From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Changed reference to Oxtotitlán[edit]

I checked the cite to Oxtotitlán cave, and have made a number of modifications based on my review. (See [[1]]) The statement in the article was way too strong. I linked to the article on Oxtotitlán. I changed the date from 900 BCE to 800-500 BCE, more in line with the range given for the site. The image at Oxtotitlán being used as a Tzolk'in is very tenuous (the cite made no such assertions), although having a number present (3 or 6) is likely. Although the Oxtotitlán drawings have stylistic similarities to Olmec, it is far from the Olmec heartland. I have changed the description to be "Olmec-like".

I removed reference to the Humboldt celt, which was not mentioned in the Oxtotitlán cite. I could not find any reference to anywhere that says that the Humboldt celt has a Tzolk'in on it. If you can find a reference to the Humboldt celt having a Tzolk'in on it, then put the information back in and give the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grr (talkcontribs) 17:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Some points[edit]

I think there are a few issues to raise with the article on the Tzolkin, as well as possibilities for expanding it:

  1. There are 20 Mayan calendars, the Tzolkin being one of those twenty, the long count being another, but they are seperate and the Tzolkin is not a part of the other.
  2. The Tzolkin is also referred to as the "Cholq'ij"
  3. The order of the dates listed in Yucatec pertain to a correlation made to the writings of the Franciscan Friar Diego deLanda. There is a story behind how this came to be, but essentially it is an innacurate representation that has been carried forth by archaeologists and anthropologists since the 1500's. The point should be made that this calendar remains an integral part of traditional Mayan life where the culture still exists in areas such as Guatemala and El Salvador. There are 23 tribes with different langauges in Guatemala alone, each of which uses this calendar and they all corraborate the same information. The calendar starts on what is known in Yucatec as "Chuen", specifically with the number "8" making the last day of the 260 day count "7 Oc". This date of 8 Chuen is still celebrated in Mayan villages as the start of the New Year.
  4. This is a spiritual calendar considered to relate to the energies that comprise the reality of human beings. The 20 signs correlate to the 20 fingers & toes, the 13 numbers to the 13 joints of the human body (ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, neck).
  5. A modern permutation of the calendar has been created and in use in new age circles called "dreamspell", but this bears little relation to the Tzolkin, although it is often a point of confusion.
  6. A resource for information on the Tzolkin calendar from the perspective of the living modern culture which has direct ties and line of knowledge to the ancient culture is hosted by a nonprofit organization: Saq' Be'—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 29 Dec 2005.
  7. The day names have associations with particular gods in the Mayan mythology as well as weather, plants, animals and celestial phenomena.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 29 Dec 2005.

In fact, the more general article maya calendar covers many of the above points. As the tzolkin is a phenomenon of mayan culture interaction with western culture wouldn't it be in the interests of WikiProject Mesoamerica to minimize this entry to just a statement of this fact and refer back to that more general article? Volpane 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by tzolkin is a phenomenon of mayan culture interaction with western culture", unless you are referring to the name tzolk'in itself, which was coined by later researchers. The mesoamerican 260-day calendar (of which what is called the "tzolk'in" is the Maya version) most certainly and considerably pre-dates any western or colonial influences. I think there's certainly sufficient notable material to be written on this aspect of the Maya calendric system alone to justify its own article; it will probably appear to be more useful once it is further expanded from its current beginnings- this may take a little while, however.--cjllw | TALK 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the fact of the name coinage. Sorry if it came out a little obtuse. Also the majority of material in the current article is repeated in summary under the maya calendar article, thus my request for some consolidation. I've been watching this article for nearly two years and although it has gone through several revisions very little new information has been put forth. I'm very interested in seeing any "notable material" as my own research has turned up meager offerings. Volpane 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever has added the more recent information...I'm still figuring out the history page info, otherwise I'd direct my comment to them. If it is you CJLLW, thank you and thank you for monitoring. I'm also adding a suggestion for reference material below.Volpane (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 20 Mayan calendars? According to who and what are they? Guatemala has a south coast? Zenith passage days were important and observatories were built to observe them but they occur on different days at different lattitudes. Perhaps the authors of these statements should explain these further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


My source for the "Uses" stub is Barbara Tedlock's "Time and the Highland Maya", in case someone wants to do a good "references" section.--Homunq 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a number of those uses are more reflective of post-conquest sources and associations, there'd be some further scope in distinguishing these in the article, which I agree needs further serious work.
Noting a couple of amendments/corrections to recent expansions- the Aztec version comes more directly from other earlier central mexican / oaxacan calendars, particularly the Mixtec and earlier the Zapotec. The attribution to the Olmec for the 260-day calendar's origin is also doubtful, as genuine Olmec-period inscriptions are rather light on for any calendric data (that is unproblematically interpreted as such). It's probably best just to leave it unattributed or unconfirmed for any specific culture.--cjllw | TALK 10:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As this is a living cultural practice, there's nothing wrong with something being "post-conquest". (Can you work in the other data?) --Homunq 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've no issue with mention or reference here to post-conquest associations or sources, just noting that they need to be identified as such so as not to be confused with what can actually be attributed to earlier periods. Will try to get around to a review soon...--cjllw | TALK 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed references to Dreamspell in the uses, with persistent exclusivity. This exclusivity is inappropriate. If such modern uses are to be cited in the article, there should be references to works by other authors, such as the Mayan Oracle and other resources. Otherwise, the inclusion about Dreamspell and Dr. Arguelles comes across as surreptitious spam and is rightfully removed. 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New Age Movement and New Time Movement[edit]

More in regard of the aesthetic of reading I changed the headline from New Age to New Time. I don't mind the conotation to the phrasing of New Age for my self so much, but still I get a bit disturbed. I can happily adress myself as belonging to an artistic and spiritual New Time Movement, but not as easily to the New Age Movement. I my self is an initiator of the Armagedon Deconstruction Group, although this movement works with the post-esoteric pedagogics for the benefit of a new time. It has been recognised for a long time that there is "something wrong" with our time. Armageddon Deconstruction Group works according to the New Time concept of Self-initated learning.

From my first notions of the New Age movement I understood the movement primarily as a result of an end to the esoteric era and the beginning of a new and democratic way of self-initiation. This notion preceded the Internet. Esoteric figures like Blavatsky, Olcott, Laban, Steiner, Jung, Kandinsky, Michael Tchekhov, Gurdijeff, Bergson, and so on had found that it was time to open up what had been hidden knowledge in the name of democracy, and for the hope for a better future. Democracy was in its infancy; Or maybe The World was merely pregnant with our consensus awareness... Esoteric means literally (others my read it differently) in order of initiation, or secret knowledge. Every system where you walk the levels or climb to higher degrees where someone is revealing for you hidden knowledge (the occult), in successive orders is an esoteric system. This is a feature of the old school of the Old Age. Our ordinary schools, Colleges and the Global University Sector is still largely an esoteric Old school system. Here has come change. Here has been truly democratic projects that now has entered into the depths of the Old school systems, making them not only reform, but transform to new schools. There are the signs of New Time. Whatever we call our time and how we learn to count in an intercultural, and who knows, posibly Galactic culture, as Jose Arguilles and his companions are talking about. I suggest that we support each other in each and everyone's self-initiated quest. Therefore I also changed the wording of Jose Arguilles from esoteric to initiated. Don Jose Arguilles is a Maya shaman alongside figures like Nobel Peace Price winner Rigoberta Menchu, he might be an esoteric of some old schools, for certain, but I also think it as very possible that Don Jose is a self-initiate. That does not mean that he has not have had teachers of higher orders. But there are multiple ways of learning the occult reality in order to become truly illuminated, and not all of them goes through the designed orders of old style Flamboyants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talkcontribs) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xact. I undid those couple of changes. While "New Age" may be a bit of an imprecise 'catch-all' description, "New Time" is an even more amorphous one (and the link New Time goes to an article about a Venezuelan political party). And "esoteric" is probably one of the kindest ways to characterise Arguelles' musings. "(self-)initiated" would be pushing it; Arguelles himself does not really claim his Dreamspell 'calendar' is anything other than his own concoction, synthesised from Maya and other esoteric/cultural traditions. Or at least, AFAIK he makes no specific claim that it is supposed to be exclusively and authentically Maya (which it clearly is not see eg this criticism). Even other fellow travelers in the fanciful Maya calendar-2012 interpretations game, like Ian Lungold and John Calleman are quite dismissive of Dreamspell, the 13-Moon calendar, et al. I would also hesitate to call him a 'shaman', if there's to be any authentic meaning to such a title. And finally, I'm not sure it matters for this article whether or not you personally may feel comfortable with the New Age label, since you and your beliefs aren't the subject here...? This article concerns actual (mostly pre-Columbian) Maya calendrics as understood by Mayanist scholarship, not any of the various contemporary hobbyist recyclings of some of its characteristics. I really think the whole thing about Arguelles deserves no more than a brief sentence here, to the effect that his Dreamspell concoction is sometimes confused in the public mind with the real thing. Beyond that, it's nothing at all to do with what the precolumbian Maya believed or thought. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Doesn't it just repeat the material in the table that was already there?

Agree, this part should be removed while preserving some of the additional information it provides. If no one objects, this will be done within the coming four weeks. (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Added refs[edit]

I've added some refs to the new Mayan astrology page and link to downloadable freeware. The information comes in part from Tedlock and in part from interviews I've conducted with Mayan priests in Guatemala. BobMak 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) BobMak

May I suggest including "Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore and Calendars, by Susan Milbrath, pub. University of Texas, 1999." Here is a quote from the back cover for Susan's credentials: SM is Curator of Latin American Art and Archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History and Affiliate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Florida. A former student of Esther Pasztory, she did postdoctoral work with Michael Coe and Anthony F. Aveni and served as guest curator of "Star Gods...," the American Museum of Natural History and toured nationally between 1982 and 1984.Volpane (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no issues at all w Milbrath as a credible source, hv added the ref in. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It is a prime source for many new ideas that still need exploration.Volpane (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A random piece of numerology...[edit]

2 ^ 13 ~= 20 ^ 3 (That is, Mayan "kilobytes" would have been 2 ^ 13 bytes.) I mention this only as a curiousity and obviously there is no good reason to believe that the Mayans ever noticed it. Homunq (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Careful! Before you know it, you'll be reading of this suspicious correlation in the next breathless exposé to be published in the Maya calendar / 2012 bandwaggon venture... ;-) --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:MAYA-g-log-cal-D10-Ok.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested post: table rendition 260-day calendar[edit]

Read this table rendition of one full cycle of the Tzok'in 260-day calendar, from left to right like you would read a common Gregorian calendar or a book. First look at the day number, then look up to the day name. If today (which starts at dawn) was the first day of the cycle, "1; Imix'" (top right corner), tomorrow would be "2; Ik'," the day after "3; Ak'b'al," etc. When you get to the end of the first line at "7; Ajaw" (top right corner), continue at the beginning of the next line at "8; Imix'," then "9; Ik'," until you have gone through all 13 rows of days. Reaching the end of the cycle at "13; Ajaw" (bottom right corner), the cycle then repeats, starting the next day at "1; Imix'" (top left corner).

If you look down the columns, you will notice that each of the names have all 13 numbers in the column, with no duplicates, and in collated ascending numerical order. Other numerical patterns can also be found.

Imix' Ik' Ak'b'al K'an Chikchan Kimi Manik' Lamat Muluk Ok Chuwen Eb' B'en Ix Men Kib' Kab'an Etz'nab' Kawak Ajaw
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Please discuss, or just post it. Thank you. Its all relatives (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Although there are ideas touted by New Age enthusiasts, especially those who follow Dreamspell, about the Tzolk'in numbering sequence relating to a specific "traditional" weaving pattern and a supposed pattern of "power" days, I have not found anything in archeological and sociological texts on the significant ordering of numbers within the Tzolk'in that didn't fall into the category of speculation. What is being expressed above is simply the natural progression of a numbered system, which has more mathematical interest than anything relating to Maya culture. Until something is published on the subject, showing evidence that the ancient Maya held these ideas as important to understanding how their culture worked, I doubt this table adds anything to the information currently presented for the Tzolk'in. Perhaps the person who posted the table on this discussion would like to provide some references to promote their reasons for raising these points.Volpane (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tzolkinex now linked here[edit]

It may or may not be coincidental, but 10 tzolkins (is that the proper plural, or should the final s be omitted?) equal a Tzolkinex, an eclipse cycle equal to 88 synodic months or about 2598.69 solar days. — Glenn L (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources[edit]

Vincent Malmstrom's book: Malmström (1997)

"[ Chapter 6: The Long Count: The Astronomical Precision And Malmström, Vincent H. (1997). Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon: The Calendar in Mesoamerican Civilization. Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-75197-4. OCLC 34354774. Retrieved 2007-11-26. 

is simply awful - the worst type of psuedoscientific nonsense. It's just a bunch of wild theories based on the worst (or really no) research at all.

Jose S Merida, "a guatemalan mathematician" is a lay preacher and his theories can be debunked by a cursory look at an astronomy program. A similar entry in the the Maya calendar article was removed because it was nonsense: Senor Cuete (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Requesting Pronunciations[edit]

I think it would improve the article if someone could give pronunciations (IPA) of each of the day names. I figure I'd ask here instead of putting "{{Pronunciation-needed}}" next to every single day name!

Hyper Days[edit]

Are the Hyper Days (galctic gates) [2] pure esotericism or maya based? -- (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete crap Google Rohaan Solare and tell me what you think. Seriously.

Simultaneous cycles?[edit]

Is it correct to understand that the Tzolk'in calendar is actually two cycles operating simultaneously? One a 13-day cycle and the other a 20-day cycle. Or should it be understood as 13 20-day periods? I don't think the current article is very clear on that point. MathHisSci (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)