On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 12:39:08AM +0000, Tim May wrote:
> Yes... I've been looking into this.  First, it seems to be fairly
> common to give Maya dates in backdated Gregorian, despite this being
> rare elsewhere.

How strange.  Especially in conjunction with BC numbering.  I've seen
retrojected Gregorian dates mostly in use by astronomers, who use
0 and negative year numbers AD instead of BC.  Guess we should just
stick to the Julian Day numbers to avoid ambiguity. :)

> Secondly, the GMT correlation is only accurate to a three-day period,
> depending on how a certain transition between the classical and
> postclassical calendars was actually carried out.

Ah.  Indeed.  I chose the same one that Reingold and Dershowitz use in
their calendar conversion algorithms.

> Oh, I didn't mean _you_, Marcos.  But when you try looking this stuff
> up online psychoceramics

Eh?  "psychoceramics"?

> outnumbers serious scholarship by a considerable margin ;).

Well, that's the Internet for you. :)

> I certainly never got the impression that you thought the world was
> going to end.

I didn't really think you had. :)