The Long Count Is Not Cyclical

There are huge notations beyond the traditional 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u creation date, such as on Stela 1 at Coba and on page 52 of the Dresden Codex (where the five final positions of the Long Count (LC) actually are 13.13.13.13.13). However, on all occasions it is always the same Calendar Round (CR) date accompanying the LC (4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u). The authors suggest that these extreme cases are means to convey the extensiveness of time rather than being arithmetical dates.

Source

This post by Normark is a little old, but with the number of people I now seeing stating that the Long Count will reset at 13.0.0.0.0 I figured I'd post it. While Normark is actually paraphrasing the research of Gronemeyer and Macleod, which is online, I figured his post would be easier to understand. This is due to the fact that Normark's post actually focuses on the Long Count whereas Gronemeyer and Macleod's paper is actually about the inscription on Tortuguero Monument 6. For those of you who follow my posts some of this will sound very familiar, but it's nice to hear it from an actual Mayan expert.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


OK, so the calendar isn't cyclical, and it does not reset?

What happens at the end of it then?

reply to post by LightAssassin


That's just it. There is no end. The 13.0.0.0.0 date comes from post-Columbian epigraphy. Most Long Counts from the Classic period extend past this point and some include piktuns which are equal to 20 baktuns. The calendar was intended to extend on forever. Just look at our own Gregorian calendar as an example. It is essentially made up of two different calendars. You have the cyclical calendar that measures days, weeks, and months. Then you also have the linear calendar of years. The Gregorian calendar isn't designed to have the years repeat at any point. Instead the continue on ad infinitum. This is much the way the Mayan calendar system works. You have the separate cyclical calendars of the Tzolkin and the Haab which when used in conjunction create a 52 year cycle. Then you have the Long Count which is used primarily to determine a year.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


OK, I've just realised I need to do some hard concrete research on this. Granted, I have watched a lot of shows and whatnot but I always had this impression that it ended at 13.0.0.0.0, especially given scientists are claiming it just 'resets', yet you're claiming otherwise, and I know you have done the hard yards of research to come to this conclusion.

I just need to do my own to get my head around it.

Interesting. I've also read that the Mayans quit using the long count calendar a long time ago. I'm not sure if it is because they don't understand it themselves or if it became obsolete to their culture. If the Mayans understood it they could tell us if it ends or not.

Isn't the calendar actually using a mixture of base 20 and 18? After 13.19.19.17.19 it would just go to 14.0.0.0.0 then rolling over from 19.19.19.17.19 to 1.0.0.0.0.0. The only reason I can think of that people think 13.0.0.0.0 is a significant end date is solely based on then Mayan belief that the beginning was at -13.0.0.0.0. so therefore the end must be 13.0.0.0.0.

reply to post by LightAssassin


The 13.0.0.0.0 date is primarily a New Age concept. While there is precedence for it in the Popol Vuh it is in the vast minority for the date Long Counts ended on. Especially in the Classic period. The claims for a cyclical Long Count also come primarily from the Popol Vuh. While the Popol Vuh mentions previous worlds before the current one, this is the only place it is mentioned. It should also be noted that it is a post-Columbian manuscript, which in other areas has already been demonstrated to have been influenced by the Spanish missionaries.

Again, great work and presentation of fact X. But as per usual you get the usual drone rebuttals of "if that's true then what happens at the end" like that's some sort of substantial basis for rebuttal.

Keep it up

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


Not a rebuttal, but a query to help me understand, IF your comment was aimed at me (which it seems so given almost identical word recollection).

Pity you didn't read any further.

reply to post by LightAssassin


Sorry mate, my sincere apologies. You are correct, I should have read on- to me on that one and credit to yourself on the humility- a rare trait on ATS.

ETA: I'm at the end of my wits with people dogmatically spreading the hype and fear of this bollocks, speculating as if experts on the matter, again my apologies mate.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


So, one could say that the idea of a cyclical calendar is made up to fit a western/Christian world view? Or that we somehow cannot, because of limitations in our culture, understand the concept of infinity/eternity? That we need it to be cyclical for us to bother?

I have the Mayan calendar almanac on the wall beside me right now and I have been thinking on more than one occasion if there is any point or not to get a new one post 21st December next year (I use the almanac/calendar to keep track of what Oxlahunkin pulse we're in, for numerous reasons- it has worked out real good for me).
I do think, however, that these energies will keep pulsating throughout the universe.
Still, will the interval be the exact same or does the "end dates" change that? How the hell would one figure that out anyhow?

reply to post by Pirateofpsychonautics


All good mate, I've had my moments too and I understand your frustration.

reply to post by Raud


The oxlahunkin is not an actual unit in the Long Count. It was made up by Calleman. The traditional unit used in that position is the wival. The wival is made up of 20 k'in (days) and then 18 wival make a tun. However, for Calleman's calendar to work he needed tuns to be made up of 20 of the preceding unit. This gave rise to the oxlahunkin which is composed of 18 k'in. Of course Calleman never explains what happens to the two missing k'in.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


But all his personal connection and friendship with Mayan elders in Guatemala? Wouldn't they have hinted him that he is way off?
Second; what does the calculations you present point to?

Thank you for replying, I am always open for new input to consider.

So I'm a little rusty on some of the vocabulary and specific mayan words for their different periods of time,

But, Isn't it true that this time we're in (2012ish) represents an even factorization (or multiplication) of more than a few of the mayan's noted periods of time?

So that '2012' could at least be akin to our year 2000?

Except that; doesn't the mayan calendar system follow deeper celestial cycles
rather than our's which corresponds only to jesus and the Earth's rotation around the sun?


I was reading recently that some of the named 'chunks of time' used by the mayans can be multiplied (or factored) to track the bodies within our solar system as they fall on sacred geometric vertices to better than 99% accuracy.. Have you ever heard of this?


BTW: Even though I'm a card carrying 'new ager' I'm comfortable enough with even 3% of any of this being true to continue believing... As such I have no problem being told 97% of it is crap so by all means go for it.

reply to post by JRedBeard


The Long Count is not based on any celestial cycle whatsoever. It is merely, as the name suggests, a count of days. Most Long Counts have a starting date that corresponds to August 11, 3114 BCE on our Gregorian Calendar. However, there are other calendars with different starting dates. The Long Count on Coba Stela 1 for example has a starting point trillions of years ago. The Long Count is then broken down into different units of time. Much like we might break a date down into century, decade, year, month, and day. The different units are:

k'in
winal
tun
katun
baktun

These relate to each other in the following way:

1 k'in = 1 day
20 k'in = 1 winal = 20 days
18 winal = 1 tun = 360 days
20 tun = 1 katun = 19.71 years
20 katun = 1 baktun = 394.3 years

There does not appear to be any celestial significance in the way they are broken down. The only exception might be the anomaly of 18 winals equaling one tun. This is most likely done to keep the Long Count somewhat synced with the Haab, which was their 365-day calendar that was used to determine planting seasons.

Thanks for this great thread. It sheds basic light on the absurdity of the 2012 claims.

I have pointed many people to the book "The Sacred and the Profane" by Mircea Ileada in which he eloquently describes the difference between cyclical and linear time. It is a must read for those confused on this issue. I for one could not understand the notion of cyclical time till I read the book. We are in a linear time society and it is so prevalent that the true notion of cyclical time is difficult to comprehend.

What intrigues me by the Mayans is their use of multiple calendars that suggest a mix of cyclical and linear thoughts. This clash of seemingly very different notions is certainly interesting.

Good work XCalibur254 in making an effort to educate people.