On Hochleitner’s Correlation
May 16th, 1994
Dear Milo Rae
Gardner,
When I returned
from Guatemala in late March, I read your two letters with some interest.
In response, not having the time to re-state my position as revealed in the
letter I sent in February (here), I instead sent
a flyer about the 3 publications I offer.
These books
contain pretty much everything I have to say about these issues. I believe
our correspondence began by debating
the correlation question; Lounsbury vs. Thompson, as well as the work of Hochleitner
as you mentioned. My book Tzolkin discusses the various proposed correlations
in some detail, finally siding with the "Thompson" correlation,
the "GMT" correlation (Julian day 584283 = 0.0.0.0.0). I then went
to the trouble to summarize the erroneous claims of Lounsbury (in the previous
letter included), and his fallacious support of the 584285 correlation. Why
haven't you responded to this? If you continue to support research which implies
a correlation-constant other than the 584283 (the one that corresponds to
the count still followed in Guatemala), where does that leave the present
day Maya? If you find value in Hochleitner's work, of which I know just a
little, can you summarize his goals and exactly what he is saying in a few
sentences for me? Frankly, I have a hard time following your arguments. It
seems that you are working at a theoretical mathematical level beyond me.
Computer analysis of Mayan astronomical inscriptions is no doubt extremely
important, and you say that Hochleitner has found a common thread, an "adjustment"
system running through all of the codices? Please clarify. The bottom line
is that I feel Hochleitner is working on a very theoretical level, and is
not considering the overwhelming ethnographic evidence in support of the 584283.
In other words, he does not consider his theoretical speculations as disinformation
which can harm the calendar tradition of the modern Maya. Theoretical analysis
can generate many different valid solutions.
I note that
over the years, Hochleitner has proposed no less than 8 different correlations:
578585 (1970), 577264 (1972), 674265 (1972), 660205 (1974), 609417 (1974),
507994 (1974), 508362 (1974) 525698 (1974). None of these are commensurate
by multiples of 260 with the correlation in use by the Maya (the 584283).
This is pretty revealing of Hochleitner's approach, and how much he values
the ethnographic reality. This should pretty much close the debate.
As said before,
I feel that Hochleitner is probably working on a very theoretical level. Perhaps
he has found some common thread of some kind running through the various codices.
No doubt there are many. The article you sent, "Astronomical Clues crack
the Calendar's Code", claims that Hochleitner's new "decipherment"
will "allow him to date important events described in the documents."
This is nothing new; it's already been done, tested, tried and true via the
584283. Overall, this brief article is a facile summary of Hochleitner's work
and tells me nothing. Can you sum up the important facets of his work which
relate to this ongoing correlation debate? Please send me something substantial—no
heavy math—to answer these questions:
1) Does Hochleitner,
in fact, offer a correlation constant different than the 584283?
2) If so, is
his correlation-constant different from the 584283 by a multiple of 260?
3) Why does
Hochleitner not agree with the 584283?
You mention Campbell. You probably refer to Paul Douglas Campbell's Astronomy and the Maya Calendar Correlation (Aegean Park Press, ph: 714-586-8811). As with Severin's The Paris Codex: Decoding an Astronomical Ephemeris, Campbell's study must be looked at closely with a discriminating mind. We need to be careful with these Lounsbury-like studies. There are many number games one can play with the Mayan Calendar, and they can seem to be logically cohesive. I don't have anything against exploring the Calendar's properties in this way; as long as modern work is differentiated from what we can be sure was/is specifically held by the Maya themselves. There is some amount of truth and some amount of illusion in these studies. Any of them may provide the real clue to the nmext big breakthrough, but to hold it up high and shout "truth" is probably not a good idea.
In my book Tzolkin, I reconstruct and, as an exercise, reinaugurate the Mayan Venus Calendar of the Dreaden Codex. I clearly provide the disclaimer stating that "this is not what the Maya followed." Nevertheless, the exercise revealed some interesting properties of the Venus Calendar that would not have been discovered otherwise. I also explored the astronomical properties of the 13-sign zodiac, and the inherent capability of the Long Count to predict future solstice dates (thus possibly explaining the Dec. 21st 2012 end date of the Long Count). I also suggest how the Venus Calendar in the Dresden Codex may have evolved into a superior one adopted by the Ixil and/or Quiché Maya people circa 1250 A.D. Tzolkin provides the details, but again, everything is offered in the spirit of inventiveness, not graven-in-stone truth.
Hope this finds you well, and your work enjoyable
Best Wishes
John M Jenkins