HJDS Travel Group

Talking to Anthroplogist and Archeologist Jos Roman Robertos Moguel

by on Jun.14, 2012, under Mexico

  • Sumo

Having a degree in Anthropology, Jos Roman Robertos Moguel also has a specialization in Archeology from the School of Anthropology at the Autonomous University of Yucatan:


I asked a question that was almost superficial and somewhat innocent, like something was sensed yet didn’t came to realize the essence of its intuition. The subject matter of the discussion was actually different for me from the last question that I raised, one last question and the resulting response, which aroused by curiosity, subjugated me, and compelled me to further build on the subject matter.

In an interview regarding the knowledge of the compass by the Maya in a time well before its alleged invention by the Chinese civilization, I formulated the question to the Czech astronomer Jaroslav Klokocnik. Aztln: If your research regarding the Mayan calendar is true, the fall of the Mayan Empire did happen in the ninth century of our era, but much later. Can you give explanation to this theory?

Jaroslav Klokocnk: The GMT correlation, which is said to connect the Mayan calendar with our calendar, is clearly incorrect. Yet, it is still being used by some archaeologists and they do not want to hear astronomical evidence indicating that the GMT correlation is incorrect and that the entire Mesoamerican history of have to travel 104 years into the present. The newly discovered evidence was research based; it was based on research of astronomical phenomena which is described in the Dresden Codex. It is certainly difficult to convince our non-astronomers colleagues regarding the important change in the Maya chronology.

Was that statement true and what is the truth behind it? Was he the sole individual who was advocated to do it or was it in fact a way of thinking apart from confirmed official version?


I was fortunate to have found another person who had a lot of good arguments to defend the same idea: The correlation concerning the Mayan Calendar and our present-day calendar postulated by Goodman, Martinez and Thompson is inaccurate. That other individual is Jose Roman Robertos, who has lived firsthand experiences that present quite more frequently than we believe. The way official science despises and ignores changing vision in regards to what is known to remain immovable.


One feature is common all throughout Mesoamerica and it is the use of a common calendar, at least in its fundamental. Nonetheless the Mayans leaped further and developed the system of counting time, establishing the colloquially Long Count. By and large, the common calendar for all people of Mesoamerica, who have its inception in the Olmec culture, is based on the combination of two different cycles. The 365-day solar cycle identified as Haab in Maya language and another cycle of 260 days referred to as Tzolkin, which together have a period of 18,980 days (which is the least common multiple of 365 and 260) or a 52 years period , which some authors dub as the Mesoamerican century.

It is required in this account system that when those 52 years expires, the time count starts again and the days are referred to with the same name they had 52 years ago, which basically reflects the cyclical view of time in the Mesoamerican worldview, but the downside is that whenever a specific date is cited it does not indicate which of the 52-yearcycles are being referenced, which had not matter much to most of ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica simply because they believed in repeating the cycle again and again. Nevertheless this system is essentially unlikely. If we were to employ this calendar system at this time, we may read things for instance the First World War started in the year 25 and the World War 2 began in the year 15. As a date did not disclosed in which 52-year period taken into account, at the end of each cycle, the specific point in time when something occurred was absolutely lost of track.


The Mayas should have recognized the importance of recording a certain day and differentiate it from any other the reason why devised the Long Count, in order to have a start date from which to begin counting the days without the possibility of repeating a similar right until 5125.36 years elapsed. In the traditional version, the long count, includes 5 figures which indicate the days (kin), months (uinal, 20 day months), years (360 days year or tunes), katun(7,200 days, under 20 years) and the baktun (144,000 days, rather less than 400 years) which have passed since the starting date of counting time, or what’s similar to the zero date.

To illustrate, if we have a long count date showing, this shows as:

9 baktuns

12 katuns

8 tunes

0 uinals

1 kin

So that you can estimate the specific day you will only need to perform the following operation: (9×144.000) (12×7.200) (8×360) (0x20) (1×1) = 1,385,281 days since the origin of the long count (the

Usually, after the way to analyze a day of the Long Count was deciphered, your next step is to find out the way to coordinate that day to our calendar and that is definitely where the GMT balance shows up in the picture.

Aztln: What makes the relationship between the Gregorian calendar created by Goodman, Martinez and Thompson and the Mayan calendar wrong? Can you explain in your own opinion?

Jos Romn: The question seems to be easy, but definitely not, simply because you can’t generate a small and engaging summary of a job so big that has to have plenty of mathematical evidence.

In order to cite the basics, suppose the Mayan Calendar the majority of laymen say is probably the most precise created by man, or otherwise that’s the most accurate, yet usually with reference to the Gregorian calendar which all of us make use of at present, almost universally, that’s incorrect.


The GMT correlation creates a connection between the Mayan calendar and the Gregorian calendar, which is what governs our current calendar, first passing through an intermediate correlation with the Julian calendar. It was in 1890 when Goodman decrypts the long count in some Mayan monoliths, that had happened to be deciphered in 1887 by Forstemann in Mayan codices. In 1918, John Smith modifies the correlation proven by Goodman in 1905 and in turn Thompson corrects in 1927 the connection created by Martinez

Even if there were a number of correlations, the most accepted today is the one established by Goodman, Thompson and Martinez. Yet it’s just one of numerous proposals. Something which appears to back up the incorrectness of the GMT correlation is specifically the research directed by astronomer Jaroslav Klokocnik, looking to connect astronomical events documented in the Dresden Codex with the dates we know about them when they can happen via informatics tools and also contrasting them with the expected date that delivers the GMT correlation, resulting that the right correlation is referred to as BB, which is a forward displacement of 104 years of dates supplied by the GMT correlation. Jaroslav Klokocnik himself begins from presumptions that must definitely be true for the BB correlation to be correct (for instance that some glyphs in the Dresden Codex fact match the Sun, Planets and also Eclipses)


The GMT or Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation parts from a number of wrong assumptions. Because it is visible in any summation on the Mayan calendar, these researchers created an artifice which omits the key fact from Fray Diego de Landa’s contribution, who states that during the time of the conquest, the year loaders (basically, the days the solar years commenced) were Ix, Kan Muluc and Cauac, but they’re still utilizing for today dates, and till the year 2012 the year loaders from a time known as ‘classic’ that are Lamat, Aklbal Etznab and Ben.

In the GMT system, days on the Mayan calendar are shifting in order that a month such as ‘UO’ (the 2nd on the calendar) which implies ‘frog’ or ‘pitahaya’, which clearly indicates the tropical rainy season in August changes to the winter or spring, and the same comes about with ‘POP’ (the 1st month), which starts the solar year whenever the sun passes over the Zenith in Yucatan. On top of that, it’s referred to as base date or ‘zero’ mayan of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku (August 13, 3114 BC) is an invention or a convention to be taken as absolute, but really there isn’t a legitimate evidence for that date.


It happens to be remarkably unlikely (pretty much bizarre) that the correlation GMT (which is simply a hypothetical calculation) would have coincided appropriately with the 13th of August that the Mayas would’ve documented roughly one thousand years prior to Christ, and almost a question that on August 13th of the year 3114 (according to Schele Fraidel) the Mesoamerican world had been created and that August 13th, 1521 had ‘effectively’ ended the Mesoamerican world on the fall of Tenochtitlan. However more remarkable still is that the GMT ‘accuracy’ states that the Mayan astronomers would have predicted or prophesied the date of the fall of Tenochtitlan “thousands of years before.’ All this without counting that the month Cumku (according to Landa) occurs in June or July, not in August.

There is absolutely no reason to not consider that if the Mayas reached the convention of zero would not have set a zero point as the beginning of their calendar, starting the ‘Tzolkin’ (year of 260 days), the ‘Haab’ (year of 365 days) and the ‘Tun’ (year 1460 days) from the same date 1-Imix 1-Pop and did not require a leap year just like ours to adjust the calendar, yet a cyclic change of loaders. The names provided for times are inventions right after the katun. The date of origin is conventional, despite the fact that we have made an effort to back them up with hieroglyphic pseudo lectures.

Based on the GMT the ‘tun’ comprises 360 days periods, yet this is ridiculous when they shift the count of the days of the year further away from the sidereal year. The representation of the numerals on the registrations doesn’t imply that a progressive vigesimal pattern was being utilised with an intentional exception, mainly because it was not essential to place glyphs beside it if days were what was counted, because it would’ve sufficed to represent the numbers by itself. This is simply to name a few of the disparities in the GMT”

Aztlan: What gap does really exist involving the GMT interpretation and yours?

Jos Romn: The difference is enormous, mainly because while the GMT one sets December 21, 2012 as being the endpoint of the Mayan calendar, according to it on 4 Ahau 3 Kankin (that should fall in the month of April, in line with Fray Diego de Landa ), while in our correlation always the month falls within a suitable range to those stated by Landa. We think that the Mayan Calendar is a numbers game which projects to time from a fundamental core that is:

calendar day (kin)

the 13th of days, (the figures)

the twenty days (the ‘uinal’)

year ‘Tzolkin’ or ‘Bucxok’ of 13 or 260 days uinals

the solar year (Haab) of 18.5 months or One year

the ‘tun’ four ‘Haab’ (1,460 days, 3 years of 360 days and a 380 days year)

Katun, 20 ‘Haab’ equal to 7,300 days

the fiftydozen years or 13 ‘tunes’ (18,980 days)

periods of time (three of 360 years and one of 380 years)

eras of 1,460 years (532,900 days)

and a complete course of 5 eras totaling 7,300 years (2664500 days)


Fray Diego de Landa claims: ‘The Indians state that the Spaniards had just came to the city of Merida the year of the Nativity of Our Lord 1541, which was only the 1st year of the Buluc era (11) Ahau which is the one in the house where the cross is and they came exactly the same month of Pop, the initial month of their year.

In the year 1549, Landa arrived in Yucatan and became the guardian of Izamal in 1552, keeper of Yucatan in 1556, guardian of Merida in 1560, and provincial shrines in 1561 and illegal shrines in 1562 were discovered that led to the Auto-da-f of Man. Landa gives a ‘model’ or ‘typical’ year of the ancient celebrations to be quite inaccurate, but when we assume he was a witness, if only indirectly, that a few of the beginnings of the year were on July 16th that must have been between 1552 and 1555, 6-Cauac year, 7-Kan, 8-Muluc, 9 Ix, while he was guardian of Izamal (as the Spanish had arrived in Merida in 8-Kan at the beginning of Katun 11 Ahau)

Nonetheless, Landa’s typical year commences in 12-Kan but do not place names or numbers to those fateful days, but when reaching 7 Akbal jumps and begins the month Pop in 13 Kan, when in fact it must be 13-Muluc . This is due not to Landa making a faithful imitation of a calendar, yet him establishing Kan as one example of the first ‘Sunday Letter’ to match with A, Sunday and the number 12 is arbitrary.


Bishop Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona states that when Tutul Xiu and his court got into T’ho where Montejo was seated, the priest Francisco Hernandez hosted a ceremony worshipping the Holy Cross, since ‘not being sure’ it was the appropriate time for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or being the celebration of Mass the biggest and most important of Christian feasts, the Indians weren’t competent to comprehend the purpose of its sublime mysteries, the priest rightly chosen to hold before the indians the solemn adoration of the Cross , a rite employed in the holy offices of Good Friday, and most certain accordingly to the instances, since it’s at once a majestic objective teaching, real and moving. Or perhaps just Tutul Xiu and his court arrived in the 11th T’ho-Cib 13 Chen (January 6, 1542, day of the beginning of Merida) and decided to be involved in a ceremony of the new religion and the Adoration of the Cross was performed simply because that day was just Friday.


Looking at the Julian Calendar that was used in times of Landa, who allegedly examined the Mayan calendar in Izamal, and the worship of the Holy Cross might have been on Friday January 6th, 1542, day of the founding of Merida, the start of the following correlation is achieved.

On Monday July 18th, 1541 (day 562,623 of the Julian Calendar) included day 2,000,201 of the Mayan Calendar and the year was 5.481 (year 8 Kan / 11 Ahau) of the Mayan Era ( 1 Pop) Usually the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, January 1st of year 1 of the Julian calendar happened on day 1,437,514 of the Mayan Era which was the year 3938 (plus 147 days) of the Mayan Era, day 11th 7-Mol Hix of year 12 Lamat ( / 11 7-Mol Hix) and could have been born (8 days before) in 4 Manik 0 (20) Yaxkin the very same year.

In the Mayan calendar, January 1, 2000 matches to day 2,166,075 (1,437,514 1,226,986 = 2,664,500), the year was 6294 and 165 days, or 2 Cauac 01 Chen Year 9 Men.

The world’s end imagined by the Mayas is going to be towards the end of its year 7,300 (day 2,664,501); in the long count it is 7 Cimi 1 Pop, when Vucub Came (7 Death) sits at the head of the Katun’s mat. Is going to be 498,426 days right after January 1, 2000, the Christian year 3,364,507 (year 3364 plus 201 days), or on July 19, 3364 at dawn). Or to put it the other way (2,664,501-1,437,514 = 1,226,987 days following the birth of Christ; therefore, in spite of what GMT states, we still have sufficient time left and won’t see it if this arrives.

Duende Tours is a tour operator with a special focus on adventure travel. See Duende Adventure Tours to find out more or go to Riviera Maya community.

Related Blogs

    Be Sociable, Share!
    :, , , ,

    Comments are closed.

    Behind HJDS Travel Group Blog

    My name is Harry Delgado and I am a full time Internet and Small Business developer and marketer. Over 30 years in the Computer systems development, programming, hardware installations and support. Currently making a living from blogs like HJDS Computer Services , HJDS Investment Group and HJDS BlogBiz. You can connect with me via social media sites at Facebook - LinkedIn - Twitter - YouTube.