Although this is not a direct answer to the question, it may help provide some background to the recent interest.
The recent interest in the Mayan calendar, is because it is turning over a high-order digit, although because we have not properly aligned their calendar, it is variously 2005 and 2012 or something.
The mayans apparently had a fairly exact calendar, but custom kept the various day-cycles rolling. Of some interest is that they are one of the few cultures to have a cardinal, rather than ordinal, calendar: that is, they counted the days and months past, ie 0 m, 0d. Most cultures are forward-looking, and count by the ordinal (or part-thereof) count. So the first day is in the first month, does not mean that either one day or one month has past, but the first of each is partly used.
The "Millenium" argument runs like this. At some point, when the calendar changes over in a high digit, a new 'age' begins, and the old 'age' is tossed out. The 'new age' is supposed to bring enlightenment to the faithful. The whole point of calenders is then to count forward to this new age. The 'age of aquarius' thing is of the same vein. Although we are in the age of aquarius, it just means that the spring equinox has progressed through the sign of pieces and is now in aquarius.
One should not doubt that both man-made and natural changes might be bring in a 'new age'. The English reformation, the rise and fall of communism and of protestism, and assorted invasions are man-made events. Natural events are the like of the volcanos that introduced the dark ages of 687 BC and 535 AD, a failure of climate, which brought desease, and various quests to 'bring back the old days' (Jason and the golden fleece, and Authur and the holy grail).
However, these events did not wait for some calendar to roll over to 1000 or 2000. The year 1000 AD, watched at the time for a similar event, came and went as did 2000 AD, and the roll-over of the columns in the mayan long-day count. The Y2K problem is directly connected to this, because it was relying on the assumption that the last two or three digits will go on 'for ever', so '99' is bigger than '60', but '01' is smaller.