An Open Letter to Robert Sitler (and ensuing correspondence).

 

Dear Mr Sitler,

 In reference to your article, The 2012 Phenomenon: New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar, I agree with most of what you say about José Argüelles, or “Valum Votan” (which does not mean “Closer of the Cycle” - see  http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new9.htm#pacal ) and have made a list of calendrical errors in The Mayan Factor (see Beyond 2012, Ch. 19, note 21, p.311-312 or see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/harm.htm (bottom of page). I have also questioned and examined his claims on sourcing his count from the Chilam Balam – see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/dspell.htm . Sadly, I must also agree about various contemporary Maya teachers and elders “jumping on the 2012 bandwagon” – Don Alejandro is said (by Morton and Thomas) to have exactly quoted Arguelles’s miscalculated kin numbers and claimed it is ancient prophecy (see Beyond 2012 p.211).

 However, there are certain items I think are worthy of discussion. 

  • Your article presumes that the whole 2012 question is derived solely from the Maya calendar. In fact, you say, “Similarly, public interest in 2012 does not depend on the date having any substantive significance beyond marking a cyclical change in an ancient calendar.” You mention Terence McKenna, but omit to mention that his book, The Invisible Landscape, which came out in 1975, 12 years before Arguelles’ The Mayan Factor), pinpointed 2012 as the year of “concrescence” or an end of time, but did so totally independently of any knowledge of the Maya or their calendar. This is how I found out about 2012 myself, and only found out 12 years later that the Maya had pinpointed the same year. This is a fact that is beyond question, since McKenna originally pinpointed a day in November 2012, 33 days before the winter solstice, and it was calculated from analysing the King Wen sequence of the I Ching. McKenna changed the termination point in the second edition, to December 2012, after he had found out about the Maya. I have also catalogued several other sources that pinpoint 2012 independently from, and with no knowledge of the Maya Long Count calendar. These were received in various altered states of consciousness, including near-death experiences, out-of-body-experiences, “alien abduction” experiences, meditation, lucid dreams, remote viewing and sacred plant experiences. While there is no proof that they are not all lying, I have interviewed some of these people myself and find them credible. The fact that Rick Strassman’s recent work now shows that the pineal gland secretes the same chemical during these altered states, that is contained in the sacred plant concoctions – and is chemically very similar to that contained in the mushrooms eaten by Maya shamans and by McKenna, prompting his I Ching discovery, means that there is a likelihood the Maya targeted their 13-baktun end-point where they did because they foresaw an epoch-change then.
  • You also omit to mention that the date on the stela at Coba, which shows 19 cycles above the baktun level, has all the levels above baktun showing 13, or that the one reported on a temple stairway at Yaxchilan, that shows 8 levels above the baktun, that are all at 13:

 Date 1
13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0
4 Ahau 8 Cumku

Date 2
13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.9.15.13.6.9
3 Muluc 17 Mac

The implication of this is that the levels above baktuns are only symbolic, because ...

 

UPDATE, 26 June 2013

Following the research that led to my article on the 13-baktun cycle versus the 20-baktun cycle, which you can read here: http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/13baktunversus20.pdf , the statement quoted below in blue, that I inserted here s an update to the original paragraph (in green) can now be modified acording to more recent discoveries. So, although in 2006, when I replied to Sitler with the deleted paragraph in green below, explaining why the levels above baktun were only symbolic, and the idea was updated in 2009 with the interpretation from the US edition of Beyond 2012 (in blue), the revised interpretation in 2013 is that the levels above baktuns shown at Coba and Yaxchilan were not simply symbolic, but they were part of another scheme of date-recording that was prohetic in nature. I have called this scheme the "Parahistoric" . Sitler has since read the essay, and called it "a truly wonderful article". This is a very complex matter, and you are referred to the 13v20 article linked above, but how would I respond today to to Sitler's inference that the Coba and Yaxchilan inscriptions with their higher levels imply that the 13-baktun cycle is merely a cycle within a series of cycles?

I would say the 13-baktun cycle was used for recording "historical" dates i.e. dates in the then current era of 13 baktuns. For dates outside the era, other schemes would be used. The scheme I have called "Metahistoric" is based not on a 13-baktun cycle, but a 20-baktun cycle called the pictun, and a higher cycle in which 20 pictuns make a calabtun; 20 calabtuns make a kinchiltun, etc. Mythological events in the distant past or far future [before 3114 BC ("Prehistoric") and after 2012 ("Posthistoric")] could be expressed in this scheme. The obviously different dating scheme used at Coba and Yaxchilan, in which higher cycles are set at 13, was used for recording events connected with prophecy. The 13-fold cycles such as the 13-katun cycle or Short Count, which features in the "katun prophecies" of the Chilan Balam books, is accepted as being used for prophecy. The 13 uinals that constitute the tzolkin also have a known prophetic function, since the tzolkin calendar was used as an almanac. I propose that the 13-baktun cycle was also connected with prohecy, and was part of a larger 13-fold scheme - the "Parahistoric". Sitler was right that the levels above the 13-baktun level show that the 13-baktun cycle was not the biggest cycle, but part of a hierarchy of cycles. However, the hierarchy is one of prophetic cycles, and the closure of the 13-baktun era would have been accompanied by prophecies that were more significant than those associated with smaller cycles.

This is the paragraph I inserted from the US edition of Beyond 2012 - it will need to be updated in light of the above.

"Although the Creation date of 3114 BC is theoretically written as 0.0.0.0.0, wherever it is referred to on a stela it is written as 13.0.0.0.0. (From the accompanying Calendar Round date of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, Mayanists know this refers to the start of the current thirteen-baktun cycle in 3114 BC.) Most Mayanists have thus concluded that every time we get to the end of the thirteenth baktun (which is baktun number twelve, since the first one was baktun zero), we reach a new Creation date, and the count of baktuns, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kin go back to zero (the day after 13.0.0.0.0 is 0.0.0.0.1). Since there are no known inscriptions referring to the first baktun in the current era, some Mayanists propose that the first baktun would have been recorded with the 13 throughout the whole baktun, not just the first day. In this case, the day after 13.0.0.0.0 would have been 13.0.0.0.1 and so on, until the following baktun—1.0.0.0.0—commenced. A record on a temple stairway at Yaxchilan34 is said to show eight levels above baktun, and they are all still at 13:

13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.9.15.13.6.9 3 Muluc 17 Mac


So, the implication of the Coba and Yaxchilan dates, above, means that on the 4 Ahau 8 Cumku Creation date, the full Long Count date turned over from the previous day’s date of 13.13 . . . . 13.12.19.19.17.19 . . . or that all the higher cycles clicked up to 13 on that date. However, Eric Thompson’s work with many inscriptions showing dates in these higher cycles shows that the full Long Count date for the 4 Ahau 8 Cumku Creation date would be expressed as 0.1.13.0.0.0.0.0.0 . . . (or with the first baktun expressed as 13 rather than zero: 0.1.13.0.13.0.0.0.0); thus the previous day would have been 0.1.13.0.12.19.19.17.19. So the Coba and Yaxchilan inscriptions do not tally with Thompson’s findings and must then be simply depicting mythic time and underscoring the importance of the Creation dates."

The implication of this is that the levels above baktuns are only symbolic, because if they were all at 13 on the “creation date” of 13.0.0.0.0 as in the first date, then in the second, later date, either the baktun level should have continued going up above 13 (but most Mayanists agree that it went back to zero after 13.0.0.0.0 was reached, as it has done here), or the level above baktuns should go up to 14, (which it hasn’t) or all the larger cycles should have gone back to zero (which they haven’t). This means that the levels above baktun are only symbolic, and your assumption that the 13-baktun cycle is thus just an insignificant cycle in a whole spectrum of cycles is actually wrong. It is the end of the Maya era, at which the non-symbolic cycles start again at zero.

  • Concerning the Chilam Balam, Mayanist Mike Finley agrees that no Maya text explicitly predicts events for 2012, but he points out:

"No Maya text actually tells us explicitly what the Maya believed would transpire in 2012 AD, but the the end of the cycle was no doubt regarded as a highly significant time of transition between epochs.  According to  the Books of Chilam Balam, Kulkulcan will return in katun 4 Ahaw .  Prophecy  of the return of this deity, transformed in the Books  into predictions of the coming of Christianity, may have originally been inspired in part by the coming end of the long count cycle."

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new7.htm#realproph 

 In Makemson’s translation of the Chilam Balam of Tizimin, evidence is presented in Makemson’s commentary, that many of the prophecies probably did refer to the end of the 13-baktun cycle, but due to loss of knowledge of the Long Count, and the changing of naming katuns after their last day instead of their first, plus the introduction of 24-year katuns, the resulting confusion detached the prophecies from their original predicted time – see http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new8.htm#mayaprophecy  Makemson also includes a prophecy “Presently Baktun 13 shall come sailing …” so this is an obvious exception to the lack of 2012 prophecies. Even if you don’t accept Makemson’s translation, (I don’t accept all of it – including her correlation of 13.0.0.0.0 at 1752 – though this is fascinating – see link above), you must see that since the Maya saw the end of cycles as very significant, (e.g. erecting stelae at their celebrations of half-katuns and katun-endings) and the bigger the cycle, the more awesome – that they also had myths of eras ending in destruction (e.g. the Popul Vuh), like the Aztecs. Therefore, since the 13-baktun cycle was the largest cycle (as argued above) it would have been held in the most awe.

  • The academics that are held in such awe often make errors that are repeated by researchers into the Maya calendars. Anthony Aveni’s end-date of 8 December 2012 was calculated in the Julian calendar, but he failed to state this. This date is equivalent to 21 December 2012 Gregorian. It is interesting that Aveni places the start at 12 August 3114 BC (as you point out in note 9), since this is calculated in the Gregorian calendar, which makes Aveni’s dates even more confusing, with the start and end-dates calculated in different calendars – but even then, they don’t agree, because the #584283 correlation starts on 11 August 3114 BC (JD 6 September 3114 BC) and ends on 21 December 2012 (JD 8 December 2012), whereas the #584284 correlation starts and ends a day later, so Aveni has not only mixed his calendars, but his correlations. Michael Coe caused similar confusion when he published the end-date in his 1966 book, The Maya, as 24 December 2011. He revised the end-date to 23 December 2012 in later editions. The Julian end-date of 8 December 2012 is also repeated on some online date calculators, as explained here; http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/mlink.htm These confusion factors are explained here: http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new3.htm#enddateconf and Aveni’s error is discussed in detail by Jenkins here: http://www.alignment2012.com/corrections.html
  • I must also disagree with your note 34, that “In fact, the sun-Milky Way alignment is already taking place on winter solstices and will continue to do so for decades to come.”, because Jenkins is talking about the alignment between the winter solstice sunrise and the galactic equator. This is an event that takes 36 years, from 1980/81 to 2016/17 (since the sun is half a degree wide). He is not talking about a sun-galactic centre conjunction, which is still hundreds of years away, (2219 AD) – the galactic Alignment is thus not astronomical GC, but the visual galactic centre of the dark rift – see http://edj.net/mc2012/truezone.htm
  • Other errors:
  •  Hunbatz Men’s name is spelt thus on the cover of his book, and elsewhere – not Humbatz,
  • Beyond 2012 was published in 2005, not 2004.
  • In note 4, you have spelt baktun, b’ak’tun, while in the text it is spelt: b’aktun.

 My conclusion is that 2012 as a prophesied turning point, end-of-time, paradigm shift, or whatever you choose to call it, is not reliant solely on Mayan sources, but has been independently pinpointed by people all over the world (see Beyond 2012 for more on this). However, there is some evidence that the Maya deliberately pinpointed 2012 as an end-date regardless of whether you consider the Galactic Alignment question.

 All the best

 Geoff Stray (webmaster of www.diagnosis2012.co.uk and author of Beyond 2012)

 

Robert Sitler replies 3/Apr/06:

Hi Geoff,

Thanks SO much for writing. I just got your 2012 book a couple of days back and am enjoying it thoroughly. 

To respond to your comments (in sequence with the order you used: 

  1. I am almost totally ignorant about 2012 references OUTSIDE the Mayan context. My personal focus and knowledge on 2012 are strictly limited to the Maya … although I really enjoy T. McKenna’s work and find yours most interesting.
  2. I’m confused. Did I say or imply somewhere that the 13 baktun cycle was insignificant? If so, I misspoke since that clearly would not be the case.
  3. I’m in touch with Mike Finley regularly and he’s helped me a lot. Are you familiar with the 4 k’atun Ahaw prophecy he mentions? The text explicitly ties itself to the PREVIOUS 4 k’atun Ahaw in the 1700s. I would be the first to agree that, given Mayan cyclical thought, this would have implications for our current k’atun and that’s why I include the reference on my site of exclusively Mayan perspectives on 2012.      http://www.stetson.edu/~rsitler/13PIK/
  4. I’d love to include the Tizimin text on my site if there is in fact a 13 b’ak’tun reference. (I’d be surprised though, because I don’t think the word was retained after the drop of the Long Count) Can you help me locate the original quote? Our library has the Mayan version and I have a dear Yukatek friend here who could give me a solid translation from the original.
  5. I don’t hold academics in any particular awe, especially myself. You’ll note that I consistently use the Dec. 21 date out of deference to contemporary ajq’ijab’.
  6. Thanks for the correction on Mr. Men’s name. It indeed should refer to “One Monkey”.
  7. Also thanks for the correction on the publication year of your work. Wasn’t publication delayed at one point?
  8. Also I appreciate your calling my attention to the typo on b’ak’tun

 Again, let me emphasize that my 2012 interest is solely as the date relates to Maya.

 What is the Mayan evidence that you referred to apart from the “galactic alignment question.” I’d love to include it on my site if possible.

 Please write again.

Sincerely,

bob

G.Stray's reply 4/Apr/06:

Dear Bob,
 
Thanks very much for your email. I appreciate your openness and friendly tone, and also your efforts to clarify matters surrounding the 2012 question. This is exactly what I have been trying to do, also. I am considering uploading our email exchange to the website. Let me know if you have any objection to this. Here are my responses:
 
>1. I am almost totally ignorant about 2012 references OUTSIDE the Mayan context. My personal focus and knowledge on 2012 are strictly limited to the Maya … although I really enjoy T. McKenna’s work and find yours most interesting.
1. Well, since you are reading Beyond 2012, you will soon be much more informed on non-Maya 2012 references - I'm really glad you are enjoying it.
 
>2. I’m confused. Did I say or imply somewhere that the 13 baktun cycle was insignificant? If so, I misspoke since that clearly would not be the case.
2. Here are the 2 sentences that led me to think you were implying that the 13-baktun cycle was relatively insignificant (my bold font):
 
"It is important to point out that this so-called Great Cycle was only a minor component in far larger chronological periods that theoretically extend infinitely backwards and forward in time within a system of exponentially increasing temporal cycles having no final beginning or end points"
 
"Similarly, public interest in 2012 does not depend on the date having any substantive significance beyond marking a cyclical change in an ancient calendar."
>3. I’m in touch with Mike Finley regularly and he’s helped me a lot. Are you familiar with the 4 k’atun Ahaw prophecy he mentions? The text explicitly ties itself to the PREVIOUS 4 k’atun Ahaw in the 1700s. I would be the first to agree that, given Mayan cyclical thought, this would have implications for our current k’atun and that’s why I include the reference on my site of exclusively Mayan perspectives on 2012.      http://www.stetson.edu/~rsitler/13PIK/
3. Yes, I  am familiar with the prophecy - it can be found online on this page; http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/cbc/cbc27.htm#fn_850
 
However, Mike Finley says this prophecy may have been inspired originally by the end of the long count in 2012:

"No Maya text actually tells us explicitly what the Maya believed would transpire in 2012 AD, but the the end of the cycle was no doubt regarded as a highly significant time of transition between epochs.  According to  the Books of Chilam Balam, Kulkulcan will return in katun 4 Ahaw .  Prophecy  of the return of this deity, transformed in the Books  into predictions of the coming of Christianity, may have originally been inspired in part by the coming end of the long count cycle.
..

Katun 4 Ahau . . . . The katun is established at Chichen Itzá.  The settlement of the Itzá shall take place [there].  The quetzal shall come, the green bird shall come.  Ah Kantenal  shall come.  Blood-vomit shall come.  Kukulcan  shall come with them for the second time.  [It is] the word of God.  (Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, XXII)"
 
As pointed out in the notes to the above Chilam Balam of Chumayel text, as well as the connection to 1740 by the accompanying picture, the reference to the settlement of the Itzas connects the prophecy to the tenth century. The notes also point out that the feathers of the picture represent Quetzalcoatl and the stars probably represent "the four Venus periods of the Dresden codex". Since the Venus rounds are of 104 haabs each, that adds to 416 haabs. Twice this period is 832 haabs, and if we go back 832 haabs before 1740, we come to around 908 AD. this demonstrates that the cyclical thought is explicit in the Katun 4 Ahau prophecy. Interestingly, if we subtract 432 from 2012, we come to 1580, one of the katuns mentioned in these prophecies. A fascinating cyclical connection to 2012 via the Tizimin is discussed here, http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new8.htm#mayaprophecy but I will reproduce it below:

The editors' notes confirm that, even if the prophecy for the end of 13 katuns did refer to katuns and not baktuns, that it still refers to the final katun (4 Ahau) of the 13-baktun cycle:

" The Mayas had a firm belief in the concept that history repeats itself, and they fully expected the malevolent events of the Katun 8 Ahau to recur in approximately 260 years, when there would be another Katun 8 Ahau..." (Craine and Reindorp p.85)

Makemson, who translated the Tizimin, concluded from the dates given in the Tizimin that the most apt correlation between the Maya and Gregorian calendars was correlation # 489138. This results in an end-date (13.0.0.0.0) of June 22nd 1752. As mentioned in the investigation article, Eric Thompson has argued convincingly against this in his book, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, but it is interesting to note that on p.194, a prophecy of "A time will come when the katun-folds will have passed away, when they will be found no longer, because the count of tuns is reunited", is interpreted as follows: "In other words, separation of time into periods will be no more". It is strange, then that on p.132, Makemson states that "the katuns after 1752 contained 24 years instead of twenty tuns, and they were named for their beginning instead of for their ending days"...Even stranger that in September 1752, UK, Canada and USA all changed from Julian to Gregorian calendars, (170 years after the Gregorian reforms in Europe). Thus, it seems that a kind of end of time had been prophesied for 1752, and this was exactly 260 years before 2012, when the original 13-baktun count will culminate...with a recurrence of the prophecies...or perhaps this original culmination reflected backwards through time...

>4. I’d love to include the Tizimin text on my site if there is in fact a 13 b’ak’tun reference. (I’d be surprised though, because I don’t think the word was retained after the drop of the Long Count) Can you help me locate the original quote? Our library has the Mayan version and I have a dear Yukatek friend here who could give me a solid translation from the original.

4. In Makemson's translation, the reference to 13 baktun is on p.30 of her book, but in the original Chilam Balam of Tizimin, it is at the start of page 16.

>7. Also thanks for the correction on the publication year of your work. Wasn’t publication delayed at one point?

7. Yes, publication was originally scheduled for 2004, but was delayed.

>What is the Mayan evidence that you referred to apart from the “galactic alignment question.” I’d love to include it on my site if possible.

The evidence that the Maya pinpointed 2012 as an end-date regardless of whether you consider the Galactic Alignment question, comes not from Maya sources, but from the diverse other sources I mentioned, by people returning from altered states that were triggered by a similar chemical to that which triggered Maya shamanic trances. This puts the 2012 end-date of the Maya beyond coincidence, into an epoch-change foreseen shamanically, as will hopefully become clear while reading Beyond 2012.

Thanks again

All the best

Geoff Stray

R. Sitler replies 4/Apr/06:

Thanks, Geoff, for your quick response and most thoughtful words.

A few items:

-It seems obvious that ancient Maya would have thought that the completion of the 13 baktun cycle was EXTREMELY important. My words in the article were not aimed at discounting this.


-What Mike F. says is certainly possible. The explicit 1740 reference and the clear 10th century reference reinforce the idea that all 4 Ahaw k'atuns would have similar potentialities. Again, that is why I include this reference on my site of Mayan perspectives.

Regarding the baktun reference: I'll go to the library today. I really hope I find the word "baktun" in the Tizimin text. Do you have a copy of the original Yukatek? Is the word really there? I think we have a different translation (which fortunately includes the original) of the Tizimin text. Is the quote in one of the k'atun 4 Ahaw sections?

You mentioned:
"The editors' notes confirm that, even if the prophecy for the end of 13 katuns did refer to katuns and not baktuns, that it still refers to the final katun (4 Ahau) of the 13-baktun cycle"

True, but if the Chilam Balam writers did not know about the 13 baktun cycle (my current thinking since there's no reason at all to think they did) then this fact is merely coincidental and it's certainly not proof that that's what they were thinking.


-You mention that:
"The evidence that the Maya pinpointed 2012 as an end-date regardless of whether you consider the Galactic Alignment question, comes not from Maya sources...:

This is, in fact, the central point of my article and work ... that the 2012 phenomenon arises from outside the Mayan cultural context and is only now being introduced in the Mayan world.


-We know precious little about chemicals that "triggered Maya shamanic trances." Did they even need such substances to enter such states? We certainly do. Contemporary Maya shamans do not use such substances yet enter trance states regularly.


-I'm looking for a single unambiguous 2012 reference in the Classic texts, Popul Vuh, Chilam Balams, etc. and haven't found one yet. The fact that you had to invent a stela with the date (just like I did for my on-line site) for your book suggests you haven't found any either. Please let me know if you come across anything so I can include it on my site.

Please keep the conversation going if you like. I love to learn from people.

Best wishes from sunny (and drought-stricken) Florida.
bob

P.S. Just so you know, I am probably more New Age than most folks you'll come across: 30 years vegetarian, almost a decade of living in ashrams, a long-time meditator, numerous direct experiences with "plantas maestras," a radical environmentalist, a wife who's a Reiki healer, and much more.... so I'm hardly a New Age basher. I just prefer to base my life on reality rather than fantastic speculation.

G.Stray replies 4/Apr/06:

Hi Bob,
 
Sorry, no I don't have the original Yukatek Tizimin. However, I actually doubt that the word baktun is in it, since Sharer says that the word was coined in an intelligent guess by Mayanists, for the unknown word used for this period. Originally the Mayanists called it a "Cycle", and the 13-baktun cycle, a "Great Cycle". Makemson must have had a good reason for using it - either the Mayanists guessed right and the word for the "Cycle" was baktun, or there must have been an equivalent phrase. I know you think the Chilam Balam writers had no knowledge of the 13-baktun cycle, but Makemson, who studied and translated and wrote a commentary on the Tizimin was of the opinion that they did. Although Thompson disagreed with Makemson's correlation, he also respected her as an astronomer who had made an "important contribution" to the subject, and paid tribute to her in the introduction to his Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (p.33).
 
Aside from the translation of the phrase about baktun 13 coming sailing, already referred to, Makemson does provide some secondary evidence that the Chilam Balam writers were aware of the 13-baktun cycle (and let's not forget, as John Major Jenkins points out in his new page at http://www.alignment2012.com/mayan2012statements.html that if it was not for deductions from secondary evidence, the Mayanists would never have decoded any of the Maya hieroglyphs at all!), and an example of this is as follows:
 
"There is an unusual prophecy about the end of the world on page 16: "...in the final days of misfortune, in the final days of tying up the bundle of the 13 katuns on 4 Ahau, then the endof the world shall come and the katun of our fathers will ascend on high." It is entirely possible that there is a copyist's error here and that thirteen baktuns were intended, since the katun cycle began and ended with 11 Ahau, we are told elsewhere, and the thirteen baktun cycle ran from 4 Ahau to 4 Ahau." (Makemson p.167).
 
So its not as simple as your dismissal implies, since there is obviously an error in the passage - either the word katun should be baktun, or its equivalent, or 4 Ahau should read 11 Ahau. The most likely of these two would seem to be the one Makemson chose - that the original writers used the word baktun (or its equivalent).
 
The many mushroom stones see http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/guatemal/sect10.htm imply an interest in the hallucinogenic qualities of these mushrooms, as does anthropological evidence: the modern rediscovery of psilocybin originated with Gordon Wasson's account of his participation in a Mazatec mushroom rite in 1955,  published in Life magazine in 1957.  http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/new8.htm#psilo
 
I really hope you find the unambiguous evidence you want, and will tell you if I find it (please let me know, if you do). However, all we can muster now, is the secondary evidence, and as you will see as you read Beyond 2012, although the New Age interest in 2012 clusters arounde references to the Maya, there is evidence that other cultures also pinpointed the date, as well as the evidence accessed in altered states, that I have mentioned.
 
All the best
 
Geoff

 

Robert Sitler replies: 4/Apr/06:

Dear Geoff,

 You’re right. “Baktun” isn’t in the original Maya in the Tizimin but I found a reference by Brotherson that says there IS one in the Chumayel. I’ll try to track it down.

 I may be wrong, but I think that b’ak’tun is a real word in the Mayan glyphs. The “great cycle” is of course an invention.

 Do you know anything about Makemson? Can you send me the reference to her work please so I can get it by interlibrary loan? I assume she spoke Yukatek well. The “baktun 13 sailing” quote doesn’t seem to exist in the actual text (I’m looking at it). Can you please help me by telling me where it’s supposed to be, which section at least?

 Could the Chilam Balam scribes have been talking about the end of the 13th baktun? I guess. I certainly can’t prove they weren’t, but we seem to be tweaking things so the text will say what we want it to say.

 I’m all for secondary sources but I do think there are some limits as to what we can conclude. In the case of the hieroglyphs, we end up with a coherent language. As much as we would like to think that’s the case with 2012, strictly from the Mayan sources, the case is pretty weak, especially when one has to base an argument on a “copyists error.” But I may be simply confused here. What does this statement mean “since the katun cycle began and ended with 11 Ahau”? What is she talking about in terms of a beginning and ending? Why should 4 Ahaw read 11 Ahaw?

There’s little doubt that Maya shamans would have known about the mushrooms and I’ve been among the Mazatecs on several occasions with my family so I have familiarity with the psilocybin experience, but given the almost unimaginable differences in culture, it’s difficult to imagine that modern non-Maya practitioners are having similar revelations to those of the ancients.

 Yes, a single shred of unambiguous evidence would be nice but that doesn’t seem to be out there … not a single reference in the glyphs, not a single reference in the Popol Vuh, not an even vaguely clear reference in the Chilam Balams, plus not a single specific 2012 reference in contemporary culture that hasn’t been derived from modern sources outside the Mayan world. As much as I’d love there to be more, this seems a very weak starting point for basing a case on secondary evidence.

 As far as evidence outside the Mayan world, that’s where your expertise will instruct and inspire me.

 Thanks,

bob

 

 Geoff Stray replies: 4/Apr/06:

Hi Bob,
 
The Makemson book info: The Book of the Jaguar Priest: a translation of the Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin, with commentary by Maud Worcester Makemson. Henry Schuman, New York, 1951. Makemson was trained in Astronomy, & was chairman of the Astronomy dept. of Vassar college, and director of the Vassar observatory, is author of numerous research articles on the orbits of minor planets, comets and double stars, as well as the early history of astronomy. A Guggenheim fellowship in 1941 started her on the study of Maya astronomy which led to the Tizimin translation. She had a lifelong interest in linguistics, studied Latin & Greek, French, German at Radcliffe College and studied Spanish, Italian, Japanese & Chinese in her vacation time. Thompson cites 4 papers by her in his Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. She used a microfilm copy of the manuscript at University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. The original is at the national Museum of Anthropology & History in Mexico City, which is "doubtless one of a succession of copies of still older documents". She used the Motul-Maya dictionary, in photostat copy at John carter Brown Library of Providence & the Maya-Spanish vocablary of Peo Perez in conjunction with the Maya grammars of Tozzer and Gates.
 
She says in the Foreword, that it is "extremely unlikely that two individuals of differing backgrounds would agree exactly in a translation of such a manuscript. Aside from the usual mechanics of deciphering the handwriting and supplying partly obliterated portions, questions must arise as to the piecing together of words that have been separated into syllables. it is generally agreed that thepunctuation is arbitrary...the principal source of perplexity, however, comes from the fact that the Maya homonyms have a great variety of unrelated meanings. in speech, it is doubtless possible to distinguish on efrom another, but in dealing with the written word the translator must make a selection without benefir of  accent or intonation. the difficulty of amking an appropriate choice of meanings is not ammeliorated by thge fact that each maya word must first be rendered into spanish and the Spanish word then translated inyo English. My own method was to find all the possible meanings of the words inseveral lines and then study them to find relationships among them that "made sense"..."
 
The Makemson book shows a translation of 52 pages. It is not split into sections. Pages 41-52 are an almanac. Pages 35-39 contain year tables. The "Baktun 13" prediction is the first 2 sentences on p.16. they are also mentioned in the Makemson translation of p.15, where it says, "When the original thirteen baktuns were created, a war was waged which caused the country to cease to exist." to help you locate these, Antonio Martinez is also mentioned on these 2 pages. Page 16 also mentions the priests Ah Xupan, Ah Kin Chel and Napuctun, and Katun 9 Ahau.
 
As for the “since the katun cycle began and ended with 11 Ahau”, this refers to the Katun count, sometimes known as the Short Count, which replaced the Long Count in Yucatan, and was likewise comprised of a series of 13 katuns instead of 13 baktuns, or 120 tuns rather than the 260 katuns of the 13-baktun cycle. Just as the 13-baktun cycle starts and ends on the day Tzolkin 4-Ahau, (which is also the start and end day of the sub-cycles as they all reach 0 on that day), Makemson says that the Short Count used in the Yucatan started in and ended on an 11 Ahau day, (when the katuns reached 13, and the sub-cycles were all at zero). Thus, the mention of a 13-katun cycle ending on 4 Ahau is a mixture of the Short Count calendar and the Long Count end-day.
 
I hope this was helpful.
 
All the best
 
Geoff

Robert Sitler replies 7/April 2006

This text makes things much more interesting I think.

 

http://www.stetson.edu/~rsitler/13PIK/

 

Also see: http://groups.google.com/group/utmesoamerica/browse_thread/thread/2ad64b039cb60983/0396cfd4957fd61e#0396cfd4957fd61e

----- Original Message