Would the Real Tzolkin Calendar Please Stand Up

golden hunab kuSomeone who is investigating Mesoamerican Calendrics (MAC) asked me why a certain Tzolkin date converter generated an archetypal signature that differed from the Tzolkin date converter I use.

Those of you who have studied my writings in depth will know the answer to that question, but it is likely that most of my readers don’t clearly know why there are various interpretations of the Tzolkin Calendar cycle or the core calendrical component of the entire MAC system.

My reply to her question follows.

Yes, I am familiar with Carl Calleman. He tracks what is thought to be the “traditional Tzolkin count”. That is why you get a different reading. Your question touches on the great dilemma within MAC. There are least 2 different Tzolkin counts in use, if not more. There can be only one correct sequence just like there is only one lunar and solar cycle sequence that is valid for everyone. The question is which Tzolkin cycle sequence is the correct one?

To my knowledge nobody has bothered to empirically verify the Tzolkin Cycle sequence they profess to follow. Instead they have relied on the assertion that they are following the “traditional count”. How does one settle such a matter?

That nobody has bothered to empirically verify the Tzolkin sequence they follow means that they don’t truly understand what they are working with.

Most calendrical followers have assumed that they are following the correct Tzolkin because it’s claimed to be the “traditional one”, and they have relied on questionable colonial era records to piece together the missing links. This is a very sketchy procedure because it was the goal of the colonialists to confuse and destroy the heart, mind, and cultural backbone of the Mesoamerican cultures they were enslaving.

Researchers are also relying on archeological evidence in which our ability to accurately interpret is at best an approximation. Approximations do not offer the precision demanded by calendrics.

If the Tzolkin Cycle is an actual feature of nature then we should be able to detect it by other means that don’t rely on hearsay, fallacies of logic such as appeal to authority (“it’s traditional”), and questionable written records left by parties (colonialists) whose intent was to obscure the memory of Mesoamerica’s sacred knowledge. We also needn’t rely on scant and hard to interpretĀ archaeologicalĀ data.

I am the only researcher offering methods of empirical validation for the Tzolkin Count I follow. The other camps have not even devised a testable systems architecture. That is now a moot point, because my studies validate the Arguellen Account of the Tzolkin.

Those who have not bothered to empirically verify are following the Tzolkin sequence they do out of sheer faith. The current Mayan Calendar landscape is no better than newspaper horoscope readings. Sad, but that is the sorry state of affairs in the popular arena.

That you find some resonance with another archetype from another system is not sufficient to validate it, especially the archetype of earth. Every nature loving person is going to tell you that they have a deep resonance with the earth, myself included.

There are various testing methodologies one can use to reveal anticipated patterns of recurrence. Patterns one could use to solidify the validity of a system’s predictive capabilities. Patterns that do not rely on our fallible and biased subjective interpretations.

A system of ideas claiming to be some sort of valid representation of reality must make testable predictions. A battery of tests with repeated and consistent results, repeatable by others is necessary to validate a theory or system.

I have three ongoing empirical studies that show a strong correlation between key Tzolkin Cycle days and increases in seismic, and volcanic activity. I have devised other soon to be released methods that anybody can employ to reveal the patterns and predictions made by the Tzolkin count that I and many thousands of others around the world follow.

Nobody else offers that kind of testing because they don’t really know what the Tzolkin is, and therefore can’t devise ways of validating. Tracking the Tzolkin day by day is the long and arduous way to validate, but one should see the evidence for themselves.

My work offers methods other than tracking, because who has the time or interest to experientially validate one of the least understood bodies of knowledge there is? There are three well known MAC researchers… the late Jose Arguelles, John Major Jenkins and Carl Calleman.

The problem with the Arguellen account is his presentation. He was the first to publish on the deep nature of the Tzolkin, but his work has languished on the fringes of society because his presentation is all too cryptic and mystical.

I had to first decode what Arguelles was saying and then unscramble his presentation. Arguelles did not offer empirical validation, but he had the most to say about the Tzolkin, and more importantly he had devised a testable systems architecture. So I took it upon myself to experientially and empirically validate his account of the Tzolkin.

After years of tracking, I was finally convinced of the Tzolkin sequence put forth by Arguelles. My work offers a scientific footing and evidence based ways of verification so that others can more easily access what is currently a practically impenetrable and unintelligible body of knowledge. Something the mainstream intelligentsia dismisses as nothing more than another faddish astrological belief system, and I don’t blame them given the way its been presented by so many writers.

The only other person I’ve heard say anything with clarity on MAC is John Major Jenkins, but he has little to say about the Tzolkin itself.

“For me as a philosopher, education is the art of showing others how to work out the truth for themselves”
John Peter Thompson

Sometime in late 2014 I will release my exposition on Tzolkin Cosmology and with it I will also introduce the world’s first intelligible and user friendly Tzolkin calendar and tutorial on how to self verify, track, detect and apply the wisdom of Tzolkin Cosmology.


  1. Laurie Christine Tysinger

    I feel as though I have been hand the key to the universe!
    Excellent work!

    • Rohaan Solare

      Thank you! It seems that you do indeed understand just how profound the Tzolkin is. Cheers!!

  2. Seamas Manly

    Profound, indeed… I have been channeling the Galactic Beam since Harmonic Convergence, but, until recently found most of Jose’s work impenetrable. That has recently changed in a big way, and I am in my own process of verification.
    I look forward to knowing more of your contribution!
    And, I am curious, how does it feel for you to ride the Dreamspell that ends with Cosmic Sun, or Sun as I believe you refer to it?
    I am White Rhythmic Dog (Dog 6), offering curious heart, loyalty and friendship, through equality based rhythm guided structure.

    • Rohaan Solare

      There is a big mystery surrounding just how Arguelles formulated the Dreamspell Tzolkin. I have come to the conclusion that he was given most of the code structure and he failed to give credit. In particular what I call the themeplex structure. A themeplex consists of guide, antipode, analog, occult-quasi and the central archetype of the day. Without the themeplex arrangement the Tzolkin would have been near impossible to verify empirically.

  3. Tlalocantecutli

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count

    Callemans and Arguelles made up their own pseudo-mayan calendars and nobody who knows the Maya calendar takes them seriously. Look at the overwhelming evidence presented in the article above. All of the historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence is consistent and points to the GMT correlation. Using your correlation the astronomical content of the monuments and the codices would be wrong. A real scientist would have studied this subject instead of just making up his own correlation. Shame on you for willful ignorance and disinformation.

    • Rohaan Solare

      The Long Count and its correlations are largely irrelevant in light of my work on the Tzolkin cycle. I have loads of empirical/scientific evidence for the existence of the Tzolkin cycle. You completely missed the point of the article. I would say shame on you for your utter lack of comprehension.

      • Tlalocantecutli

        Actually the correlation between the Long Count and the Tzolk’in is completely relevant because absolutely 100% of the known inscriptions use the same relationship between the Long Count, Tzolk’in and Haab. The study of the historical evidence for the correlation question is based on a huge number of calendar dates with Long Counts, Short Counts and/or Tzolk’in and/or Haab’ dates. The Tzolk’in dates in the Dresden codex (and other codices) that list astronomical phenomena agree with modern astronomical calculations and the GMT correlation.

        If you have empirical/scientific evidence you should publish it.

        Arguelles’ “Dreamspell” calendar is not a Maya calendar. It’s a fusion between the I ching and other modern esoteric elements with a few Mayan ideas and he says so in his book, The Maya Factor.

        • Rohaan Solare

          This is what I know and why the Long Count and its correlations are irrelevant. First of all the entire Mesoamerican calendrical system is based around the Tzolkin. It was the Tzolkin calendar that was considered sacred not any other calendrical count.

          And why was the Tzolkin calendar so revered. Because they discovered that life was not random. They discovered that life unfolded in a very specific and predictable way. The Tzolkin calendar models the way reality unfolds. That’s a major discovery and that’s why they held it in such high regard. You might as well call it the mind of “God”.

          They discovered what is perhaps the most fundamental order in the known universe. Now along comes Jose Aguelles with his self-glorious self-proclamations about who he thinks he is and he tosses us some new fangled Tzolkin model without any explanation of the how and why of the never before published Tzolkin model.

          He is rightly ignored by academia and the Traditionalists for his insensitive and unscholarly presentation of the Tzolkin model he puts forth in his Dreamspell publication. Then I come along and decide to put the Dreamspell Tzolkin to the test. And lo and behold subjective observations correlate with what I call the Zapotec-Shearer-Arguellen Tzolkin model. I will say why shortly.

          Then in order to make sure that I was not deluding myself I began to do empirical tests to remove observer error and bias. Lo and behold I am 15 years into my Tzolkin studies and the ZSA-Tzolkin has passed every empirical test with flying colors.

          The Tzolkin model introduced by Arguelles came by way of the Zapotecs and Tony Shearer. Shearer passed on what he knew to Arguelles and the next thing we know is the ZSA_Tzolkin I stopped using the term Dreamspell because its a ridiculous concept to begin with.

          A mystery of sorts has emerged because if Arguelles fashioned the ZSA-Tzolkin on his own then he would have discovered what I have about the Tzolkin. But the fact is that nobody I know of describes the Tzolkin like I do nor does anybody I know of know how to empirically verify the Tzolkin.

          Therefore I have come to the conclusion that it was the Zapotecs who managed to preserve the true Tzolkin count and more. Arguelles never disclosed how he formulated the Tzolkin model he introduced. I have good reason to suspect that he was given most if not all of the model he published and he did so without crediting his sources. I have testimony from Tony Shearer’s son that uses the words “fraud” and “stolen” in reference to Arguelles.

          After Arguelles published the ZSA-Tzolkin in 1990 he never said anything else of consequence with regards to the Tzolkin. While I have discovered that there are enormous implications for every domain of human experience and that there are lifetimes worth of work in plumbing the depth and application of Tzolkin Cosmology.

          The Tzolkin cycle is a fact of nature. It is not a Mayan or Zapotec artefact. What matters at this stage is that I have evidence and I have developed tools and methods so that anyone can verify the ZSA-Tzolkin for themselves. Nobody need take my word for anything I claim about the Tzolkin cycle.

          In order to get a handle on Tzolkin Cosmology at this stage of my work I suggest the orientation on Tzolkin Cosmology as a good place to start. http://tzolkincosmology.com/2014/06/20/orientation-tzolkin-science-synchronicity-time/

  4. Elvis Bob

    I use this program to do Maya calendar conversions:


    To the best of my ability to verify it, it does everything correctly.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>