Electronic Open University AMERICA ANTIQUA III





The zero point for our calendar is theoretically the birth of Christ. Every ancient people had its own starting point for their calendar. This was the case for the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Jews, the Greek, the Romans, the Muslims, etc., as well as for the Maya.

The (second) zero point for the Maya calendar is called 4 Ahau 8 Cumhuh. In their writings they indicate the number of days (Kin), months of 20 days (1 Uinal), years of 360 days (1 Tun), periods of 20 tuns (1 Katun), and periods of 20 katuns (1 Baktun) that passed since the zero point. See example Leyden plate. They took in account every single day. If we are able to place this famous day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhuh in our Julian calendar system, it would be easier to pinpoint the codices and monuments on the calendar and historical scale.


For more than a century, many students have tried to find a correct correlation between the Maya calendar system and our old European Julian (not Gregorian!) calendar. There are for the moment no less than 52 Maya correlation propositions !. The most striking fact is that there are more than 1000 (!) years between the first correlation (Bowditch14.01.-3632) and the last correlation proposition (Vaillant2 259.04.-2593) for the second zero point 4 Ahau 8 Cumhuh.

This means in other words that Maya history can be moved back or forwards, 'a su gusto', with a maximum of 10 centuries! In other words, one can falsify Maya history with a difference of many centuries. And that is what unfortunately has happened with the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlations.


The choice of the so-called (Goodman-Martinez-Hernandez) GMT-correlation, under the leadership of Eric J. Thompson, was a very bad one, freezing our exact knowledge of Mayan history, calendar, and astronomy with more than 60 years. What were the consequences of the choice of the GMT-correlation by the americanists?

The first item is that the correlation has created an enormuous gap of about 640 years without written monuments or documents, between the so-called "Fall (collapse) of the Maya Empire (sic)" (920) and the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadores (1540). This aberration lead us to the artificial creation of a so-called "mystery of the Maya Collapse". How many articles and books and years of investigation have been wasted trying to solve the "May collapse and mystery"?

It is amazing, and an aberration, that almost all americanists have blindfoldedly accepted the fact that, after the "Maya Collapse", there were almost 620 years without one single written document or monument and, in the same time they found it natural that on the arrival of the Spaniards, hieroglyphic writing continued normally and that the libraries and archives were stuffed with written documents of all kinds.

How many times have students "corrected" the Maya numbers to force an explanation and to obtain some results? It is even also amazing that they use for their epigraphic datations, without further thinking, numbers of 11 Baktun, knowing very well that the last dated Maya inscription was only ! This means in other words that every correlation based on a supposed Maya inscription higher than is historically totally wrong!


One of the last objects that could be dated with certainty is an engraved gorget in jadeite from Tzibanché (*) in southern Quintana Roo, Mexico, and a monument in Tonina, dated and 12 Ahau 3 Uo. this is the latest certain Long Count (LC) date we know today. But according to the classical GMT-correlations this should corresponds to January 13, 909 on our Julian calendar. This is more than 600 years before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores! (*) Morley 1965:65, 68, 73, Temple VII, 351.

According to the GMT correlations, a people that used to build monuments and inscribe dates for well over 600 years, stops doing so overnight without any reason whatsoever. Still according to those correlations, Maya writing then disappears during 630 years, and turns up again at the arrival of the Spanish conquerors and the Franciscans. This is totally absurd. Nevertheless, this official explanation has been accepted by scientists for over 60 years!

Diego de Landa, the second residing bishop of Yucatán, burned loads of books as an inquisitor because he claimed that they were full of idolatry. His "auto de fé" of San Miguel de Mani after high mass, on Sunday July 12, 1562, is well-known. As a consequence the majority of the knowledge of the Maya peoples was lost in a highly exaggerated and crazy religious zeal. It was a large scale cult assassination. Not all priests were pleased with this measure, thus creating a friction within the Catholic Church.


In Chichèn-Itzá, the city of Kukulcan, or Quetzalcóatl ("the feathered serpent"), the writing system of the Altiplano (Aztecs) can be found on the buildings of the ball game field. Name glyphs can be found along with the displayed warriors who carry the same breast- and head-plates as the ones that are present on the so-called atlantes or cariatides of Tula in the state of Hidalgo.

This does not imply, however, that the people that rebuilded Chichén-Itzá belonged to the Toltecs of Hidalgo, but to descendants of Toltecs of Tollan-Teotihuacán. There is however a direct relationship with the huge cariatides of Tula. They did not represent Toltecs as such, but they were in fact representations of Xiuhtecuhtli-priests, "Señores del Año, Lords of the Year", a function assumed by the priests of the Xiu group. Indeed, Tula, Hidalgo, was certainly not the Tula of the anales. Tollan-Teotihuacán, with all his barrios filled with craftsmen (Tolteca), was the real historic town of Tula, Tullan or Tollan.

According to the GMT-correlation the Toltec-period of Chichén-Itzá is situated between the 10th and 12th century. Therefore, it is strange to see that some chiefs are represented with the xiuhuitzolli or tectli symbol. This is the royal triangular diadem in turquoise mosaic, which was worn only by the Aztec caciques from the 14th century on.... Did they inherit perhaps this diadem from the Toltecs? Apparently not. In 1988f we published a new view on the maya-tolteca-azteca-correlation. The publication provides a great number of peculiarities about the Itza, Xiu, Tolteca, and bearded Mexicans, along with a different and new approach to the correlation of the Mesoamerican peoples.


Seibal in Petèn (Guatemala) is the place where one can find stelae with typical Aztec (Mexican) and Teotihuacan features, such as scrolls to indicate speech. There are at least two stelae with Aztec deities : stela 13 with Chicome Cóatl or "7 Snake", a Mexican maize god and stela 19 with the face of Quetzalcóatl-Ehecatl, the Aztec wind god, and a Teotihuacan speech scroll. This case is very clear. We are in a Pipil-area and are dealing with Aztec colonists.

Pipil is a Nahuatl language, spoken by the traders (military merchant-ambassadors) who were working for the central government in Tenochtitlán (Mexico) and, before their time in Tollán-Teotihuacán. It was also spoken in Nicaragua. As a consequence one important element is incorrect : according to the GMT-correlation the classical Seibal-period runs from 270 to 930. This is in fact a period during which the Aztecs did not even existed in actual Mexico as a developed or civilized people. They became only remotely important after the foundation of their capital 1325 Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and this is almost 400 years later.

Moreover, it was not until the last period of the supremacy of the Aztec king (emperor) Motecuhzoma I (1440-1468), that the Aztecs penetrated Guatemala. Consequently there is an error of over 500 years involved in dating, except if we accept a Teotihuacán presence instead of a Mexican presence. This is another reason why we must disregard the currently accepted interpretation and correlation.


The same argument as for Chichén-Itzá and Seibal goes for the most important Maya-town of Tikal (Guatemala). Stela 9, for example, shows a lord with an Aztec diadem (xihuitzolli or tectli) in turquoise that does not agree with the datation by the GMT- correlation which gives the year 750 for the katun date If this is an Aztecan chief or ambassador, then have we an error of approx. 700 years, because we must certainly date him long time after 1325. Except, if we accept the idea that the turquoise diadem was originally Toltec and/or came from Teotihuacán, then we could date him after 1050. This is still a difference of 300 years. We must thus situate this Teotihuacán or Aztecan ambassador not in the year 750, but either in the eleventh century or the beginning (1450-1480) of the first real trade and exchange relations with Teotihuacán and later with Tenochtitlán.

In Coe (1966:59-64) we read something very interesting about another stela:

La estela 31 entraña un misterio todavía más difícil de resolver, pues si bien es cierto que la figura principal y el texto jeoglífico que la exornan, son de carácter genuinamente maya, en cambio, arriba de esa figura, que representa un sacerdote maya, aparece esculpido un medallón de inspiración netamente mejicana. Además las figuras menores que aparecen en los costados de la estela están vestidas y armadas al estilo de Teotihuacán......

By the way, we find Teotihuacán-shields on Tikal stelae and ceramics. There is certainly a closer relationship, than is generally accepted today by americanist, between Teotihuacán and Uaxactun, and the site Kaminaljúyu in the south, near the capital of Guatemala.


Years ago, a fine polychrome vase was found in a tomb in Structure A-I at Uaxactun (Guatemala). This was certainly the burial of a person of high rank. The vase stood at the head of a skeleton. Morley (The Ancient Maya 393-5) says:

    ....Around the top (of the vase) is a line of glyphs, and glyph panels are interspersed between the figures. The principal panel of 16 glyphs is the center of the design, with all the figures facing it. These glyphs denote a mathematically incorrect Maya date, 8 Ahau 13 Kankin. It is possible that the date intended was 12 Ahau 13 Kankin, which would involve two relatively simple changes in the original inscription, but even these corrections give an unlickely date (A.D. 254). Stylistically the vase dates about five hundred years later...
If this is true, then we have again a beautiful confirmation of our Vollemaere-correlation!


One of the oldest with certainty dated Maya document is the famous Leyden-plate. It is kept at the "Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde" in Leyden (the Netherlands). The Leyden-plate raises more than one question regarding origin, exact correlation, contents, etc.

In 1864 J.A. Van Braam, a Dutch engineer, found a number of Precolumbian objects nearby Puerto Barrios, in the east of Guatemala, while he was doing some canal-digging close to the Graciosa river. On October 3rd, 1879 he gave 6 objects, among which the Leyden-plaque, to the "Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden". In 1903 the Museum gave all American and East-Asian objects to the "Rijks Ethnografisch Museum", the current "Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde" in Leyden. We have elaborated on the Leyden-plaque in a previous article (Vollemaere 1984a) and shall therefore only discuss the correlation-aspect.

An iconographic scene is engraved in the hard material of the front of the plaque. Because of the doubtful similarity between the prisoner and the representations in Tikal, the Leyden-plaque is associated with this important Guatemalan Maya city. Seler sees an affinity in style with nearby Quirigua and Copán. It is not surprising, since the iconographic scene has the same general features as those of just about the whole Maya-area. Consequently, we need other defining elements to date the Leiden-plate. The fact that this document was found near San Felipe, does not imply that it was created there as well.

The back of the jadeite plaque shows a hieroglyphic text with mainly calendar signs. We note that the ear sign with the introduction glyph A1 appears as head glyph in A9. The 8 text glyphs are half the size of the calendar glyphs because of the division in 2 columns. The Long Count gives us the following calendar calculation:

  • A1 introduction glyph
  • A2 8 Baktun (8x144,000 = 1152,200)
  • A3 14 Katun (14x7,200 = 100,800)
  • A4 3 Tun (3x360 = 1,080)
  • A5 1 Uinal (1x20 = 20)
  • A6 12 Kin (12x1 = 12)
  • A7 day 1 Eb (days = 1253,912)

These are the number of days that have elapsed since the (second) zero point 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This provides us with a Tzolkin-Haab date 1 Eb 0 Yaxkin. When we apply the GMT-correlation, we obtain the date of September 16th 320. A Yaxkin-glyph cannot be found, but on A7 we do find a variant of the day glyph Eb. A similar glyph is present on stela 19 (C1) of Naranjo. Subsequently we may suggest that there is an affinity in that direction.

But there is another relation. This glyph, combined with a lower jaw, is present on equivalent day glyphs of Malinalli in the Nuttall codex. This hieroglyphic manuscript is situated in the Mixteca Alta-area. Thompson says (1966:26):

....Actually this plaque was found in apparent association with copper bells which were not manufactured in Mesoamerica until five or six centuries later ...

The statements of Thompson and Seler have never led to any logical, scientific conclusions. One refused and still refuses to accept that the classical correlation (also of Thompson) is indeed by 5 or 6 centuries inexact. This attitude is not surprising as scientists in general do not like the idea of having to admit that they are mistaken.

Errare humanum estIt is in the nature of men to err, but that falls on deaf ears in the world of science. It is a shame, because in this way science loses much time, up to 65 years or even a few centuries, as was demonstrated by Galileo Galilei.

The Mixtecs were not only famous for their golden artefacts trade but also for manufacturing copper objects, such as bells and rattles, and this from the middle of the 10th century. The Mixtecs also had a hieroglyphic writing and used dots for the units and bars to write the fives, just as the Olmecs and Maya did. Relying on these data, we may suggest that the Leyden-plate and the accompaning copper bells were manufactured respectively in Chiapas and in the Mixteca-region in the 9th-10th century. Then the plaque changed hands of traders and colonists and finally wound up in Guatemala.


Not only the archaeological evidence of towns like Chichén-Itzá, Tikal, Uaxactun, Seibal, Copán, Tulum, etc., and objects like the jadeite of Tzibanché and Leyden prove that the GMT-correlation is totally wrong, but above all, if we apply correctly the GMT-correlation JDN 584285, without manipulating the Maya numbers, we obtain very poor results for the solar eclipse sequence of pages 51-58 of Codex Dresdensis. See next page for details.

Indeed, when we verify the 69 warning positions for possible solar eclipses, STARTING from a base 12 Lamat 01Muan, we see that, for the 14 solar eclipses visible in the Mayan area, only 7 are warned correctly by the GMT correlations. This is only 50%, which is the first proof that the GMT-correlations are incorrect. The results are even worse when we apply the GMT-correlations to the pages D.51-58, ENDING with 12 Lamat 1 Muan : only 3 out of 10 solar eclipses, visible in the Mayan region, are then warned exactly ! This is only 30%...

ATTENTION : Go to chapter 6.- Please... forget the GMT correlations !?! and then come back.


There is in fact no mystery at all for the so-called "fall of the Maya cities"! There is "only" a huge incredible error due to the GMT-correlation; a mystery created by the americanists themselves. By our publications (Vollemaere 1984a 1984d 1985c 1987e ...) we know for sure that the mathematical-astronomical solution for the sequence of solar eclipses on pages 51-58 of Codex Dresdensis gives us the correlation numbers JDN (Julian Day Number) 774079/774080 (<12 h/>12 h), or 25-26 april -2593 (B.C.).

This means in other words that we must add about 520 years to the GMT-correlation! This might seem unbelievable and unacceptable at first, but it is nevertheless the truth, the only naked scientific truth. This is absolutely confirmed by the in-depth study of dr. Vollemaere, of the lunar Tritos evolution during 1600 years in the Mayan region! The eclipse sequence of Codex Dresdensis 51-58 occured only once, namely from 1186.09.30 till 1219.06.29. This means that all the correlation propositions lower than JDN 774076, included the GMT correlations, are obsolete, out of order. Only the correlations of Weitzel, Vollemaere and Vaillant are practically correct.

The thousands of monument inscriptions ought to be re-interpreted according to the new correlation number. The next step should be to rethink the history of all places. We are now able to give new key elements of the Maya calendar in the light of the new correlation.

But we have no false hopes! It will not be easy for almost every student to agree with our correlation solution and to have the courage to read without prejudice, not all of our 197 publications (this should be asking too much), but only this single monograph. Maybe it will take more than 10 years to accept the truth, but in the mean time we will stoically continue our more than 35 years of research and editing as "a voice in the desert, calling for a desert storm ....."

One thing is certain, you are totally free to accept or to not accept the Vollemaere-correlation, but you need surely to FORGET the GMT-CORRELATION !


We like to give the readers two tables : one giving the situation before and after the second zero date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhuh,

and one giving the situation created by the Vollemaere-correlation.
For all details, see first our publication "Please.... forget the GMT-correlation !!!".

  • For more information : Publications, INFO Publications,
    or write to: antoon.vollemaere@skynet.be




    Since almost 100 years, every datation of calendar indications of monuments of Palenque, Copán, Yaxchilan, etc. or codices, is calculated following the so-called GMT-correlation (six of the 52 correlation propositions!), with one of the following Julian Day Numbers (JDN):

    • JDN 584,280 -3113.09.03 Goodman 1905
    • JDN 584,281 -3113.09.04 Martínez 1926
    • JDN 584,283 -3113.09.06 Thompson 1950; Nowotny 1958
    • JDN 584,284 -3113.09.07 Beyer 1937
    • JDN 584,285 -3113.09.08 Thompson 1935
    • JDN 584,286 -3113.09.09 Lounsbury 1978
    Impressed by the authority of Thompson, in good faith, and limited by their own insufficient knowledge of advanced calendar mathematics and astronomy, almost every mayanist accepted willingly the Tompson correlation without reservation and without checking all the consequencies. We must emphasize that we have a deep respect for all the works of Eric J. Thompson, except for his attitude for the correlation problem. In that regard, he has seldom been open to any other opinion than his own. That is human, nobody is perfect. And our attitude is in general:

    Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.
    Es Plato mi amigo, pero me es la verdad más amiga aún.
    Plato is my friend, but the truth is more my friend

    Even after so many years, there are only a few Mayanists who dare use, for one reason or another, a totally different correlation number than the one of Thompson. The best and conclusive proof to verify if a correlation number is right or wrong, is to apply the (Thompson or another) correlation to the eclipse sequence of 69 columns of Codex Dresdensis 51-58. By the way, we have developed software for that purpose.

    What can we say about these 69 columns?
    1. Each column has three successive days: a central day - 1 day, a central day, and a central day + 1 day. There is no month position, which means that the 69 column table is intended for many eclipse sequences, and that the table can be used separately for solar as well as for lunar eclipse series.

    2. The calculations, starting from the base 12 Lamat (1 Muan), lead to the central day of the three days, which indicates that we have to do with predictions with an accuracy of ± 1 day, and certainly not with observations.

    3. These columns cover a total lenght of 11,960 days (11,958/11,959), or about 33 solar years.

    4. The interval between the columns is 176-178 days (6 lunations) or 148 days (5 lunations). We can find these intervals in the solar and lunar eclipse tables of Oppolzer, and in other publications. These numbers indicate thus without any doubt a use as solar and/or lunar eclipse table.

    5. The 69 columns are interrupted by 10 iconographic pictures with intervals of 502, 1742, 1034,
      1210/1211, 1565, and 708 days. We find these intervals also naturally in the eclipse tables of Oppolzer. Five of the iconographic pictures are combined with a solar glyph (KIN). These columns concern thus surely eclipses.

    We have used all the 69 columns of the D.51-58 sequence for the calculation of solar eclipses as well as for lunar eclipses with perfect results. But what do we see? Almost every correlation researcher takes only the iconographic pictures in account and they investigate not all the 69 colums, which is incredible and intolerable. Indeed, the Maya scribe painted the 69 colums NOT as decoration, but as to be used, every single one of them without any exception.

    In other words, to verify seriously and correctly a certain correlation, we must apply that correlation to the 69 columns of Codex Dresdensis 51-58. We must then verify with that correlation if we can find for a period of nearly 33 solar years, the correct prediction of all the solar, or lunar eclipses, that could occur in the Maya region for that precise period. We must say with deep regret that the global results for every correlation of the GMT-group are mostly disappointing; they are all completely wrong!

    As an example, we give here the table for one of the Thompson - correlations, JDN 584,283 to show how wrong and incorrect this correlation is. Following this Thompson/GMT-correlation, the Maya could warned only 7 of the 14 solar eclipses in the Maya region for the period 755-788, and the correlation could NOT warned for the 7 other eclipses :

    1. Solar eclips of 757.10.17 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    2. Solar eclips of 758.04.12 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    3. Solar eclips of 765.11.17 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    4. Solar eclips of 769.03.12 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    5. Solar eclips of 776.04.22 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    6. Solar eclips of 777.04.12 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    7. Solar eclips of 783.06.04 is NOT warned by Thompson-correlation!
    This correlation is therefore totally wrong and is not acceptable. The Maya were not stupid, in the contrary, as we shall show further on in another table. Please, download this communication and study this table very carefully. Only 7 of 14 eclipses are correctly warned by the Thompson (GMT)-correlation, or 50 %; this is not acceptable !!!

    CONCLUSION : The GMT/Thompson-correlation is absolutely wrong and totally useless. It was and is a hugh waste of many decades of research and we feel very sorry for the hard work of so many good mayanists. All the interpretations of Maya monument data (Palenque, Copán, Yaxchilan, etc.) based on the GMT-correlation are false and must be revised as soon as possible.

    The GMT-correlation must certainly be replaced by the Vollemaere-correlation or Weitzel/Vaillant, but one thing must be certainly sure :

    PLEASE, you MUST forget the GMT-correlation, once and for all !!!

    For your information, we give the Vollemaere-correlation applied to the sequence of Codex Dresdensis D.51-58. The results are perfect: 11 correct warnings for all the 11 solar eclipses which occured in the Maya region during the period 1275-1308 !!!
    • 7 times a warning -1 day exact;
    • 4 times the exact warning day;

    This is the best proof that our Vollemaere-correlation JDN 774078/774079 is correct. You can find more details and proofs in our other communications and in our publications and in INFO Publications. Please... read also our books about our very special Tritos investigation of all the solar (about 580) and lunar eclipses (about 3000) in the Maya region from the year 1 to 1600!