Corrections and Feedback

Books will always end up with typos or other glitches, no matter how hard you try. I've already noticed a few things. Geoff Stray at Dire Gnosis 2012 had an eagle eye and offered some feedback and corrections . . .

First, as Geoff points out, I've written Watling Road but it should be Watling Street. Other points and questions:

1. Pleiades: Sixth or Seventh chakra? There is some ambiguity in the esoteric literature on this point. The Pleiades, though perhaps not to be equated with the highest chakra, at least point the way to the ineffable unmanifest highest.

2. Pineal Gland in sixth chakra or seventh? Same as above.

3. Galactic Center: north gate or south gate. Depends on perspective, but GC should usually be considered south.

4. Royal Arch Masonry: Cancer or Capricorn on the arch? Cancer; it is described incorrectly in the text.

5. On page 11, I write that 20 Venus Rounds = 2,080 years = is one zodiacal age in a 13-sign zodiac. But 13 x 2,080 = 27,040, not the 25,600 - 26,000 years usually allowed for precession. This statement came from my 1992 book Tzolkin, from a section where I was speculating on a general connection between Venus and the Long Count. It was misleading to apply it as a general rule.

6. On page 139, I wrotes that the Galactic Center is at 28° Sagittarius, whereas on page 78 it is given as 6° Sagittarius. The GC is at 28° in the tropical zodiac, which is not adjusted for precession but is used largely by Western astrologers. Sidereally, the actual location of the GC is 6°.

7. On p. 254 & 265, I wrote that Binah is the highest sephirah, but Geoff Strray reports it is actually Kether (Crown) at the top of the Tree—Chokmah is on the right and Binah is on the top left. (See for picture). I had some consistency problems with my kabbalistic terminology; on this point I was advised incorrectly.

8. An email exchange which clarified Aveni's reporting of the end-date as December 8, 2012 is below:

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:36 PM
To: John Major Jenkins
Subject: Re: long count date

Hi John,

After reading your book "Cosmogenesis 2012," I have a question about the
date of December 21, 2012, for the end of the long count calendar. My
question arises because of Anthony Aveni's book "Skywatchers" where he
states that December 8, 2012, is the end of the long count. Using the
data in your book and the charts in Aveni's book, I also come up with
December 8. So my question is what is the cause of the discrepancy?

John Caris

John Major Jenkins wrote:


I'm not sure how you derived Dec 8 from info in Aveni's book or Maya Cosmogenesis; I'd be interested in knowing. The Dec 8 date was not in the original version of Skywatchers, only in the revised edition. I addressed Aveni's statement in a note in my recently released book Galactic Alignment:

2. Of course, the Maya did not use our Judaeo-Christian dating system; in the Long Count calendar December 21, 2012 is written (the end of the 13th baktun). In Anthony Aveni's revised edition of his book Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (1980; revised 2000), he correctly supports the GMT correlation number 584283, but mistakenly calls it December 8, 2012. Anyone with a Julian Day ephemeris can make the following simple calculation. December 21, 2012 is Julian Day 2,456,283. Subtract from this the number of days in 13 baktuns (1,872,000). The result is 584283, the Julian Day number of the Long Count's zero day back in 3114 BC, thus confirming the end-date as December 21, 2012. As with Michael Coe's mistakenly reported end-date of December 24, 2011 (in the 1962 edition of his book Mexico and used by Frank Waters in Mexico Mystique), Aveni's faux paus will no doubt be considered authoritative and be endlessly repeated to the detriment of clarity on the correlation question.


John Major Jenkins

Hi John [Jenkins],

The book I’m referring to is “Skywatchers,” a revised and updated version, copyrighted 2001 and published by University of Texas, Austin. In appendix B at the end of chapter IV, Aveni shows the reader how to convert Maya dates to the Julian calendar. Using the tables he provides, the reader can easily convert dates between the calendars.

Starting with 1,872,000 days for the long count and adding 584,283 as the constant, the total is 2,456,283. Table 24, which shows the Julian zero day number for each century since 500 B.C., gives the number 2,451,557 for 2000. 2,456,283 - 2,451,557 = 4726. This number is divided by 365.25 and the answer is 12.939082. Twelve is the number of years past 2000 and .939082 will give the month and day by using table 25, “fraction of a year represented by a given date.” December 8 is .9634 and December 9 is .9391. So the date is 2012, December 8, somewhere toward midnight. Whether the charts are accurate and where he got them, I don’t know, but I’m sure readers will enjoy the simplicity of the charts and calculations as I do.

Perhaps, you can shed some light on this peculiarity. I’m looking forward to reading “Galactic Alignment.”

John Caris


Hi John [Caris],

This has helped me clarify exactly where Aveni's error lay. First, we need to remember that 10 or so days were skipped when we shifted from the older Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1558.

The problem is twofold: 1) Aveni didn't adjust to the Gregorian calendar and 2) the use of 365.25 as a diviser is erroneous (should use 365.2422). So, Jan 1, 2000 (Gregorian) is actually Julian Day Number 2,451,545 (rather than 2,451,557 which is 1/1/2000 in the pre-1558 Julian calendar). If we subtract this corrected Julian Day Number from 2,456,283 we get 4738. Then if we divide that by 365.2422 (not 365.25!) we get 12.972214. The remainder (.972214 x 365.2422) = 355 days after Jan 1st of that year (inclusive), or December 21st. So the issue is in Aveni's use of the sidereal year 365.25, compounded by not being clear on whether he had adjusted to a Gregorian reckoning or remained in the Julian calendar.

Perhaps there is a proviso somewhere in Aveni's book to the effect that he is using the Julian calendar; if so, it wasn't obvious. Thanks for your question, I really appreciate it! I will add this to my comments / clarification page at:
Additional essays are at "Galactic Alignment2":

John [Jenkins]