|
|
|
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:10:00 -0800
From: kahib@ix.netcom.com (John Major Jenkins ) Subject: Re: count To: yari@studio2013.com  You wrote:
Dear John,
Sure, I'm always happy to clarify. Though my book Tzolkin is admittedly convoluted and complex, the info is in there. Regarding the idea that there are many different Mayan calendars among the many different Mayan groups, we must define what we mean by different. Different groups recognized different New Years days, some used different year-bearers, some counted the 20-day months of the haab from 0-19 while other groups counted these from 1-20. Different groups spoke different languages, so on the surface it seems as if the day-signs have different names - that the tzolkin counts beings followed are thereby "different". But via cultural and linguistic studies of the meanings of the twenty day-signs, a great continuity has been demonstrated, usually via the most prominent day-signs such as Ahau, Ix and Chicchan (Yucatec). This is called finding the cognate day-signs for each different group speaking different languages. Even though there are some variations in the specific meanings ascribed to the day-signs, the same sequence of twenty days has been followed throughout Mesoamerica. Especially in the Mayan realm, the 20 day-signs have perfect continuity since the tzolkin inception roughly 3000 years ago (among the Olmec). This is probably not the greatest summary, and I would refer you to Munro Edmonson's Book of the Year (Univ. of Utah Press, 1988) for more details. So, these are the so-called differences that one finds among different groups. But the point is that the tzolkin count itself has not been disrupted. For example, say you were a Yucatecan Maya living at Mayapan before the invasion of the Central Mexican Toltecs, say, in 858 A.D. The tzolkin count you follow recognizes Akbal, Lamat, Ben and Eznab as the sacred year-bearers. You follow the haab, but count each haab month from 0 to 19. Your New Year's day occurs several uinals after the solstice, in August. In the Julian calendar being followed across the Atlantic, the day is called February 24th, 858 A.D. You, following the tzolkin count, call this day 6 Akbal. We would expect that every 260 days after this date in 858 A.D. will aslo be 6 Akbal. The centuries pass, migrations accur, the Quiche tribes travel up the Usamacinta and populate the highlands around 1200 A.D. Many changes and "adjustments" occur to the old Mayapan calendar - the Quiche people wax strong; the conquistadors arrive, genocide begins, more centuries elapse, progress encroaches on your little village. Now you are a Quiche Maya daykeeper living in Momostenango in 1988. The tzolkin calendar you follow recognizes different year-bearers than the Mayapan one of over 1100 years ago. You still count the haab months, but count them from 1-20. Your New Year's day occurs in February - different from July not because of the "1 day every 4 year" slippage against the solar year, but because your tribe instituted several 20-day shifts (for various reasons). Nevertheless, on a 260-day multiple after that 6 Akbal date in 858 A.D., you look up the day and, in the Quiche language, the date is 6 Aq'ab,'al. Despite all the other changes that have taken place, the 260-day tzolkin remains unbroken. This continuity of the tzolkin calendar is found all throughout Mesoamerica. Most importantly, we know the "correlation" followed by the Classic Maya (the so-called Galactic Maya). Simple mathematics can track this "correlation" into modern times and we find that the Quiche, Chorti, Kekchi, Mam, Ixil, Tzutujil, Cakchiquel and many other Mayan groups retain the classic Maya count in modern use. Another consideration which has generated confusion is the fact that, different tzolkin counts have been reported for various communities in Yucatan and Central Mexico. These are what I call fragmented counts, born of the genocidal confusion following the conquest. These are artifacts of the successful disruption of native tradition by foreign overlords with little appreciation of indigenous wisdom. Commmunities in the southern highlands were much less affected by these historical atrocities than the Maya communities in the lowlands (of Yucatan and Central Mexico), and that is why the traditions there are more representative of the ancient Maya. Barbara Tedlock reviews this unfortunate state of affairs on page 1 of "Time and the Highland Maya". This is obviously a touchy issue for modern Yucatec daykeepers who are just following what has been passed to them from their elders but are unaware of the historical events which disrupted the sacred continuity of their tzolkin count. I consider the "True Count" to be the one followed by the Classic Maya, the pre-conquest Aztecs, Mixtecs and Zapotecs and the pre-Classic Olmec - and this is the same count followed today by millions of indigenous pure-blood Maya in the Highlands of Mexico and Central America - where the traditions have survived. I hope this has been of help. One can find a lot of interesting information on the amazing Maya at your local library:
Plus, don't forget Edmonson's important study showing the continuity of the "583283" correlation - the "True Count" of the Classic Maya. I apologize for the inscrutible presentation of my book. These are complex issues which can't be reduced to simple solutions. There are many things about Mayan cosmology that are misunderstood in popluar literature, in addition, there are variations in traditions, but the tzolkin count and its 3000 year continuity is the great unifying factor of Mesoamerican civilization. Though certainly the "fragmented" counts of the Yucatan, which may be the ones that led to Jose's count, have some place, I prefer to follow the Clasic Maya count, the one that harkens back to the era before the Iron Heel of fate struck the New World's shores. Sincerely,
John Major Jenkins
Writings Index  Mayan Home Page I Ching Home Page |