The Complete Idiot's Guide to 2012 - Dr. Synthia Andrews Nd [82]
Galactic Center
Some claim the Maya did not understand the location of the galactic center. Jenkins counters with the many accurate references of the Maya to both the function and location of the galactic center in mythology and astronomical glyphs. He points out that the features of the galactic center are visible to the naked eye.
Galactic Alignment
The most serious criticism of Jenkins’s work is his claim that the 2012 solstice sun is in exact alignment with the galactic center. Jenkins counters by declaring his position: the entire period from 1994 to 2030 is the “galactic zone.” Throughout this period, the solar system will be in relationship to the center of the galaxy. Every solstice sun during this 36-year time zone will have relationship to the galactic center. However, December 21, 2012, occurs in the center of this time zone and coincides with the end of the Long Count calendar. He is not claiming an exact alignment, although his followers certainly do.
Critique of Calleman
Carl Johan Calleman began to study the Mayan calendars in 1979 after a trip to Guatemala. With a biology background, he had a unique insight into what the Mayan time delineations might refer to.
Calleman’s theory was developed after seeing the dates on the Coba stele. The stele marks dates going back billions of years. Looking at the progression of dates, he theorizes that the 16.4-billion-year evolutionary history of the planet was known to the Maya, directly written on the stele, and coded into the Kukulkan pyramid. A rendition of his diagram of the evolutionary pyramid can be seen in Chapter 8. His theory is intricate, detailed, and compelling. It identifies an end date of October 28, 2011; an unprecedented application of sevven days and six nights of the underworld to the Long Count calendar; and a belief in time acceleration. His main focus is on the evolution of spiritual consciousness.
There are many criticisms of Calleman’s work. First, his relating the seven days and six nights of the underworld to the Long Count calendar is unsupported by mythological or archeological evidence. He is accused of rejecting established facts in favor of his own inspiration. He chooses the end date of October 2011 based on an adjustment he believes was made by Mayan Day Keepers in Palenque. The supposed Palenque change was made 1,000 years after the start of the Long Count and consisted of an adjustment of 420 days. Not everyone agrees this is correct. Calleman believes that as the date gets closer, the frequency of the time shift will draw people to his conclusion.
Objections to Calleman’s work are reminiscent of those leveled at Argüelles. In short, the history of discovering the Maya has been a dedicated collaboration between painstaking research and inspiration. Every leap of inspiration is backed with evidence. The criticism aimed at Calleman and Argüelles is that their inspirations are not supported with evidence. Given the archeological correlations Calleman demonstrates, this criticism seems overstated.
Codex Cues
Major breakthroughs in all fields of study are usually precipitated with leaps of inspiration that break all the rules. Einstein’s theory of relativity is an excellent example. What’s important is for all parties to continue debate with an open and flexible mind.
Finding Common Ground
In the end, the differences between these three luminaries are far less than their similarities. When we’re looking at spans of time as long as 26,000 years or the evolutionary ages of the planet, trying to nail a major shift to a single day may be simplistic. Change may be more gradual and time zones more realistic than single one-day changeovers. Looking at the