Talk:Xiuhpōhualli

message: This article has a conflict with itself, and also with the Wikipedia topic AZTEC CALENDAR. The first month shown here is Izcalli with the Nemontemi days after Tititl (as 18th). Then a chart is here duplicated from Wikipedia AZTEC CALENDAR shows first month as Atlcahualo with the Nemontemi after Izcalli as (18th). Hubert Bancroft (1886) shows Tititl as first month with Nemontemi after Atemoztli (as 18th), and his sketch diagram from someone else shows Atemoztli as first month with Nemontemi after Pan-Quetzal-iztli (as 18th). Someone needs to get it all together, if not Wikipedia then all the cities of the Aztec who apparently did not have an empire with a single standard for it.  98.144.71.174 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictions

message: Tradition claims that Cortez came to Mexico on the day Ce Acatl and in the year Ce Acatl (translated as 1Reed). Sources put this at 1519 AD Good Friday April 22 (as if to be Aztec day 1Acatl). April 22 is due to a correlation of the epoch as 3114bc G.Aug 12. But by pushing the correlation of G.Aug 11 (just to glorify the Maya as having the 5200 tun end on the solstice of 2012 AD), that then shifted the date to Thursday April 21. The day 1Acatl gets scrapped.
Others are saying that only the Year (1519 AD) was Year 1Acatl upon its new year’s day, not the day 1 Acatl (April 21). This adds to the confusion (because arguing whether the day of Cortez is 1Acatl, and whether it is our Good Friday as the return of the Lord, or Aztec Quetzal-Coatl, or Mayan Kukul-Kan, as sun, or Venus doesn’t end the puzzle). The name of the year is called a Year Bearer and falls in different cultures on one of the first three days of the 365-day year (Aztec Xiuh-Pohualli and Mayan Haab). For the Maya this is the day name that falls on the date 0Pop (or 1Pop or 2Pop pending on the city).
     The Easter of 1519 AD falls at the end of the Mayan year whose new year is July 22nd or 23rd (G.Aug 1 or 2), thus 1518 AD. Aztec name 1Acatl is the same as Mayan 1Ben, both meaning Reed. But on Cortez’s Easter weekend this Aztec day 1Acatl is falling 13 days earlier on Mayan day 1Ahau, (whose equivalent Aztec name is 1Xochitl). So 260 days earlier (before Good Friday) the day 1Ahau (if Aztec 1Acatl) is in 1518 AD and falls on 13Pop. It is the first month, but not the first day, nor first 3 days. Thus it is 13 days later after 0Pop and on 13Pop that 1Acatl is 260 days before Cortez (and that is, if it is Mayan 1Ahau). This means that 1Ahau is not the Mayan year bearer. So it also means that the day 1 Acatl is not on 1Ahau. But then that also means that the day 1Ahau as the day of Cortez is not 1Acatl. So some scholars are sufficiently satisfied to say the day of 1Acatl was never part of the prediction.
However, we have the problem of proving it was even the year 1Acatl which must begin with the day 1 Acatl. And that day is claimed to be Mayan day 1Ben. Yet this too is equally untrue. If the correlation of the Aztec and Mayan calendars are exact and identical for both the 260-day (Aztec Tonal-Pohualli and Mayan Tzolkin), and the also the 365-day (Aztec Xiuh-Pohualli and Mayan Haab), then the Year Bearer (and name of the year) is not Aztec day 1Acatl (nor Mayan day 1Ben) because in 1518 AD 1Manik falls on 0Pop. The definition of what makes it the Year Bearer demands the year bearer to be 1Manik or 2Lamat or 3Muluc (the first three days of the year). In fact, 1Ben (1Reed, if also 1 Acatl) does not fall in Pop at all. If equal to 1Ben then it is another 13 dates after 13Pop falling on 6Uo, as well as 13 days after Cortez’ Good Friday. Thus the proclaimed Year Bearer as 1 Acatl or 1Ben is falling 26 days after the new year and into the second month. Second month year bearers do not exist in the calendar, so that it implies that declaring 1519 AD as the Year 1Acatl has always been a lie.
98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year 1 Acatl, someone prove that it is 1519 AD