Published sources?) Being published does not make it true; there are big mistakes everywhere (and i don't mean an opinion by someone that it's a mistake). Granted in a TALK-page people will make mistakes not comprehending. But the fact is that when a published source is wrong it is wrong. It has been published back in 1986 when i studied Aztec Calendar that Good Friday or Easter was also the DAY 1-Reed. Now online i found sources that say Good Friday was day 9-Wind which is 31 days before 1-Reed. And in MAYAN days Good Friday is 1-Ahau of which 9-Wind is 18 days before it and 1-Reed is 13 days after it. If this 1-Reed is not the new years day Year Bearer then the year bearer must be by RULE exactly the day 260 days earlier. BUT sadly this online calculator does this for year 1519 of Cortez supposedly being Year 1-Reed because its new years day is day 1-Reed. When you go day by day forward thru 1519, the year name changes on a day that is no where near its day 1-Reed (Ce-Acatl) in all three of it's debated versions, (Cortes-Caso-Nicholson) this calculator gives you. But i found ONE source that says Good Friday April 22 (the week after Friday Passover full moon) is not day 1-Reed it is 9-Wind. Well Caso/Nicholson has April 3 for 9-wind (Mayan G.Aug 11 epoc), and Francisco Cortes has March 31 for 9-wind (Mayan G.Aug 8 epoc),of which April 22 for Mayan G.Aug 12 epoc is day 1-Ahau and 18 days after 9-wind and 13 days before 1-Reed.Demanding published sources is NOT going to resolve this in a talk page because most of the sources are wrong contradicting each other. I WILL ADMIT that it gets me confused too, when i make the mistake and list the same tzolkin day 13 days apart instead of 260-day. But i meant the name for one version is 13-day shifted from the OTHER version. Of which both versions, must have their year bearer as 260-day earlier. And what makes this difficult is that day-name is 260-day while year bearer is 365-day, and so the date a scholar claims must be both calendars (year bearer 365-day, and 260-day name being claimed as so). This calculator places the 1st month as Izcalli or the next month, and does so not in Mayan POP but in Mayan YAX which is 180-day opposite than the chart i made and linked as JPG here. I like that because i feel Earth had an Exodus disaster that Egypt-Israel are not the only ones too log. My JPG chart (link) is based just on calendar correlation between Aztec names and Mayan names, (not based on Spanish records), that is why i placed Atlcahualo in July with Pop and this calculator says its in Yax. But it seems here that Spanish records are not helping anyone since each Aztec town had their own ideas on calendar. Andi have yet to see anyone provide the year bearer day in Julian and 260-day.

• Sketch diagram here from someone else shows Pan-Quetzal-iztli (as 18th uinal) with five Nemontemi preceding Atemoztli as 1st month. This is contrast to 15 then Atemoztli (16), then Tititl (17), and Izcalli (18), then five Nemontemi.
• Hubert Bancroft (1886) shows Atemoztli (as 18th) with five emontemi preceding 1st uinal Tititl,
• Listed here Tititl (as 18th uinal) with the five Nemontemi days preceding 1st uinal Izcalli.
• A chart there duplicated from here at Wikipedia AZTEC CALENDAR shows Izcalli as (18th) with the five Nemontemi preceding 1st uinal Atlcahualo. Someone needs to get it all together, if not Wikipedia then all the cities of the Aztec who apparently did not have an empire with a single standard for it. Do you think perhaps they moved their Nemontemi every 80 years of 20 leap days?

i.e. month Atemoztli (1180ad)

then Tititl (1260ad)

then Izcalli (1440ad)

then Atlcahualo (1520ad) These different IPs are all me. No idea how IPs work to change like this. Most on this page is me. But i did catch my brain-farts Senor Cuete pointed out. No i was not suggesting tzolkin is other than 260-day. If two dates of the same day name are only 13 days apart, then it is two scholars, two authors in conflict, not a claim that the cycle is different. I point out errors, not trying to publish my own errors. RICK 75.86.64.46 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC) (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

GOOD FRIDAY 1519AD is 1-Ahau (not 1-Reed): Aztec Tonal-Pohualli Correlation with Mayan Tzolkin

Really confused here, GOOD FRIDAY 1519AD is 1-Ahau/1-Xochitl (not 1-Reed/1-Acatl/1-Ben). And there is no 1-reed on 1 POP; it is 3-Reed on 1 Pop. The correlation difference between the Aztec of Cortez (1519 AD) and the Mayan is caused by these 13 days of trecena. Mayan day 1-Ahau is Aztec day 1-Xochitl (The Lord or Flower =five-petal Venus pentacle), and Mayan day 1-Ben is Aztec day 1-Acatl (the christ-king's staff, the cornstalk reed). However, Aztec day 1-Xochital is 13 days earlier on Mayan day 1-Manik. And Aztec day 1-Acatl is on Mayan day 1-Ahau. So all Aztec days are 13 days before their Mayan equivalent. So if the Aztec regard 1-Acatl as a year bearer and as a calendar round, it is because it falls on Mayan 1-Ahau. (1518 AD Year Bearer day 1-Acatl is Mayan 1-Ahau 13 Pop.)

Delete your words saying the date doesnt exist (and i will delete defending my honor) since it does exist. Okay i screwed up saying his issue isn't 12, he is trying to say that 1Ahau 13Pop does not occur in 1519AD (you are correct together they are 52 haab not every 260 days). But i am back here again looking for day-1 reed to be year bearer 1-reed and again finding 1-reed Mayan 13 days after 1Ahau Mayan though not knowing how i correlated it as 1-Actal (1-Ben).

Cuete says "Mayan 1Ahau 13Pop" never occurs in the Maya calendar. 1 Ahau only coincides with a Haab' coefficient of 3, 8, 13 or 18. Not all possible combinations of Tzolk'in and Haab' actually occur. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC). DOES Cuete not say right here that 1Ahau coincides with a coefficiency of 3 (3Pop) and 8 (8 Pop) and 13 (13Pop) and 18. Then how can he say 13Pop is never the day Ahau, yet occurs on 3 and 8 and 13 and 18. The coefficients of 2 and 7 and 12 and 17 for Ahau (used by Don Jhoan Xiu quotedby Thompson) have been overridden decades ago, and so i am agreeing by using 13, not 12. If he is equating 1Ben as 1Acatl this occurs on 11 Pop (not 13 Pop) the coefficients of 1 and 6 and 11 and 16. 1519AD is J.July 23 = G.Aug 2 as 3-Ben (3-Acatl) 1 Pop. How is that a 1-reed year bearer if it is 3-reed?

Using Mayan 3114bc G.Aug 12 as epoch, the Aztec day 1Acatl on Mayan day 1Ahau 13Pop is 1518 AD J.Aug 5 = G.Aug 15 (rising Gemini 71-day Venus in the east), then 1-Ahau 13 Kankin Good Friday 1519 AD Apr 22 =G.May 2 day is reappearance of Taurus 35-day evening Venus in the west, then as 1-Ahau 8 Chen 1520 AD Jan 7 =G.Jan 17 (rising Capricorn/Sagittarius 6-day Venus in the east). It would appear that the Venus of August 1518 AD was to warn of the Venus destruction of January 1520 AD, making the middle tzolkin date in 1519 AD as the expected Savior. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

YEAR 1 REED: Just what proves 1519 as Year 1 Reed ?

Sorry for my confusion, yes the Calendar Round does occur. Don't the rest of you find the writings of this author to be rambling, incomprehensible and to contain irrelevant factoids about astrology? After reading what he has written carefully I think he's saying that a Calendar Round repeats every 260 days, that the Tonalpohualli is off from the Tzolk'in by 13 days. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Senor Cuete: The date 1Ben 1Pop occurs only every 52 haab (Xiuh-Pohualli). If this Mayan day 1Ben is also Aztec day 1Acatl as you also say 1snake is the same day in both calendars, then you should know that 1Ben 1Pop is 1491 AD July 30=G.Aug 8 and zips right on thru and passed 1519 AD. By scholastic definition this makes 1491 then 1543 the Year Bearer 1Ben = 1Acatl and not 1519 AD. So the weight is not on me. I am not the uneducated one (for not having the answer), but rather false answers from scholars is what is proving to be uneducated, and outright ego arrogance aka lies. I have made this issue since 1983, still no one resolving it Your words about the arrival being Year 1 Reed (saying everyone is wrong that it is not both the year 1 Reed AND the day 1 Reed as so many 100s of publications publish), still defies the rules that would make it Year 1 Reed. For Cortez not arriving on a 1 Reed day there are 100s or 1000s publishing that it was. And if they accept Aug 12 epoch they say it was Good Friday April 22, and if they accept Aug 11 epoch they say it was Thursday April 21, and one source says April 21 Easter Sunday which doesnt exist in either Julian nor Gregorian for 1519 AD. Yet my confusion is because they say he set foot at Veracruz this day and one source says this was March 5. There is another problem, and that is how do you get a year bearer in 1518 AD or 1519 of 1 Ben (since 1 Ben is 1 Acatl). The year bearer is either 1 Manik (0 Pop), or 2 Lamat (1 Pop) and few would be using 3 Muluc (2Pop). According to Maya the year bearer is the day-name of the new year, though i have seen this as 0 or 1 or 2 Pop. However, 1Acatl that you claim is the same day and date as 1 Ben does not fall in Cumku nor Vayeb nor Pop that year. Your saying that it is year 1 Reed is not following the rules of what a year bearer is. 1Ben falls on 6Uo in 1518 and in 1519 1Ben 6Muan and in 1520 1Ben 1Yax. Is 1Yax the new year? not that i know of. Everyone is calling 1519 as year 1 Reed without their proving any Year Bearer DAY is falling on any Xiuh-Pohualli (haab) date, the who, nor how. Your comment saying a Year Bearer can be the last day of Cumku isnt the case. Senor Cuete, The day 1Ben, 1Reed, 1Acatl doesnt fall in Cumku during Cortez (1518-1520). Rick 98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Cortez YEAR 1Reed Contradicts the Fall Date of Tenochtitlan

According to Bernal Diaz de Castillo the fall of Tenochtitlan occurred on August 13th 1521 (Julian). Various chroniclers of the conquest recorded that this was the day 1 snake in the Tonalpohualli. This is also the day 1 snake in the Mayan Tzolk'in if you use the GMT correlation. This is considered to be evidence for the GMT correlation and that the Tzolk'in was universal throughout Mesoamerica. Before this editor's text could be included in the article, wouldn't he be required to cite reliable sources for his statement (at least I think he's saying) that there is a 13 day difference between the Tzolk'in and the Tonalpohualli? Senor Cuete (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The Puzzle: THE 1-REED GOOD FRIDAY EASTER SUNDAY

To WikiPedia moderator: I am very tired of saying 2+3=5 and then face demands i give sources to prove it; 2+3=5 is not ORIGINAL research.

1519AD Passover full moon Friday (J.April 15=G.April 25). The source historians all say Cortez arrived not just in the year 1-Acatl (1-Reed), but also on the day 1-Acatl (1-Reed). These are two separate very big puzzles. This places the year bearer 260 days before it, also on day 1-Acatl. Now whether 1-Acatl is Thursday April 21 from G.Aug 11 epoch (or Good Friday Apr 22 from G.Aug 12 epoch) this is Mayan day 1-Ahau, not day 1-Ben (1-Reed). How come no one notices this! For many decades now, or a century Good Friday from epoch Aug 12 has been said to be this date of1-Reed (on Julian April 22), and other sources say it was 1-Reed on Easter Sunday which requires an Aug 14 epoch. Another source is absolutely wrong because in neither Julian nor Gregorian it says April 21 is Easter Sunday (J.April 24 = Greg.May 4), ignored by the modern Aug 11 cult who wants Dec 21 to be the winter solstice in 2012. Yeh right the Maya wanted to know the winter solstice only once every 1508 haab, nothing to do with 5200 tun which have nothing to do with the haab being seasonal, or not. There has been no scholar ever connecting the 360-day tun to the solstice, its hype, and so also fraud. What ever the case Aug 11 or 12 or 13 or 14, this Easter weekend is Mayan day 1-Ahau, not Mayan day 1-Ben. So 260 days earlier in 1518AD is 1-Ahau 13 Pop (J.Aug 4 =G.Aug14). I accept the Aug 12 epoch for Genesis reasons which match Chinese 60-day calendar, and it puts a specific Pop 1 (2021 & 561bc on Dec 25). As for Savior, it is Aztec astrology, not my astrology. All scholars know Quetzalcoatl and Kukulkan to be Savior, and Cortez mistaken as such. Only two ways to be savior, Venus heralds your presence, or Venus is absent so they think you've come down from heaven. Again 1519AD Good Friday and Easter (our own savior, and Easter is the planet Venus) is a 1-Ahau weekend, not 1-Ben. So again if YOU people all say day 1-Reed is that weekend, it is you who have to explain why 1-Ben is not there for it, but rather it is 13 days later. Gregorian dates are only 10 days for 1519AD, not 13, so the dates must be Julian; sources verify by saying Thursday for April 21 and Friday for April 22.

We have records of 1915AD that would be preGregorian thus are Julian. We also have priests after 1582AD who may calculate back in Gregorian for events that are JULIAN. We certainly have todays standard as all total Gregorian for MesoAmerican dates. The 20th century (and 21st) easily overlook we now have a 13-day difference easily confusing us with the trecena back in 1519AD. The issue is however, 10-day in Gregorian rule, and 3-day in debated epoch Aug 10-13 or 11-14. Thus the issue of the 1519AD day 1-reed beng Good Friday (J.July brb 75.86.64.46 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Faulty Sources (Prestigious or Not)

(Senor, only a Catholic could look at the whole world and presume that when you say Savior and destruction that you only mean Jesus (every nation and every culture and every religion as its creation its savior and its predicted destruction). I dont feel it admirable for scholars to be accusing 2012 as a white man's twist to Mayan theology. Such printed media is merely a flip in power of who gets to say what. This reminds me of how american schools taught that Catholics were stupid thinking the world flat while Columbus a genius when in fact they had accurate round globes that showed the Pacific-Atlantic ocean 3 times bigger without an America in it. Columbus made discovery by believing his own lie that the earth was smaller. Yet our schools lied and claimed the Greeks did not know the earth was round 200 years before Jesus. I kept my geometry book from 1971 which gives the Greek measurements of the round spherical earth. Now we have people doing the same thing with this 1Reed date of which explains why i couldnt get any dates fixed in 1985. I am seeking competent sources and if none of you people are such, that isnt my fault. Rambling is to say things that are empty. YOU may not understand me, but i say more in each sentence here of mine, than whole paragraphs of unproven texts in your supposed sources. A source must be mathematically correct, not just some quote from an author worshipped with clout. Unless of course you have ignorant students, you gave degrees to, and they think the 13-day difference that we have now, is also 13 days back then. And yes much stupid ignorance is posted in this Wikipedia, and not edited, while truths like the factual positions of the Sothic star are ignored. I have three IPs and you treat one like a nut case while you admire a different one. That doesnt make me the fool, because i dont change personalities with IPs.) 98.144.71.174 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The people that Cortez met at Veracruz were Totonacs, not Aztecs. That arrival date is a date in the Julian calendar not any Mesoamerican calendar. A year bearer is a Tzolk'in (Tonalpohualli) date that coincides with the first date of the Haab' (Xiuhpohualli). You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#Year_Bearer. Time and the Highland Maya by Barbara Tedlock describes the use of Year Bearers in modern Guatemala. A new year bearer is seated every 365 days not 260. Aztec year bearers use the same days as the Campeche system but the coefficients are different. Apparently one of Moctecuzoma IIs predecessors chose to celebrate the 52 year Calendar Round completion on a different day than it would have fallen on. Also most articles say that the Year Bearer in the Aztec system was the Tzolk'in day that corresponded with the last day of the Haab' month Kumk'u, not the first day of Pop. For these reasons you can't use whatever Maya calendar program you have to analyze the Aztec system. You could save yourself a lot of angst by reading about these calendars, starting with the links in this comment. You may think that the Aztec calendar has something to with the savior, etc. and that's fine but the people who wrote this article (Not me but you guys are doing a good job.) aren't writing an article about that. I highly recommend that you read A true history of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz de Castillo because it's one of the greatest books ever written. I'm not Spanish or Catholic, just someone who values Wikipedia and wants it to a valuable on-line resource. I'm going on vacation tomorrow so good luck guys. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Actually according to sources Cortez who met the Totonacs never met the Aztecs because at Tenochtitlan he met the Mexica. The Aztecs are the same Mexica people in the city of Aztlan. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Any Value to 1Reed Date

I would like to know the Julian/Gregorian date of the 1-Reed new Year (Ce-Acatl) and 260 days later the 1-Reed day (1-Acatl), its equivalent new year date and equivalent day of whatever event be it Good Friday or Easter Sunday orlanding in Vercruz or Tenochtitlan (Mexico City). One article says Cortez landed at Veracruz in 1519AD March 4, coming to Tenochtitlan Nov 8. Onother source claims the 1-Reed date is landing on the shore of the Aztec at Veracruz as 13 days earlier than again 1-Reed at Tenochtitlan Mexico City. How does this skip over April 1-Acatl (1-Reed = Mayan 1-Ben) which falls on Mayan 1-Ahau (Aztec 1-Xochitl). The fact is simple that 260 days earlier 1-Acatl falls on either 1-Manik 0 Pop or 13 days later on 1-Ahau 13 Pop or 13 days later on 1-Ben 6 Uo. How are any of these a year Bearer other than 1-Manik. Where is the 1-Reed year bearer! And if you go 260 days forward you get 1520AD for a 1-Acatl that's either 1-Ahau 8 Chen or 13 days later 1-Ben 1 Yax, of which i have never heard anyone yet display a new year at the half year even though Genesis implies the whole world had flipped the calendar with 180 leap days in 1513bc. Everything I believe about origin from both oriental and Egyptian sources verifies the Mayan existed in their form of calendar before the Aztec date for Cortez. So the Aztec date of Cortez was shifted 13 days, where as Tenochtitlan was not. The claim that Year Bearer is a certain day expects that date to be the Aztec new year. Using the Aug 11 epoch to appease YOU, the choices are for 260 days:

Chinese day Wu as Mayan kin 1 day imix forces an eastward migration to America as global Far Eastern Asian zones before reaching an Atlantic Asian dateline putting the epoch day Ahau (4-Ahau) 3114bc on Gregorian Aug 12. It is our Pacific European dateline that puts the epoch date Ahau with Americatl in global western zones as the popular Gregorian Aug 11. This is supported by the claim that Good Friday April 22 (1519AD) was trecena #1. But sources are calling it 1-Acatl (1-Reed = Mayan 1-Ben) when Mayans place Good Friday as 1-Ahau from epoch G.Aug 12. Because 1-Reed is 13 days after 1-Ahau the Aztec must shift 13 days earlier to have a 1-Reed Good Friday. However, 260-day tzolkin earlier the shift must be 26 days to be a 0 Pop year bearer as 1-Acatl 0 Pop on Mayan 1-Manik 0 Pop. The Aztec tzolkin either moved 26 days back, or 0 Pop was shifted 26 leap days of 104 years. Or perhaps 13-day move of tzolkin and 13 leap days of 52 years for 0 Pop. (Note 1 Pop/Phoph is 16 days before Egyptian 1 Thoth/Tot which takes 64 years as 16 leap days.) Rick 75.86.64.46 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC) 75.86.64.46 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

1518ad J.July 23 =G.Aug 2 not 1-Acatl but 1-Manik 0 Pop as Aztec Year Bearer

1518ad J.Aug 5 =G.Aug 15 not 1-Acatl but 1-Ahau 13 Pop

1519ad J.April 22 =G.May 2 not 1-Acatl but 1-Ahau 13 Kankin Good Friday (7 days after Friday Passover full moon)

1520ad J.Jan 7 = G.Jan 17 not 1-Acatl but 1-Ahau 8 Chen

to claim Veracruz had the same calendar as Maya would take away all the thousands of Easter weekend claims for the arrival of Cortez on 1-Reed and place his date 13 days later.

1518ad J.Aug 18 =G.Aug 28 is 1-Acatl on 1-Ben 6 Uo

1519ad J.May 5 =G.May 15 is 1-Acatl on 1-Ben 6 Muan

1520ad J.Jan 20 =G.Jan 30 is 1-Acatl on 1-Ben 1 Yax

I would not be inclined to make claim that Cortez should be dated as the rising Venus of 1520ad January, though i take note that 1 Yax is the half year which so many cultures of the world had flipped 180 days.

98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous previous discussions

Who says the Aztecs added 6 days to the solar year (for leap year correction?). It sounds logical but evidence is against it (the tonalpohualli, that is interlinked with the xiuhpohalli was thought to be inline with the Mayan calendar. The Mayan 365-day year did not use leap correction (although the mayans were aware of the solar year not being 365 days and used corrections for this in calculations), so the Aztecs did not (if they did use in it the xiuhpohullia, the name bearer-system would have gone wrong, or correlation with the mayan 260 would have shifted. Neither occurred). I removed the 6 days stuff. This calendar doesn't really work. Rene Voorburg

Many many books out there are propagating this lie about leap day in Mayan or Aztec calendars.98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Natives were using intercalculations to adjust for Earth's axis precession is stated by both Duran and Portilla. Thirteen days added to the end of the 52 year period as noted by Prescott is probably the most accurate of the observations. -- Grae Bear (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The 13 leap days added to 52 haab are also the start of 260-day tzolkin because 52 tun are exactly 72 tzolkin (24x 780 day Mars) so that this 52 tun is 260 days short of 52 haab (73 tzolkin) +13 days is 52 Sothic (Julian).98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

---

What is this? What picture? -- Zoe

I think it is important to note that the picture used here on the aztec calendar page is not the aztec calendar at all but the ¨Sun Stone¨. this should be clearly noted.

I added the one from Aztec I guess the anon writer was referring to. -- Infrogmation 00:30 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please refer to Wikipedia's Aztec calendar, since it was the best known Mesoamerican calendar for the Europeans...

I doubt this is true. I think Maya calendar is more basic than mentioned one. It was perhaps best known to Europeans in the past, but now comes the time, this won't be true anymore. --XJamRastafire 04:03 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

This article is something of a mess, with a mixture of good info and some dubious points. I don't have time to do the research to rewrite the whole thing now, but I wanted to go on record with this. -- Infrogmation 00:30 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

As some of Wikipedia's other Mesoamerica articles are improved, this article is looking worse in comparison. It starts out with a statement at least dubious, I'd say false, about it being derived from the Maya calendar. It wanders around, sometimes specifically talking about the Aztec calendar, and sometimes about Mesoamerican calendars in general, not being clear when it discusses one of the other. I think we could use a fresh start, maybe at Aztec calendar/Temp for now. Let's begin with a basic factual description. When we have a decent article, let's move that here, then move what is in the article now here to talk. -- Infrogmation 16:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, perhaps I'll start an article on Mesoamerican calendars, dealing with what they have in common and linking to the specific ones. -- Infrogmation 16:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will replace the article with the content of Aztec calendar/Temp next week and move the current text here to talk. Improvements to Aztec calendar/Temp welcome. -- Infrogmation 18:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

There being no objections, I'm replacing the article with the one that had been at Temp. Below is the old article. If cleaning up this talk page is desired, perhaps it could be moved to something like "Aztec calendar/old". -- Infrogmation 05:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The Aztec calendar

The Aztec calendar, which was derived from the Mayan calendar, is perhaps the best known Mesoamerican calendar today due to the famous Aztec monument in Mexico, the Piedra del Sol which means the Stone of the Sun. The text under Aztec calendar offers a new solution to it, including its starting point (October 23, 4004 BCE).

This below was taken from Z.A. Simon (1984: 9-31) by permission, in a condensed form. Some of it is disputed by mainstream scholars of ancient Mesoamerica.

1. Proof of the nonexistence of intercalary days in the Aztec calendar, verifying Professor Michael Coe's theory.
2. Establishment of an exact starting date of the calendar (day, month, and year), which was unknown until 1984.
3. Solution of the contradictory interpretations of the ancient chroniclers: Sahagún and Diego Durán.
4. Mathematical proven evidence of the pre-Columbian contacts between the Mesoamerican and some West-European cultures.

Most of our largest libraries have a few dozen books on the history of Mexico, but these books usually interpret the Aztec calendar very briefly. Besides this, they often emphasize only those scientific achievements that are important for their authors. The wide range of different opinions can be illustrated by one example. A well-known expert on Mexican culture remembers Antonio de León y Gama (1736-1802), who has been called the first Mexican archaeologist. He states that the most important of León y Gama's books on archaeology is the "Descripción histórica y cronológica de las dos piedras." The sculptures of the title are two famous monoliths. Bernal adds that one of them is the Stone of the Sun, and falls into the error of attributing to the stone a calendrical significance, though he never claims that it was used as a calendar. In this situation, despite the correct but brief information of the encyclopeadias, the reader might get easily confused.

In addition to this, some sources introduced certain new terms without proper consistency. Other denominations were superseded, including a few calendrical miscalculations of amateur writers. Due to the apparent lack of coherence, the new results of some interesting papers have been neglected or ignored by the editors of many popular books. Therefore, a detailed description of the Mexican (Aztec) calendar is necessary for a complete understanding of the question. Therefore we will give that description before examining what experts have said about the problems. It will be concluded with the author's solution and its implications.

It is well-known that the Mayas and Aztecs had a highly developed calendar system. The two basic time cycles that governed Mesoamerican life were the solar calendar and the ritual calendar. In other words, the Mexican calendar is twofold, and comprises a ritual calendar, with a round of 260 days, which was employed in divination and in fixing "movable feasts"; and a solar year, with a round of 365 days, according to which the seasonal feasts were held (Muser, 1978:17 and Joyce, 1970:59).

The solar calendar of 365 days, called the Vague Year (or Civil Year), was composed of 18 months of 20 days each, with a period of 5 or 6 days added at the end. The 360-day period was called "xíhuitl" by Aztecs, and "haab" or "tun" by the Maya. The final unlucky days were called "Nemontemi" in Nahuatl, and "Uayeb" in Mayan.

[The works of 1886 Hubert Bancroft says the Nemontemi are two veinteno earlier before Tititl (not Atlcahualo) and his diagram wheel is borrowed from someone who places the Nemontemi another veinteno before Atemotztli. So I would like to see the proof that there was just one Aztec calendar and not to each his own city. Further 1Ben is said to be the 13th year of the calendar round, so that 1 Acatl is also said to be the 13th year of it, both being 1 Reed. However, how does a calendar round end and start on Year 1 Acatl for Cortez if it is year 13. Further, Aztec 1Acatl is shifted 13 days before 1Ben so that 1Acatl falls on 1Ahau. Take note! This article believes Aztec uses a creation (Adam) of 4004bc Oct 23, but then let me add my own religious knowledge, the 243-year Venus measures from Noah's Flood to 1519 AD. Mayan Noah's Flood 3114bc and actual Noah's Flood 2370bc. It is 16x 243 year Venus from 2370bc to 1519 AD, actual data? rise on 2369bc Jan 6 matches rise on 1520AD Jan 6. However, applied to Mayan Noah's Flood 3114bc we have 260 years to 2855bc where it is then 18x 243 years from 2855bc Jan 6 to 1520AD Jan 6. The evening Venus of Cortez is 2856bc which is 260 tun from 3112bc which two years after the Flood is Arpaxad and sets better as Venus than using 260 haab which produces 3116bc April to 3115bc Jan 6. Just because it fits, doesnt make it true; but it does uncover how ancients miscalculate reconstructions just as modern scholars do.]98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Each month had its own special name, and the days were numbered from zero to nineteen. The days of the last month, Uayeb, were numbered from zero to four. In this calendar the Maya counted the days starting from zero rather than from one (Ivanoff, 1971: 87).

This solar calendar was inseparable from the Sacred Round, or Sacred Almanac. The priests used this ritual calendar of 260 days, called Tonalpohualli by the Aztecs and tzolkin by the Maya, primarily for divinatory purposes. The concurrent permutation of the solar and ritual calendars produced the Calendar Round. An exclusively lowland Classic Maya calendar achievement was the Long Count, which permitted an infinite computation of time, backward or forward, from an established starting point (Muser, 1978: 17). By the passing centuries, this simplified system may have became dominant, but we want to know its original form.

As we have already mentioned, in both solar and ritual calendars, time elapsed in parallel fashion, simultaneously and continuously. Peter Tompkins (1976: 290) states that each day of the tzolkin was governed by a deity who was thought to influence that day for good or evil, each separate day being regarded by the Maya as an individual god, whose glyph was a stylized portrait of his attributes. The numbers 1 to 13 were also personified as the heads of the gods they represented.

The use of this 260-day calendar was in no way arbitrary. The Mesoamericans possessed the correct knowledge that 18x 260 days was the same as 360 x 13 days (and 13x 360 days =6 orbits of 780-day Mars), that 7x 260 was the same as 5x 364, that 73x 260 and 260x 73 was the same as 52x 365, and that 260x 1461 days and 1461x 260 days (like the Egyptian Sothic cycle!) was the same as 1040x 365.25 (Compare 2970-1930bc, with 2370-1330bc98.144.71.174 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)). Tompkins adds that to these calendars, which all fell into the 260-day pattern, were added more refinements, in order to calculate the synodic returns of the moon and the planets.

In Mesoamerica the planet Venus looms in the dawn sky with extraordinary brilliance. Both the Maya and the Nahua astronomers devoted special attention to the planet, and particularly to its heliacal rising. Venus revolves around the sun every 224.7 days, but since the earth is moving along its own orbit, the planet appears at the same place in the sky in 584 days, called synodic period. As 5x 584 is equal to 8x 365, the Maya considered five Venus years equal to eight solar years. And as 365x 104 is equal to both 146x 260 and 65x 584, the sacred, the solar, and the venus calendars become coincident every 37,960 days, or 104 years. That is, two Mesoamerican "centuries" of 52 years. (Actually, the Maya knew the Venus cycle to be 583.92 days, instead of a round 584, so they dropped 4 days every 61 Venus years, in order to compensate for the discrepancy and make a round number divisible by 260.) (583.92 days is an EXACT correction of 2 days per 40 years =25 orbits, and 4 days in 80 years, where as 61 Venus years are 97.5 haab /years. 61x 584 days =35,624 days minus 4 days =35,620 days = 137x 260 day tzolkin =1781x 20 day uinal =2740 x 13 day trecena =20 days less than 99 tun. So the correction you claim thus recognizes Venus as starting on a tun, and then ending 20 days before 99 tun, and 40 days before 198 tun, 60 days before 297 tun, until 1781 tun =1755 Julian 146 days. Hope this helps in how many years it took them or not to note this.)98.144.71.174 (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As astronomers are quick to point out, such an accurate knowledge of the cycle of Venus, whose revolutions are by no means regular, points to a long and careful observation.

Furthermore, the Mesoamericans devised a lunar calendar that would fit with the others. Calculating that 405 lunations or 11,960 days was exactly divisible by 260 (or, 260 x 46), they obtained a lunar period of 29.53 days which is practically the same what we know today. This would give them a lunar calendar accurate within a day over a period of 300 years.

Returning to the ritual and the solar calendars, the method of naming the individual days was the same for both, and consisted in the combination of twenty pictorial signs, with the numbers one to thirteen. The signs, according to the four cardinal points, were as follows:

E(ast)... 1 Cipactli (alligator, crocodila, aquatic monster)

N(orth).. 2 Éhecatl (wind, wind god)

W(est)... 3 Calli (house, like Hawaiian Ha-Le)

S(outh).. 4 Cuetzpalin (lizard)

E...........5 Cóatl (serpent, snake)

N..........6 Miquiztli (death)

W..........7 Mázatl (deer)

S...........8 Tochtli (rabbit)

E...........9 Atl (water)

N.........10 Itzcuintli (dog)

W.........11 Ozomatli (monkey)

S..........12 Malinalli (dead grass

E..........13 Ácatl (reed)

N.........14 Océlotl (ocelot, jaguar)

W.........15 Quauhtli (eagle)

S..........16 Cozcaquauhtli (king buzzard, vulture)

E..........17 Ollin (motion, earthquake)

N.........18 Técpatl (flint, flint knife)

W.........19 Quiáhuitl (rain)

S..........20 Xóchitl (flower) five-petal like the Venus pentacle (Venus the Ahau or Lord)

By combining both series, one gets 1 Alligator as the name of the first day; of the second, 2 Wind; of the third, 3 House, until we reach the day 13 Reed. The following day is called 1 Jaguar; the next is 2 Eagle, and so on. When the day Flower is reached, it is necessary to start counting the day Alligator over again, with its corresponding number. This calendar was essentially the basis for all other calendrical computations, such as the Mayan, the Zapotec, the Mixtec, the Totonac, the Huaxtec, the Teotihuacán, the Toltec and the Aztec. (Caso, 1958: 66)

Joyce (1970: 61-62) states that these signs ran consecutively in the order given above, one being assigned to each day, and the series was repeated ad infinitum. Conjointly with them were repeated the numerals one to thirteen, e.g., 1 Cipactli, 2 Eecatl, 3 Calli, and so on to 13 Acatle, which was followed by 1 Ocelotl, 2 Quauhtli, etc. There being no common factor to the numbers 13 and 20, a period of 13 x 20 days, or 260, would elapse before the sign 1 Cipactli would recur. This period of 260 days constituted the divinatory or ritual calendar, known as tonalamatl. The tonalamatl was subdivided in various ways; in some manuscripts each of the twenty 13-day periods, or weeks, is shown separately, together with the figure of a god who was especially associated with the first day, but whose influence was supposed to extend over the whole "week". In some manuscripts the tonalamatl is arranged on a different system: in five long horizontal rows of 52 days each. Each row, and each vertical column of five days, is provided with a presiding deity symbol, the influence of which must be assessed.

[That's not true. 13 and 20 are in common to 260 days which 52 haab are 260 days more than 52 tun. In other words when Mars is regarded as one-quarter the sky in 52 years (24 orbits 1.e. 2060bc Apr 7 to 2009bc July 8, or G.Mar 21 to G.Jun 21, the equinox to the solstice is actually G.Mar 20 to G.Jun 23), then this quarter sky (whole sky is a Mars of 208 tun being 205 Julian years) is 260 days short of 52 haab of the 365-day year, so the former concept that the year was with Mars and 360 days must be corrected in 52 years by adding 260 days to be 52 years of 365 days. This 260 days are not 270 of 9 months. So you have no choice but to use the number 13 and 20 which seems divinely appointed because another 13 days as 13 leap days will amouint to be 52 Sothic (Julian) years. So 13 is all wrapped up in the difference between 52 tun and 52 haab and 52 Julian forcing the 260 days to be 20 of the 13, and so also reversal as 13 of the 20. So a 13 day-number cycle is created, and forces the 360-day year to become 18 of those 20. All becaus eof Mars whose 780 days is thrice 260.]98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mexicans reckoned 365 days to the solar year, which they divided into 18 months of twenty days each, and a nineteenth period of five days, considered extremely unlucky, at the end of the year. As the days were known by their tonalamatl names, it is obvious that the first 105 days of the year recurred at the end, after the 260-day period. However, it was possible to distinguish between two days of the same name which fell in the same year, owing to the fact that each day was associated with one of a series of nine deities, called lords of the night, a series also repeated ad infinitum, except no "lord" was assigned to any of the 5 or 6 unlucky days at the end of the year, which were called nemontemi or "useless days." Thus, since the number 260 is not divisible by 9, it was possible to differenciate between two days of the same name falling in one year. And since 9 goes into 360 without a remainder, the commencement of the year coincided with the beginning of the series of "lords of the night."

Nor is this all; a corresponding series of thirteen "lords of day," which, however, is not similarly composed in all manuscripts, accompanied the days (except the nemontemi), and the influences of the day- and night-lord assigned to each day respectively constituted two additional features for the consideration of the would-be interpreter of the tonalamatl.

Since each "month" consisted of twenty days, and there were twenty day-signs, it is obvious that each month in a given year started with the same sign; but that since the last month was followed by the five unlucky days, each year began with a day-sign five days later than the last. Also since 365 is divisible by 13 with 1 as remainder, it follows equally that each year began wit a day-number one in advance of the last.

Further, since there were 20 day-signs, and 5 (the highest common factor of 365 and 20) goes into twenty exactly four times, the year began with one of the four signs only. The four signs mentioned by T.A. Joyce (1970: 63-65), which gave the names to the years, are the signs Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli and Acatl, recurring in that order. (It is more than probable that the day-number entering into the name of the year was that of the first day, as held by most authorities.) The years were named successively, 1 Tecpatl, 2 Calli, 3 Tochtli, etc., until, after a period of 52 years (that is, 13 x 4), the same sign recurred with the same number as the name-date of the year. This period of 52 years named xiuhmolpilli (meaning bundle of years) formed the shorter cycle of the Mexicans.

To understand the calculation of a 52-year cycle, imagine two wheels of time rotating simultaneously. On time when recorded days, for which there were 20 names with 13 numbers. The complete name of a day must be accompanied by the appropriate number, such as 4 Reed or 9 Eagle. The other wheel presents a somewhat parallel situation. Eighteen months of 20 days each, to which the dreaded 5-day period of bad luck was added, resulted in a 365-day cycle (18 x 20 plus 5 equals 365), corresponding to our solar year. In order to return to the very same day and month, 52 years would have to elapse. This was the basic computation of time used in Mesoamerica. See the diagrammatic illustration in Michael D. Coe, Mexico and in the books of J. Eric S. Thompson. This Calendar Round enabled unique designation within a 52-year period but difficulties arise when dealing with several cycles: one needs to know to which Calendar Round the date refers. (The Maya Long Count also used the 52-year cycle but avoided confusion by accurately recording lapsed time from an initial starting point in 3113 BCE, according to the Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation. Many scholars agree upon that this starting point represents a mythological event, probably the latest creation of man.)

[I have studied their works, and their astral positions of astronomy prove they refer to -3113 (3114bc) including the 3016 haab later being -99 (100bc) by the lunar and Venus referred to.)98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

These statements mentioned above require some adjustment. The four signs cited were actually in use during the Spanish Conquest. We should not conclude from this fact alone that this was the original form of all Mesoamerican calendars. Many of those tribes may have used the 52-year Mexican century during their whole history, using it automatically, being incapable of understanding the deeper meaning of the calendar for absolute dates. Regardless of our knowledge of the existence of the supposed infinite version of the calendar using exclusively four year-signs (like part of the Boturini manuscript with its 188 year-signs), we cannot admit that this would be the final solution of the Mesoamerican calendars. This system must have had some kind of starting point and the correct 3113 BCE of the Maya does not fit into the Aztec system. (This is the point where we have to break with the widely accepted theories, and start to build up a more understandable explanation.)

Ignacio Bernal states in The Olmec World that it must have dawned on the Olmecoids that a system in which dates were repeated every 52 years was confusing on the long run. It could be compared to our cryptic way of writing, for instance, '56. Does this refer to 1956, or 1856, or even 156? Of course at the moment of writing we know what it meant, but after many centuries it is not clear. The Long Count system (of the Maya) is far more exact and equates basically to the one that has been followed by many civilized peoples.

Seen this way, the logic behind the system is no longer apparent. Would the Mexicans have been that illogical? Did they just ignore the difficulties and the inaccuracy in such a refined institution? Our answer is definitely no. From all the facts we must not arrive at the conclusion that only 4 signs recur infinitely during the whole history of the Aztecs. Also, although the sequence of these four year signs is correct, we must emphasize that there would not be any particular reason to start with the Tecpatl sign.

If we have a good look at the picture of a conjectural Mexican calendar published by Gemelli Carreri (1645-1700), we arrive at some interesting conclusions. See A history of Mexican archaeology (1980: 55). This circular calendar is surrounded by a serpent, a symbol of both earth and time, according to Irene Nicholson (1975: 27). The orientation of the drawing itself suggests that we have to start to read it at the top. The head of the snake symbolizes the beginning. Fray Diego Durán, Book of the Gods and Rites and The Ancient Calendar refers to an oddity that "Cipactli, which was the first figure and which means Head of Serpent," observing that "when people called it a head, I think that they understood it to be the beginning of the month, or its first day" (Durán, 1971 reprint: 394). (The English, Spanish, Hungarian and other languages have corresponding cognates for head, principal and chapter.)

We can be certain that the Head of Serpent really means the beginning in this representation. Therefore, we can assume that our count is supposed to progress from the head towards the tail of the snake. Emphasizing the correctness if this explanation, the drawing shows four loops on the serpent's body. These loops indicate the year-bearers, namely Rabbit, Reed, Flint-knife, and House. These four fields are significantly larger than the others on the drawing (altogether 52 year-signs). We can see clearly that the commencing year of a 52-year cycle was the Rabbit sign, at least at that time when the original of the drawing was made.

The best confirmation for this theory can be found in Miguel León-Portilla, Aztec Thought and Culture (1963: 54-55): The division of time gave rise to the years of the East, of the North, of the West, and of the South. In abstract terms, motion appeared as a consequence of the spatialization of time and of the orientation of the years and the days toward the four directions. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the accounts of Sahagún's Indian informants explaining the tabulation of the year-count, in which the years are spatially oriented:

1. One Rabbit, this is the name of the annual sign, the year-count for the region of the South.

2. Thirteen years it carries, guiding, carrying always on its shoulders each of the thirteen years.

3. And it goes along, guiding, beginning; it introduces all of the signs of the years: reed, flint, house. (Italics added.)

4. Reed is the name given to the sign of the region of light (East)...

5. The third group of years: flint. It is called the sign of the region of the dead... [North]...

8. And the fourth annual sign, house, was called the sign of the region of women... (West).

A close look at the table of the 52 year count preserved by Sahagún shows it to be very similar to the foregoing text, and clearly illustrates that in a Nahuatl century of fifty-two years, for each of the four directions a 13-year period of predominant influence was allotted. In a similar manner, within each year, the days of the tonalámatl or Sacred Calendar were divided into 65-day series of five 13-day "weeks." In a year of 260 days there were four of these 65-day groups, and each carried a sign which related it to one of the four cardinal directions. Jacques Soustelle noted that the most important Indian manuscripts demonstrate a clear distribution of 20 day-signs among the four directions. Thus, not only in each year, but also in each day, the influence of one of the four spatial directions predominated.

William Prescott, The World of the Aztecs states that in the measurement of time, the Aztecs adjusted their civil year by the solar... A month was divided into four weeks of five days each, on the last of which was the public fair or market day. As the year is composed of nearly six hours more than 365 days, there still remained an excess, which, like other nations who have framed a calendar, they provided for by intercalation; not indeed, every fourth year as the Europeans, but at longer intervals, like some of the Asiatics. They waited till the expiration of the fifty-two vague years, when they interposed thirteen days, or rather twelve and a half, this being the number which had fallen in arrear.

Nicholson (1975: 47) repeats that some authors believe that the end of the 52-year cycles an extra or intercalary period, sometimes of twelve and sometimes of thirteen days, brought the calendar into line with the position of the sun among the stars. This is not a widely accepted theory, since its theoretical usefulness is no proof in itself. Joyce is of the following opinion: The employment by the Mexicans of a solar year of 365 days brings us to the question whether they at any time intercalated any day or days to make their year square with real solar time. It is quite obvious that a people, most of whose feasts were connected with agriculture, were bound to notice that their festivals gradually failed to correspond with the seasons, and many conjectures have been made regarding the methods which they might have used to rectify their calendar. It must be confessed that there is no direct evidence that days were ever intercalated in the latter, and Seler has shown that at any rate between the year of the conquest (1519) and the date of Sahagún's writing, some forty years, no intercalation had been made.

Peter Tompkins (1976: 289) asserts that Mesoamericans divided their year into 360 days plus 5 extra days on regular years and 6 on leap years or 13 every 52 years. Michael D. Coe of Yale University is categoric in his assertion that "there is no evidence that the Mesoamericans ever intercalated days or leap years." According to him, because the tropical year is 365.2422 days long, the 365-day vague year simply gained on the seasons by a factor of 13 days every 52 vague years. But the fact remains that whatever system the Mesoamericans used, the result was a calendar more accurate than ours, adds Tompkins.

[The fact that 1508 haab = 1507 Gregorian is seen in the Amizaduga Tablets as 180 solar leap days of 744 haab before the Mayan of 100bc of which Thompson gets this amazing tropical year as 3016 haab = 3014 years. But who considers a seasonal year as practical if it is noted only every 1507 years. That is not an annual yearly practice the way the Gregorian has been annual for 430 years now. The 13 days in 52 years is not seasonal Gregorian, it is Sothic Julian. Further, the 3016 haab are a 584-day Venus that has drifted 150 days in 1885 Venus orbits, so that too is a false claim for Venus accuracy, and seasonal. A seasonal rotation of the Venus pentacle is 251 years (243 Julian +8 years) just like a sidereal Venus is 235 years (243 Julian -8 years).]98.144.71.174 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Coe's theory must be right from another point of view also. Since a pictorial sign was attributed to every single day of the calendar, even to the "useless" nemontemi days, it is incontrovertible that each of these supposed intercalary days would have had its own year-sign too. All the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America seem to have been the most calendar-oriented people, as held by many authorities. Given their way of thinking, no day could have passed without being marked for posterity. If the supposed intercalary days had had their own signs, new signs besides the existing four would have had to be introduced because of the hypothetical shift of 12 or 13 days between the 52-year cycles.

The nonexistence of extra year-signs due to the intercalary days positively implies the nonexistence of an intercalary shift. On the other hand, the lack of intercalary days does not mean new signs could not have been introduced. If the Mexicans possessed 20 different symbols, why they could not have used all of them for their great time-cycles? Why did they keep repeating only four of them? We investigated this mysterious question below.

It is known that the Aztecs and the Maya used very similar systems in their calendars. Keith G. Irwin, in The 365 Days (1963: 164-167) gives a valuable observation on the Mayan calendar that might be useful for an understanding of that of the Aztecs. He noticed that there was one point about their double measuring plan of marking off days into "months" and "weeks" that we would notice in much the same way if our weeks were numbered. The month plan covered a year of 365 days while the week plan stopped at a year of 364 days. Both plans ran on continuously, so the shorter year kept drawing away from the beginning of the other year a day at a time. In 365 years the shorter year would have advanced a whole year; so at intervals 365 years apart the two "year arrangements" would have their beginnings at the same time. Irwin's ingenious theory refers to the Maya and apparently has not yet been emphasized well enough in modern publications.

In order to get further proofs for his "364-day year plan," we tried to derive a unique counting system based on the 364 days. We supposed that the Mesoamericans utilized the fact that 364 is divisible by 4, and the quotient is 91. But what kind of number is the 91? It does not seem to be a spacial figure. But if we examine it with Mesoamerican logic, it would gain enormous importance from the fact that it is divisible by 13. Thirteen days gave a Mexican "week," and otherwise 13 was held to be a fortunate number. This is just the beginning. If we add all the figures from 1 to 13 inclusive, the amount will be 91 again. This seems to be a marvellous coincidence. The ancient priests could have kept track of all the 91 days of one season easily, without confusion, in a triangular form. You can imagine it as a set-square with two angles of 45 degrees: one at the top, and the other at the bottom right. The top is one dot, the next is a horizontal line of two dots, the next is of three dots, etc. Finally, the 13th line (at the bottom, horizontally) is formed by 13 dots. This way they were able to mark one dot each day, and arrive at 91 without a confusing mess or mistake.

Representing the existence of the 364-day year, the El Castillo pyramid of Chichén Itzá, the great Mayan center in Yucatan, shows stairways of 91 steps on each side. Four times 91 equals 364! Marcel F. Homet states that in the same region the two sets of steps of the pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan total 364. Three hundred and sixty-four heads of serpents decorate the pyramid of Quetzalcóatl as well which indicates his connection with the Mexican calendar.

There are even more academic opinions about the existence of this 91-day period. Adrian Digby introduced such a wide-ranging technique as archaeoastronomy in Crossed trapezes: a pre-Columbian astronomical instrument in Mesoamerican Archaeology (1974:272-282). Digby wonders, "Did the possession of the instrument lead to the adoption of the enigmatic number 13, and the computing year of 364 days?"

Since the existence of both a 365 and a 364-day year seems to be proved, we can start determine the length of the period at the end of which they would coincide. So we should multiply 364 by 365, in order to get the least common multiple of 364 and 365. It will be 132,860 days. Dividing this figure by 365.242199, the number of the days in one tropical year, we get 363.7586 years.

It have been established that One rabbit was the year when the Mexicans began their latest great cycle at the time of the Conquest. However, we must figure out which were the guiding years of their preceding ages. The Aztecs attributed the invention of the calendar to their main god, Quetzalcóatl. It is known that his birthday fell on Ce äcatl or One Reed (Man across the sea, 1971: 256 and Durán, 1971 reprint: 475). Not knowing if this date referred to the birthday or the exact date of the calendar's introduction causes a slight difference. However, a life span was probably shorter than a great cycle. So we can assume that the first Great Cycle of 363.7586 years was marked as 1 Reed. Quetzalcóatl may have wished to start at a vague date, he could have started his count from a date well-known for himself, i.e., his own birthdate. Since he was a god, he could have known the exact day, and even the hour.

Otherwise the Reed sign represents East, the cardinal point where Quetzalcóatl appeared from, and disappeared towards. East was the beginning of everything, in this divine sense, so it may have been the starting direction of their calendar, too. Let as accept that the opening year of the first Great Cycle started on One Reed, and that of the cycle in 1519 was One Rabbit.

Durán (1971: 391), a contemporary of Cortés, shows a few examples from the written Mexican records. They told him, "In the year One Reed, at the beginning of the 16th cycle, the Spaniards arrived in this land." He adds a sentence from the same paragraph, "In the year of the jubilee, which began on One Reed, the first year of the 16th cycle, there came to this land Don Hernán Cortés. We can clearly see that the 16th cycle, or certain years of it, represented the jubilee of some event, evidently of that of 1 Reed, that is, the existence of their calendar. Due to Durán's vague determination of the date, it originally might have meant, "In the year of the jubilee, which began on a day One Reed (just like the first year of the 16 cycles), at the beginning (or, in the first part) of the 16th cycle, the Spaniards arrived to Mexico." Durán may have misinterpreted this information, since he did not understand at all what the term "cycle" meant.

Many paintings from Mayan codices, the great Stone of the Sun and Gemelli's drawing show the symbols in the same sequence. If you count them one by one, beginning with the Reed sign, the 16th sign will be the Rabbit sign. However, we still do not know how long a Great Cycle was. If we suppose that it can be equated with a 52-year period, the result of our calculation from 1519 would be A.D. 739, so the Aztec calendar must have began before that date. This gives us another key: it confirms the theory that the god Quetzalcóatl and King Topiltzin were not identical beings. Perhaps Topiltzin, son of Mixcoatl, was born on a One Reed day. Bruce Hunter, A guide to Ancient Mexican Ruins (1977: 75) refers to Topiltzin, who adopted the name Quetzalcóatl, a deity well-known in Classic time. Nicholson (1975: 17, 79) and the Man across the sea (1971: 258) confirm these. Topiltzin may have reigned from 977 to 999.

The second possibility for the length of a Great Cycle would be 104 years or ce ueuetiliztli (One Old Age). This was in used in Mesoamerica as well. Using these, we would get 41 BCE for the starting point of the calendar. But Alfonso Caso, Muriel Porter Weaver (1972: 59), Curt Muser (1978: 131), and Ignacio Bernal (1973: 127) agree that Quetzalcóatl was a very ancient god, and the 52-year calendar was already in use at Monte Albán in Middle Preclassic times, which lasted from 900 to 400 BCE. Humboldt tells a legend of Puebla, in which everybody died in a great flood, except seven giants. One of them, Xelhua, went to Cholula and erected a pyramid-shaped mountain. The gods were angered at this structure, because its summit had reached the clouds. and threw fiery stones at it. Many laborers died, and the building had to end. The work was dedicated to Quetzalcóatl (William R. Corliss, 1978: 763, and Pierre Honoré, 1964: 16). Ixtlil-Xochitl, the Mexican historiographer added that the gods created a confusion of the languages of the builders after the great flood. The date of the appearance of the first cultivated, larger size corn (and cotton) in Central America supports this: the myth tells that Quetzalcóatl was watching the ants carrying grains of maize, so he discovered it and gave it to mankind to survive.

As the third possibility, we accept the well-defined theory of the cycle of 364 years of 365 days. First we had to find the accurate year for the year 1 Rabbit that introduced the 16th cycle. Using Durán's statement, counting back from 1519, it yields 1506, 1454, or 1402 for the year One rabbit. William H. Prescott (1970: 73) informs us that the epoch, from which the Mexicans reckoned, corresponded with the year A.D. 1091. So we accept that his source remembered that 1091 was the beginning of a vague 364-year cycle.

---

Aztec Sun Stone

Somebody had added the Aztec Sun stone to the Aztec calendar article - instead, I've created a separate article discussing the Aztec sun stone and how it partly depicts the Aztec Calendar. There is some redundant information, but I was not sure if I should go ahead and combine the two or not. If someone maintaining this article is interested, do let me know. Metlin

External site about aztec calendar

ancientcalendar.htm
I counted around 100 visitors. This page is not under copyright. I had my time understanding this article. Basically i edited out unrelated explanations (of course related to the article). I do not know if the information is useful for people. It is possible to print it directly. For the wikipedia article, this does not make sense. It also lives from the color scheme (considering copying the table to the article). I do not really sell anything. A few external links do not bug people, however i read the policy, and won't add it again. Because wikipedia style guidelines, articles are not allowed simplification, change color scheme, link style etc. Articles have to be "scientific". It is allright, but the article really is not giving an immediate explanation. South american styles are not all the same. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 15:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, wikipedia does not allow me to link external pages i created myself. It is not logical henceforth to link to wikipedia from these pages. And, if they are only a remake of wikipedia pages, it is not really required. Thought it increases the overall flow of information. User:Yy-bo 19:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a calendar?

The opening paragraph of the article leads off with this sentence: "The Aztec calendar is not a calendar at all, but rather a stone describing the migration of the Mexica from Aztlan to Tenochtitlan."

Where did this come from and does it belong here? I doubt it. I think it crept in somewhere and nobody was paying attention. Any objections to changing it back?

--Richard 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections, the change should be reverted. Whoever put that bit in is confusing two different things - the calendar system and a physical artefact.--cjllw | TALK 01:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the current revision of this text

This article still suffers from residual confusion between the Aztec calendar (an abstract concept) and a particular calendar stone at the National Muesum of Archaeology and History (NMAH). If we are agreed that this article is about the calendar and not really about the calendar stone at the NMAH, then we should make that clear.

I have some questions in this regard. Is the stone at the NMAH the only known example of an Aztec calendar stone? Is it worth mentioning the history and provenance of that stone either here in this article or in a separate article?

Finally, the intro paragraph ends with this sentence "The box at the top of the stone contains the stone's year of creation, in this case 1479."

Of course, this sentence is further evidence of the confusion between the abstract calendar and the calendar stone pictured in the article. Does every calendar stone have a box at the top that records the year of creation? Or is it just the NMAH stone?

Also, it's curious to read that the stone's year of creation was 1479. There's no way that the box at the top says 1479 unless the stone has been forged or tampered with. It might give an Aztec date that can be converted to a Julian or Gregorian calendar year. Assuming that the box provides an Aztec calendar date, that date should be given with the Gregorian calendar conversion provided in parentheses.

--Richard 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I was surprised to find that the revision of this article from April 30, 2004 is much longer than the current revision of this article. I think it would be worthwhile to mine the April 30, 2004 revision for content worth restoring to the current revision. Comments?

--Richard 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

you are right, there is still some material here about the artefact, not the concept. IMO it should all be moved to the separate existing article dedicated to the artefact, namely Aztec sun stone( said article has a number of factual/prose concerns and is in need of general overhaul). The present Aztec calendar article needs only to have a link somewhere to the artefact's article.

I don't think that the particular artefact described in that article is the only such artefact extant with central Mexican/Aztec calendric inscriptions, but would have to dig around a bit to find reference to others.

Re the bit where there is a supposed "box" on the artefact with 1479 inscribed- I believe that's a reference to a segment on the stone which has a couple of presumed calendric glyphs which somebody somewhere has interpreted as corresponding to 1479 in the Gregorian calendar (ie "1479" is not literally inscribed), but I'm not sure where the attribution comes from, it would have to be chased down as well. In any event, per the above its mention doesn't belong here.

Re the earlier lengthy edit from 2004 which was removed (it is actually copied onto this talk page above)- while there's some good stuff in it, the entire text was originally marked as being taken from some publication by Z.A. Simon "with permission", but even if it was reproduced here with explicit permission I don't think it would be beneficial to put it or segments of it back in; it's best not to reproduce others' words. Also, the text is more to do with Mesoamerican calendar systems in general rather than this specific Aztec system, and if anything is to be re-used it would probably be better placed at Mesoamerican calendars. One more thing, although it gives a fair-enough summary on Mesoamerican calendars there are some conclusions further down which are not really standard interpretations, and so the source should be used with some caution, IMO.

The present article does need a bit of work, for eg it omits mention of this calendar's relation/descent from others, and does not make distinctions clear enough between the 260-day and calendar round; citations are also needed. So there's ample scope for improvement when someone has time to do so! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 04:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Nov 06)

It has been proposed that tonalpohualli be merged into this article (Aztec calendar).

• I would oppose, on the basis that these are not equivalent, and while the former may be regarded as a specific type of calendar there is ample scope for these two articles to stand independently. The "Aztec calendar" article should certainly mention/summarise the "tonalpohualli" article, but it could/should contain a lot more on other calendric systems as used by Aztecs, eg the 365-day system, the Calendar Round, the "Lords of the Night", "Lords of the Day" and "Birds of the Day" cycles etc etc. "Aztec calendar" should stand as an overall article addressing all calendars and their aspects, while articles on specific calendars can be used to (eventually) cover each of these in more detail than is fitting for an overall summary.--cjllw | TALK 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• "Oppose". Tonalpohualli is a specific type of calendar used by the Aztecs and, as noted in that article, is just one of the calendars used. Madman 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge closed, no consensus.--cjllw | TALK 04:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

End?

I hear that in 2011, the end of the aztec calendar arrives. Is there any basis for this? I've heard about it a couple of time from colleagues, so it might be notable enough for inclusion? McKay 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Long Count calendar used by the Mayans. The Aztec calendar didn't have such an endpoint. --Ptcamn 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Prolonged erroneous information

Please note that the circular stone most commonly thought of as the Aztec Calendar is in fact not a calendar. It is a gladiatorial ring known as a temalactl used during the Tlacaxipehualiztli Ceremony. This is information that comes to us from the anthropologists at the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City. How many of you that claim to possess knowledge on this artifact actually know this fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.138.173 (talk) 01:50, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the Stone which by the way is called a temalacatl and not a temalactl, it is about the calendric system used by the aztecs. The article about the circular stone which as you note is often referred to as the "Aztec Calendar Stone" is located at Aztec Sun Stone.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the correct thing to do is to remove the stone image! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.138.173 (talk) 23:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I see the point of confusion. The 'stone image' in the navbox at the top of the article is not meant to be illustrative of the Aztec calendar, it is simply a motif used in that particular navbox that ties together main articles on the Aztec topic. No need to remove it. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Aztec calendar stone.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Aztec calendar stone.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November 09:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Animated Aztec calendar ext link

I have concerns over the accuracy of the material in the ext link to the 'animated aztec calendar' (first inserted by this edit) and the book it's associated with. On inspection, the portrayal and info given appears to be a novel interpretation, and one that seems at odds with most established scholarship on the Aztec & mesoamerican calendars.

Noted discordances include:

• comment [1] - cjllw: On the left-hand side, the tonalpohualli (260-day calendar) is shown as interlocking cogs of 13 numbers and 20 named day signs. Fine so far, however on the right-hand side the xiuhpohualli (365-day calendar, or vague year) is shown as 18 numbers interlocked with the same 20 named day signs. This is incorrect, or at least does not reflect standard descriptions of what the xiuhpohualli entailed. the xiuhpohualli, like the Maya haab', consists of 18 "months" (veintenas) of 20 days each, plus an additional 5 days at the end (nemontemi) to bring it up to (18 x 20) + 5 = 365.
  • Reply - GB: If you took the time to see how the nemontemi changes the positioning of the 20 day names, you would see why the year-bearers are spaced 5 days apart in Diego Duran's depiction of the xiuhpohualli.
    • Response - cjllw: Thanks, but I think I do realise how the 5 extra (nemontemi) days affects the yearbearers. The yearbearers are spaced five days apart simply because the 365-day calendar is 5 days longer than a whole multiple of the twenty named days (ie 360), and so the yearbearer advances 5 days from the preceding one; and since 20 is evenly divisible by 5 we end up with 4 possible yearbearers. However, this is not relevant to the point I had raised, which is to question why your animated calendar shows the tonalpohualli named days under xiuhpohualli. Possibly I am being misled by the labelling and the right-hand side is intended to show something else...?

• comment [2] - cjllw: The 18 veintenas are different from the named days in the tonalpohualli, and have completely different names (Izcalli, Atlcahualo, Tlacaxipehualiztli etc).
  • Reply - GB: Sure, each 20 day period "month" (aka.: meztli, veintenas) was recognized and separated by a feast. Sure the Aztecs didn't use Arabic numerals, they used dots. The "Maya" used dots and bars. The animation uses numbers because they are compact. A number is a pictorial. Any calendar could be all pictorials or all numbers, it doesn't matter. What is important, they kept track of the count by distinct symbols.
    • Response - cjllw: it's immaterial what symbols —dots, bars, digits, smiley faces— are used, that wasn't the point I was making at all. My point is, that the 365-day Aztec calendar consisted of eighteen "months" (veintenas) of twenty days each, plus the extra 5 days (nemontemi) at the end: (20 days x 18 months) + 5 days = 365 days. However, in your animated calendar you portray the xuihpohualli as a combination of 20 days and 18 numbers. This is not the standard interpretation nor how the 365-day calendar is described in the sources. While it may be likely that the Aztec 365-day count was a post-conquest "revival" as some have suggested, there is AFAIK no evidence pre- or post-conquest that the twenty named days of the tonal (Cipactli, Ehecatl, Calli, etc) were ever linked to a cycle of 18 numbers — which is what the right-hand side of your animated calendar illustrates.

• comment [3] - cjllw: These distinctions are extensively documented in the conquest-era sources, none of which AFAIK describe the xiuhpohualli as portrayed by this animated calendar; similarly in all of the secondary sources the 20 operand in the expression (18 x 20) + 5 does not refer to named days, but rather the numbered days of each veintena. To give a "xiuhpohualli date" like 15 Acatl as this animated calendar would calculate, is incorrect.
  • Reply - GB: Take a look at Codex Laud; Codex Vindobonensis.
    • Response - cjllw: Did you mean Laud ff.14-15 frontal (imgs 14 & 15 here, or Laud ff.14-15 dorsal (imgs 38 & 37 http://www.famsi.org/research/pohl/jpcodices/laud/thumbs_1.html here] ? I don't think either of those show 365-day almanacs, the frontal one is supposed to be part of a "half-trecena" sequence for eg. But granted, the codices are replete with calendric information. My point however is this: is there any codex where you will find one of the twenty named days (Cipactli, Ehecatl, Calli, etc) combined with a number greater than 13 ? Your animated calendar generates (on the right-hand side) dates like 14 Ocelotl, 15 Cuauhtli, 18 Ollin... such combinations are just not possible, or at least do not appear.

• comment [4] - cjllw: Calling the trecena "a 13-day disconnect...at the end of the 52-year [cycle]" is non-standard usage. The trecenas are the periods of 13 days each that the 260-day tonalpohualli divides into, starting with 1 Cipactli, then 1 Ocelotl, and so on. It's not just one 13-day period to be tacked onto the end.
  • Reply - GB: The word "disconnect" is used to underscore the fact that the xiuhpohualli ceases to progress (i.e.: stops) for 5 days while the tonalpohualli keeps spinning. Trecena (i.e.: trece cenas) is Spanish for thirteen suppers or feasts. When do you think the time-keepers would get a chance to celebrate 13 days in a row?
    • Response - cjllw: Again, I think this is unaccountably redefining what is meant by "trecena". The definition is as I've given above, the trecenas are like "weeks" of thirteen days each, and there were 20 of them in a 260-day cycle. There's no evidence that either the 260- or 365-day calendar "got stuck" for a period of time waiting for the other to catch up, which is what your animation here shows. In the accompanying text it's claimed "a 13 days 'nemontemi' was added at the end of 52 years", but again this is not the interpretation found in Mesoamerican studies, and seems to be a contradictory use of "nemontemi" (here, a 13-day period, but elsewhere it's a 5-day one. Which is intended?)

• comment [5] - cjllw: By saying the Aztec calendar "start[s] on August 13, 3114BC", the text misleads and confuses the 260- and 365-day calendars with the Long Count calendar, which is quite a different thing altogether. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Aztec kept or knew of the Long Count.
  • Reply - GB: The long count start date is used because it relates to the base 20 counting system and is somewhat familiar to a lot of students of ancient Mesoamerican studies. For the purpose of concept illustration, it could be any date. Maybe better clarification would be appropriate here. The Wiki section on Tzolkin states that: "the Tzolkin is part of Maya Long Count Calendar." What you refer to as a "Mayan" or "Aztec" calendar is associated to the Toltec. It became the Mexica calendar when Tenochtitlan got a tlatlani of Toltec lineage with the inaugaration of Acampichitl in 1375. He was an accomplished time-keeper. The Chichens that formed Chichen-Itza in 987 were migrating Toltec from the Anahuac highlands.
    • Response - cjllw: If our tzolk'in article said that, it was misleading and I've removed it. There's no cause to associate the start of 260-day calendar with LC start. And not sure why you're bringing the "Toltec" into it- modern research increasingly views the "Toltec culture" as a largely legendary construct (refer to article), with quite a few going so far as to deny it existed at all. Chich'en in 'Chichen Itza' means [at] the mouth of the well', it's the Itza people who are associated (but not the founders of) the site. The tale about a mexican/toltec ruler named Queztalcoatl founding or conquering Chichen Itza is discounted these days as myth, just as are the half-dozen other foundational events attributed to such a ruler elsewhere, eg for the Pipil in el Salvador. In any case, to the extent that there ever was such a thing as a Toltec presence, it existed in the Postclassic; whereas we have calendar date inscriptions going back to the Formative period in the Gulf, Oaxacan and Isthmian regions, predating these Classic and Postclassic cultures.

• comment [6] - cjllw: I haven't read the accompanying book, but if this publicity page is anything to go by, there are some other claims that would be disputed by a great majority of mainstream sources. For instance, that the calendars were informed by pre-Columbian knowledge of the precessional period of the equinoxes.
  • Reply - GB: The Natives could pinpoint an equinox and they could count. Its kind of hard to miss the fact that some years are 366 days long. Especially if they kept meticulous records over a prolonged period, which they did.
    • Response - cjllw: Whose calendar has years of 366 days? The consensus is that the Mesoamerican 365-day calendar was not amended to account for leap years. While some have argued for the noting of intercalary days, the prevailing view is that the Mesoam vague year calendars did not have them and were not amended or recalibrated to account for them. Of course the ancient Mesoamericans were well enough aware of the gradual 'slippage' caused by not having intercalary days, but it seems they used other methods to track the wandering of the seasons thru the calendar over time and did not see fit to alter the actual calendar structure nor create special days every now and then to correct. Instead, other cycle combinations may have been calculated to acheive the same effect, for eg. evidence for recognising 29 x Calendar Rounds (1508 x 365-day years) = 1507 tropical years, to a high degree of precision. It seems to me that one of the features of your version of the Aztec calendar is to claim there was some alteration of the actual calendars to account for leap years, which goes against the main view.

All in all, while the graphics are attractive and the theorising may be interesting to some, this would not seem to qualify for a usable source per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. I propose removing the ext link and the mention of the book, since neither are used/useful for the purposes of this encyclopaedic entry. I haven't found anything to suggest that this constitutes a sufficiently notable 'alternative interpretation' either, under which we could perhaps mention it; alas this seems to be original research from a WP-point of view.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: The problem confronting a researcher in this field is sorting through an overload of information and trying to get some continuity. Information in the referenced book is distilled from over 200 sources, relying heavily on the early chroniclers (Duran, Sahagun, Motolinia, Diaz, Leon-Portilla) and available codices. The Aztec/Toltec/Maya Calendar scheme provided a day with a distinct name (i.e.: day & year; within a 52 year period). The Diego Duran illustration of the Native "Calendar Round" (aka: xiuhmolpolli) depicts the conceptual geometry of the 52 year naming scheme. Each year could be distinguished from the next within the "Round." The Calendar had just started its 16th cycle when Cortez appeared. What system was used to keep track of the cycles? Are students of Native American antiquity to be left with this: "It uses two distinct, but interlocked cycles: A solar calendar with 365 days and a ritual calendar with 260 days. These two calendars intercalate to produce a unique name for each day during each 52 years cycle, called a calendar round." If that is true, where are the specifics of the system? The counting scheme was so obscure, that even Friar Diego Duran, after writing it down, needed someone to draw him a picture to figure it out. With proper editing, I am sure the animated material can be brought within Wiki guidelines and be useful. At least with this animation, a researcher can see a visual representation that offers more insight than some of the verbal explanations I've seen on Wiki.Grae Bear (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have counter-responded against the points above. Grae Bear, I agree with you that some illustration of the calendar's workings would be desirable and useful as an aid to understanding the article's text. However, per my comments above it is far from clear to me that this particular animated calendar ext link illustrates the calendar's working in the same way that it is understood by general Mesoamericanist scholars and sources. As such I don't think it is presently suitable.

Possibly I am misunderstanding the info the calendar is trying to show, or possibly my understanding of current Mesoam calendric interpretation is deficient. If you or anyone else can point me in the direction of some reliable sources that grant and describe the calendar as working the way this animated version does (with 'stop-starts', intercalary days, dates of 17 Ollin, etc) then I'd be glad to take a second look- I make no claim to be an Aztec calendric expert. But something is required, to demonstrate that this interpretation and portrayal has support in the wider scholarly community. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>> I do believe that there is an acute vacuum in how the Natives named their civil day. If the evidence is there, it certainly isn't directly obvious. The reality is that in order for the metropolitan region to prosper, a civil calendar was essential. When a citizen had to make an appointment to be somewhere on a certain day, the civil calendar would have been used. It was the means to organize a major metropolis. These folks had a judicial system, accountants, schools, hospitals, vast supply chains to fill the markets and many other complicated enterprises. If a person had a legal contract to fulfill by a certain date, what scheme did they use to project 249 days down the road. That's the problem, because there are no business records, court proceedings or other legal documents to refer to, a researcher is left with second-hand eyewitnesses, incomplete paper trail and circumstantial evidence. Something had to exist, but where is it? There are hints on the Vindobonensis [1] codex, the "ladder to heaven" has 13 days on one leg and 18 days on the other shown leading to the upper realm. But for now, let us focus on something less subject to interpretation.

Friar Diego Duran came to the New World with his parents as a small child. By the age of six he was fluent in Nahuatl because the only other children to play with were Natives. From his Book Of God and Rites and the Ancient Calendar [2]we have: "...therefore, the year had eighteen months. The days of the year were counted twenty by twenty." He also points out the new 20 day "month" started at the "head of the dragon" which is cipactli (crocodile). This would indicate that the day signs were being used to distinguish the days of the month. That would have left numbers to complete the naming.

By that eyewitness observation, following the Native scheme used to name the years and sacred days, with the difference between them of 18 dots versus 13, in a manner similar to 13 Xochitl on the tonalpohualli, there would have certaintly been an 18 Xochitl on the xiuhpohualli.

Just because the records were destroyed, does not eliminate the reality that an 18 x 20 organizational scheme was being used. And most likely, it would have followed a similar mathematical logic of the known counts, which isn't obvious until a person tries to duplicate the logic with mechanical gear design.

Regarding a 366 day year, do you actually think that these Native people were incapable of doing an accurate count between equinoxes? The question is not whether they noticed the precessional slippage, but how they dealt with it.

Also, keep in mind that comparing the "Aztec" calendar to the "Mayan" calendar is far from a perfect correlation, because at least 500 years separate their evolutionary progression. Regarding the Toltec, they are as mythical as Tollan (Tula), Cholula or Teotihuacan. I do not feel like getting into the complete history of the evolution of the Native "Fifth Sun" calendar here, as this discussion is becoming tedious. Suffice to say, that the Aztec calendar animation illustrates an extrapolation of the mathematical logic used by the Natives to keep track of their affairs whether they be spiritual or simply keeping an appointment.Grae Bear (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding. As diverting as it may be to continue on with point-by-point discussion, I agree it's becoming 'tedious' and is not really productive. My central and yet-to-be-addressed concern is, that the information presented in this animated calendar and the associated publication Aztec Calendar Handbook by yourself and Randall C. Jimenez does not align with established sources in the field of Mesoamerican studies. In other words, to the extent that it contains some novel interpretation, that interpretation is not documented or commented upon by sources that we'd readily consider as reliable ones— at least to the best I have been able to determine. IMO it therefore runs afoul of WP:NOR policy.

I have been unable to find a single citation to your ACH in Mesoamericanist / Latin Americanist literature, or in any literature (discounting of course amazon reviews & the like, and publisher-solicited testimonials). Well okay, I did find one citation, in an online paper by an Elementary School teacher. Likewise, I have not been able to find any reviews of it —positive or negative— in Meso/LA journals, discussion boards, or elsewhere, or independent book reviews in general. I gather the 1st edition of ACH was published in 2001, so there ought to have been enough time for it to be noticed in the literature, if it was going to be. I can also find no annotation or mention in the LoC's Handbook of Latin American Studies (HLAS) Online, prob. one of if not the largest biblio of LA area studies around.

Therefore, whatever new and interesting ideas the animated calendar & ACH may contain, their absence in standard and established literature that we are bound to reflect in our article presents serious problems per NOR and RS for mentioning here. If any of these novel ideas do appear (perhaps independently) in established literature, then again we shld be using those sources, not a work that appears to be significantly removed from the canon of published research. I have added in a few sources that we can or should be relying upon, ie sources that are reviewed and cited in the literature. I may have missed something, but unless some further and independent validations of this as a source comes forward, I propose removal of the animated calendar link per policies and guidelines already mentioned. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

The first purpose of the Aztec Calendar Handbook project was to distill all the available information about this single artifact into one convenient location. Using an engineering documentation style of presentation, we were able to compress over 200 related sources into a 100 page technical manual that wouldn't overwhelm the layman. This was originally designed for our own personal research and discussions groups. The bits and pieces of information had been all over the place until we stripped out the related items and compiled it in this way. The book was put out in small quantities for researchers that were trying to get their minds around some of the inherent complexity. Since 2001, the distillation was expanded three times since then as more information became available through magazine and newspaper articles plus lengthy exchanges with contemporary keepers-of-the-tradition from Mexico. We were not ready to take it high profile. The true value of this organization is "information convenience." An example is Tonantiuh on page 20, where a reader is presented with two quotes from Duran that are in his Book Of God and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. They appeared in two separate, seemingly unrelated parts of his journal. When extracted and placed together, it is easy to finally see how the temple was built and where the Sun Stone was placed. Up until then, there wasn't a consensus of opinion of the learned ones. I will say, that there really wasn't any novel interpretations in this delivery format until the 4th Edition. Up to that point, trying to make sense of all the pieces reminded me of the game show Wheel of Fortune where there are finally enough letters to venture a guess.

The current configuration of the animated Aztec Calendar follows an important observation. For source material, it doesn't get any better than the journaled words of a determined eye-witnesses. The most telling facts are the reports from Friar Diego Duran who went to great lengths to get to the truth and to a slightly lesser extent Friar Bernadino de Sahagun. These curious, literate, multi-lingual human beings had lifetime front-row seats to an astonishingly rapid collapse of a millenniums old culture and they gathered the falling pieces in journals and collections. The account that Duran had compiled shook up the religious hierarchy in Spain so badly it was buried in a dark Dominican library because it clashed with the propaganda about primitive, unsophisticated inferior, non-humans that needed salvation. It was found by accident when monastery libraries were seized by the government of Spain and placed in the National Archive at Madrid around 1825. I think the oft-quoted M. D. Coe hit the nail on the head when he expressed the notion of "getting into the heads" of the Natives. After all, they were trying to bring order from chaos as well.

The funny thing is, important subtleties get missed. Take the accepted 13 x 20 wheel configuration that the consensus defends. The first time it was presented this way, even though the right-side gearing was vague, was in a National Geographics magazine back in the 1970's. Nobody complained, even though there was no direct evidence to support that conceptualization. It has been repeated so many times, it has become accepted gospel. Right or wrong, it allowed for a clear visualization that fit a here-to-for abstract pattern. By your own words you state that "the trecenas are like 'weeks' of thirteen days each." The root is probably a similar statement iterated in Bernardino de Sahagun's report to Spain. But, the accepted gear-design representation shows a progression of day-number combos. It doesn't match the verbal statement. The accepted mechanism would be clarified by a statement, something to the effect, "when the numbered wheel comes around and meets the day-sign ring, where the number 1 touches, is the name of the new week."

If you have a copy of ACH 4th, you may have noticed on page 17, how the Founding of Tenochtitlan legend, that was the basis of the flag of Mexico, has problems. If Duran's work had surfaced 5 years earlier, do you think the flag would be different? All I can say is, that is telling. Fairly thorough memory-obliteration.

Regarding notoriety, Dr. Jimenez has not been able to formally present his research and thoughts to the Meso-Am community because he has a wife battling cancer, three children in college and has had to come out of retirement to a full teaching schedule. Sitting on this work for the past two years doesn't help anyone. I was the engineering specialist on the project and wrote the program for the Aztec calendar animation because it seemed better than twiddling of the thumbs. It is a lot of loops.

Together let's work on an edited version of the existing graphics. It could be modified to illustrate the various Native day-count concepts:

1. Show the tonalpohualli and explain as a separate concept

2. Show the xiuhmolpilli and explain as separate concept

3. Introduce the tonalpohualli/xiuhpohualli interaction as an extrapolation from Duran's eyewitness statements.

Remove the association with the Long Count start date. Put the date within the 16th cycle of Cortez's time.

We all agree that a functional graphic represention of a "thousand words" is helpful if it is true to the words. I would be willing to put effort into something that a studied researcher can agree with and gain insight from. The copyright-able material would be donated to the Wiki knowledge-base. The file size is small for a Flash animation (200K) and downloads quickly. It wouldn't require an external link.

How about this; placing the animated Aztec calendar ActionScript code in the Public Domain and let other programmers play around with it. Grae Bear (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that the newly added list of references lack any mention of Diego Duran, the single most important of them all. The majority of sources are second-hand interpretations from "siftings" that support or deny native oral histories or the collections of the first chroniclers, with the exception of Sahagún, Bernardino de who was actually there. Bernal Diaz was Cortez's secretary, he was there. Wouldn't getting into the "Indian's head" be best facilitated by taking in the eye-witness accounts?

You had ask for source material regarding the xiuhpohualli naming scheme. I stopped what I was doing, looked it up and directed you to root source and still you're not satisfied (see below for page number). I will say this, it has been fun arguing these points. It beats too much peace and quiet. We have a lot in common in this "war on ignorance" and respect for the Wiki concept as the dynamic snowball of accumulated knowledge. We have to get Dr. Jimenez to write some scholarly articles in support and expansion of the newfangled ideas and get him to some conferences. Grae Bear (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dug out my copy of Duran's the Book of Rites and the Ancient Calendar to educate the learned ones to something that I initially assumed we were all on the same page about. I believe the consensus is missing important pieces. My suggestion is to get a copy of Duran's book and turn to pages 186-187 (tonalpohualli) and pages 394-395 (xiuhpohualli) or click here=> [3]. The Aztec calendar animation doesn't break any rules. See for yourself. I have been too close to this subject matter for too long and assumed every MesoAm researcher would have a copy of this instrumental book in their library. We should get an article up to introduce and support the conceptualization of this Native Calendar animation. Its probably the more appropriate way to introduce these ideas on the Wiki. Grae Bear (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

CJLL Wright states (above): ...there is AFAIK no evidence pre- or post-conquest that the twenty named days of the tonal (Cipactli, Ehecatl, Calli, etc) were ever linked to a cycle of 18 numbers.

Diego Duran states (pg. 395)

"...but the five days which were left over were held by this nation to be unlucky, nameless, and profitless. Thus they remained as blanks; there were no symbols for them, or number[s]..."

"...the five days left over were held to be ... nameless ... there were no symbols for them or numbers..."

This only leaves one other possibility; maybe the rest of the days did have symbols and numbers. [%] Grae Bear (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Grae Bear, again apologies for belated response, have been caught up elsewhere. For now, this will be a placeholder/courtesy response as I seem to have yet again run short of time today to consider in detail all your points. Will look to get back in more detail in the v near future.

Just a couple of quick comments-

• I'd be quite happy to see an edition of Duran in the references, and relevant passages quoted or referred to. Same goes for other notable 16thC sources that have something to say on the calendar. Just so long as we're not providing an original synthesis (see the WP:SYN section in our policies) or interpretation that has not been made already by some reliable secondary source. It's beyond the encyclopaedia's remit to introduce novelty. (BTW, which Duran edition are you referring to?)
• The references that were added are not exhaustive, nor perhaps even the best selection possible; they were ones which I had conveniently to hand, and in the absence of any other refs in the article it seemed better to start out with something. And whether or not these 'second-hand' sources "sift" the native accounts or not, they are by scholars in the field whose interpretations we are able to use. One advantage they may have over 'original' sources is the expertise in accumulating and incorporating data from a variety of sources, time periods and methods (eg archaeology, linguistics, intercultural art history) that would not have been available to the original sources and observers (not all of whom agree with each other on a number of points). In any case I think they're valid and can form a basis; if going forward better ones come along they can be worked in too.
• The idea of releasing the animated calendar code into the public or free-use domain is an interesting one, which if you as the intellectual property holder wanted to do would be fine. However, and unfortunately, I can't see a way at the moment to have it incorporated in or directly attached to somewhere in wikipedia itself. Partly because of our WP:GFDL content licensing arrangements, our free (re-)use policies plus some security considerations, we can't use media or code files that come attached with some patent or are proprietary formats (such as Flash animations). See Creation and usage of media files on Wikipedia, which gives the limited range of image and media formats that can be uploaded to wikipedia/wikimedia servers. You could still release the code under some Open Source arrangement somewhere, but that would have to be off-wiki; and I don't think that's what you're suggesting.

Anyway, like I say will endeavour to respond / comment on other points when the next block of opportunity presents itself. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Time is up.

>> Regarding your list of references; I would like to see you footnote the preceeding article with that pile of baloney you threw up on the article page. You don't mention Duran or Prescott and then you list The Aztecs by Richard F. Townsend (2000) as a factual reference despite the fact that it is fiction. -- Grae Bear (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Townsend is not fiction - it is a standard textbook introduction to Aztec culture.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, got Richard Townsend mixed up with Gary Jennings. Regardless, the references are a hodge-podge that don't specifically back up statements in the article above. It would be more accurately called: "Suggested Reading" or "Further Research." ---Grae Bear (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Animated Aztec Calendar corrected

I think the following passage is where alot of the confusion has been created. In Diego Duran's Book of Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar it states:

Pg. 405

"..Regarding our first theme, it must be noted that the native “week” was composed of thirteen days, just as ours is made up of seven. And it was counted from one to thirteen. The year contained exactly, precisely, twenty-eight weeks, because, in order to adjust their years and weeks with precision (as we saw in Chapter I), the year was counted thirteen by thirteen. And so it was that the months and the weeks were adjusted so well and in such good order that the calendrical count these people used was admirable and highly ingenious.'

"The reasons for dividing the week into thirteen days were based on the supernatural , since the aim was the celebration and commemoration of each of the symbols of twenty days of the month...

Then he goes on further to state:

Pg. 407

"Regarding the weeks I have discussed, I find little more to say. Nor do I believe that this count of days fulfilled any other purpose than that of honoring and solemnizing the twenty symbols, assigning one day of the year to each. I mention this is a yearly happening because, even though the number one could occur twice during the turn of the year, the first time it was celebrated and commemorated, but the second it was not. It was true, however, that the latter was a holiday, kept like a Sunday at the beginning of the week."

This passage implies that the 260 day Tonalpohualli started anew each year which also contradicts the reality that each day in the 360 day Xiuhpohualli was nonrecurring over the span of one year, not to mention over the course of 52 years. Did the 52 year count consist of 18980 distinctly named days? There is something else telling in the following passage from the same page:

"These people were so enamored of feasts that they never let one pass without some celebration. So it was that the natives spent the entire year in festivities. There were the feasts of the principle gods and goddesses, the feast at the beginning of each month, every twenty days, then the feasts on the first day of each week, every thirteen days. These were fiestas so continuous and intertwined that they overlapped. "

And..

"I heartily believe that all of this merrymaking is not in honor of God or of the saint but in honor of the sensuality, their bellies. Their aim is simply to eat, to drink, and to get drunk. This, in sum, was the ultimate aim of the ancient feasts.'

Pg. 408

...They lived in drunkenness, and if I were to tell the things I have seen and heard, I feel that story would never end."

These observations were journaled around 60 years after the fall of Tenochtitlan. The priests and nobility had been systematically murdered by the time of this journal entry was made. No individual, willing or otherwise, existed to deliver true knowledge of the complex Native calendar count. The surviving locals, repulsed and terrorized by the Spaniards, were obliged to give up whatever shallow knowledge they had. What was left of the priestly expertise, that the general population depended on, disappeared from the surface. The common Natives, non-experts in the Calendar sciences were winging it. There was never missed an opportunity to sauve ones personal pain by evolving the original calendar into an "any excuse" party schedule. By always starting on 1Crocodile, they were stuck in time to repeat over and over a broken year.

Before the Spaniards arrival, the display of public drunkenness was against the law. From friar Motolinia's History of the Indians of New Spain we learn that drinking was disavowed for all but the retired elders. The strongest alcoholic beverage locally produced was a mead type wine made from sweet cactus juice. Post-conquest Spanish fermenter evolved a fortified wine, and distilled it into tequila. The Natives were, once again, unprepared and took temporary solace in an altered state of this painkiller.

Very unhappy and stressed out, the group under observation was most likely the Tlatelcans. They had been let back into their neighborhoods after the surrender. Even though in close proximity, their suburb hadn’t been destroyed along with the razing of Tenochtitlan. Cortes did this as a public relations display for the rest of the Native population. In so much, these accounts can't be taken as the most accurate description of the actual time-management mechanism used prior to the "Mad Hatter" calendar as recorded by Spanish friar years after the slaughter of indigenous clergy and nobility. Many contemporary theories point to the concept of non-repeating days over the course of 52 years. What is the truth?

Cortes is said to have landed at the beginning of the 16th cycle. If a cycle is 52 years then the Fifth Sun began around the turn of the seventh century AD. At that time, there was intrigue in Teotihuacan. (16 x 52 = 832 years = 1519AD - 832 = 687AD)

...

MEZTLI

The nahua word for moon is meztli. It is in reference to the actual lunar body not a span of time. The European invaders applied their concept of a 30 day period labeled a month and distorted the Native word to apply to their chronological concepts. There is no Native word to describe the twenty day period because they didn’t use the concept. It is true that there was a festival every twenty days. And each festival had a name and purpose. But the name wasn’t used as identification for the 20-days time-group. Something else was being followed.

The fact that it was a finger and toe counting society (i.e.: base 20) correlates with every fifth day being market-day or "thumb day." On the main page I have included the 18 periods of 20 days from Duran's account and the name of the festival that began each period.

Broken Spears by Miguel Leon-Portilla is purported to be taken from ancient Nahua text (including Duran's collection) written after the Aztec surrender (one from 1528, the rest around 1570-1580), confessions were compelled and are not completely reliable. A surrender date of 8/13/1521 is too close to a fanciful poetic justice to be more than a coincidence.

Ancient Gods & Rites and the Ancient Calendar; by Friar Diego Duran talks about the Aztec new year starting on March 1. History of the Indies by Friar Bernadino Sahagun talks about the Aztec new year starting on February 2. The reason there are two groups of dates on the main page, is because the eyewitness chroniclers were not in agreement as to the start of the Native new year. This was from the fact that different Native groups started their new year on the different days. Each vying for a more perfect alignment with the cycles of nature. The native New Year started near the Spring equinox, which means it could not be the heliacal rising of the Pleiades which appeared near the Summer solstice. The Pleiades calibration was utilized in conjunction with equinoxes and soltices.

Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation puts the beginning of the Mayan Long-count 8/13/3113BC. Evidence points to origination and utility by the Sonocosco Basin natives of Guatemala and surrounding areas before making it over the mountains and out onto the Yucatan peninsula. There was the statement that an association to the Aztec Calendar is not related. For this reason AztecCalendar,com and any association to the dates ascribed & calibrated by Portilla or Caso would be inaccurate. In addition, it would also follow that all here-to-fore speculative associations between the two "unrelated"[sic] calendars would also be null and void. A most telling factor must be considered. Teotihuacán is meticulously laid out on a grid which is offset 15º.5 from the cardinal points. Its most impressive structure, the Pyramid of the Sun, is directly oriented to point at the position to which the sun sets on August 13. Coincidence? It is doubtful, considering that the place was founded around 200BC on an obsidian quarry by pre-Mayan speakers (i.e.: Olmecs) before the Nahuas migrated from the North. The long-count of the Maya was interwoven into the calendar of the Mexica/Aztec/Toltec there.

What is known of the mechanism of Tenochtitlan-Aztec calendar, originated in Cholula after migrating from Teotihuacan. The beginning of the Fifth Sun happened around the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century AD. According to native lore the Fifth Sun was born from darkness. There was a new world order around the Pyramid of religious influence and power. A rival faction of rulers and followers, priests and elites lost a power struggle and were expelled.

From Sahagun:

“They carried the image of their gods on their backs, following, they said, their Lord and Master Tloque Nahuaque, the primeval creator. They took their codices and their expert artisans with them. The commoners remained behind under the charge of four wise men who expressed confidence in the future despite the departure of their god and the sacred writings. So they devised a new Book of Days, and a year count, the xiuhamatl: And thus was time recorded during all the time the Tolteca, Tepaneca, the Mexica, and all the Chichimeca reign endured.”

The bulk of the group moved south to establish Cholula (aka.: place of flight), while a militant splinter group, that evangelized Quetzalcoatl, broke off to found Tollan, later to relocate in the Yucatan peninsula at Itza where they were known, by the locals, as the chichens or "snake-men." That is the short precolumbian history of time-management origins behind the Aztec sunstone.

So, the question remains, were the day-names non-recurring over the course of 18980 days or not? If they were reccurring, there would be no accurate way to keep track of time beyond year one of a new 52 year cycle.

Everything we think we know, based on original Nahua-Spanish interpreters, is suspect. Whatever the actual time-management mechanism being used pre-Spaniard, the following statements would comprise the criteria to be met by any solution, discovered or proposed.

1. tonalpohualli and xiuhpohualli were two distinct calendars that made up one date

2. day-names were unique and did not repeat over the course of 52 years

3. xiuhpohualli had nameless days

4. tonalpohualli did not have nameless days

5. trecena was a thirteen day period

6. a twelve day festival led up to the New Fire rites

7. Native priests adjusted for Earth's axis precession (stated by Duran and Portilla)

In the absence of indisputable evidence to the contrary, the Animated Aztec Calendar demonstrates a mechanism that meets all known criteria of the Native calendar scheme. --- Grae Bear (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While some of what you write is correct and well backed up by sources other things are quite dubious and speculative. E.g. the "finger-and-toe counting society" idea makes no sense at all - and there is no evidence that I know of to back up the idea of every fifth day (a "thumb-day") being specially marked. Theteotihuacan evidence is nothing but speculations as is the origin of the calendar in Cholula. While some of it is somewhat supported by mythical sources about the flight of the toltecs it simply can't be taken for face value. It is true that the references aren't used in the actual text - but they could be and it is important that the references that we are going to use in the text are not first hand sources that we go about to interpret but that they be cited from scholarly publications. That is we should use only second hand sources and not first hand ones to make claims about the nature of the aztec calendar. For example when you say that "Duran and Sahagun obviously weren't observing the same native group" that may be obvious to you - but we can't include it unless it can be cited to a published scholarly work. Otherwise it is a breach of the WP:OR policy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Dubious is a fairly strong word. Allow me to address your concerns:

1. Using "digits" for counting is evidenced by stone work of Olmec and Mayan sculptures. The Mayan 20-day period is called a uinal, which also means a person (uinac - male, uinic - female).

2. Quincux is ring on the calendar itself; a pattern of five. William Prescott in The World of the Aztecs also points out that the Aztec "month" was divided into four 5-day weeks. Thumb-day is a practical illustration for keeping track of a 5-day work week.

3. What you call myth is Native oral history. The time frame is supported by archeological evidence. The oral history does explain the circumstances around the migration.

4. Re.: References; Where does the helical rising of the Pleiades as the Native new year come from? By your reasoning, why is Bernardino de Sahagun listed and William Prescott not listed?

5. The only value of the second hand sources, is to help put into perspective the first hand sources.

6. It is obvious if you understand that 30 years separated the two. Sahagun arrived in the New World in 1529 as a young man of 30 years. He learned nahua on the way over and began his research on arrival. Duran came over is 1540 as a kid of 3 years, grew up with Native children and joined the monastery in 1556 at age 19. Most of Sahagun's research was done before Duran got started. Besides with Tenochtitlan gone, there was no longer a unifying entity. The Julian calendar became the new unifier as well as the corrupting force behind the Native calendar that Duran observed and recorded. It shows a certain dynamics.

The reason for not elaborating extensively is to be as concise as possible. - - Grae Bear (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not the maya calendar, but the aztec one - a have also no reason to take yor word that uinal and uinic is etymologically related.

2. It is called a "Quincunx" and I to my knowledge there are no specific statements in the ethnohistorical record as to the meaning of this sign. Prescott is a long outdated source to any knowledge about the Aztecs. I know of no sources corroborating the idea of a five day "week" among the aztecs.

3. Native oral tradition is not "history" in any western sense of that word - historians and mesoamericanists have known for the past thirty years that native narratives cannot be regarded as "history" unless one wants to fall into grave misconceptions about mesoamerican history. This is an outdated view of the ethnohistorical sources - which is not used by modern scholars. The time frame is not supported by the archaeological framework. Read ME Smiths article about Aztlan for example or his explanations about the extent to which of the Toltec state can be seen as a predecessor for the aztec empire.

4. The pleiad heliacal rising as the beginning of the new fire ceremony is mentioned in ME Smiths article about the New Fire Ceremony. Sahagun is a first hand source (see the next point for explanations why sources aren't usable here). Prescott is an outdated source - almost all of his ideas have been refuted or superceded by new scholarship.

5. read WP:PRIMARY to find out how primary sources can be used on wikipedia. Pay special attention to the place where it says "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. "´Your use of Sahagun and Durán violates about all of these tenets. ANd furthermore the conclusions that you draw are not always in accordance with the conclusions made by scholars on thoise sources. Therefore áll evaluations and conclusions drawn from primary sources must be cited to reliable schiolarly secondary sources.

6. While you are wrong about when Sahagun learned Nahuatl, of course they were separated by time. Duran however worked with Nahua of Morelos and Mexico and used previous works such as those by Sahagun and numerous other chroniclers. Durán is not an infallible source and for his crónica most of his observations are copied from chronicles like Tovar and the Crónica X. Durán is thopught to be biased towards the Mexica_tenochca perspective of Aztec history, while Sahagun is biased towards the Tlatelolca perspective. The Tlatelolca and the Tenochca did use the same calendrical correlation. However the main point is that your deductions are not enough to say why there is a difference between the two sources since your private guesswork amounts to nothing but Original Research a statement such as this must be sourced to reliable second hand sources.

A further point is your description of "Metztli" as months. The entire paragraph is based on the correlation between the wronly used word metztli to describe a european unit of time that the aztecs didn't have. The 20 day period is nearly always called a veintena in mesocamerican calendrical studies and so should this article. There is no need to call it metztli and then say that the aztecs didn't call it that and that it also wasn't a month, particularly not when there is a fully adequate word that is more common within the field of study. Expect heavy changes to that paragraph coming shortly when I get to the liobrary.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

---

1. This is not about whether it is Aztec or Mayan, but related concepts between the two. I will say once again, the Native practice of counting with digits is carved in stone. Western mathematics use a base 10 system originating from counting on our fingers. Considering that the Natives didn't have refrigeration to keep food fresh, having the markets every 20 days doesn't make sense. The daily markets were small and scattered by comparison. The sprawling civilization would have required a regular pattern that was easy to live with.

2. Quincunx; thanks for the spelling correction. It is of Spanish origin. What is the nahua equivalent? If you look at the work of any original chroniclers, none of it was primary. If it was, it wouldn't have a bias, now would it? Second hand sources are opinions, scholarly or not. But when taken as a whole, it provides a very broad picture to understand the total package.

3. I agree and never said it was. It is small part of the greater puzzle. My preference is to take it with a "grain of salt" because it helps broaden the general landscape. The 15 cycles that preceded Cortez place the beginning of the Fifth Sun in the same time frame as the trouble in Teotihuacan that preceded its collapse and abandonment. Besides, the Bible was thought to be a bunch of myths and oral traditions until archeologists began digging up the actual evidence.

4. The Pleiades constellation "may" have been part of the New Fire ceremony but we are discussing the start of the new calendar year, not the new "century." Are they the same? Refutted!? Prescott's work was accurate enough to assist the U.S. in winning the Mexican-American war.

5. When Duran or Sahagun recorded what they witnessed, the truth is, it was already second source. Besides, the contemporary publications of there work wouldn't be considered primary either. The work cited is 1971 and 1969 respectively. I guess what I meant to say was the "earliest sources."

6. What are you suggesting, that Sahagun or Duran fabricated what they journaled? Why else would they not agree on some things so basic if they were observing the same group at the same time. The start of the post-Conquest Native new year was not uniform throughout Anahuac. After reading hundreds of books, over the course of 38 years, about ancient Mesoamerica, contemporary as well as "outdated" I find that no one is 100% correct. My point is that it takes a broad myriad of realities, interpretations and opinions, for the succinct purpose of distilling down the "most likely" truth. In the world of science, theories have been the framework that pointed the way to the actual discovery. But I understand that even theories have to be justified.

Also, you had better check that library of yours really well. If you actually read the biography of Sahagun, you would know that he accompanied Aztec nobles on their return voyage back to the New World after their presentation to the Spanish court in 1529. "...on the long journey he learned many words from these men, even entire sentences."

The point regarding Meztli not being used by the Natives is underscored by the use of "veintena" which is of Spanish origin and the interpretation that goes along with it. The Aztecs certainly didn't use that word. The Maya used the term uinal for the same period. How important is that to point out in the article? You say:"There is no need to call it metztli and then say that the aztecs didn't call it that and that it also wasn't a month..." You will find the same problem with: "There is no need to call it veintena and then say that the aztecs didn't call it that and that it also wasn't a month..."

Make the changes you need to suit the rules and comfort level of the audience. Be my guest. I've done the time consuming stuff. My purpose is to expand the Aztec Calendar article for the better. BTW - the Aztec "months" and symbols are from Caso (1967). The dates are from Duran (1971) and Sahagun (1969). - - Grae Bear (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

>>>>

For the article, how about something like this:

Xiuhpohualli is the Aztec year (xiuhtl) count (pohualli). One solar year consists of 360 named days and 5 nameless (nemontemi). The year was broken into 18 periods of twenty days each. The Aztec name for this period is unknown. The Mayan calendar has a similar configuration and the same 20-days period which they labeled uinal. The Spaniards referred to it as veintena.

Each 20 days period started on Cipactli (head of the dragon) for which a festival was held. The eighteen veintena are listed below. The dates are from early eye-witnesses. Each wrote what they saw. Sahagun's date precedes the observations of Duran by several decades and is believed to be uncorrupted. Both are shown to emphasize the fact that the beginning of the Native new year became non-uniform as a result of an absence of the unifying force of Tenochtitlan after the Mexica defeat.

Grae Bear (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections and comments: year is xihuitl (pronounced shee-witl) in nahuatl not xiuhtl. And I would prefer a wording like "through spanish usage the 20 day period of the aztec calendar has become known as a veintena" Cipactli doesn't mean "head of the dragon" but simply "crocodile" or sometimes translated as "crocodilian monster". Also Sahaguns works are not believed by any modern mesoamericanists to be "uncorrupted". Long treatises are written about the christian and particularly franciscan elements entrenched in different aspects of the florentine codex - notably the artwork, the worldview, and the interpretation of history. And any historian would agree that all primary sources have a bias - becauyse they are written/created by human beings that only have acces to a partial picture of a historic situation and who furthermore views that situation from their own perspective. It is the job of historians - not wikipedia editors - to interpret critically historical sources like Sahagun and Duráns and not accept their accounts' worth for face value.

[ Confirmed: year is xihuitl see http://nah.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xihuitl_%28c%C4%81huitl%29 (Copyeditor42 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)) ]

External links - Aztec calendar - commercial site

The link to the Aztec calendar site http://www.azteccalendar.com/ is crammed full of advertising. The headings of the pages have as many as three different ads. In the left column Under Adds by Google are three hyperlinked texts. These are linked to a page with lots of stuff for sale. In the upper right of the home and other pages are various ads from Google AdSense. The right side of many of the pages have adds. Wikipedia has a policy against linking to commercial sites. Wikipedia IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL FOR YOUR BUSINESS. For this reason This site should be removed from the external links. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Reversion of edits by ‎98.144.71.174

‎I reverted the edits by 98.144.71.174 because I can't understand what he wrote here or in the article. Also "Mayan 1Ahau 13Pop" never occurs in the Maya calendar. a Tzolk'in of nn Ahau only coincides with a Haab' coefficient of 3, 8, 13 or 18. Not all possible combinations of Tzolk'in and Haab' actually occur. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aztec calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103090214/http://www.arqueomex.com:80/S8N4ICONKlein55.pdf to http://arqueomex.com/S8N4ICONKlein55.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aztec calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625221516/http://www.famsi.org/research/aguilar/Aztec_Art_Bib.pdf to http://www.famsi.org/research/aguilar/Aztec_Art_Bib.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515150042/http://www.arqueomex.com/S2N3nLENGUA70.html to http://arqueomex.com/S2N3nLENGUA70.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://arqueomex.com/S8N4ICONKlein55.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Calendar correlations

Putting these two sources here for future reference. May be useful for updating and expanding the Reconstruction section of the article: [4][5] Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aztec calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000719/http://www.doaks.org/Native/trad07.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/Native/trad07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ⟨ll⟩

In the tables here, ⟨ll⟩ is marked as being pronounced /ɬː/, where I would have expected /lː/. Is this an error or have I misunderstood Nahua (Spanish) orthography? — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)