Fans of the 2012 Mayan apocalypse theory received both good and bad news recently. The good news? The infamous Mayan “Long Count” calendar might not end on December 21, 2012, suggesting that the world could keep spinning beyond this date. The bad news? If the calendar’s end date isn’t December 21, no one can pinpoint when it might be—or if it has already passed.
A new critique published in the textbook Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World (Oxbow Books, 2010) has thrown a wrench into the previously accepted timeline. The chapter, authored by Gerardo Aldana, a professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, argues that the conversion of Mayan calendar dates to the modern Gregorian calendar might be off by as much as 50 to 100 years. This discrepancy could potentially shift the supposed apocalypse date by decades and cast doubt on the timing of historical Mayan events.
The confusion stems from the Mayan calendar’s conversion using the GMT constant—a calculation developed by early Mayanist researchers. This method involved translating dates from colonial documents written in the Mayan language using the Latin alphabet. Floyd Lounsbury, an American linguist and anthropologist, later strengthened the GMT constant by incorporating data from the Dresden Codex Venus Table, a Mayan almanac that tracks dates relative to Venus’s movements.
Lounsbury’s work was initially hailed as the key to validating the GMT constant. “He took the position that his work removed the last obstacle to fully accepting the GMT constant,” Aldana explained. “Others took his work even further, suggesting that he had proven the GMT constant to be correct.” However, Aldana challenges this assertion, claiming that Lounsbury’s evidence is far from conclusive.
Aldana argues that if the Venus Table cannot definitively prove the GMT constant, then its validity relies heavily on the reliability of the supporting historical data—data that, according to Aldana, is less reliable than the Table itself. This, he suggests, undermines the GMT constant’s credibility and causes the entire argument to “fall like a stack of cards.”
Currently, Aldana does not propose an alternative conversion but instead focuses on questioning the accuracy of the existing interpretation. This leaves end-of-the-world theorists in search of new ancient calendars to support their apocalyptic predictions.
The debate over the Mayan calendar underscores a broader issue: the challenge of accurately translating ancient timekeeping systems into modern contexts. As our understanding of these ancient systems evolves, so too does the need to reassess the implications of their predictions. For now, the supposed end of the world on December 21, 2012, remains as uncertain as ever.
For those fascinated by the intricacies of ancient calendars and their interpretations, this latest critique serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in decoding historical predictions. It also highlights the ongoing need for critical examination and open-mindedness in understanding ancient knowledge.