## A FINAL SOLUTION TO THE CORRELATION PROBLEM

July 27, 2011 by Geraldine Patrick Encina

My findings are thanks to a totally new insight to the Long Count of days, which also requires putting an end to the interpretation that the *Haab* is an imprecise instrument that lags one day every four years.

The Correlation I propose does not require the Julian-day counting system –as do all other correlations proposed until now. This Western approach obeys the linear logic of time which elapses from mid-day to mid-day ever since 1^{st} January 4713 BC, something that has lead to so much trouble in our understanding of Mayan conception of time-space order and cycles. While in the linear logic there is an accumulation of bissextile or leap days every four years, in the cyclic logic the quarter days are symbolically considered, but not mathematically.

The internal structure of Correlation 583 172 + LC(365), as opposed to the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson Correlation, provides a final solution to the century-old problem. In effect, it accounts for more things, and better, than the GMT, or Lounsbury’s.

Correlation 583 172 + LC(365) provides a new Zero-point date (27th July -3116), and a new closing date for 13 *Bak’tun* (3rd May 2013) -both dates associated to first visibility of vespertine Venus.

It also recovers the convention of fixed winal intervals with 0 *Pop* perpetually linked to 13th August -something that I am certain many Archaeoastronomers will be very pleased to hear.

The Correlation I obtained enables us to find the three opening eclipse dates of the Eclipse Table on the Dresden Codex, among many other highly relevant astronomic events (such as an astronomical interpretation for Star War events).

Of course, the 583 172 + LC(365) Correlation finely correlates colonial registrations such as that provided on p.66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab for 11.6.0.0.0 13 *Ajaw* 8 *Xul*, which falls on 19th November 1539 (Julian Calendar), a date in perfect agreement with Thompson’s (1935:61) rigorous statement emphasizing that *Katun* 13 *Ajaw* ended “between the middle of November 1538 and the middle of November 1539”.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

on July 30, 2011 at 10:19 pm |Sid HollanderYou said “The Correlation I propose does not require the Julian-day counting system” By the very nature of the definition correlation factor the above statement is extremely misleading. A correlation factor by definition is a number that is added to some date in one system in order to convert to ANOTHER system. In Maya studies we wish to convert maya dates to the system that we use, namely the Gregorian.(via the JDN) This is done also in the case if we used any other system such as Hebre. First we would use a correlation to change Maya to Julian and then use another correlation to change JDN to Hebrew. I hope I made that point clear, the JDN is used in EVERY conversion of one calendar system to another.

My second point is the form of your correlation. If it is a fixed number then you must state it as such not the strange “583 172 + LC(365)” It appears that you are trying to say, “My correlation factor is made from the sum of a base number (i.e. 583 172) and some variable number which is generated by some function, I suspect, of elapsed Haabs with perhaps a function of 1/4 in that function. If that is what you intended you must spell it out.

on July 31, 2011 at 11:33 am |Geraldine PatrickThank you for your comment, Sid Hollander. Yes, indeed, any correlation constant proposed until now has been established in function of the Julian Day Number, which requires counting from mid-day to mid-day ever since January 1st, 4713BC. The novelty about my proposal is that, in fact, any expression of Long Count must NOT be taken as days counted along the linear Julian Day counting system, but rather as days counted along oriented Haabs, just as several glyphs indicate: the count of the Haab to the east; the count of the Haab to the north, and so forth. So, in this particular Mayan counting logic, we must bear in mind that days are not eternally counted from mid-day to mid-day, but rather 365 are counted from sunrise to sunrise, the next 365 from mid-day to mid-day, the following 365 from sunset to sunset, and the next 365 from mid-night to midnight, so the coming year days are again counted from sunrise to sunrise, and in this way, the Haab is kept in place with respect to our Gregorian calendar. For this reason in this correlation the JDN is not used to correlate one calendar with another. (The 0.25 day minus 11 minutes issue is dealt with in my paper -soon to be published).

Regarding the second point, YES, I am translating 27th July -3116 into the JDN constant, BUT then am applying the Mayan circular logic of counting days along oriented Haabs, which in mathematical terms is put as: any Long Count expression in days (‘LC’) must be divided by 365 in order to obtain tropical years. I have already adviced of the requisite to have an open mind in order to accept this formula, but believe me, once you get used to this procedure, and once you start using that Zero point date here mentioned, all astronomical events fit in place with absolute precision.

on September 9, 2012 at 8:35 pm |José A. TerceroInteresante la forma para ajustar el haab al año solar. Le comento que la cuenta escalonada del haab ( amanecer-mediodía- atardecer- medianoche) ha sido planteado por otros autores, le recomiendo leer sus publicaciones para argumentar con mayores bases la forma de contar los años, que incluye el 1/4 de día en cada ocasión.

FLORES GUTIÉRREZ, DANIEL

1995 En el problema del inicio del año y el origen del calendario mesoame-

ricano: un punto de vista astronómico. Daniel Flores Gutiérrez (ed.),

Coloquio Cantos de Mesoamérica: metodologías científicas en la búsqueda del conocimiento prehispánico, Instituto de Astronomía/Facultad de Cien- cias-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México: 117-132.

MORA-ECHEVERRÍA, JESÚS IGNACIO

1997 El ajuste periódico del calendario mesoamericano: Algunos comentarios

desde la arqueología y la etnohistoria. Arqueología: Revista de la Coor- dinación Nacional de Arqueología del INAH, segunda época, 17: 139-175.

on September 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm |Geraldine PatrickEstimado José A. Tercero,

En efecto, Daniel Flores y Jesús Ignacio Mora-Echeverría han planteado la consideración del cuarto de día al final de cada ciclo de 365 días. Me referiré a ellos en una versión actualizada del texto principal de este blog. Sin embargo, lo novedoso de la propuesta que aquí expongo es que el cuarto de día se considera implícitamente. Es decir, mientras Flores propone que los cuatro cuartos de día llevarán a que al cabo de cuatro años el cúmulo de dias sea 365.25 x 4 = 1461, yo prpopongo que al cabo de cuatro años el cúmulo de días será 365 x 4 = 1460 (+ 1 día implícito que NO se contabiliza en la Cuenta Larga).

Este cambio conceptual produce una fórmula nueva para efectos de conocer cuántos años trópicos han transcurrido en 13 Bak´tun o 1872000 k’in –o en cualquier otra cantidad de k’in.

Es decir: 1872000 / 365 = 5128 años trópicos más 280 días y NO 5125 años trópicos más 133 días (que es el producto de dividir 1872000 entre 365.2422) como lo han concebido expertos mayistas e incluso Daniel Flores y Mora-Echeverría.

Muchas gracias por haber comentado acerca de esta propuesta que pronto expondré en El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C. y en la Universidad de Albuquerque, Nuevo México.

on October 4, 2012 at 7:22 pmJosé A. TerceroEstimada Geraldine Patrick

Agradezco su respuesta. Le comento que he hablado de su trabajo con Jesús Mora Echeverría – colega del INAH- y me permitió proporcionale su dirección email para el caso de que a usted le interese la investigación que él ha realizado en estos últimos años, acerca del problema de la correlación.

Jesús ha derivado un coeficiente de correlación utilizando exclusivamente las fechas de Cuenta Larga y considerando el haab como equivalente del año trópico. Muy pronto publicará sus resultados, por lo que le sugerí que el diálogo previo entre ustedes sería de enorme utilidad para el trabajo de ambos y sin duda para la comunidad académica; está de acuerdo, ojalá usted tenga la misma opinión. Su mail es: jesusmora@jesusmora.com

Por otra parte, aun cuando no soy mayista, me gustaría asistir a la presentación de su propuesta en El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C. ¿Puede indicarme la fecha, si es posible?

Le envío un cordial saludo.

on October 4, 2013 at 6:23 pm |Alan Smithee (@Ooer_chakurra)Interesting idea!!! I was wondering about the correlation though. https://haecceities.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/2012-the-maya-calendar-correlation-problem-pt-4-%E2%80%93-oxkutzcab/ points to a possible problem with the Oxkutzcab date, and http://www.famsi.org/research/bolles/calendar/MayaCalendar.pdf present arguments, based on colonial records, that supports a different correlation. It seems that the date would be off by some 18 days?

on November 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm |Geraldine Patrick EncinaKelley (1976) presented a list of criteria required for a correlation to be solid. The ending of 13 Ajaw K’atun at the time the Spaniards arrived (criterion number 4) is fundamental, because there is a clear reference to the exact date (around mid November 1539, Julian date) for a Tun ending on 13 Ajaw, which Morley (1920, cited by Thompson 1935:59) clearly showed must correspond to the ending of that K’atun, on the same 13 Ajaw 8 Xul annotated on page 66 of the Oxkutzkab manuscript. However, Kelley did not mention a historical reference which any correlation must agree with: one “which clearly has not been tampered with or altered by copyists (…:) a Katun 3 Ahau was running its course when Fathers Orbita and Fuensalida reached Tayasal late in October of 1618” Thompson (1935:59). Thompson wrote: “the fathers reached Tipu on their return from Tayasal five days after leaving the lake. Their arrival at Tipu was at the beginning of November, so the memorable conversation must have taken place near the end of October”.

Precisely so, it was during that conversation that they were told that the K’atun 3 Ajaw had just commenced. With the correlation proposed here the beginning of K’atun 3 Ajaw (starting on 12.0.0.0.0 5 Ajaw 13 Sotz’ and ending on 12.1.0.0.0 3 Ajaw 18 K’ayab) was on 25th October, 1618 and ended on 17th July, 1638. The 11.16.0.0.0 correlation proposed by Thompson (1935) -584 285-, suggested the K’atun 3 Ajaw began on 20th September, 1618, which is evidently far earlier than the date that he himself suggested based on common-sense: that near the end of October. As you can see, the correlation I provide makes the date fall on October 25th, i.e., end of October. (Note: all are Gregorian dates unless otherwise stated).