Skip to main content

Was the Mayan Tun a “Year”?

One type of Mayan Calendar. Photo by Jasmin Gimenez
LDS Mesoamerican scholars John L. Sorenson, John E. Clark, Brant A. Gardner, and Mark Alan Wright have all discussed various ways Nephite years might actually be 360-day tuns of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar.[1] In his article on dating the death of Jesus Christ, ancient Near Eastern archaeologist Jeffrey R. Chadwick disputed this suggestion. Chadwick asserted, “There is no indication that the Maya thought of their tun count as a ‘year,’” and that “[Michael D.] Coe does not refer to the tun as a ‘year’ anywhere in his discussion of the Mayan calendar system.”[2]

Unfortunately, Chadwick has not done enough research on the Mesoamerican Long Count. Coe himself does not call the tun a year, but several other scholars do. Mary Miller and Karl Taube, for instance, explained the Long Count as follows:

Periods of time were counted by days, periods of 20 days (the uinal), years—sometimes called “computing years by archaeologists—of 360 days (the tun), 20-year periods of 360 days each (the katun), and 400-year periods (the baktun).[3]
Joel W. Palka said the Long Count “is calculated by multiplying a certain number by five different periods: baktun, or 400 years (360 days), katun, or 20 years, tun, or a year, uinal, or a month (20 days), and kin, or a day.”[4] Kaylee Spencer and Linnea H. Wren use the heading “Winal and Tun: Month and Year,” to title the section of their paper on those time periods in the Long Count system.[5]

The use of 360 days deliberately broke from the standard pattern of the Long Count in order to better approximate a year, according to Anthony F. Aveni.

To reckon deep time, the Maya created the longest Mesoamerican calendar cycle by multiplying the basic unit of twenty to the fifth order, the exception being the multiplication of the 20-day count by 18 to form a cycle of 360 days, or one tun, which approximated the year.[6]
Glyphs for various Long Count periods.
Image by Jasmin Gimenez
Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo similarly explained that the 360-day cycle in the Long Count “was the fundamental unit intended to approximate the solar or vague year of 365 days.”[7]

The Maya even used the same word for both the 360-day period and the 365-day solar year, according to Michael D. Coe and Stephen Houston. After describing the “‘Vague Year or Ha’b of 365 days,” they discussed the Long Count system and noted, “in a switch sure to confuse modern readers, the tun was really called ha’b!”[8] Pharo presented the Long Count system “with Yucatec designations in parenthesis” as follows:

Pik (Bak’tun): 144,000 days
Winikhaab (K’atun): 7,200 days
Haab (Tun): 360 days
Winal/Winik: 20 days
K’in: 1 day[9]

Notice, again, that haab is equivalent to tun. In a footnote, Pharo mentioned of the “haab of 360 days,” and also explained, “Tun is the Yucatec word for haab, which is a Yucatec designation for a year of 365 days.”[10] 

Today, it is a scholarly convention to use haab for the 365-day year and tun for the 360-day year (I assume to avoid confusion), but in pre-Columbian times, both terms were used for both the 365-day and 360-day periods—one (haab or h’ab) being the lowland Maya term, the other (tun) being the Yucatec term.

So for all intents and purposes, the Maya did call the 360-day period a “year.” Of course, this does not mean that the Book of Mormon year was the 360-day tun, but it does illustrate that Chadwick’s reasons for rejecting that possibility are not well founded.

[1] John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985), 272–274; John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 440; John E. Clark, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 2 (2005): 46–47; John E. Clark, “Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2005), 90; Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1:362–364, 4:595, 5:176–177; Mark Alan Wright, “Nephite Daykeepers: Ritual Specialists in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon,” in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of the Expound Symposium, 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Salt Lake City and Orem, UT: Eborn Books and Interpreter Foundation, 2014), 253.
[2] Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Dating the Death of Jesus Christ,” BYU Studies 54, no. 4 (2015): 147 n.45, 145 n.43. Chadwick cited Michael D. Coe, The Maya, 8th edition (New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 2011), 62–69, 231–235.
[3] Mary Miller and Karl Taube, An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya (New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1993), 50, bolding added.
[4] Joel W. Palka, The A to Z of Ancient Mesoamerica (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2010), 22, bolding added.
[5] Kaylee Spencer and Linnea H. Wren, “Arithmetic, Astronomy, and the Calendar,” in Lynn V. Foster, Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 257, bolding added.
[6] Anthony F. Aveni, “Mesoamerican Calendars and Archaeoastronomy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology, ed. Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 788–789.
[7] Lars Kirkhusmo Pharo, The Ritual Practice of Time: Philosophy and Sociopolitics of Mesoamerican Calendars (Boston, MA: Brill, 2014), 19 n.4.
[8] Michael D. Coe and Stephen Houston, The Maya, 9th edition (New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 2015), 64, 67; also see p. 260: “a tun, or in Classic times, ha’b, of 360 days.” I do not have access to a copy of the 8th edition, which Chadwick cited, so I do not know if this detail is included in the edition Chadwick was using.
[9] Pharo, Ritual Practice of Time, 19, bolding added.
[10] Pharo, Ritual Practice of Time, 19 n.4.


Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:

As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…

New Paper on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon

Joseph M. Spencer, an adjunct professor at the BYU religion department, recently published a paper in the non-LDS peer review journal Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception, titled, “Isaiah 52 in the Book of Mormon: Note’s on Isaiah’s Reception History.” Spencer is a young scholar who is doing exciting stuff on the Book of Mormon from a theological perspective.
The paper is described as follows in the abstract: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of Mormonism to American religion, little attention has been given to the novel uses of Isaiah in foundational Mormon texts. This paper crosses two lines of inquiry: the study of American religion, with an eye to the role played in it by Mormonism, and the study of Isaiah’s reception history. It looks at the use of Isa 52:7–10 in the Book of Mormon, arguing that the volume exhibits four irreducibly distinct approaches to the interpretation of Isaiah, the interrelations among which are explicitly meant to speak to nineteent…