Investigating the Origins of Dreamspell Updated 20 Jan 2010
Posted by Darshana Sanrakshak Shambhala on January 5, 2011 at 11:06pm in The Mayans
At Whats New item 166, Jaguar Prophet V Closer of the Cycle, we saw that
although Carl Calleman's criticisms of Jose Arguelles' Dreamspell system apply
largely to his own invented version of the Maya calendars, he did raise some
interesting points that need to be addressed. These points are included in the
following list:
1. Dreamspell is nor "the Mayan
calendar", but an invented system that blends the 260-day Tzolk'in calendar with
a non-Maya 28-day "lunar" count, and also changes the day names so that, for
example, 13 Eb (translates as 13 tooth, 13 grass or 13 road), becomes Yellow
Cosmic Human and 9 Ben (translates as 9 reed or 9 cornstalk ) becomes Red Solar
Skywalker.
2. The energetic qualities of the 260 days
are completely different from those of the Q'iche Maya, who have kept the count
unbroken since the time of the Classic Maya, and that this discrepancy is due to
the Dreamspell practice of freezing the Tzolk'in count for a day every four
years, on the Gregorian leap year-day, February 29th. So in Dreamspell, Yellow
Cosmic Human (13 Eb) will occur on June 4th 2005, but according to the unbroken
count of the Q'iche Maya, 13 Eb will occur on 49 days later on 23 July
2005.
3. The Maya kept a 29.5-day lunar calendar (of
alternating 29 and 30-day lunar months), not a 28-day
one.
4. The Maya did not celebrate New Years day on
the 26th of July every year, since this would necessitate adding a leap day into
the Haab (365-day calendar) and there is no evidence of
this.
5. The "Loom of Maya" or "portal days" that
create a pattern of darker squares on the 13 x 20 Tzolk'in grid, as shown in
many depictions of the Tzolk'in, was an invention of Tony Shearer. The Tzolk'in
grid itself was not used by the Maya but is a convenient modern way of depicting
the Tzolk'in for easier understanding. Thus, the convention of starting with 1
Imix is not a Maya convention.
Jose Replies
In
the Rinri Project Newsletter Vol. 2 No.5, Jose Arguelles has recently answered
some of these points
"There continues to be confusion and controversy
over what is called the Dreamspell Count and what is called the Traditional
Mayan count. Let it be made unequivocally clear: the Dreamspell count, based on
the Gregorian calendar synchronization date of July 26, according to the
sequence of the Gateway family year bearers, Seed (Kan), Moon (Muluc), Wizard
(Ix), and Storm (Cauac), is not an invented fantasy. It is a precise expression
of the only recorded prophetic tradition of the Maya, the Chilam Balam. In fact,
the Dreamspell synchronization system in the tradition of the Chilam Balam is
called "Cuceb," literally "Squirrel," or "that which turns." By this system of
correlation, which dates back at least to AD 1513, the sequence of days of the
Tzolkin marked Kan, Muluc, Ix and Cauac always synchronized the day 0 Pop,
beginning of the Haab 18-Vinal + 5-day Uayeb Solar Calendar, on the Julian (
pre-1582) Calendar date, July 16, and the Gregorian (post-1582), July
26.
In the fulfillment of the prophecies of Pacal Votan, the mysterious
occult source of the Chilam Balam tradition, the Gregorian Calendar is replaced
by the Tun Uc, Thirteen Moon 28-Day civil calendar so that Magnetic Moon 1 (old
Gregorian July 26) always correlates 0 Pop of the Haab with a Seed, Moon, Wizard
or Storm day of the Galactic Cycle or Tzolkin. This is the meaning of Cuceb,
that which turns.
The purpose of the Tun Uc (Moon Count or Seven Count)
is to establish a pure equivalence of civil time governed by the 13:20 frequency
of the Law of Time, where: 13 moons (4 x 7 days) = 7 days (4 x 13 weeks) and 28
Wavespells (13 days) = 13 Moons (28 days) The Tzolkin grid which is utilized in
the Mayan Factor and all Dreamspell play is also derived from the Chilam Balam,
where it is known as the Buk Xok permutation table. The gift of Tony Shearer was
to show the Loom of Maya grid of 52 activation portals within this matrix.
Arranged as 13 quartets, each quartet having a sum of 28 tones, this also
demonstrates the coded existence of the Thirteen Moons in the Loom of Maya
Tzolkin-Harmonic Module grid. Finally, the sequence of the Thirteen Moons or Tun
Uc with their totem animals is also pure Mayan and corresponds to the sequence
of thirteen Mayan constellations as re-discovered and presented by Hugh
Harleston en El Zodiaco Maya (1991). Since Harleston does not account for the
Day-Out-of-Time, there is but a one day discrepancy between the thirteen totemic
constellations and the corresponding Thirteen Moons correlated according to the
Cuceb-Dreamspell synchronization point of July 26."
In order to check
these claims, I looked first at the online copy of the Chilam Balam of
Chumayel. There is not alot to go on there, but in Appendix D, the Chumayel
notes that the Chilam Balams of Tizimin and Mani have more to say on the subject
of the subject of the Cuceb or Squirrel. At considerable expense, I managed to
locate a copy of Maud Makemson's translation of the Chilam Balam of Tizimin, The
Book of the Jaguar Priest (1951), and a copy of The Codex Perez and the
Chilam Balam of Mani, translated by Eugen R. Craine and Reginald C. Reindorp
(1979) I also got hold of a copy of Tony Shearer's Beneath the Moon and Under
the Sun (1975) and the new edition of Shearer's 1971 book, Lord of the Dawn. I
present my findings below.
The Chilam Balam of Tizimin
The
earliest writings of the Chilam Balams, or Jaguar Priests date back to 1593,
when they were written in the Maya language, but in European characters. The
writings were compiled into a collection in 1752, and named after the town where
each version was found. Although the Chumayel was written after a complete
conversion to Christianity, the Tizimin was written before that had happened
((p.218). The Tizimin records that the Itza overlords, (before the Spanish
invasion) who had taken on the roles of the priesthood, had not retained the
knowledge of the original priesthood, knew nothing about the days and katuns of
the Maya calendars (p.18), and did not even know the names of the gods, to
invoke them correctly (p.40).
Although the Spaniards ridiculed the Maya
calendar (p.50), these "wretched men" (p.60) continually tried to find out more
about the it, since their Bishop, Diego de Landa had organised the destruction
of all the Maya hieroglyphic records. The calendar had "fallen into confusion",
(p.54), particularly in connection with the year-bearer.
There is an
interpolated section (see p.107) that was inserted by persons unknown, to put
the "Jesus Christ count" above all Maya calendars (p.67). This is followed by "a
pitiful attempt to explain the details of the Maya calendar" (p.108), in which
Katuns are listed at 24 years in length instead of 20. It seems that, from 1752
onwards, the katuns were thought to consist of 24 Haabs (365-day years) instead
of 20 tuns (360-day years), and they were named after their beginning days,
rather than their end days (p.132). Makemson has calculated exactly how "the
17th century Maya who wished to reconstruct the katun-count" probably came to
this false conclusion (p.136). In the commentary, Makemson concludes that the
Tizimin is not a factual record (p.113) and the year-count had been lost by the
time the earliest versions were written down in the late 1500s (p.223). However,
from the vague information correlating Maya to Gregorian dates in the Tizimin,
Makemson calculated a correlation that implies that the Long Count date
13.0.0.0.0 occurred on June 22nd 1752. She also reasons that the July 16th
(Julian calendar) or 26th (Gregorian) date of New Year given supposedly by de
Landa is based on a misunderstanding of what he actually wrote, and goes on to
explain how it could have happened.
Eric Thompson has discussed
Makemson's conclusions in his book, Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (1978 edn.
p.306-307), giving a convincing counter-argument (the GMT correlation advocated
by Thompson puts 13.0.0.0.0 on 21st December 2012).
The Chilam Balam
of Mani
The Chilam Balam of Mani was collected together and translated
into Spanish by Don Juan Pio Perez, and published in1843. One of the first
realisations upon reading the Chilam Balam of Mani is that it is riddled with
errors in the calendrical information, from omissions of regular periods (e.g.
the "burner" period on p.33), to serious breaks in calendar sequences (p.32, 34,
35). Perez confesses to leaving out the material that offended his religious
beliefs, calling it "Aristotelian foolishness about the creation of the world,
the formation of matter and the seven heavens" (p.58). On p.69, it is admitted
that the Spanish priests and conquistadors had attempted to interpolate their
own material into the Books of Chilam Balam, resulting in " intermittent
sections of absolute nonsense and frequent blurrings of the finer meaning as
written by the Mayas."
The Mani, like the Tizimin, gives a mixture of
20-year katun sequences and 24-year ones, (p.79), which the editors describe as
"confusing and conflicting statements regarding the length of the katun"(p.157),
and agrees on the Itzas' ignorance of Maya calendars (p.104-107). It admits that
the count of years was lost (p.110) and that nobody could read the old
hieroglyphs any more (p.107). The interpolated passage about the Jesus Count
being above the Maya counts is also included (p.126). This implies that the
Gregorian calendar takes precedence over that of the Maya, being based on Jesus'
supposed birthday (p.154).
The Cuceb section starts on p.98 and gives a
Maya - Gregorian correlation:
"13 Kan is the first day of Pop and the
stone [idol] for Katun 5 Ahau was taken [engraved] in the year 1593, which
passed on 15 Tzec"
The editors conclude that this is "a strangely
confused date" and agree with Roys (who translated the Chumayel) that this is a"
fictitious katun". The year-bearers given in the Cuceb section (p.99) that
agree with the calendar round part of this date (but not the katun) are correct
for the GMT correlation (in this case, the "first day of Pop" is 2 Pop, due to
the slipping of year-bearers already referred to - the best software to check
these post-conquest dates is Peter Meyer's Maya Calendrics, since he gives the
varying post-conquest haab correlations for different areas- see his article for
an explanation), so these cannot be the dates to which Arguelles is referring as
the origin of the Dreamspell correlation. In fact, there are several other date
correlations given in the Mani, including another confusing one (p.115 &
note 41 p.187-188): 15th February 1544 = 18 Zac 11 Chen. The first thing we
notice is that 18 Zac and 11 Chen are both haab dates, so one must be wrong.
However, when we cross-reference the Tizimin, we find this date is also
mentioned, but as 18 Zac 11 Chuen (Makemson p.26). Using Peter Meyer's Maya
Calendrics software, if we try various correlations that have been suggested by
Mayanists over the years, then 18 Zac 11 Chuen would have been 15/2/1544 in the
Weitzell correlation which has a correlation number of 774078 and puts the end
of the 13-baktun cycle (13.0.0.0.0) in the year 2532 AD. However, this does not
agree with several other correlations given in the Mani (if the Weitzel end-date
is jumped back by calendar-round multiples, thus keeping this haab-to-tzolkin
correlation, but adjusting the Long Count, we arrive at 16th December 2012 as
the end-date - a correlation of #584278).
On p.98, just before the Cuceb
section, 21st July 1596 is equated to 4 Ix and "the first of Cumku", and the
NewYear for 1596-1597 is given as 3 Cauac. Although the second date agrees with
the list of year-bearers, (a set of 4 possible Tzolkin daysigns that occur on
the first day of the Haab calendar) which support the GMT correlation, the first
date does not. However, there is a correlation that supports both of these:
using Peter Meyer's Maya Calendrics software, which allows any correlation to be
used, we find that a correlation number of #584315 agrees with the first
correlation above, and gives 15th August 1596 for the Maya NewYear of 1596.
Amazingly, if we use this same correlation number to check the 15th
February 1544, we get 3 Kan 11 Chen, which implies that it was the 18 Zac part
of the double-haab date that was in error. This correlation number is 32 days on
from the GMT and gives an end-date of 22nd January 2013*, but nobody has ever
suggested it before, and I am not putting it forward as a viable correlation
number (I'll get to the point I'm making shortly). As Thompson points out, a
valid correlation number should be based on "the positions of the 260-day
almanac, the years, the katuns, the moon, Venus, pottery sequences and
architecture" (Maya Hieroglyphic Writing p.307), not just one source, or even
three, as Makemson did.
Another correlation given in the Mani is 14
February 1793 = 6 Chicchan (p.89). The closest this could be to the GMT
correlation (#584283), (in which 14 February 1793 corresponds to 7 Ik), is 57
days away from it, at #584440. In the Makemson correlation, 14 February 1793 is
after the end-point (13.0.0.0.0) but if the count is continued, it does not
correlate to 6 Chicchan, but to 5 Manik, 15 days away from the GMT correlation,
considering only the Tzolkin and not the Long Count). In the #584315
correlation mentioned above, 14 February 1793 equates to 1 Oc, 32 days away from
the GMT correlation. On p.127 a correlation for 10th May 1756 is given: 7 Cauac
17 Muan. In terms of only the Tzolkin, this is 26 days off the GMT
correlation.
The point I am making is that the various correlations given
in the Mani can lead to at least 5 different correlations between the Tzolkin
and the Gregorian calendar. Now it is time to check Jose Arguelles' claim that
the Dreamspell count comes from the Cuceb section of the Chilam Balam (of Mani,
since the others don't have a Cuceb section). Using Gary Cook's Dream Spell
Calendar Viewer program, 14 February 1793 equates to 3 Wind (3 Ik), 42 days away
from the Tzolkin day given in the Mani, so there is no agreement there, but this
is about 9 pages before the Cuceb section starts. Trying the other correlations
given, 21 July 1596 equates to 2 Wizard (2 Ix) in the Dreamspell count, which is
80 days away from the given Tzolkin equivalent in the Mani, but this date is
given on p.98, just before the Cuceb section. If we go to the first date given
in the Cuceb section, (13 Kan = first of Pop - or New Year in the Haab calendar
in 1593) and look for 13 Kan in the year 1593 in the Dreamspell count, we find
that it does not correlate to 26th July, when Dreamspell celebrates New Year,
but the 3rd November.
However, the list of year-bearers given in the
Cuceb section (p.99), does agree with the Dreamspell (Kan, Muluc, Ix, Cauac) so
the mystery deepened. Then I spotted how the error could have been made. On
p.98, just a few lines before the start of the Cuceb section, the scribe states
that July 21st 1596 was 4 Ix and first of Cumku. Then it is mentioned that 2 Ix
was the year-bearer in 1595, and "the year-bearer for 1596-1597 will be 3 Cauac
followed by year-bearer 4 Kan..." This agrees with the list of year-bearers
given in the Cuceb section. I entered 21st July 1596 into the Dreamspell
calculator and got 2 Ix. This was the year-bearer given by Mani for the previous
year. Further checks showed that if the 21st July was entered into the
Dreamspell calculator for all the years given in the year-bearer list, all the
Dreamspell dates corresponded to the year-bearer given by Mani for the previous
year. It seems that, since the Maya year started in the middle of the Gregorian
year at that time, and that the list of year-bearers was written as
13
Kan 1593-94
1 Muluc 1594-95
2
Ix 1595-96
3 Cauac
1596-97
etc.,
...that the Gregorian year corresponding to
the second half of the Maya year had mistakenly been taken as corresponding to
the said day-sign. In other words, in the extract given, Mani gives 13 Kan as
year-bearer in 1593 and 1 Muluc as year-bearer in 1594. Dreamspell has 13 Kan as
21st July in 1594 and 1 Muluc as 21st July 1595. However, in the same paragraph,
Mani says that 21st July1596 was 4 Ix and first of Cumhu. That means that New
Year 1596 (0-2 Pop) was about 25 days later. See UPDATE at the bottom of the
page for the latest attempt at an explanation from the Dreamspell followers (PAN
or the Planet Art Network)..
Dreamspell Correlation, New Year and Leap
days
So, it seems that the Dreamspell count was supposed to be based on
the correlation given in the Cuceb section of the Chilam Balam of Mani, in which
the New Year of 15th August 1596 (0-2 Pop) equates to 3 Cauac, (correlation
#584315), but the first mistake was to equate the year-bearer to 21st July. The
second mistake was to equate it to 1597 instead of 1596. The third mistake was
to then presume a New Year of 26th July - regardless of whether or not New Year
in 1596 or any other year was celebrated on 26 July, if the Cuceb is taken as
the "only recorded prophetic tradition of the Maya", then the integral New Year
correlation for 1596 should surely be part of that. However, it seems that the
26th July as New Year has been taken from the notes of the editors (note 178,
p111-112). Makemson, as already mentioned, did not agree with the 26th July as
New Year, since it contradicted the correlations given in the Tizimin. The same
note records the concept of a "Box Katun", in which two methods of adding leap
days are given. These are adding a day to each of the Cauac years and adding 13
days at the end of a 52-haab Calendar Round. Archaeologists generally do not
accept that the Maya added leap days, even after the conquest, and it seems that
this was probably added to the text along with the Jesus Christ count and the
24-year katuns, but at least we can now see that the components of the
Dreamspell Count did originate in the Chilam Balam of Mani, even though the
various components are not consistent with each other.
The whole of the
Cuceb section is summed up by the editors (note112 p.100) as follows:
"
The entire section entitled "the squirrel" is an infelicitous [unfortunate]
example of the old Maya art of prophecy, if it is prophecy".
Regarding
Arguelles' claim that the correlation dates back to at least 1513, there is only
one piece of evidence I found to possibly support this: In the Tizimin (Makemson
p.32), it says that "four katuns ago" there was an understanding of the Moon. If
the statement was written down in 1593, along with many others, this means that
4 katuns, or 80 years before 1593 was 1513. However, this statement is not
directly applied to any of the several possible correlations in the Tizimin and
Mani, much less the Dreamspell one that was seemingly based on a
misinterpretation of the given dates.
28-day Lunar months
It seems
that on p.19 of Mani, we have an explanation as to the inclusion of 28-day
"months" in the Dreamspell system. Note 1 p.19 reads as follows:
"There
is little agreement on whether the Mayas had the zodiac. Spinden suggests that a
Maya zodiac is shown in the Peresianus codex and tells us that it has thirteen
divisions represented by "animal figures holding the sun un their mouths
associated with 13 sidereal months of 28 days each." Hebert J. Spinden. The
Reduction of Mayan Dates 55, Fig 25."
In this case, it seems that the
observation of a possible sidereal calendar (star calendar or zodiac) - divided
into 13 signs through which the Sun passes over a year, has, in Dreamspell, been
turned into a lunar calendar, by misinterpreting stellar periods as "months", or
"moons".
Tzolkin Grid/ Buk-Xoc
In regard to point 4 above, we find
that, just as Jose Arguelles claimed, there is a "Buk-Xoc permutation table"
consisting of a 20 x 13 grid, in the Chilam Balam of Mani (p.181). It was
originally located on the inside cover of the Mani manuscript, and consists only
of the Tzolkin number grid (using Arabic numerals, not Maya bar and dot
numerals), and there is no inclusion of the 20 day-names or glyphs down the
side, although the editors note that
"This permutation table
becomes particularly useful and effective if the names of the twenty days are
listed down the left side of the table. When this is accomplished, the day-name
and its numerical prefix, for any given 260-day year, is readily
available."
There are very few representations of the entire Tzolkin in
the surviving codices, but the Aztec Codex Fejérváry-Mayer has 260 dots located
around its perimeter, and there is a similar figure in the the Maya Madrid
Codex, but these do not show the sequence of signs. However, the Madrid Codex
also has an almost complete Tzolkin sequence running across several pages, and
this sequence begins with 1 Imix. There is a similar, though harder-to-identify
complete sequence running across several pages of the Dresden Codex, and this
also begins with1 Imix.
The "Portals"
Nowhere is there any sign of
the "portal days" in any of the Maya texts, and, just as Arguelles said, this
was contributed by Tony Shearer. However, in The Mayan Factor, and also in
Shearer's book, Beneath the Moon and Under the Sun, it is implied that the
pattern was discovered by observing that the squares add to 28, in groups of 4.
This is true for the pattern, but is also true for all squares on the Tzolkin,
with the exception of the central column; every square, when added to its 3
other symmetrical equivalents - one in each quadrant of the grid, adds to 28.
This reduces the meaning of the pattern to a totally subjective
level.
Conclusion
While Arguelles' claims that the grid
arrangement of the Tzolkin as shown in the Mayan Factor, originates from the
Chilam Balam has been verified, some of his other claims have been found to be
in error. In particular, his claim that the Dreamspell correlation originates in
the Chilam Balam, while technically true - we have seen how it was generated
from the information in the Chilam Balam - does not follow any correlation in
the Chilam Balam of the 5 or so to choose from, but combines several mismatching
bits of information to produce a correlation that doesn't agree with any of the
calendrical information in the Chilam Balams.
The so-called "Tun-Uc" or
28-day lunar count seems to have originated from a stellar or zodiac period,
which could, at a push, be called a "month", but not a "Moon" as in Dreamspell,
since it had nothing to do with the Moon.
The July 26th New Year date
continues to be disagreed on by various authorities - Malmstrom, for example,
thinks it was fixed at July 26th before the conquest, others presume it was
fixed after the conquest, and some think it was just the date of New Year at the
time of the conquest, for 4 years, and some think it was just the date of zenith
passage of the Sun. Makemson thinks the whole thing was a misinterpretation of
Landa's work.
The pattern of "portals" superimposed on the Tzolkin grid
is one of many possible superimposed patterns with equal meaning or lack of
it.
Jose Arguelles has posted an article called "There is No
Conflict Between Dreamspell and the Long Count". In this article, Arguelles
claims that the purpose of Dreamspell is to "displace the artificial and
irregular Gregorian calendar", and that it "does not recognize leap day and so
maintains the perfection of the synchronic order", but if it does not recognize
leap days, then how come every February 29th, it freezes the Tzolkin? If leap
days were not recognized, then the Tzolkin and Haab would run continuously, as
if no Gregorian leap day had ever been heard of. The article concludes by saying
that "People who believe that there is a conflict between the two systems are
still immersed in dualism and are fixated on being right", and goes on to infer
that anyone who disagrees is acting counter to evolution. So black is white and
if you disagree, there is a pigeon-hole specially prepared for you. I guess that
means I'm a arrogant dualist chimp, then. Oh well.
For
more, see Mike Finley's updated analysis of Dreamspell:
Jose
Arguelles' Calendrical Dreams
* Here's an interesting discovery: 22nd
January 2013 is only one day before the end-point implied by the Great Seal of
America see The Eye in the Pyramid. 4th July 1776 -date of the Declaration of
Independence as inscribed on the bottom of the pyramid, plus exactly 13 Katuns
at 7200 days each - (93,600 days, which is one cycle of the Short Count) - one
katun for each level of the pyramid, gives a termination point of 23rd January
2013, since the Declaration was signed 33 days after the start of the katun -
13.0.0.0.0 (December 21st 2012) plus 33 days = 23rd January
2013.
McKenna's Timewave Zero originally terminated on 17th
November 2012, 33 days before (13.0.0.0.0) 21st December
2012!
UPDATE: (December 2005)
Dreamspell follower,
Treefrog has made some startling claims regarding this 18 Zac 11 Chen date - he
claims it is written in a code known as the "language of the Zuvuya". Sharer (in
The Ancient Maya) describes this on p.406 as "the language of the Zuyua", and
says it was used by the Putun Maya (a ruling political group in the Yucatan at
the time of the Spanish conquest), "to ensure that no Yucatec Maya impostors had
crept into their ranks". Treefrog points out that the two haab days, 18 Zac and
11 Chen are 47 days apart: He then points out that in 2012, there will be
a 47-day discrepancy between the Quiche count (=traditional count or "true
count") and the Dreamspell count, and infers some sort of connection (
here):
"i'm not saying that the dreamspell was actually planned by
the chilam balam scribes and that Arguelles found the 'code'... i imagine that
both the scribes and Arguelles went where study and intuition took them, and the
result is something of great value."
Treefrog goes on to point out that
the Tzolkin days 11 Chuen and 3 Kan are also 47 days apart:
"It
simply came to me: 11 Chen and 18 Zac occur 47 days apart. 3 Kan and 11 Chuen
occur 47 days apart. Therefore in a Lunar Wizard (2 Ix) year 3 Kan will occur on
the day 11 Chen and 47 days later 11-Chuen will fall on 18 Zac....In the year
2012 the traditional count and dreamspell with have a 47 day difference so that
the day 3-Kan traditional will be 11-Chuen (Jose's galactic sig) dreamspell."
From 13moon tribe
UPDATE: April 7th 2006:
My original
interpretation of exactly what Treefrog meant by this, has been rejected by him,
since he says he was not saying anything about July 21st, which was an integral
part of what I thought he meant. Since he has rejected this, (and I have now
removed the interpretation, as he requested), the statement seems to be even
less meaningful than it originally seemed to be...
As further evidence
that the Maya froze the year to July 16th (Julian), Treefrog says
that
"the Chilam Balam Books of Chumayel takes the initial calculation
date from July 16 (26) 1555, While the Tizim starts on July 16
1581."
However, the Tizimin actually starts in 1593, (but does not give
the Julian day or month), and there is no mention of 1581, so this is not
actually evidence after all.
Treefrog cites a Jose Arguelles article
called Adjusting the Discrepancies within the Cuceb-Chilam Balam Correlation http://www.earthascending.com/time/rinri.htm
, which explains that there is a 5-day difference in "tone" - the number that
accompanies the daysign, between the Chilam Balam and Dreamspell. Dreamspell has
2 Ix as 21st July 1596 so according to this article by Arguelles, the equivalent
date generated by the Cuceb correlation should be 10 Ix, but it is actually 4
Ix. Therefore, the Arguelles article is irrelevant, since it does not explain
the discrepancy after all.
UPDATE : April 7th 2006:
Treefrog has
sent this: "...also, for accuracy's sake you may wish to change the part that
says Jose's essay on 'adjusting the discrepancies in the cuceb/chilam
correlation' is faulty because it explains a change of five not four... the
change of five is to that of part three of the codex perez. I can see how you
thought 'unadjusted' meant original, but what he means is unadjusted from it's
latest recording."
Treefrog has now written a huge article that can be
found here (UPDATE Jan 2010: the link to the 38-page article has now been
updated) .
UPDATE: Jan 2010:
Treefrog 's link above has been
updated, and he has now provided a shorter 6-page condensed version