Kind of a strange story, but having been smitten with the idea that a particular number ((10 Megalithic Feet / Pi) x 10^n = 3.747289674) might have appeared in the original measures of the Stonehenge ditch because it also seems to appear in some of both Aztec and Mayan calendar stones like the Sun Stone (and in the recent analysis of Hadrian’s Palace at the ends of the cistern), this managed to pique my curiosity about the subject again and got me looking at what data I have on ancient American altars.
I went to have another try at one of the numerous unsolved Mayan altars and ended up looking at things that notably seemed to have do with Jupiter and Saturn.
Altar at Altar de Sacrificios site, photographed by Teobert Maler. This would have to be the altar described by Maler’s texts for which in centimeters we are given Diameter 160 cm, Thickness 70 cm and “Atop pyramid of main temple… concentric band of glyphs 25 cm wide, surrounds a smooth circular surface 82 cm in diam. The band of glyphs has a smooth outer edge 14 cm in width.”
82 + (25 x 2) + (14 x 2) does indeed equal 160 cm, so at least we know that things add up correctly in his description. Maler’s measures convert to:
160 cm = 5.249343832 ft
70 cm = 2.296587927 ft
82 cm = 2.690288714 ft
25 cm = 0.820209973 ft
14 cm = 0.459317585 ft
Thickness 70 cm = 2.296587927 ft x Circumference (5.249343832 x Pi) = 378.7372052 / 10^n; Saturn’s Synodic Period about 378 days (378.09)
Radius 5.249343832 x Circumference (5.249343832 x Pi) = 86.569850404 = 43.28425202; Jupiter’s Orbital Period = about 4332.59 days
I found this especially interesting because recently I proposed a certain value for a conspicuously recurring measurement inside the Bat Palace (Palace of the Windows) at Tikal, only to discover it is almost identical to twice the ratio between the Orbital and Synodic Periods of Saturn.
Jupiter Orbital Period 10759.22 / Jupiter Synodic Period 378.09 = 2.845676955; Faiyum Number x 2 = Bat Palace Number / 2 = 2.847598688.
When I went to see if I could expand my collection of ancient American altar data with Google searchesto perhaps learn more about these matters, I found a paper by Susan Milbrath talking about how the end of the Katun in conjunction with the dual retrograde of Jupiter and Saturn seemed to be the motivation for the creation of new altars at Tikal.
The Maya Katun Cycle and the Retrograde Periods of Jupiter and Saturn
Susan Milbrath
“The incidence of the actual records of Katun on monuments of the Classic and Postclassic periods seems to be significant when we look at the patterning in relation to retrograde. At times that Jupiter or Saturn were in retrograde at Katun end, the Tikal monuments most often record Katun endings. Tikal showed a preference for recording Katun dates at times that Jupiter or Saturn was in retrograde motion. Conversely, during the periods (hiatus and Terminal Classic to early Postclassic) when there is no correspondence between the Katun ending and the retrograde periods, these Katun records are lacking, especially at Tikal, where the Katun cycle seems to have strongest and longest development. In the Postclassic, Mayapán seems to revive the tradition of recording Katun endings during the epoch when the planetary retrograde coincided with the Katun end.
The celestial dance performed by Jupiter and Saturn in retrograde motion at Katun end marked time at important periods in Maya history. There is a clear pattern linking recorded Katun endings to dates when either Jupiter or Saturn was in retrograde motion, especially at Tikal, a site that was the largest and longest occupied of the Classic Maya cities. The first epoch of such a correspondence was in the Early Classic period. The written record ceased on Tikal monuments around the time the planets failed to perform their retrograde dance at Katun end. It is noteworthy that at Tikal, where interest in marking Katun endings seems to be exceptionally well developed, the hiatus in monumental records lasted until the Katun ending in 692, when there was a renewed correlation between the Katun ending and the timing of retrograde events. Furthermore, Tikal shows a great focus on Katun endings by erecting special twin–pyramid complexes to house Katun ending monuments beginning in 692. The last inscription at Tikal was the Katun ending in 869 (10.2.0.0.0; Stela 11), which coincides with a spectacular conjunction of the two planets located very close together at their second stationary points, when they were especially bright in the sky. After 889, throughout the central Maya area there was an abrupt halt in the long sequence of monuments marking the Katun end precisely at the moment that the synchronicity of the planetary retrograde with the Katun ending came to an end.”
If she’s right, it may be very matter of fact, yet it somehow it seems remarkably revolutionary in that she would be providing an overarching rationale for the creation of new date markers that may not only take precedence over any other motivations, but may be able to function independently of any other motivations.
In other words, astronomy and the way it was responded to at Tikal is probably going to mean that these commemorative markers are going to be made according to a planetary schedule regardless of what is going on in the community, and that the long hiatus in and decline of making new markers at Tikal may have corresponded to that was going on in the skies and not what was going on in the community or the environment.
I think it raises questions about how any coinciding events recorded on date makers happened to come along on these dates, and even whether the worldly events referred to were genuine and whether they even needed to be.
However, something that caught my attention is the way that related themes like bondage and captivity (there are depictions of bound prisoners on some of the altars in question) could serve as euphemisms for the behavior of the planets in question – could a second planet joining a first in going retrograde be considered as being bound by, held captive by, or being taken prisoner by the first planet?
Tikal Altar 8 from Linda Schele collection (FAMSI)
Site: Tikal – Schele Number: 2005 – Description: Altar 8, ca. ad 750-760. shows captive bound within a ball. – Architectural Feature: “altar”
In order words, just when we think the altar decorations have wandered off the planetary themes, maybe they haven’t after all and we just don’t quite understand the euphemisms in use. Again, as Milbrath would seem to have it, it’s these planetary “dances” that are the very reason for the altars being.
Altar 14 at Tikal, cited by Susan Milbrath’s article. This “Ajaw altar” at Tikal in Guatemala is similar to several at Caracol in Belize (FAMSI), which are noted to also have been commissioned to mark the completion of a Katun or Tun cycle.
I recently bought a copy of Vincent Malmstrom’s book “Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon” – he at least seems to have a somewhat creative and halfway open mind (I’ve enjoyed a number of his webpages and some of his work on Mexican pyramids even loosely resembled some of the things I’ve worked with). In the index I stumbled over the phrase, “The Binding of the Years” which might also be in general accord with what I’m thinking about depictions of “the binding of captives”.
I think the attribution is limited therein to the Toltecs, but certainly it may have broader relevance including that while I know a diffusionist view of culture and mythology still isn’t the most popular even when everyone has a “Noah” in their folkore and all that, some of it might be traced back to equivalents elsewhere. I was very quickly reminded of Ixion from Greek Mythology, and of Mithra not only encircled by the circle of the Zodiac, but how perhaps the besting of the bull might be an equivalent to the conquering and binding of neighboring tribe members alleged as being shown by the Mayan altar scenes.
Wikipedia
Ixion was expelled from Olympus and blasted with a thunderbolt. Zeus ordered Hermes to bind Ixion to a winged fiery wheel that was always spinning. Therefore, Ixion was bound to a burning solar wheel for all eternity, at first spinning across the heavens, but in later myth transferred to Tartarus. Only when Orpheus played his lyre during his trip to the Underworld to rescue Eurydice did it stop for a while.
I’m also reminded a bit of material that Shawn Hamilton posted discussing Tikal. I’d suspected that the worst case scenario might be that components may have been conflated with references to lightning, rain, or thunder deities turning into references to persons at Tikal flinging lightning bolts at each other, and here it may turn out that perhaps such deity figures may not only be prominent in the mythology of the site, but even in the timing of creating new monuments.
Here’s a question – could Hesphaestos represent Mars at standstill or during retrograde? One could probably refer to a planet at standstill as “lamed”, if it isn’t going anywhere? I did pull some Mars numbers out of the inner sanctum of a Hesphaestos temple awhile back. Who might be an Egyptian equivalent?
Anyway, I will offer all this up in case it inspires or leads to anything productive or interesting for anyone. Ideally one can take it back to Egypt and use it in the search for clues. (I’m curious of the Egyptians were doing anything like this also but I’m generally distrustful of astronomy software, I’ve been following the “OCT” almost since it was announced and no doubt seen my share of “Your numbers are useless you because you used SkyThingie instead of SkyGizmo, SkyThingie turns stupid when you go back that far in time” discussions).
Everyone remember the lesson that my “Bat Palace Number” is built as 12 / Palestinian Cubit in feet, where the Palestinian Cubit takes legitimacy from essentially being the diagonal between what are probably the two most notable ancient Egyptian measures, the Remen and Royal Cubit (in “modern” feet also)?
Another thing we can make out of these two units, the Remen and Royal Cubit is the putative Sacred Cubit by multiplying their two values in “modern” feet, and I’ve very recently written about and posted diagrams of the remarkable mathematical properties of the resultant Sacred Cubit value
Remen 1.216733693 ft x Royal Cubit 1.718873385 = Sacred Cubit 2.091411162 ft.
Even now, new truths about the value of these two ancient Egyptian Units of paramount importance continue to come to light and it becomes easier and easier to see why they would have chosen the particular values for these units that they seem to have.
Note that what we see in the diagram, the profound power of the ratio 2 Pi to connect or transform these ancient units of measure, may have been one of the reasons for the Great Pyramid’s 2 Pi perimeter / height ratio. For me there is little doubt that the ancient Egyptians intended one primary function of the Great Pyramid’s proportions to be serving as a metrological reference, making it all that much more appropriate to proportion it in honor of the great metrological unifier 2 Pi.
We know that even if the Great Pyramid doesn’t honor the Remen and the Royal Cubit by actually using them in its physical proportions, they won’t be far behind by means of ratio. It’s been a long time since I first learned for example that Munck’s height for the Great Pyramid (from the pavement level) / 2 Pi / 2 Pi = the value of the Remen in feet x 10.
That’s one of the things that finally got me to decide that the Remen probably was 1.216733603 if the Great Pyramid model would “vouch” for it like that.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 