Talk:Mesoamerican calendars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] First calendar?
I've removed the following claim, which (although provided with a reference) is incorrect:
- They are the first to have created a calendar. Alisau, Patricia. "Not just a pretty face", Business Mexico, November 11, 1990. Retrieved on 2006-10-20. (English)
While the provided source probably does say something along those lines, an article in Business Mexico is not an authorative source for this kind of information. Just when the Mesoamerican calendar system was first developed is not known, but the earliest-known examples date from around the (mid-) 1st millennium BCE; a number of other calendar systems (eg Egyptian calendar, Babylonian calendar) are attested at least a thousand years before this.--cjllw | TALK 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mesoamerican Calendars
(copie from user:talk pages) You reverted my edit to Mesoamerican Calendars. This article is pretty bad and repeats information in the other articles about the Maya calendar, Long Count Calendar, etc. Also it repeats information in the same article. You comment that there's "no need to correct something that isn't wrong". If you want to use the phonetic spelling of "coatl" as "cohuatl" that's OK but it's not pronounced that way in the areas of Mexico where I've been and listened to Nahuatl, such as Cuetzalan, Puebla or in literature about the Mexicans, place names, etc. As for the addition of the zero date of the Mesomerican calendars in Julian, the Julian calendar was in use until 1582. It really is important to carefully state what calendar you are using when discussing the Mesoamerican calendar because astronomers, historians and in fact everyone except mayanists uses the historically accurate Julian calendar rather than the revisionist proleptic Gregorian calendar. This is important because the study of the maya calendar is an interdisiplinary one which for example includes astronomy. The use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar has caused a huge amount of confusion for people studying the Mesoamerican calendars and obviously continues to do so today. In addition the paragraph entitled "52 year cycle" is absolutely wrong in its assertion that the calendar round wasn't wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. Furthermore the calendar was never reset for political purposes. An example of this is that the Aztec calendar Tonalpohualli is consistent with the Tzolk'in which was 1 Chicchan on the date of the conquest of the Aztec empire. The year given for the conquest in the article is a year bearer (starting date of the Haab'). This is the only aspect of the mesoamerican calendar that is inconsistent. There were several year bearer systems in post-classic civilizations. This whole paragraph should be removed. The Long Count IS a modified base 20 system because there are only 18 Winals, not 20.Senor Cuete (talk)Senor Cuete
- You are right about the importance of distinguishing the julian/gregorian calendars and that the long count was a modified base 20 calendar. However you are not correct that cohuatl is a "phonetic" spelling cohuatl (or cōhuatl) is the spelling used by experts in the classical language because it is known to have a long vowel and an intermediate [w] - Launeys, Andrews' and Carochis grammars all write it this way. How it is pronounced in Cuetzalan or any other modern day Nahua communities is beside the point since this is about a precolumbian phenomenon that is only known in classical Nahuatl. You have made other modifications to the article which are incorrect and unhelpful. You have removed a paragraph stating that "The correlation of the 52 year day count cycle to the European calendar is problematic, mostly because the calendar usage wasn't synchronized between all of the communities of Mesoamerica. This means that one must know its origin and the specific correlation applicable for that place. Secondly it is made difficult by the possibility that the cycle might at times be "reset" for political purposes - for example if a ruler wanted to mark his rule as the beginning of a new dynasty.Often the best correlation can be made when both european and indigenous sources give a specific date. For example we know from Spanish sources that the day the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan fell was on august 13, 1521. Indigenous sources from central Mexico agree that this was a day Ce Cohuatl (1 Snake) in a year Eyi Calli (3 house)." This information comes from Alfonso Casos article in the Handbook of Middleamerican Indians, and is corroborated by any number of sources. If you believe that there was one single synchronized calendar in all of mesoamerica you are simply wrong. In the basin of Mexico alone different calendars were used - and the date called Ce Cohuatl in Tenochtitlan would have another name in for example Cuitlahuac. It is well documented that calendrical "resettings" were used as a political instrument in central Mexico where for example the New Fire Ceremony was moved out of sync at least one time in order to coincide with a major political event (it was moved from 1 rabbit to 2 reed in 1507 ) - and much suggest that it was the political powers who controlled the calendar to a wide degree. (see eg. Hassig 2001)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Andrews spells it cōātl actually. Really there's no reason to choose either spelling over the other, because the difference between oa and ohua only matters in verbs. --Ptcamn (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on Andrews - I shoudln't quote him from memory anymore since I seem to be wrong everytime i do it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)