Talk:Tzolk'in

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:

NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)

[edit] Some points

I think there are a few issues to raise with the article on the Tzolkin, as well as possibilities for expanding it:

There are 20 Mayan calendars, the Tzolkin being one of those twenty, the long count being another, but they are seperate and the Tzolkin is not a part of the other.
The Tzolkin is also referred to as the "Cholq'ij"
The order of the dates listed in Yucatec pertain to a correlation made to the writings of the Franciscan Friar Diego deLanda. There is a story behind how this came to be, but essentially it is an innacurate representation that has been carried forth by archaeologists and anthropologists since the 1500's. The point should be made that this calendar remains an integral part of traditional Mayan life where the culture still exists in areas such as Guatemala and El Salvador. There are 23 tribes with different langauges in Guatemala alone, each of which uses this calendar and they all corraborate the same information. The calendar starts on what is known in Yucatec as "Chuen", specifically with the number "8" making the last day of the 260 day count "7 Oc". This date of 8 Chuen is still celebrated in Mayan villages as the start of the New Year.
This is a spiritual calendar considered to relate to the energies that comprise the reality of human beings. The 20 signs correlate to the 20 fingers & toes, the 13 numbers to the 13 joints of the human body (ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, neck).
A modern permutation of the calendar has been created and in use in new age circles called "dreamspell", but this bears little relation to the Tzolkin, although it is often a point of confusion.
A resource for information on the Tzolkin calendar from the perspective of the living modern culture which has direct ties and line of knowledge to the ancient culture is hosted by a nonprofit organization: Saq' Be'—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.71.219 (talk • contribs) 29 Dec 2005.
The day names have associations with particular gods in the Mayan mythology as well as weather, plants, animals and celestial phenomena.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.250.228 (talk • contribs) 29 Dec 2005.

In fact, the more general article maya calendar covers many of the above points. As the tzolkin is a phenomenon of mayan culture interaction with western culture wouldn't it be in the interests of WikiProject Mesoamerica to minimize this entry to just a statement of this fact and refer back to that more general article? Volpane 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by tzolkin is a phenomenon of mayan culture interaction with western culture", unless you are referring to the name tzolk'in itself, which was coined by later researchers. The mesoamerican 260-day calendar (of which what is called the "tzolk'in" is the Maya version) most certainly and considerably pre-dates any western or colonial influences. I think there's certainly sufficient notable material to be written on this aspect of the Maya calendric system alone to justify its own article; it will probably appear to be more useful once it is further expanded from its current beginnings- this may take a little while, however.--cjllw | TALK 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the fact of the name coinage. Sorry if it came out a little obtuse. Also the majority of material in the current article is repeated in summary under the maya calendar article, thus my request for some consolidation. I've been watching this article for nearly two years and although it has gone through several revisions very little new information has been put forth. I'm very interested in seeing any "notable material" as my own research has turned up meager offerings. Volpane 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 20 Mayan calendars? According to who and what are they? Guatemala has a south coast? Zenith passage days were important and observatories were built to observe them but they occur on different days at different lattitudes. Perhaps the authors of these statements should explain these further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] source

My source for the "Uses" stub is Barbara Tedlock's "Time and the Highland Maya", in case someone wants to do a good "references" section.--Homunq 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that a number of those uses are more reflective of post-conquest sources and associations, there'd be some further scope in distinguishing these in the article, which I agree needs further serious work.

Noting a couple of amendments/corrections to recent expansions- the Aztec version comes more directly from other earlier central mexican / oaxacan calendars, particularly the Mixtec and earlier the Zapotec. The attribution to the Olmec for the 260-day calendar's origin is also doubtful, as genuine Olmec-period inscriptions are rather light on for any calendric data (that is unproblematically interpreted as such). It's probably best just to leave it unattributed or unconfirmed for any specific culture.--cjllw | TALK 10:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As this is a living cultural practice, there's nothing wrong with something being "post-conquest". (Can you work in the other data?) --Homunq 20:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've no issue with mention or reference here to post-conquest associations or sources, just noting that they need to be identified as such so as not to be confused with what can actually be attributed to earlier periods. Will try to get around to a review soon...--cjllw | TALK 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)