WHITECROW BORDERLAND

Mayan Astronomy

Note 18: Dos Pilas, Stela 16, and the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table. 2/5/2000

A date recorded on Stela 16 at Dos Pilas, 9.15.4.6.4 8 Kan 17 Muan, a date which also appears on Stela 2 at Aguateca, deserves careful scrutiny because of the calendrical relationships it bears to the Dresden Codex Venus and Eclipse Tables. David Kelley (1977) notes that the date falls 2 days before a formal position in the Venus Table from the 9.9.9.16.0 1 Ahau 18 Kayab base-day and would have been recorded as 9.15.4.6.6 10 Cimi 19 Muan in the Long Count notation and in the Table's structure. At the same time, a second relationship between this Dos Pilas date and the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table appears by virtue of the fact that the Venus Table position at 10 Cimi 19 Muan shares the same almanac designation that occupies the first day in the Dresden Eclipse Table triad (10 Cimi) at the base-day position of the Classic Period eclipse sequence.

In terms of a purely numerical structure, which does not depend on a correlation number to establish the relationship between one position in the Long Count and the other, 10 Cimi 19 Muan (9.15.4.6.6) occurred 7,280 days prior to 10 Cimi 19 Kankin (9.16.4.10.6), which is the first day of the triad at the base-day position of the Eclipse Table, where 9.16.4.10.8 12 Lamat 1 Muan, in the third position of the triad, is generally recognized as the actual base-day of the Table. The significance of this numerical structure rest on the fact that when 7,280 days are subtracted from the length of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table a remainder of 4,680 days is apparent (11,960 - 7,280 = 4,680 days). As I have argued elsewhere in this study, an interval of 4,680 days was applied by Maya astronomers to the base-day position of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table, where the base-day (12 Lamat 1 Muan) is a lunar eclipse, in order to reach a position in the structure of the Table that signifies a second base-day (12 Lamat 16 Zac), which was used to count a parallel sequence of solar eclipses simultaneously with the lunar sequence on the same set of Eclipse Table triads. The Maya codified this structural reality in the final column of signs above the base-day triad by including a distance number equivalent to 13-Tun (4,680 days). To reemphasize an earlier point, the numerical structure put in place by the Dos Pilas date on Stela 16 (and on Aguateca Stela 2) is true and apparent and unchanged no matter what correlation number might be applied to the location of the zero base-day in the Maya Long Count notation. This numerical structure, in other words, is independent of correlation proposals and arguments and remains unchanged regardless of the correlation number that might be applied to the Maya calendar.

In the correlation I have proposed here (Julian Day #563334 for the zero base-day of the Classic Period LC), the date on Stela 16 at Dos Pilas occurred on July 20, 678 A. D. (Julian Day #1968898). On this day, Venus reached 25.0 of elongation from the sun in the evening sky and advanced to 25.6 2 days later when the Maya count reached the formal position of the Dresden Codex Venus Table on 10 Cimi 19 Muan. 2 days later, on July 24, 678 A. D. (Julian Day #1968902), there was an eclipse of the sun visible from Palenque as the two objects crossed the eastern horizon at 5:43 AM (Sun) and 5:47 AM (Moon) respectively. The sun's declination at rising was +1932'42" with the moon resting at +1931'21" for a differential of +0001'21". The day-name for the solar eclipse, 4 days after the Dos Pilas date, was 9.15.4.6.8 12 Lamat 1 Pax in the LC and Calendar Round notation.

Moving the count forward from this Dos Pilas position the prescribed number of days (7,280), the base-day position of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table is reached at 9.16.4.10.8 12 Lamat 1 Muan. The almanac day-name remains the same because 7,280 is a multiple of 260 (28 X 260 = 7,280). The lunar eclipse on 12 Lamat 1 Muan is mathematically inevitable in the context of the Dos Pilas inscription because 7,280 is a valid eclipse calculation number. This is true because it counts 246.5 synodic periods of the moon (246.5 X 29.53059 = 7279.2904 days), which fact shifts the lunar phase from new moon (solar eclipse) to full moon (lunar eclipse) over the course of time and because it also counts 267.5 lunar nodical months simultaneously (267.5 X 27.21222 = 7279.2688 days), which shifts the lunar node from ascending to descending or vice-versa. The point here, of course, is that the eclipses are precisely where they should be in this calendrical structure when the correlation number 563334 is used to determine the zero base-day of the Maya LC notation. At the same time, it is also true that no other correlation number produces this same result.

A second compelling reality in this structure emerges from the fact that the solar eclipse which accompanies this base-day event falls on 9.16.4.9.12 9 Eb 5 Kankin (June 13, 698 A. D.-Julian Day #1976166), which is both a formal position in the Dresden Codex Venus Table (48/4/K) at the end of the 18th synodic period in the second run of the Table from 9.9.9.16.0 1 Ahau 18 Kayab and a formal position of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table (position #42 at 53b/B) at the same time. The reason the Dos Pilas (Aguateca) date matters in this context is because it falls 2 days before another previous formal position in the Dresden Codex Venus Table (10 Cimi 19 Muan), on the one hand, and 4 days before the solar eclipse on 12 Lamat 1 Pax, on the other. To argue that this calendrical sequence is the result of chance, as opposed to design, only goes to suggest that Classic Period Maya astronomers at Dos Pilas and Aguateca were "blissfully" ignorant of their own calendrical astronomy. The solar eclipse itself was partial from Palenque's coordinates but nonetheless visible in the late afternoon sky before sunset.

Moving forward now to the final solar eclipse in this structure, and a total of exactly 11,964 days after the Dos Pilas date, which carries us 4,680 days beyond the base-day eclipse of the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table, we reach 9.16.17.10.8 12 Lamat 16 Zac on April 22, 711 A. D. (Julian Day #1980862). Like its predecessor 11,960 days earlier, the eclipse at the base-day position for solar eclipses in the Classic Period sequence, on 12 Lamat 16 Zac, was nearly total and was visible from Palenque's coordinates between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM on that day. The sun and moon crossed the local meridian together at 12:05 PM with the sun's declination set at +1311'30" and the moon's at +1245'36", for a differential of +0025'54". What this data means, then, is that the date on Stela 16 at Dos Pilas falls 4 days before a nearly total and visible solar eclipse (on 12 Lamat 1 Pax) that anticipates the base-day for solar eclipses (12 Lamat 16 Zac) in the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table by exactly 11,960 days. The second solar eclipse, 4,680 days after the lunar eclipse base-day of the Eclipse Table (12 Lamat 1 Muan), was also nearly total and visible from the coordinates that mark Palenque's position on the surface of the earth. These facts are summarized in the following table:
1968898 +220-July 678 9.15.4.6.48 Kan 17 MuanIS: Stela 16, Dos Pilas; Stela 2, Aguateca
1968900+222-July 678 9.15.4.6.610 Cimi 19 Muan Dresden Codex VT
1968902+7,26424-July 678 9.15.4.6.812 Lamat 1 Pax Solar Eclipse
1976166+1613-June 698 9.16.4.9.129 Eb 5 Kankin Dresden Codex VT Dresden Codex ET #42 Solar Eclipse
1976182+4,68029-June 698 9.16.4.10.812 Lamat 1 Muan Dresden Codex ET #0 Lunar Eclipse
198086222-April 7119.16.17.10.8 12 Lamat 16 ZacDresden Codex ET #0 Solar Eclipse

Given the facts that this sequence of eclipses plays itself out from a date recorded by the Maya of Dos Pilas and Aguateca and that formal positions from both the Dresden Codex Venus and Eclipse Tables delineate its progression over time exactly, it seems reasonable to assume that the astronomers in these two ceremonial centers were completely cognizant of the implications of the date they inscribed on Stela 16 (Dos Pilas) and Stela 2 (Aguateca) during the Classic Period. To argue a contrary position tends to suggest that the Maya here, and elsewhere, were sadly lacking knowledge of their own cultural heritage. From an ethnohistorical point of view, such an argument seems ill-founded and insupportable.

Finally, and to be completely fair, there is a minimal chance that the inscriptions at Dos Pilas and Aguateca were written for reasons that have nothing to do with this astronomy but the more likely possibility is that they came into being precisely for the sake of marking the temporal location of two visible solar eclipses, during the time when the Dresden Codex Eclipse Table was being formulated into its essential structure, which define the relationship between base-days for the lunar sequence (from 12 Lamat 1 Muan), on the one hand, and the solar sequence (from 12 Lamat 1 Pax and 12 Lamat 16 Zac), on the other. With only a 4-day differential between the recorded date and the visible solar eclipse on 12 Lamat 1 Pax, saying anything less than "by design" diminishes the evidence of the inscription out of hand.

To return to Index click X in the upper right-hand corner of the page.

To view the Myth of Eden Index click here.

To reach [Note 1]; [Note 2]; [Note 3]; [Note 4]; [Note 5]; [Note 6]; [Note 7]; [Note 8]; [Note 9]; [Note 9a]; [Note 10]; [Note 11]; [Note 12]; [Note 13]; [Note 14]; [Note 15]; [Note 16]; [Note 17] in this series of thoughts.