Talk:Baktun

14th baktun?

the mayan long count calender ends on the 13th baktun, why would scholars make up a 14th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.143.51 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC) \

14th baktun is incorrect the Mayans have a circular calendar, like astrological calendar or a year calendar. Adding a 14th baktun is like adding a mouth in-between December and January. It is like adding a astrological sign in-between Pisces and Aries. It just goes back to 0.0.0.0.0 for one you can look at the shape of the calendar circle it's not a pin up that you throw away at the end of the year. It is a mostly Jewish – Christen - Islamic concept to think of time as a line. when you have ancient societies look at the sky as a method for explaining the functioning of the universe and they start to see orbit time seems circular. Please Remove 14th baktun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.46.218 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

just for the hell of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 74.72.130.137 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2011

2012_phenomenon#Dates_beyond_b.27ak.27tun_13 — 216.160.102.151 (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2012

13th baktun

The 13th baktun will be completed (13.0.0.0.0 in Long Count notation) on December 21, 2012, which also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun?

Is that quite right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.130.17 (talk • contribs).

That is a result of naming the baktuns in two different ways by Maya scholars. It could be reworded. — Joe Kress 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So the Mayans counted the "0th" Baktun as being the first? I guess they were way ahead of Europeans. --86.148.57.131 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, their system starts with 0.0.0.0.0 Shii (tock) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The Maya specified that their Long Count began with the "completion of baktun 13", hence 13.0.0.0.0. Specifying that the "first" baktun was 0 as in 0.0.0.0.0 is an invention of modern scholars to be consistent with subsequent baktuns which were numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Main text in error

the main text is wrong, tropical years are 365.2424 days, Mayan 365.2422 days, NOT 360 days so how can 400 tun equal 400 tropical years 6 years early!

The 13th baktun will be completed (13.0.0.0.0 in Long Count notation) on December 21, 2012, which also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun?

This is false. completes 13x400, doesnt start it. 5200 tun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk • contribs) 16 October 2009

No, it's not. The article's text said " nearly 400 tropical years ", not "exactly". One tun = 20x18 days = 360 days. Not 365.2422 days; possibly you are confusing the Long Count with the haab' calendar (Maya version of the Mesoamerican 365-day count, which isn't equal to 365.2422 days anyways).

So 400 tun = 400x360 days = 144,000 days, which divided by 365.2424 (#days in a tropical year) yields 394.25 tropical years; this is indeed "just shy of six years short" of a round 400 tropical years. The article is correct.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Mardyks, the tropical year is 365.2422 days. The Ancient Maya only used a vague solar year of 365 days, the Haab'. I think this article and the Ka'tun article should be nominated for speedy deletion since this is is discussed on the Maya calendar and Long Count articles and so is redundant. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete

ipa

should this article has an IPA for the word so people can correctly pronounce? --223.207.130.173 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Look, I'm no expert on this, but I think it's properly spelled b'ak'tun. We should rename it to that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.130.137 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the proper spelling. SpecialHelper234 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How are those apostrophes pronounced? Are they aspirations or clicks or what? 83.253.131.89 (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by IP editor 216.58.1.102

The article as it is now:

A baktun (properly b'ak'tun) is 20 katun cycles of the ancient Maya Long Count Calendar. It contains 144,000 days, equal to 394.26 tropical years. The Classic period of Maya civilization occurred during the 8th and 9th baktuns of the current calendrical cycle. The current (13th, numbered with a 12, as the first was '0') baktun will end, or be completed, on 13.0.0.0.0 (December 21, 2012 using the GMT correlation), after 12.19.19.17.19. This also marks the beginning of the 13th baktun. There is disagreement on whether such a baktun was meant to exist at all, as the last 14th baktun never occurred due to the civilisation being wiped out.

The classic period occurred during baktuns 8 and 9 - the 9th and 10th baktuns. The first parenthetic expression is awkward and over-written. "end or be completed" could just be completed. After 12.19.19.17.19 could be eliminated. 12/21/2012 marks the beginning of the 14th baktun (0-13 = 14). The last paragraph is complete nonsense. No reliable source can be cited for this. This article is redundant since this is described in the Long Count article. It should be marked for speedy deletion. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I agree with this perspective on the revisions, although I am curious about the research/understanding that motivated them. I would favor keeping the "baktun" article, since I can imagine more images and information being added here but not to the main article on long count. groupuscule (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible IPA suggestions

Some ideas for some IPA that could be added:
/bækˌtʌn/
/bˌækˌtʌn/
/bæk.tʌn/

My IPA isn't good but you could try these anyway.

Eh, just use Wiktionary's (referenced!) pronunciation transcription, /ˈbɑkˌtun/. -sche (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note section

Should it be removed? Blackdiamand (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we treat Mayan Baktuns similar to Gregorian centuries/millennia?

It would be cool to see specific articles on the 13th Baktun/14th Baktun etc. and talk about the significance of each time period to the Maya while also discussing how they correspond to Gregorian dates. Discuss. 50.108.117.53 (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Specific texts of concepts using zero in describing 13th 'b'ak'tun' (^) period from a North American perspective in relation

0 to 1 is 1. When describing the period we are in, it is the 13th up to the 14th that we attribute 13 as the current final b'ak'tun (^). This means that we are in the last prophesized cycle of calendric contact the descendants of this study could project into stone for record. This is a cyclic counting system, an ongoing recordation to persist along with human maintenance of its study. 0 to 1 is 1, 1 to 2 is 2... 12 to 13 is 13. These are key-pair matches where zero is inclusive for ownership of space, shape, and values derived from internal counting mechanisms of seasons, ceremonies, etc. The values ordinally displayed for record indicate a non-separating value system (because it is inclusive to zero and space as its value increases as defined by the first calculation) so its record in cyclic shape explain alignment as zero (planetary based teaching methods since this culture system studies planets majorly in comparison to stars and constellations as secondary). The non-separating value system is not adding 1 at a time, they are indicators of change and alignment as recognized as an ending pattern. The end of the pattern does not happen, this occurs as a connection value where half values to equal what is space, ordinally speaking, cannot stop or become nothing. It persists, and so zero obtains multiple cycles of connection and relation that are responsible for its beginning and end as equals (obsolete or true zero). The middle of this is the recordation of value again and again, that does not explain why zero remains in most dominance at each cyclic encounter (start and end are equals). Zero becomes the space allowed from the first recorded, why 13 is an empty value equal to zero, to obtain the next and last projected claim of its first ancient study in the world.

Reference to Material 13 is an original calendric system used by North America in early times and was used to describe each month as a collective 13 with 28 days and 7 days in a week. This was inspired by the sea turtle used in tribal nations of North America. Each external culture that uses its scope to translate the Mayan scope, may not be evident to receive its actual meaning because it is responsible for their belief system of how they were able to project its course and remain in stone today. Zero concepts in the modern technological world use the placeholder, null, nil, no value concept that cannot justify the internal conductions the actual Mayan counting systems of zero utilize in respect to space, distance, and size of relation (planetary observations) in their early calculations of time and spacetime.

Note: I question the Dewey decimal system construction with adding zero to its ordinal count to indicate a value of the ordinal counting as unfitting to include this mathematical assignment. It does not rationally or intelligently describe zero usage, which misleads current mathematical curriculum today. The size of relational objects, space, and its distances from zero as a collector operator create nothing as minute value systems can separate itself (without the proper scope). The proper scope is not ordinal counting as a dominant of value (the Dewey Decimal System only uses 1 value to describe this value not a whole value yet, it is a zero domain to control value substances and not 1. It is an improper usage of zero, space, and one as a value system. 101Mischief101 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)