Whoa! The Julian Calendar is always ahead of the Gregorian Calendar?

a reply to: neutrinostargate
Frankly, I don't see the point.
The leap years are a necessary part of matching the calendar with the "natural" calendar of the earth's orbit around the sun.
"What the date would be if there were no leap years" is just an oddity without any particular significance. The LA Times had no other reason for putting it forward.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: neutrinostargate
Frankly, I don't see the point.
The leap years are a necessary part of matching the calendar with the "natural" calendar of the earth's orbit around the sun.
"What the date would be if there were no leap years" is just an oddity without any particular significance. The LA Times had no other reason for putting it forward.

The point is the Mayans don't use leap years. So 12/21/12 came and went but they don't follow the Gregorian calendar. I explained that the Mayans didn't care if the seasons drifted nor did the place importance on the tropical solar year. What they placed more importance on was the cycle of the Pleiades with the Sun. Or the Pleiades Sun alignment.

So yes, it is important to figure out the correct Mayan date, and remove the leap years or leap days to figure it out.

a reply to: neutrinostargate

Let me spare your time and point you to this page www.famsi.org...

The Goodman-Martinez-Thompson's correlation constant is the JDN of its start date, 13.0.0.0.0. According to their calculations (based on cross-checking several Maya colonial documents) the GMT constant is 584,283. That is, add 584,283 days to 1st of January 4713 BC (Julian) and you arrive at 6th September 3114 BC (Julian), which correlates to 11th August 3114 BC (Gregorian), the calendar in use today. (The reason Julian and Gregorian are a little out of step has to do with their different leap year formulas. Look it up.) This correlation leads one to 21st December 2012 for the next 13.0.0.0.0.

I'm not an expert in Mayan calendar, you can use google and find out exactly specifics of Goodman-Martinez-Thompson model correlation.

I know it took you a long time to realize the fallacy of your original claim, but I hope that checking GMT theory will not take you more time till the next Mayan long count will expire

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate

Let me spare your time and point you to this page www.famsi.org...

The Goodman-Martinez-Thompson's correlation constant is the JDN of its start date, 13.0.0.0.0. According to their calculations (based on cross-checking several Maya colonial documents) the GMT constant is 584,283. That is, add 584,283 days to 1st of January 4713 BC (Julian) and you arrive at 6th September 3114 BC (Julian), which correlates to 11th August 3114 BC (Gregorian), the calendar in use today. (The reason Julian and Gregorian are a little out of step has to do with their different leap year formulas. Look it up.) This correlation leads one to 21st December 2012 for the next 13.0.0.0.0.

I'm not an expert in Mayan calendar, you can use google and find out exactly specifics of Goodman-Martinez-Thompson model correlation.

I know it took you a long time to realize the fallacy of your original claim, but I hope that checking GMT theory will not take you more time till the next Mayan long count will expire

The GMT correlation has nothing to do with figuring out the end date. It had to do with figuring out the beginning of the 13th baktun, which they arrived at Sept 6th, 3114 BC.

Sure, 12/21/12 is correct when figuring it out with the Gregorian calendar that has leap years.

But the Mayans didn't use a Gregorian calendar. They didn't care about leap years. They didn't care if the seasons drifted over time or if a white Christmas was summer at some point.

So the correct date for the Mayans, would be the date that doesn't include leap years. And I believe that date is June 1st, 2016 or May 20th, 2016.

a reply to: neutrinostargate

But the Mayans didn't use a Gregorian calendar. They didn't care about leap years. They didn't care if the seasons drifted over time or if a white Christmas was summer at some point.

And you think you are the first in the world to realize this ? Lol

I'm certainly don't have the patience like Disraeli, I found for You one of the most authoritative site on the web about Mayan calendar where to start. The rest is up to you

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate

But the Mayans didn't use a Gregorian calendar. They didn't care about leap years. They didn't care if the seasons drifted over time or if a white Christmas was summer at some point.

And you think you are the first in the world to realize this ? Lol

I'm certainly don't have the patience like Disraeli, I found for You one of the most authoritative site on the web about Mayan calendar where to start. The rest is up to you

Of course, I am not the only one in the world that realizes this.

This was posted 8 years ago on ATS.

Did the Mayan Calandar have leap years?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The world 'ended' 7 months ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everyone thinks it was 12/21/12 but since the Mayans didn't include leap years, then what is the correct date? Got that?

a reply to: neutrinostargate

Your problem is that you have never really explored how "they" got 12/21/12 date.

"They" are not someone posting in ATS as a rule lol

"They" were communicating and elaborating those calendars and correlations in many scientific papers over many decades.
Start reading this www.mesoweb.com... and you will realize that a lot of thought and research is going on beyond ATS boards



References
Aveni, Anthony F.
1980 Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Baaijens, Thijs
1995 The Typical “Landa Year” as the First Step in the
Correlation of the Maya and the Christian Calendar.
Mexicon 17(3):50-51.
Bricker, Harvey M., and Victoria R. Bricker
2011 Astronomy in the Maya Codices. Memoirs 265. American
Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Gates, William, trans. and ed.
1937 Yucatan Before and After the Conquest by Friar Diego
de Landa, with Other Related Documents, Maps and
Illustrations. Translated with notes by William Gates.
Maya Society, Baltimore.
Goodman, Joseph T.
1905 Maya Dates. American Anthropologist 7(4):642-647.
Washington, D.C.
Houston, Stephen, Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos, and
David Stuart, eds.
2001 The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hull, Kerry
2000 Cosmological and Ritual Language in Ch’orti’.
Report to the Foundation for the Advancement of
Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Available: www.famsi.
org/reports/99036/index.
Kelley, David Humiston
1976 Deciphering the Maya Script. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
La Farge, Oliver
1947 Santa Eulalia: The Religion of a Cuchumatán Indian Town.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lincoln, J. Steward
1942 The Maya Calendar of the Ixil of Guatemala.
Contributions to American Anthropology and History
7(38):97-128. Publication 528. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, D.C.
Figure 17. The Classic system (with the Long Count changing at sunrise) extended to July 17, 1553.
Greenwich:
Merida:
MIDNIGHT NOON MIDNIGHT NOON MIDNIGHT NOON
SUNSET SUNRISE SUNSET SUNRISE SUNSET SUNRISE
July 17 (Greenwich) JDN 2288489
July 18 (Greenwich) JDN 2288490
July 17 (Merida)
July 18 (Merida)
11 Ak’bal 0 Pop 11.16.13.16.3 11 Ak’bal 1 Pop 12 K’an 1 Pop 11.16.13.16.4 12 K’an 2 Pop
(MDN 1704203) (MDN 1704204)
2288489 - 1704203 = 584286 2288490 - 1704203 = 584287
Exploring the 584286 Correlation
16
Lounsbury, Floyd
1978 Maya Numeration, Computation, and Calendrical
Astronomy. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography 15,
edited by Charles C. Gillispie, pp. 759-818. Charles
Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Malmström, Vincent
1999 An Observation on Correlating the Mesoamerican and
European Calendars. Electronic document, available:
www.dartmouth.edu/~izapa/correlation.html.
Martin, Simon
2005 The Mesoamerican Flood: Myth and Metaphor. Paper
presented at the 10th European Maya Conference,
“The Maya and their Neighbors,” University of
Leiden.
Martínez Hernández, Juan
1926 Paralelismo entre los calendarios maya y azteca. Su
correlación con el calendario juliano. Companía
Tipográfica Yucateca, Merida.
Mathews, Peter
2001[1979] Notes on the Inscriptions on the Back of Dos Pilas
Stela 8. In The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing,
edited by Stephen Houston, Oswaldo Chinchilla
Mazariegos, and David Stuart, pp. 394-418. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Miller, Mary, and Simon Martin
2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson,
New York.
Morley, Sylvanus Griswold
1920 The Inscriptions at Copan. Publication 219. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C
NASA
2012 Total Solar Eclipse of 790 July 16. eclipse.gsfc.nasa.
gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=07900716.
Pagden, A. R., ed. and trans.
1975 The Maya: Diego de Landa’s Account of the Affairs of
Yucatán. J. Philip O’Hara, Chicago.
Prager, Christian M., and Frauke Sachse
2009 Appendix 2: Notes on the Correlation of Maya and
Gregorian Calendars. In Maya Daykeeping: Three
Calendars From Highland Guatemala, by John M. Weeks,
Frauke Sachse, and Christian M. Prager, pp. 176-184.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, and J. Eric S. Thompson
1947 Maya Calendar Round Dates Such as 9 Ahau 17 Mol. Notes
on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 79.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Cambridge, MA.
Sánchez de Aguilar, Pedro
2001[1979] Informe contra indolorum cultores del obispado
de Yucatán (excerpt). In The Decipherment of Ancient
Maya Writing, edited by Stephen Houston, Oswaldo
Chinchilla Mazariegos, and David Stuart, pp. 39-40.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Stuart, David
2004a The Entering of the Day: An Unusual Date from
Northern Campeche. Mesoweb: www.mesoweb.com/
stuart/notes/EnteringDay.pdf.
2004b New Year Records in Classic Maya Inscriptions. The
PARI Journal 5(2):1-6. Available: www.mesoweb.com/
pari/journal.html
Stuart, George
1988a Glyph Drawings from Landa’s Relación: A Caveat to the
Investigator. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing
19:23-28. Center for Maya Research, Washington, D.C.
Available: www.mesoweb.com/bearc/cmr/19.html.
1988b A Landa Bibliography. In Research Reports on Ancient
Maya Writing 18-19:29-32. Center for Maya Research,
Washington, D.C. Available: www.mesoweb.com/
bearc/cmr/19.html.
2007 Landa, Diego de. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Mesoamerican Cultures: The Civilizations of Mexico and
Central America, edited by Davíd Carrasco, v. 2, pp. 99-
100. Oxford University Press, New York.
Teeple, John E.
1930 Maya Astronomy. Preprint of Contributions to American
Archaeology 1(2):29-115. Publication 403. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.
1931 Maya Astronomy. Contributions to American Archaeology
1(2):29-115. Publication 403. Carnegie Institution
of Washington, Washington, D.C. Available: www.
mesoweb.com/publications/CAA/02.html.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1927 A Correlation of the Mayan and European Calendars.
Anthropological Series 17(1). Publication 241. Field
Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Available:
www.mesoweb.com/publications/Thompson/
Thompson1927.html.
1935 Maya Chronology: The Correlation Question.
Contributions to American Archaeology 3(14):51-104.
Publication 456. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Washington, D.C. Available: www.mesoweb.com/
publications/CAA_14/index.html.
1950 Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Introduction. Publication
589. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
D.C. Available: www.mesoweb.com/publications/
Thompson/Thompson1950.htm


When you will finish reading at least 20% of those references
You can say that you are partially understanding the problem and not just when you seen some web page in a tabloid press.

a reply to: kitzik

What the hell did you just post? LOL

Nice copying and pasting all those references. LOL

Um, the GMT correlation has to do with figuring out the beginning date. Not going to get into the logistics how they arrived at it. This explains it here:

mayan-calendar.com...

The problem is researchers threw out the Mayan Haab solar year, threw in the Gregorian solar year and arrived at 12/21/21 or 1,872,000 days later. That is 5125.36 years or 5125 years 132 days.

Dr. Anthony Aveni who is the one of the top researchers of the Mayan calendar stated,

"They also created a huge time-cycle, built of smaller cycles. That cycle was 5,128 years long. And the turning point, if you will, when the midnight of that clock happens, is on December 21, 2012, the winter solstice. The beginning was on August 11, 3114 BC. So, yeah, that cycle is coming to an end."

blog.syracuse.com...

What he said is correct and incorrect. There are 5128 years from the beginning of the 13 baktun cycle to its end. 1,872,000 days/365 Mayan Haab solar year = 5128.767 years or 5128 years 280 days.

But there are NOT 5128 years from August 11th, 3114 BC to Dec. 21st, 2012 as Dr. Aveni stated. It is 5125 years. 5128 years would be 2016.

a reply to: neutrinostargate

Um, the GMT correlation has to do with figuring out the beginning date. Not going to get into the logistics how they arrived at it. This explains it here:

Again, I advice you to read the "logistics" or at least to read thoroughly your own reference

The term 584283 correlation comes from the formula Thompson employed to arrive at the date August 11, 3114 BC. The number 584283 is the number of days one has to count from Julian Day Number 0 to arrive at August 11, 3114 BC. The Julian Day Number System, not to be confused with the Julian Calendar, was established by Joseph Justus Scaliger in the 16th Century, specifically to correlate non-western calendar dates. In order to accommodate the most ancient calendars known at that time, he arbitrarily began the JDN count at Greenwich, at 12 o'clock noon, on January 1, 4713 B.C.

I'm not an expert, it is pretty complicated thing all those Mayan correlations, all I'm saying that a lot of hours of research was put on it. The trivial error like you are suspecting would be surely caught and not go unnoticed.

The problem is researchers threw out the Mayan Haab solar year, threw in the Gregorian solar year and arrived at 12/21/21 or 1,872,000 days later. That is 5125.36 years or 5125 years 132 days.

The problem is they didn't just "threw" it in, read the details mate.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate

Um, the GMT correlation has to do with figuring out the beginning date. Not going to get into the logistics how they arrived at it. This explains it here:

Again, I advice you to read the "logistics" or at least to read thoroughly your own reference

The term 584283 correlation comes from the formula Thompson employed to arrive at the date August 11, 3114 BC. The number 584283 is the number of days one has to count from Julian Day Number 0 to arrive at August 11, 3114 BC. The Julian Day Number System, not to be confused with the Julian Calendar, was established by Joseph Justus Scaliger in the 16th Century, specifically to correlate non-western calendar dates. In order to accommodate the most ancient calendars known at that time, he arbitrarily began the JDN count at Greenwich, at 12 o'clock noon, on January 1, 4713 B.C.

I'm not an expert, it is pretty complicated thing all those Mayan correlations, all I'm saying that a lot of hours of research was put on it. The trivial error like you are suspecting would be surely caught and not go unnoticed.

The problem is researchers threw out the Mayan Haab solar year, threw in the Gregorian solar year and arrived at 12/21/21 or 1,872,000 days later. That is 5125.36 years or 5125 years 132 days.

The problem is they didn't just "threw" it in, read the details mate.

Yes, I know and read about the GMT correlation before. Not interested in that. What I am interested in is the real Mayan end date.

And yes, they messed up. You don't go messing with the Mayan cycle system by removing the Mayan solar Haab year and then, oh lets just use the most common calendar that we know and use the Gregorian calendar. That shouldn't have been done to find out the correct date according to the Mayans. Again, the Mayans don't use the Gregorian calendar, so the Mayans didn't care about 12/21/12. Again, what they cared about most in regards to their calendar cycle was the Sun and Pleiades alignment that happens every 52 years. They had the belief that the Sun rotates around Pleiades like Earth rotates around the Sun. So the Mayans had a cycle within a cycle. Hence their Tzolkin and Haab calendars that interlock every 52 years.

Here it is said again that is wrong:

"Thus their “chronological count,” called the Long Count, is really another cycle, this one of 5,128 years. The end of the current Great Cycle is approaching soon, due on the Winter Solstice, December 21, 2012."

www.maa.org...

5128 years/4.123 years for 1 Gregorian leap year = 1244 days or 1245 days including this year

That would mean that on Dec. 21st, 2012 you have to add 1245 days since the Mayan calendar didn't include leap years.

That would mean it would be the correct date of May 19th/20th, 2016 (Gregorian?)

1,872,000 days/365 Mayan Haab = 5128.767 years or 5128 years 280 days

5128 years 280 days from August 11th, 3114 BC would be May 19th/20th, 2016

This person had the same line of thinking as me:

"Okay, deep breath.... Mayan calendar. The Mayan calendar as we understand it correlates to a base date of either 2nd or 13th of August, 3114bce depending on your source. I'm using the latter as it appears to be more commonly accepted from what I can tell. A Mayan world age lasts 13 Baktuns, a period of 1,872,000 days. Therefore 22nd December, 2012 must necessarily be the 1,872,001st day after the Mayan base date. Unfortunately though, it doesn't quite work out. The sum of 1,872,000 days after the base date calculated without compensating for either Mayan intercalary days or Gregorian leap years represents a period of 5,128 years and 280 days bringing us to the 19th May, 2015. The sum of 1,872,000 days excluding Mayan intercalary days (thus preserving the mathematical integrity of the same) but including related systems within both Julian and Gregorian calendars represents a period of 5,312 years and 102 days bringing us to 19th August, 2019. The sum of 1,872,000 days including Mayan intercalary days as thogh they were a part of the calendar (which they patently were not) and related systems within both Julian and Gregorian calendars represents a period of 5,125 years and 94 days bringing us to 15th November 2011. I have no idea where 2012 came from. I guess some clever [cough cough... person] just pulled it out of their [cough cough... imagination] one day."

firstnations.com...

That person got to May 19th, 2015, which he is off by one year. My calculations have it at May 19th, 2016.

WTF?

This is fascinating.

In a 260 Tzolkin cycle x 365 Mayan Haab solar days = 18980 days. That is when the Tzolkin would sync with the Haab. Or a calendar round cycle of 52 years.

Take May 19th, 2016 subtract it by 18980 days or 1 calendar round cycle = June 1st, 1964. Whoa! 13 days have been removed, which is like a leap year of 1 day every 4 years. 4 x 13 = 52

June 1st, 1964 minus 18980 days = June 14th, 1912

I just figured something out huge.



More to come!

Using this calendar tool:

www.msevans.com...

Plug in August 11th, 3114 BC and June 1st, 2016. That is a total of 1,873,284 days or 1284 days greater than 1,872,000 days.

5128.767/1 day every 4 years (Julian) = 1284 days including this year for leap year

5128.767/1 day every 4.123 days (Gregorian) = 1245 days including this year for leap year

Because of that 26 day difference between Julian and Gregorian calendar at that time, subtract 26 days from the 1284 days number = 1258 days

Dec 21st, 2012 plus 1258 days = June 1st, 2016 (Gregorian) and Dec. 21st, 2012 plus 1245 days = May 19th, 2016 (Julian).

Is this correct?

Or is May 19th, 2016 the Gregorian date???

Please help. This is critical for what the OMFG thing I have realized that I will soon share.

a reply to: neutrinostargate

5128 years/4.123 years for 1 Gregorian leap year = 1244 days or 1245 days including this year

That would mean that on Dec. 21st, 2012 you have to add 1245 days since the Mayan calendar didn't include leap years.

You are wrong. GMT correlation 584283 counting days using JDN. Julian Day Number.
Quote from the article www.mesoweb.com... which I have already pointed before.

A Long Count date is similar to a Julian Day Number
in that both record the number of days elapsed from a
base date. The Long Count 11.16.13.16.4 records what
has been termed a “Maya Day Number” of 1,704,204
days since 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u, as follows:
11 Bak’tuns = 1,584,000 days
16 K’atuns = 115,000 days
13 Tuns = 4,680 days
16 Winals = 320 days
4 K’ins = 4 days
1,704,204 days
Given that the Julian Day Number for July 16, 1553, is
2288488, Thompson’s initial calculation arrived at the
following result:
2288488 Julian Day Number
- 1704204 Maya Day Number
584284

JDN algorithm is the same like from your calculator www.msevans.com...
More details about JDN here en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: neutrinostargate

5128 years/4.123 years for 1 Gregorian leap year = 1244 days or 1245 days including this year

That would mean that on Dec. 21st, 2012 you have to add 1245 days since the Mayan calendar didn't include leap years.

You are wrong. GMT correlation 584283 counting days using JDN. Julian Day Number.
Quote from the article www.mesoweb.com... which I have already pointed before.

A Long Count date is similar to a Julian Day Number
in that both record the number of days elapsed from a
base date. The Long Count 11.16.13.16.4 records what
has been termed a “Maya Day Number” of 1,704,204
days since 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u, as follows:
11 Bak’tuns = 1,584,000 days
16 K’atuns = 115,000 days
13 Tuns = 4,680 days
16 Winals = 320 days
4 K’ins = 4 days
1,704,204 days
Given that the Julian Day Number for July 16, 1553, is
2288488, Thompson’s initial calculation arrived at the
following result:
2288488 Julian Day Number
- 1704204 Maya Day Number
584284

JDN algorithm is the same like from your calculator www.msevans.com...
More details about JDN here en.wikipedia.org...

Ok then, so the GMT is 584283 days or 584284 days as you also mentioned.

May 19th, 2016 is 1,873,245 days or 1245 days past 1,872,000 days

Lets look at what the Julian Day number is then shall we?

www.fourmilab.ch...

Type in May 19th, 2016 and you will see Julian Day number at 2,457,528 days

2,457,528 days - 1,873,245 days = 584,283 which precisely matches the GMT correlation.

Fascinating!

"Whereas, our Gregorian calendar first implemented by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 A.D. figures the solar year at 365.2425 days (a correction of the Julian calendar figure of 365.25 days), the ancient Maya had calculated their Haab calendar's solar year to be more accurate at 365.2422 days. The great irony here being, it was the combined powers of the Roman Catholic Church authority and the Spanish monarchy who had waged a war of cultural genocide against the natives of Mesoamerica for being the suspect of inferiority; when in fact, many of their mindsets and understandings were centuries ahead of the 16th Century Europeans. Likewise, while our modern world continues to use the calculations of Papal Rome, as of January 1, 2000, our best trained astronomers recently recorded the mean tropical year at 365.2421897 days, which has now put us on par with what the ancient Mayans had already known.

Like all solar calendars of every advanced civilization that has come to develop one, there are certain basic similarities; such as, a need to keep track of the seasons for agriculture, and one perplexing problem which has always existed through the ages. Because the actual length of time it takes for our Sun to re-appear in its exact same positions as seen from Earth is slightly longer than 365 days, periodic adjustments are needed to keep an accumulation of the yearly calendar counts in alignment with the Earth's true revolutions around the Sun. The ancient Mayans approached this problem differently than what we do today. Instead of adding a leap year every 4 years, they subtracted 13 days every 52 years. The Haab calendar has an error of only 1 day in 6729 years, while our modern calendar has an error of just 1 day in 3236 years."

mayan-calendar.org...

So even though the Mayans used a 365 solar year known as the Haab, they also calculated the solar year at 365.2422 days as well? WTF? Could this have to do with the Mayans approaching the leap year differently that instead of adding a leap year every 4 years, they subtracted 13 days every 52 years, which I have shown in a previous post above?

It also says that our modern Gregorian calendar has an error of just 1 day in 3236 years. 1 day error every 3236 in relationship to the mean tropical solar year of 365.2421897 days.

365.2425 Gregorian - 365.242 mean tropical year = .0005 difference x 3236 years = 1.618

WTF? The Golden Ratio (Phi) number!

It says it here too!

"13 Days Behind Today Currently (1901–2099), the Julian calendar is 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar. Today's Gregorian calendar uses more accurate leap year formula, making it far more accurate than the Julian. However, it is not perfect either. Compared to the tropical year, it is off by one day every 3236 years."

www.timeanddate.com...

"The use of the haab of 365 days results in solar drift, the dates of the year moving in relation to the seasonal stations. In 1906 Charles P. Bowditch first noticed evidence of the Mesoamericans equating 1508 haabs (29 calendar rounds) with 1507 tropical years. The evidence was in the form of calendar dates with this separation. The difference between the solar year and the haab seems to be recorded in a Temple of the Cross inscriptions at Palenque, as first decoded by Teeple and discussed by Thompson (1971). Two dates express a 1508 haab interval, equal to 1507 tropical years (365 x 1508 = 1507 x 365.242203) a recognition of intercalation more accurate than the present day Gregorian calendar. This 29 calendar round period also appears in the flames of the Sun in the Codex Laud. Dates in the Codex Mexicanus consists of three 1508 haab periods."

www.jqjacobs.net...