Talk:Mesoamerican Long Count calendar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Piktuns and higher orders - Examples

I used the calendar conversion tool at Fourmi Lab to calculate the Tzolkin and Haab dates for the examples listed here. They all check out except for the Haab of 9.8.9.13.0 which the Wiki page has listed as 13 Pop. The Fermi Lab tool and my calculations give 18 Tzec for that Haab. I make that date as JDate 69382.8 or 11/11/4524 BCE Gregorian.

The Fourmi Lab tool is at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/. Note that has a year zero so one must enter the date as -4523.

Is there an explanation for this discrepancy?

I made some error? The Maya made an error? The Maya has differing Haab offsets? I used the wrong Piktun?

Mnmidorl (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

9.8.9.13.0 is in fact 13 pop. The correct Julian day number should be 1,941,383.0. the Julian day number you list is in the prior era, ie. less that the GMT correlation constant of 584,283. Also it's a mystery to me why the JD number would have a fraction of .8. I'll look at Fourmi and the article when I have a chance. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Thanks for clearing this up. As to the JDate, the .8 was my choice. Since JDate .0 is noon GMT or about 6AM dawn Yucatan time, I wanted to avoid that not knowing what the converter does. So for the record we are talking about 24 March 603 leptic Gregorian and the 9.8.9.13.0 is in the Baktun ending Dec 2012. Mnmidorl (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking this a step further. The example is

9. 8. 9.13.0 8 Ajaw 13 Pop

10.11.10.5.8

1.0.0.0.0.8

Then the 1.0.0.0.8 is in the 14 Baktun at 3 April 2407 11 Lamat 16 Zec. Mnmidorl (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

9.8.9.13.0 8 Ahaw 13 Pop is Thursday March 21 603 in the Julian calendar, Julian day number 1,941,383 or March 24 in the proleptic Gregorian calendar which I personally think is stupid. This date is in the 10th bak'tun which ended on 10.0.0.0.0 - Wednesday March 9, 830 (Julian). You've missed a zero in the result in the example, 1.0.0.0.0.8 is in the first bak'tun of the second piktun - October 21 4772 5 Lamat 1 Mol, see the 2012 and the Long Count section. You can ignore fractions of a Julian day number in doing these calculations because they only count whole days as integers so the day can start at noon. Senor Cuete (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Fourmilab's calculator calculates the Calendar Round of 9.8.9.13.0 correctly. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Got it! Thanks again. I missed the import of the discussion concerning Pakal. You might consider putting some JDates, Julian, or Gregorian dates in the examples. Mnmidorl (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That example is in there because it shows that there are 20 bak'tuns in a piktun. In my opinion most readers wouldn't understand the importance of the Julian day numbers and they aren't in the sources. They are mentioned in the section about correlations. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I read over the wiki carefully, something I should have done before asking questions. So it seems there are long dates in three groups of Baktuns, the first consisting of 13 Baktuns ending 8/10/3114 BCE Gregorian, a second consisting of 20 Baktuns ending 10/12/4772, and a third with an unknown (presumably 20) number of Baktuns starting 10/13/4772. The first contains largely mythological dates, the second, the entire history of the Maya through the current day, and the third containing one date referenced at Palenque.

What's not clear to me is how the creations fit into this. It seems the third creation ended 8/10/3114 BCE and the fourth began 8/11/3114 BCE. Would the Maya have assigned the entire 20 Baktuns to the fourth creation? Or would they have started a fifth creation at the start of the 13th Baktun and let the long count continue through the 19th Baktun (this would mean a creation does not necessarily start a new long count series)? What about the succeeding group of Baktuns?

Finally, is there any standard naming convention for these groups of Baktuns? Mnmidorl (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The current creation ended on some large (infinite?) number of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. Read the second paragraph mentioning Coba Stela 1 and the references. The Long Count was reset to all zeros and continues forward infinitely into the future. The 13 in the creation date functions mathematically as a zero. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Ok, that's fine; in other words a creation can have multiple Baktun cycles. Still it would be nice to have some word to refer to the various Baktun cycles. Is there such a word? One can't simply add a Piktun on the front without realizing that it may have a varying number of Baktuns in it. I guess what I'm looking for is some nomenclature that uniquely identifies places a given day, something like creation number/baktun cycle. So for example today, 7 March 2013 might be written as 4/0/13.0.0.3.16 meaning 4th creation, first baktun cycle long date. Mnmidorl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"in other words a creation can have multiple Baktun cycles." YES but NO if you mean with different numbers of baktuns, etc. "it would be nice to have some word to refer to the various Baktun cycles. Is there such a word?" YES a piktun = 20 baktuns. "One can't simply add a Piktun on the front" Why not? That's what the Maya did. "without realizing that it may have a varying number of Baktuns in it." Why not? That's what the Maya thought. Only the last piktun before this creation had 13 baktuns as I said all of the higher places were reset to zero. "I guess what I'm looking for is some nomenclature that uniquely identifies places a given day, something like creation number/baktun cycle. So for example today, 7 March 2013 might be written as 4/0/13.0.0.3.16 meaning 4th creation, first baktun cycle long date." PLEASE don't invent new Maya calendrics. This has been done all too often by pseudoscientists already and PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE SECTION ON PIKTUNS AND HIGHER ORDERS, INCLUDING THE FOOTNOTES. The purpose of these talk pages is to discuss changes that would improve the article, not for me to try to teach you about this subject, which you should be able to accomplish by reading the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Here are some ways the wiki page might be improved. Possibly some of these might be addressed in a "Conjectures" section.

1) The range of values for each place in the long count should be stated. There's a comment on the talk page indicating there is some confusion about this. This is currently described under "Long Count periods" but might be repeated under "Calculating a full Long Count date". I do understand the place values are correct in the wiki.

2) Calculating the Haab' date portion

The algoritm given here works only for the current creation, the offset for the previous one is 297.

The recipe works if one uses days from the start of the current creation but not if one uses days from the start of the Baktun cycle. I'e it won't work for the next Piktun of the current creation. Maybe add the Piktun to the chart to fix this?

3) Piktuns and higher orders

The wiki page says "All of these words are inventions of Mayanists." Seems to me when the Maya used higher orders, it appears to be as a kind of bow to eternity. I.e. 13.13.13.13.13.13..... Did they view these dates as relative to some unstated infinity of leading 13s? yes, no, maybe, probably?

Is there any example of a Maya long date with a Piktun or other higher orders referring to an actual date in history? If so, give that example and explain how that fixes the date in time. If not says so. I know there is an example using distances but that does not involve Piktuns.

It appears the Maya fixed a date in time using the long date and the Haab. The Haab serves to select one of the possible series of Baktuns. Either the one in the prior creation or one of the series of 20 Baktuns in the current creation. If true, why not say so?

Surely there must be some ambiguity here if one considers an infinite set of future Piktuns since the Long Date/Haab must repeat after 71 20 Baktun cycles. Is there any evidence that the Maya considered this?

Is there any evidence that the Maya may have had more than the one Baktun cycle in the prior creation? Either say so or say this is unknown.

Explain how "Mayacists" write and talk about long dates and how they fix them in time. Eg. Creation Piktun.Baktun......

Or is this of no concern since the prior creation is mythological and the entire Maya history is contained in Piktun 0 of the current creation? Say something. Mnmidorl (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK here's something: NO CONJECTURES SECTION. Wikipedia forbids original research. This is an article about the Long Count, not any wild theories about it, of which there is a plethora by new-age nincompoops who base their conjectures on ignorance. The maya didn't fix these dates in time using a Long Count and the Haab. PLEASE read the Maya calendar article which contains an explanation of the Calendar Round. Yes, there was more than one baktun cycle in the prior creation. Did you read what the article says about the Serpent series in the Dresden codex? The Calendar Round was the commonly used calendar but to fix dates in a great empire of time the Long Count was used. It's a count of days. The algorithms in the Calculating a full Long Count date section don't work for negative numbers. In order to fix them if they are negative you can add the number of days in the Haab or Tzolkin cycle before you cary out the modulo operation. If it was MY article I'd get rid of the Calculating a full Long Count date section because I don't think it's necessary for an encyclopedia but other editors disagree with me. Yes there's an example of an inscription with a piktun, example 3. Senor Cuete (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I meant to say long count + round. I calculate a 5 place long count + round would not repeat for 494 Pikuns. Thanks for your help. Feel free to delete any or all of this discussion so as not to clutter this page. Mnmidorl (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Earliest Long Count inscriptions

The Abaj Takalik article says this about stele 2 "Due to its only partial preservation, this date has at least three possible readings, the latest of which would place it in the 1st century BC". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaj_Takalik#Inventory_of_stelae. This is not what an IP editor has put in the article, rather he has stated that its date is 7.6.?.?.? - ≈ 236 - 216 BCE. Which is correct? Furthermore he has not cited a reliable source. If the stele is really this unreadable, shouldn't this be noted in the article or maybe it should be removed. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

The latest revisions says "...7 bak'tun/pik, followed by a k'atun/winaakhaab". These terms are not in widespread use and they aren't used in the article. Shouldn't these be "bak'tuns" and ka'tuns" to be consistent with the terms in mainstream use and the article? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

In terms of consistency of bak'tun, k'atun, etc... makes sense, however, the most up to date transliterations and translations are in fact pik, winaakhaab, ect. as they reflect the Classic-period terminology more accurately, and they start to be adapted in epigraphic circles. Revision and more revision of orthodox terminology in terms of hieroglyphic decipheremnt is what furthers the specialization and this popular media ought to reflect such changes in order to provide the public with up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDD8:D450:65E0:FD25:7F69:55C4 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent contribution to the article. My search for pik and winaakhaab indicates that these are very rarely used esoteric terms for bak'tun and k'atun. What you say about them may be correct but since this is your opinion, including them in the article violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. I'm going to remove then. I urge you to register as a Wikipedia editor. It gives you a lot of benefits like greater anonymity, a talk page, etc. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Antoon Leon Vollemaere

Vollemaere maintains an entertaining site: http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/forgtgtm.htm His theories are not taken seriously by mainstream scholars. There are lots of fringe researchers with sites and books like this one. I draw your attention to it because one of its pages has a list of proposed correlations: http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/correl13.htm. I don't think it's worthwhile to expand the table in the article to include all of these. The sample in the article is enough. Still it's interesting how many of these have been proposed. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I guess that Vollemaere missed this one that can be found on Fundamentalist christian sites: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2008-04/msg00085.html. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

More corroboration for the GMT correlation

This should probably be incorporated in the section about correlations: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411194926.htm Senor Cuete (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

What six sites?

"Of the six sites..." What six sites? This probably refers to the "six artifacts" mentioned prior to the table in the Earliest Long Counts section, but perhaps should be clarified. Great article. Thanks everyone! Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The six sites in the first column of the preceding table, "Archaeological Site". Senor Cuete (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete

Oh, thank you. That should have been obvious :) Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Finley reference

Agyle: I strongly disagree with your removal of the reference to John Finley's site and I'm putting it back in. Because you can't ascertain Finley's academic credentials is not a viable reason for removing the reference. This is an argumentum ad hominem. This is not an argument about whether you have a bigger degree than he does. As I understand it, Finley is an astronomer and computer programer. The site is excellent, even if it's written by "just some guy". It is very well researched and written and cites very many definitive references, has an extensive bibliography of reliable sources and links to other supporting sites. If there's a better article about this subject - written or on-line, I don't know where it is. Did you actually read this? Do you have a better citation(s)? If so add it. Otherwise leave it there. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I did read some of the source. I am not offering an alternative citation. It is nicely written. However, it is a self-published work, and Finley does not seem to be a published expert on the subject. (His website covers a wide variety of topics from different fields). WP:SELFPUBLISH is unequivocal that this is unacceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Agyle (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agyle: Now you removed most of the section about Piktuns and higher orders. This was the subject of very extensive discussion and cited the most reliable sources that there are. It was the result of consensus. What are you thinking? Senor Cuete (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with prior discussions. Again, it comes down to self-published sources; Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not the closest thing to a reliable source that can be found. If you're referring to the discussion in Talk Archive 3 specifically about Anderson's unpublished theory as having reached consensus, someone summarized it as "three people against one is pretty much a WP:CONSENSUS", and you were the "one".

In the case of Anderson, I overlooked the authorship, which is not listed at the top of the PDF document, but I see now that his name is included in a copyright at the end, and I'll assume that he's the author. My impression had been that this was an anonymous work ripped from another source. It cites sources by author/year but offers no bibliography at the end, which still suggests this is an excerpt of another work, but that's just speculation. Anderson may be an independently published expert in the field ("Lloyd B. Anderson" wrote a 1968 journal paper on phonology/syllabic codes, "Lloyd Anderson" wrote two linguistics papers in a 1982 book, "Lloyd B. Anderson" presented a paper on multilingual text editing at a 1984 computational linguistics conference, "Dr. Lloyd B. Anderson" is photographed in attendance of two cuneiform encoding conferences in 1999-2000, "Lloyd B. Anderson" wrote a possibly self-published 1993 book on writing on La Mojarra (published by Ecological Linguistics, a Washington D.C. company he lists elsewhere as his primary affiliation; no indication whether it's a one-person or large company), and "Lloyd B. Anderson" gave a talk on Mesopotamia to Aegian writing systems at a 2007 conference). However, in the cited work, Anderson notes in the second paragraph that this is his personal opinion, "quite different" from published opinion, and he doesn't suggest that any other scholars support the theory. The Wikipedia article cites the paper as the basis for "Some authors think..."; unless additional sources support that, I would suggest "Lloyd B. Anderson, [some credential], suggests in an unpublished 2008 paper...." If no other reliable sources support the information, it should be treated as a fringe theory, in accordance with WP:FRINGE.

In the case of Long Count, from Yalalte.org, no author or references are listed.

In the case of Mayan Time Periods and Period Glyphs from Pauahtun.org, no author is listed.

Agyle (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Argyle: While you were playing God about which authors can be cited, you added the fact that Malmström is a Dartmoth professor. If you read his book or followed the discussions on the pages about the Maya calendar, you would realize that his book is crap - WP:FRINGE, pseudoscience that has received a lot of very negative peer revue and is full of "bold revisionist theories". This is the short coming of your theory that somebody's credentials (Malmström's credentials are not in this field) should determine who can be cited. If this was my article I would get rid of all citations to him. Quoting none other than you: "If no other reliable sources support the information, it should be treated as a fringe theory, in accordance with WP:FRINGE". Also I would like to make a general comment: In this field even supposedly reliable published sources can't necessarily be relied upon. For example Schele and Freidel do all of their Maya calendar conversions wrong. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, I did not add Malmström as a source, or the information supported by his citation; the article includes a statement about the dating of monuments, attributing it to a single person rather than suggesting it's a fact, without any indication of who he was. I checked the citation, and simply added "Dartmouth professor" before his name to provide some context. Looking into it further, he's been published on Mesoamerican topics, including pre-Columbian calendrics, in the journals Science, Nature, Geographical Review, Journal for the History of Astronomy, and in the books Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (Springer), Archaeoastronomy in the Americas Vol. 1 (Ballena Press), and Arqueoastronomía y etnoastronomía en Mesoamérica (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), in addition to being published on other subjects. The dating of Stela 2 is already indicated as "controversial" in this article, with dating uncertainties indicated in the table, but if Malström's opinions on Stela 2 or other monuments are fringe theories at odds with mainstream scholarly opinion, the information should be replaced or downplayed in deference to the prevailing view.

I appreciate the suggestion of applying added skepticism to sources on the subject. Please refrain from personal attacks and comments; they are neither productive nor appropriate.

Agyle (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article had only one reference to Malmström. I added a citation from Dartmouth listing his position, degree, and areas of expertise. I also verified all the date interpretations he claimed through other published academic sources, and included them as citations. Everything checked out, and while there were also less accepted views in the literature, I found no contradictions of the information Malmström presented. The information cited does not seem like a fringe viewpoint.

The only other relevant artifact I saw mentioned had a possible partial Long Count inscription, like Takalik 2, is Polol Altar 1. Hammond 1982 mentions personal communications from Graham and Pahl suggesting it as a baktun 7 artifact, and Hammon 1986 repeats this and asserts that even if it's an 8 rather than 7, it looks no later than the 2nd century CE. Pahl's interpretation is also mentioned in a 1987 Master's thesis, citing a 1982 article by Pahl titled "A Possible Cycle 7 Monument from Polol, El Peten, Guatemala" in this book (no preview), and someone in a random web forum mentioned that David Mora-Marin's dissertation supported the interpretation (I haven't verified this; Mora-Marin also mentions Altar 1 in this paper), but these seem rather tenuous references.

Agyle (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you think is a personal attack or comment. Malmström is a reliable source for the Long Count inscriptions but his book is absolutely horrible. At one time someone added citations to his chapter on the Maya calendars to all of the related articles but they have been mostly removed because what he says is so full of gross factual errors that contradict mainstream knowledge of this subject and present wild theories. The rest of the book goes down hill from there. You can read it on line (as I recall at izapa.dartmouth.edu). A number of sites credit him as a leading advocate of the psuedoscientific disproven theory that the early Mesoamerican cultures came from the old world. I'm baffled at why you think that you need to add the fact that he is a Dartmouth professor. Adding an author's credentials is not generally done in citations. It seems to me that you're using some theory of academic hubris to judge the references in the article. Your addition of more reliable sources to the earliest Long Count is welcome and improves the article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Malmstrom's book is online here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~izapa/CS-MM-TC.htm Senor Cuete (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to "what are you thinking", "while you were playing god", "are you even reading this stuff", "do you know anything about this subject or is this just vandalism", etc. I'm not going to quibble over how to describe it, I simply think it's not in keeping with the suggestions of WP:CIVIL. Even the above post took an accusatory tone with "I'm baffled why you think you need to ..." and "It seems to me that you're using some theory of academic hubris ...".

I explained before, I added "Dartmouth professor" to provide context. It's a standard writing convention, as described in this article on attributions in journalism.

If there is no dispute over the facts attributed to Malmström, he needn't be mentioned at all. His attribution suggests that the information is a personal or disputed theory, rather than a generally accepted fact, and was added at your request when you said he was an unreliable source. Perhaps the sentence could just describe the table as the eight oldest known complete long count inscriptions, plus the partial long count inscription from Takalik Abaj Stela 2, or something to that effect. I didn't find as much information on Takalik 2, but if there's controversy over whether it represents a partial long count inscription, that could be indicated with "possible partial long count inscription".

Agyle (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Western"?

Does the term 'Western' seem odd to anyone else as a way to contrast European calendars with Mesoamerican ones? At one point it's used for number systems as well, which seems even more ironic given 'Western' numerals' origins in the Middle East and India. Is this usage common among archaeologists and historians? I skimmed some of the references and saw the term 'European calendars' as a distinction but not 'Western'.AveVeritas (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading the articles about the Julian and Gregorian calendars would help clarify this. The "western" calendar was Roman in origin. Yes, it's fairly common for these to be called "western" as opposed to "eastern" from Asia. European culture is often referred to as "western". Do you think that the use of this term is confusing or unclear? Do you propose to change it to "European"? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Earliest Long Counts

All of the entries in Long Count column in the table of earliest Long Counts now contain more than one footnote. Most of these cite Malmström, noting that his conversions to western calendars are incorrect, and another reliable source. Since Malmström is an unreliable source, shouldn't the references to his book be removed in favor of the reliable ones? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No one objected, so adios Malmström. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418060227/http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/062508_maya.cfm to http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/062508_maya.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mysite.verizon.net/aesir_research/date/date0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biblioteces.net/ciencia/dresden/dresdencodex03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514043431/http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/20_or_13_Baktuns_in_Pictun.pdf to http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/20_or_13_Baktuns_in_Pictun.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117031111/http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/Distances_across_Era_Date.pdf to http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/Distances_across_Era_Date.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117031111/http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/Distances_across_Era_Date.pdf to http://www.traditionalhighcultures.org/Distances_across_Era_Date.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211133848/http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/34.90%20-%20John%20Graham.pdf to http://www.asociaciontikal.com/pdf/34.90%20-%20John%20Graham.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)