240
described by Britton (1989: 8), the knowledge of both cycles has yet to be proved.
An important step in this direction has already been taken by Smither (1988) and
Justeson (2017), who had argued for the Mesoamerican use of an 88-month eclipse
period. The Maya noticed that three repetitions of tritos are commensurate with
their divinatory calendar (tzolk’in) of 260 days (3 × 135 = 405 months = 11,960 da
ys = 46 × 260). So, the table provides the dates for 69 eclipse possibilities.
As mentioned above, the concept of 6-month intervals appears to have been a
significant factor in the establishment of the Lunar Series throughout the Classic
period. Some of the scholars may be quick in identifying multiples of 6 months as
suitable series to define intervals between any two eclipses (including occasional
5-month intervals). However, this has yet to be proved. My argument for questioning
this hasty interpretation derives from the concept of the seasonal year found among
the indigenous groups inhabiting the US-Mexican border. The concept of two
6-month periods defined by the solstices appears to have been a primary factor in the
determination of rituals among the societies from southern California, New Mexico,
and Sonora (Kroeber, 1922: 323; Spier, 1955: 16–30; McCluskey, 1982: 44–47).
According to Teeple (1931: 54–61), who decoded the significance of the Lunar
Series, during the so-called “Period of Uniformity”, between 687 and 756, all Maya
cities utilized 6-months periods keeping the same count. Later research has proved
that other versions of Uniformity were in use at different times by various Maya
cities (see Aldana, 2006). The problem is that the idea of fixed sequential 6-month
periods discards their utility for eclipse tracking because 5-month eclipse intervals
also appear. Despite these circumstances, it is not implausible to suggest that the
Lunar Series could have occasionally been tied to the eclipses (Brauer, 2013;
Justeson, 1989).
Scholars have long recognized that the Eclipse Table was assembled to predict or
anticipate eclipses. The history of research shows that the process of decipherment
and analysis of the table has undergone significant changes.
5
It also shows that the
limited amount of contextual evidence produced differing interpretations. For
example, the recent divergences between two sets of interpretations seem to stem
from the different understandings of the purposes for which the tables were made.
6
Thus, one group of interpretations suggests that the Mayan day-keepers were
attempting to predict the days when the eclipse was expected to occur (Justeson,
2017: 508). An alternative group of interpretations argues in favor of “eclipse seasons” (Bricker & Bricker, 2011: 254), i.e., intervals within about 18 days of the
nodal passage of the Moon when eclipses can occur.
7
Apart from the Table itself, Bricker and Bricker (2011) identified several almanacs in Mayan codices recording eclipses and, together with other astronomical and
5 For a general overview of the history of the research of the Eclipse Table, see Bricker and Bricker
(2011: 261–275).
6 This distinction was observed by Justeson (2017: 508).
7 Bricker and Bricker (2011: 254) define an “eclipse season” as a period of 37 days centered on the
node, during which (solar, lunar) eclipses may occur. Justeson (2015: 301–302; 2017: 508) defines
an “eclipse station” as a date on which an eclipse (solar or lunar) may be expected to occur.
S. Iwaniszewski
described by Britton (1989: 8), the knowledge of both cycles has yet to be proved.
An important step in this direction has already been taken by Smither (1988) and
Justeson (2017), who had argued for the Mesoamerican use of an 88-month eclipse
period. The Maya noticed that three repetitions of tritos are commensurate with
their divinatory calendar (tzolk’in) of 260 days (3 × 135 = 405 months = 11,960 da
ys = 46 × 260). So, the table provides the dates for 69 eclipse possibilities.
As mentioned above, the concept of 6-month intervals appears to have been a
significant factor in the establishment of the Lunar Series throughout the Classic
period. Some of the scholars may be quick in identifying multiples of 6 months as
suitable series to define intervals between any two eclipses (including occasional
5-month intervals). However, this has yet to be proved. My argument for questioning
this hasty interpretation derives from the concept of the seasonal year found among
the indigenous groups inhabiting the US-Mexican border. The concept of two
6-month periods defined by the solstices appears to have been a primary factor in the
determination of rituals among the societies from southern California, New Mexico,
and Sonora (Kroeber, 1922: 323; Spier, 1955: 16–30; McCluskey, 1982: 44–47).
According to Teeple (1931: 54–61), who decoded the significance of the Lunar
Series, during the so-called “Period of Uniformity”, between 687 and 756, all Maya
cities utilized 6-months periods keeping the same count. Later research has proved
that other versions of Uniformity were in use at different times by various Maya
cities (see Aldana, 2006). The problem is that the idea of fixed sequential 6-month
periods discards their utility for eclipse tracking because 5-month eclipse intervals
also appear. Despite these circumstances, it is not implausible to suggest that the
Lunar Series could have occasionally been tied to the eclipses (Brauer, 2013;
Justeson, 1989).
Scholars have long recognized that the Eclipse Table was assembled to predict or
anticipate eclipses. The history of research shows that the process of decipherment
and analysis of the table has undergone significant changes.
5
It also shows that the
limited amount of contextual evidence produced differing interpretations. For
example, the recent divergences between two sets of interpretations seem to stem
from the different understandings of the purposes for which the tables were made.
6
Thus, one group of interpretations suggests that the Mayan day-keepers were
attempting to predict the days when the eclipse was expected to occur (Justeson,
2017: 508). An alternative group of interpretations argues in favor of “eclipse seasons” (Bricker & Bricker, 2011: 254), i.e., intervals within about 18 days of the
nodal passage of the Moon when eclipses can occur.
7
Apart from the Table itself, Bricker and Bricker (2011) identified several almanacs in Mayan codices recording eclipses and, together with other astronomical and
5 For a general overview of the history of the research of the Eclipse Table, see Bricker and Bricker
(2011: 261–275).
6 This distinction was observed by Justeson (2017: 508).
7 Bricker and Bricker (2011: 254) define an “eclipse season” as a period of 37 days centered on the
node, during which (solar, lunar) eclipses may occur. Justeson (2015: 301–302; 2017: 508) defines
an “eclipse station” as a date on which an eclipse (solar or lunar) may be expected to occur.
S. Iwaniszewski