Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу автора An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY
BULLETIN 57
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
OF THE MAYA HIEROGLYPHS
BY
SYLVANUS GRISWOLD MORLEY
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1915
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology,
Washington, D. C., January 7, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to submit the accompanying manuscript of a memoir bearing the title "An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs," by Sylvanus Griswold Morley, and to recommend its publication as a bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology.
The hieroglyphic writing developed by the Maya of Central America and southern Mexico was probably the foremost intellectual achievement of pre-Columbian times in the New World, and as such it deserves equal attention with other graphic systems of antiquity.
The earliest inscriptions now extant probably date from about the beginning of the Christian era, but such is the complexity of the glyphs and subject matter even at this early period, that in order to estimate the age of the system it is necessary to postulate a far greater antiquity for its origin. Indeed all that can be accepted safely in this direction is that many centuries must have elapsed before the Maya hieroglyphic writing could have been developed to the highly complex stage where we first encounter it.
The first student to make any progress in deciphering the Maya inscriptions was Prof. Ernst Förstemann, of the Royal Library at Dresden. About 1880 Professor Förstemann published a facsimile reproduction of the Dresden codex, and for the next twenty years devoted the greater part of his time to the elucidation of this manuscript. He it was who first discovered and worked out the ingenious vigesimal system of numeration used by the Maya, and who first pointed out how this system was utilized to record astronomical and chronological facts. In short, his pioneer work made possible all subsequent progress in deciphering Maya texts.
Curiously enough, about the same time, or a little later (in 1891), another student of the same subject, Mr. J. T. Goodman, of Alameda, California, working independently and without knowledge of Professor Förstemann's researches, also succeeded in deciphering the chronological parts of the Maya texts, and in determining the values of the head-variant numerals. Mr. Goodman also perfected some tables, "The Archaic Chronological Calendar" and "The Archaic Annual Calendar," which greatly facilitate the decipherment of the calculations recorded in the texts.
It must be admitted that very little progress has been made in deciphering the Maya glyphs except those relating to the calendar and chronology; that is, the signs for the various time periods (days and months), the numerals, and a few name-glyphs; however, as these known signs comprise possibly two-fifths of all the glyphs, it is clear that the general tenor of the Maya inscriptions is no longer concealed from us. The remaining three-fifths probably tell the nature of the events which occurred on the corresponding dates, and it is to these we must turn for the subject matter of Maya history. The deciphering of this textual residuum is enormously complicated by the character of the Maya glyphs, which for the greater part are ideographic rather than phonetic; that is, the various symbols represent ideas rather than sounds.
In a graphic system composed largely of ideographic elements it is extremely difficult to determine the meanings of the different signs, since little or no help is to be derived from varying combinations of elements as in a phonetic system. In phonetic writing the symbols have fixed sounds, which are unchanging throughout, and when these values have once been determined, they may be substituted for the characters wherever they occur, and thus words are formed.
While the Maya glyphs largely represent ideas, indubitable traces of phoneticism and phonetic composition appear. There are perhaps half a dozen glyphs in all which are known to be constructed on a purely phonetic basis, and as the remaining glyphs are gradually deciphered this number will doubtless be increased.
The progress which has been made in deciphering the Maya inscriptions may be summarized as follows: The Maya calendar, chronology, and astronomy as recorded in the hieroglyphic texts have been carefully worked out, and it is unlikely that future discoveries will change our present conception of them. There remains, however, a group of glyphs which are probably non-calendric, non-chronologic, and non-astronomic in character. These, it may be reasonably expected, will be found to describe the subject matter of Maya history; that is, they probably set forth the nature of the events which took place on the dates recorded. An analogy would be the following: Supposing, in scanning a history of the United States, only the dates could be read. We would find, for example, July 4, 1776, followed by unknown characters; April 12, 1861, by others; and March 4, 1912, by others. This, then, is the case with the Maya glyphs—we find dates followed by glyphs of unknown meaning, which presumably set forth the nature of the corresponding events. In a word, we know now the chronologic skeleton of Maya history; it remains to work out the more intimate details which alone can make it a vital force.
The published writings on the subject of the Maya hieroglyphs have become so voluminous, and are so widely scattered and inaccessible, that it is difficult for students of Central American archeology to become familiar with what has been accomplished in this important field of investigation. In the present memoir Mr. Morley, who has devoted a number of years to the study of Maya archeology, and especially to the hieroglyphs, summarizes the results of these researches to the present time, and it is believed that this Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs will be the means of enabling ready and closer acquaintance with this interesting though intricate subject.
Very respectfully,
F. W. Hodge,
Ethnologist-in-Charge.
Dr. Charles D. Walcott,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. C.
PREFACE
With the great expansion of interest in American archeology during the last few years there has grown to be a corresponding need and demand for primary textbooks, archeological primers so to speak, which will enable the general reader, without previous knowledge of the science, to understand its several branches. With this end in view, the author has prepared An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs.
The need for such a textbook in this particular field is suggested by two considerations: (1) The writings of previous investigators, having been designed to meet the needs of the specialist rather than those of the beginner, are for the greater part too advanced and technical for general comprehension; and (2) these writings are scattered through many publications, periodicals as well as books, some in foreign languages, and almost all difficult of access to the average reader.
To the second of these considerations, however, the writings of Mr. C. P. Bowditch, of Boston, Massachusetts, offer a conspicuous exception, particularly his final contribution to this subject, entitled "The Numeration, Calendar Systems, and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas," the publication of which in 1910 marked the dawn of a new era in the study of the Maya hieroglyphic writing. In this work Mr. Bowditch exhaustively summarizes all previous knowledge of the subject, and also indicates the most promising lines for future investigation. The book is a vast storehouse of heretofore scattered material, now gathered together for the first time and presented to the student in a readily accessible form. Indeed, so thorough is its treatment, the result of many years of intensive study, that the writer would have hesitated to bring out another work, necessarily covering much of the same ground, had it not been for his belief that Mr. Bowditch's book is too advanced for lay comprehension. The Maya hieroglyphic writing is exceedingly intricate; its subject matter is complex and its forms irregular; and in order to be understood it must be presented in a very elementary way. The writer believes that this primer method of treatment has not been followed in the publication in question and, furthermore, that the omission of specimen texts, which would give the student practice in deciphering the glyphs, renders it too technical for use by the beginner.
Acknowledgment should be made here to Mr. Bowditch for his courtesy in permitting the reproduction of a number of drawings from his book, the examples of the period, day and month glyphs figured being derived almost entirely from this source; and in a larger sense for his share in the establishment of instruction in this field of research at Harvard University where the writer first took up these studies.
In the limited space available it would have been impossible to present a detailed picture of the Maya civilization, nor indeed is this essential to the purpose of the book. It has been thought advisable, however, to precede the general discussion of the hieroglyphs with a brief review of the habitat, history, customs, government, and religion of the ancient Maya, so that the reader may gather a general idea of the remarkable people whose writing and calendar he is about to study.
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter I.The Maya
1Habitat
1History
2Manners and customs
7II.
The Maya hieroglyphic writing
22III.
How the Maya reckoned time
37The tonalamatl, or 260-day period
41The haab, or year of 365 days
44The Calendar Round, or 18,980-day period
51The Long Count
60Initial Series
63The introducing glyph
64The cycle glyph
68The katun glyph
68The tun glyph
70The uinal glyph
70The kin glyph
72Secondary Series
74Calendar-round dates
76Period-ending dates
77U kahlay katunob
79IV.
Maya arithmetic
87Bar and dot numerals
87Head-variant numerals
96First method of numeration
105Number of cycles in a great cycle
107Second method of numeration
129First step in solving Maya numbers
134Second step in solving Maya numbers
135Third step in solving Maya numbers
136Fourth step in solving Maya numbers
138Fifth step in solving Maya numbers
151V.
The inscriptions
156Texts recording Initial Series
157Texts recording Initial Series and Secondary Series
207Texts recording Period Endings
222Texts recording Initial Series, Secondary Series, and Period Endings
233Errors in the originals
245VI.
The codices
251Texts recording tonalamatls
251Texts recording Initial Series
266Texts recording Serpent Numbers
273Texts recording Ascending Series
276List of Tables
Page
Table I.The twenty Maya day names
37
II.
Sequence of Maya days
42
III.
The divisions of the Maya year
45
IV.
Positions of days at the end of a year
48
V.
Relative positions of days beginning Maya years
53
VI.
Positions of days in divisions of Maya year
55
VII.
Positions of days in divisions of Maya year according to Maya notation
55
VIII.
The Maya time-periods
62
IX.
Sequence of katuns in u kahlay katunob
80
X.
Characteristics of head-variant numerals 0-19, inclusive
103
XI.
Sequence of twenty consecutive dates in the month Pop
111
XII.
Comparison of the two methods of numeration
133
XIII.
Values of higher periods in terms of lowest, in inscriptions
135
XIV.
Values of higher periods in terms of lowest, in codices
135
XV.
The 365 positions in the Maya year
141
XVI.
80 Calendar Rounds expressed in Arabic and Maya notation
143
XVII.
Interrelationship of dates on Stelæ E, F, and J and Zoömorph G, Quirigua
239
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Plate 1.The Maya territory, showing locations of principal cities (map)
1
2.
Diagram showing periods of occupancy of principal southern cities
15
3.
Page 74 of the Dresden Codex, showing the end of the world (according to Förstemann)
32
4.
Diagram showing occurrence of dates recorded in Cycle 9
35
5.
Tonalamatl wheel, showing sequence of the 260 differently named days
43
6.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and normal-form period glyphs
157
7.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs
167
8.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs
170
9.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs
176
10.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs—Stela 3, Tikal
178
11.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs—Stela A (east side), Quirigua
179
12.
Glyphs representing Initial Series, showing use of head-variant numerals and period glyphs
180
13.
Oldest Initial Series at Copan—Stela 15
187
14.
Initial Series on Stela D, Copan, showing full-figure numeral glyphs and period glyphs
188
15.
Initial Series on Stela J, Copan
191
16.
Initial Series and Secondary Series on Lintel 21, Yaxchilan
207
17.
Initial Series and Secondary Series on Stela 1, Piedras Negras
210
18.
Initial Series and Secondary Series on Stela K, Quirigua
213
19.
Initial Series and Secondary Series on Stela F (west side), Quirigua
218
20.
Initial Series on Stela F (east side), Quirigua
220
21.
Examples of Period-ending dates in Cycle 9
223
22.
Examples of Period-ending dates in cycles other than Cycle 9
227
23.
Initial Series, Secondary Series, and Period-ending dates on Stela 3, Piedras Negras
233
24.
Initial Series, Secondary Series, and Period-ending dates on Stela E (west side), Quirigua
235
25.
Calendar-round dates on Altar 5, Tikal
240
26.
Initial Series on Stela N, Copan, showing error in month coefficient
248
27.
Page 12 of the Dresden Codex, showing tonalamatls in all three divisions
254
28.
Page 15 of the Dresden Codex, showing tonalamatls in all three divisions
260
29.
Middle divisions of pages 10 and 11 of the Codex Tro-Cortesiano, showing one tonalamatl extending across the two pages
262
30.
Page 102 of the Codex Tro-Cortesiano, showing tonalamatls in the lower three divisions
263
31.
Page 24 of the Dresden Codex, showing Initial Series
266
32.
Page 62 of the Dresden Codex, showing the Serpent Numbers
273
Figure 1.Itzamna, chief deity of the Maya Pantheon
16
2.
Kukulcan, God of Learning
17
3.
Ahpuch, God of Death
17
4.
The God of War
17
5.
Ek Ahau, the Black Captain, war deity
18
6.
Yum Kaax, Lord of the Harvest
18
7.
Xaman Ek, the North Star God
19
8.
Conflict between the Gods of Life and Death (Kukulcan and Ahpuch)
19
9.
Outlines of the glyphs
22
10.
Examples of glyph elision, showing elimination of all parts except essential element
23
11.
Normal-form and head-variant glyphs, showing retention of essential element in each
24
12.
Normal-form and head-variant glyphs, showing absence of common essential element
25
13.
Glyphs built up on a phonetic basis
28
14.
A rebus. Aztec, and probably Maya, personal and place names were written in a corresponding manner
29
15.
Aztec place names
30
16.
The day signs in the inscriptions
38
17.
The day signs in the codices
39
18.
Sign for the tonalamatl (according to Goodman)
44
19.
The month signs in the inscriptions
49
20.
The month signs in the codices
50
21.
Diagram showing engagement of tonalamatl wheel of 260 days and haab wheel of 365 positions; the combination of the two giving the Calendar Round, or 52-year period
57
22.
Signs for the Calendar Round
59
23.
Diagram showing section of Calendar-round wheel
64
24.
Initial-series "introducing glyph"
65
25.
Signs for the cycle
68
26.
Full-figure variant of cycle sign
69
27.
Signs for the katun
69
28.
Full-figure variant of katun sign
70
29.
Signs for the tun
70
30.
Full-figure variant of tun sign
70
31.
Signs for the uinal
71
32.
Full-figure variant of uinal sign on Zoömorph B, Quirigua
71
33.
Full-figure variant of uinal sign on Stela D, Copan
71
34.
Signs for the kin
72
35.
Full-figure variant of kin sign
73
36.
Period glyphs, from widely separated sites and of different epochs, showing persistence of essential elements
74
37.
Ending signs and elements
78
38.
"Snake" or "knot" element as used with day sign Ahau, possibly indicating presence of the u kahlay katunob in the inscriptions
83
39.
Normal forms of numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, in the codices
88
40.
Normal forms of numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, in the inscriptions
89
41.
Examples of bar and dot numeral 5, showing the ornamentation which the bar underwent without affecting its numerical value
89
42.
Examples showing the way in which numerals 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12,16, and 17 are
notused with period, day, or month signs
90
43.
Examples showing the way in which numerals 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12,16, and 17
areused with period, day, or month signs
90
44.
Normal forms of numerals 1 to 13, inclusive, in the Books of Chilan Balam
91
45.
Sign for 20 in the codices
92
46.
Sign for 0 in the codices
92
47.
Sign for 0 in the inscriptions
93
48.
Figure showing possible derivation of the sign for 0 in the inscriptions
93
49.
Special sign for 0 used exclusively as a month coefficient
94
50.
Examples of the use of bar and dot numerals with period, day, or month signs
95
51.
Head-variant numerals 1 to 7, inclusive
97
52.
Head-variant numerals 8 to 13, inclusive
98
53.
Head-variant numerals 14 to 19, inclusive, and 0
99
54.
A sign for 0, used also to express the idea "ending" or "end of" in Period-ending dates
102
55.
Examples of the use of head-variant numerals with period, day,or month signs
104
56.
Examples of the first method of numeration, used almost exclusively in the inscriptions
105
57.
Signs for the cycle showing coefficients above 13
110
58.
Part of the inscription on Stela N, Copan, showing a number composed of six periods
115
59.
Part of the inscription in the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, showing a number composed of seven periods
115
60.
Part of the inscription on Stela 10, Tikal (probably an Initial Series), showing a number composed of eight periods
115
61.
Signs for the great cycle and the great-great cycle
118
62.
Glyphs showing misplacement of the kin coefficient or elimination of a period glyph
128
63.
Examples of the second method of numeration, used exclusively in the codices
131
64.
Figure showing the use of the "minus" or "backward" sign in the codices
137
65.
Sign for the "month indicator"
153
66.
Diagram showing the method of designating particular glyphs in a text
156
67.
Signs representing the hotun, or 5-tun, period
166
68.
Initial Series showing bar and dot numerals and head-variant period glyphs
174
69.
Initial Series showing head-variant numerals and period glyphs
183
70.
Initial Series showing head-variant numerals and period glyphs
186
71.
Initial Series on Stela H, Quirigua
193
72.
The tun, uinal, and kin coefficients on Stela H, Quirigua
194
73.
The Initial Series on the Tuxtla Statuette, the oldest Initial Series known (in the early part of Cycle 8)
195
74.
The introducing glyph (?) of the Initial Series on the Tuxtla Statuette
196
75.
Drawings of the Initial Series:
A, On the Leyden Plate;
B, on a lintel from the Temple of the Initial Series, Chichen Itza
197
76.
The Cycle-10 Initial Series from Quen Santo
200
77.
Initial Series which proceed from a date prior to 4 Ahau8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology
204
78.
The Initial Series on Stela J, Quirigua
215
79.
The Secondary Series on Stela J, Quirigua
216
80.
Glyphs which may disclose the nature of the events that happened at Quirigua on the dates:
a, 9. 14. 13. 4. 17 12 Caban 5 Kayab;
b, 9. 15. 6. 14. 6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec
221
81.
The Initial Series, Secondary Series, and Period-ending date on Altar S, Copan
232
82.
The Initial Series on Stela E (east side), Quirigua
236
83.
Calendar-round dates
241
84.
Texts showing actual errors in the originals
245
85.
Example of first method of numeration in the codices (part of page 69 of the Dresden Codex)
275
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aguilar, Sanchez de. 1639. Informe contra idolorum cultores del Obispado de Yucatan. Madrid. (Reprint in Anales Mus. Nac. de Mexico, VI, pp. 17-122, Mexico, 1900.)
Bowditch, Charles P. 1901 a. Memoranda on the Maya calendars used in the Books of Chilan Balam. Amer. Anthr., n. s., III, No. 1, pp. 129-138, New York.
—— 1906. The Temples of the Cross, of the Foliated Cross, and of the Sun at Palenque. Cambridge, Mass.
—— 1909. Dates and numbers in the Dresden Codex. Putnam Anniversary Volume, pp. 268-298, New York.
—— 1910. The numeration, calendar systems, and astronomical knowledge of the Mayas. Cambridge, Mass.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, C. E. 1869-70. Manuscrit Troano. Études sur le système graphique et la langue des Mayas. 2 vols. Paris.
Brinton, Daniel G. 1882 b. The Maya chronicles. Philadelphia. (No. 1 of Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature.)
—— 1894 b. A primer of Mayan hieroglyphics. Pubs. Univ. of Pa., Ser. in Philol., Lit., and Archeol., III, No. 2.
Bulletin 28 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1904: Mexican and Central American antiquities, calendar systems, and history. Twenty-four papers by Eduard Seler, E. Förstemann, Paul Schellhas, Carl Sapper, and E. P. Dieseldorff. Translated from the German under the supervision of Charles P. Bowditch.
Cogolludo, D. L. 1688. Historia de Yucathan. Madrid.
Cresson, H. T. 1892. The antennæ and sting of Yikilcab as components in the Maya day-signs. Science, XX, pp. 77-79, New York.
Dieseldorff, E. P. See Bulletin 28.
Förstemann, E. 1906. Commentary on the Maya manuscript in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Papers Peabody Mus., IV, No. 2, pp. 48-266, Cambridge. See also Bulletin 28.
Gates, W. E. 1910. Commentary upon the Maya-Tzental Perez Codex, with a concluding note upon the linguistic problem of the Maya glyphs. Papers Peabody Mus., VI, No. 1, pp. 5-64, Cambridge.
Goodman, J. T. 1897. The archaic Maya inscriptions. (Biologia Centrali-Americana, Archæology, Part XVIII. London.) [See Maudslay, 1889-1902.]
—— 1905. Maya dates. Amer. Anthr., n. s., VII, pp. 642-647, Lancaster, Pa.
Hewett, Edgar L. 1911. Two seasons' work in Guatemala. Bull. Archæol. Inst. of America, II, pp. 117-134, Norwood, Mass.
Holmes, W. H. 1907. On a nephrite statuette from San Andrés Tuxtla, Vera Cruz, Mexico. Amer. Anthr., n. s., IX, No. 4, pp. 691-701, Lancaster, Pa.
Landa, Diego de. 1864. Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan. Paris.
Le Plongeon, A. 1885. The Maya alphabet. Supplement to Scientific American, vol. XIX, Jan. 31, pp. 7572-73, New York.
Maler, Teobert. 1901. Researches in the central portion of the Usumatsintla valley. Memoirs Peabody Mus., II, No. 1, pp. 9-75, Cambridge.
—— 1903. Researches in the central portion of the Usumatsintla valley. [Continued.] Ibid., No. 2, pp. 83-208.
—— 1908 a. Explorations of the upper Usumatsintla and adjacent region. Ibid., IV, No. 1, pp. 1-51.
Maler, Teobert. 1908 b. Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala, and adjacent region. Ibid., No. 2, pp. 55-127.
—— 1910. Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala, and adjacent region. [Continued.] Ibid., No. 3, pp. 131-170.
—— 1911. Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala. Tikal. Ibid., V, No. 1, pp. 3-91, pls. 1-26.
Maudslay, A. P. 1889-1902. Biologia Centrali-Americana, or contributions to the knowledge of the flora and fauna of Mexico and Central America. Archæology. 4 vols. of text and plates. London.
Morley, S. G. 1910 b. Correlation of Maya and Christian chronology. Amer. Journ. Archeol., 2d ser., XIV, pp. 193-204, Norwood, Mass.
—— 1911. The historical value of the Books of Chilan Balam. Ibid., XV, pp. 195-214.
Ponce, Fray Alonzo. 1872. Relacion breve y verdadera de algunas cosas de las muchas que sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonzo Ponce, Comisario General en las provincias de Nueva España. Colección de documentos ineditos para la historia de España, LVII, LVIII. Madrid.
Rosny, Leon de. 1876. Essai sur le déchiffrement de l'écriture hiératique de l'Amérique Centrale. Paris.
Sapper, Carl. See Bulletin 28.
Schellhas, Paul. See Bulletin 28.
Seler, Eduard. 1901 c. Die alten Ansiedelungen von Chaculá im Distrikte Nenton des Departements Huehuetenango der Republik Guatemala. Berlin.
—— 1902-1908. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde. 3 vols. Berlin. See also Bulletin 28.
Spinden, H. J. 1913. A study of Maya art, its subject-matter and historical development. Memoirs Peabody Mus., VI, pp. 1-285, Cambridge.
Stephens, J. L. 1841. Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. 2 vols. New York.
—— 1843. Incidents of travel in Yucatan. 2 vols. New York.
Thomas, Cyrus. 1893. Are the Maya hieroglyphs phonetic? Amer. Anthr., VI, No. 3, pp. 241-270, Washington.
Villagutierre, Sotomayor J. 1701. Historia de la conquista de la provinzia de el Itza, reduccion, y progressos de la de el Lacandon y otras naciones de el reyno de Guatimala, a las provincias de Yucatan, en la America septentrional. Madrid.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 1
There are at present upward of twenty tribes speaking various dialects of the Maya language, perhaps half a million people in all. These live in the same general region their ancestors occupied, but under greatly changed conditions. Formerly the Maya were the van of civilization in the New World,[1] but to-day they are a dwindling race, their once remarkable civilization is a thing of the past, and its manners and customs are forgotten.
These several calamities, however, were but harbingers of worse soon to come. In 1517 Francisco de Cordoba landed the first Spanish expedition[10] on the shores of Yucatan. The natives were so hostile, however, that he returned to Cuba, having accomplished little more than the discovery of the country. In the following year Juan de Grijalva descended on the peninsula, but he, too, met with so determined a resistance that he sailed away, having gained little more than hard knocks for his pains. In the following year (1519) Hernando Cortez landed on the northeast coast but reembarked in a few days for Mexico, again leaving the courageous natives to themselves. Seven years later, however, in 1526, Francisco Montejo, having been granted the title of Adelantado of Yucatan, set about the conquest of the country in earnest. Having obtained the necessary "sinews of war" through his marriage to a wealthy widow of Seville, he sailed with 3 ships and 500 men for Yucatan. He first landed on the island of Cozumel, off the northeast coast, but soon proceeded to the mainland and took formal possession of the country in the name of the King of Spain. This empty ceremony soon proved to be but the prelude to a sanguinary struggle, which broke out almost immediately and continued with extraordinary ferocity for many years, the Maya fighting desperately in defense of their homes. Indeed, it was not until 14 years later, on June 11, 1541 (old style), that, the Spaniards having defeated a coalition of Maya chieftains near the city of Ichcanzihoo, the conquest was finally brought to a close and the pacification of the country accomplished. With this event ends the independent history of the Maya.
In closing this introduction nothing could be more appropriate than to call attention once more to the supreme importance of religion in the life of the ancient Maya. Religion was indeed the very fountain-head of their civilization, and on its rites and observances they lavished a devotion rarely equaled in the annals of man. To its great uplifting force was due the conception and evolution of the hieroglyphic writing and calendar, alike the invention and the exclusive property of the priesthood. To its need for sanctuary may be attributed the origin of Maya architecture; to its desire for expression, the rise of Maya sculpture. All activities reflected its powerful influence and all were more or less dominated by its needs and teachings. In short, religion was the foundation upon which the structure of the Maya civilization was reared.
Whatever may be the meaning of the undeciphered glyphs, enough has been said in this chapter about those of known meaning to indicate the extreme importance of the element of time in Maya writing. The very great preponderance of astronomical, calendary, and numerical signs in both the codices and the inscriptions has determined, so far as the beginner is concerned, the best way to approach the study of the glyphs. First, it is essential to understand thoroughly the Maya system of counting time, in other words, their calendar and chronology. Second, in order to make use of this knowledge, as did the Maya, it is necessary to familiarize ourselves with their arithmetic and its signs and symbols. Third, and last, after this has been accomplished, we are ready to apply ourselves to the deciphering of the inscriptions and the codices. For this reason the next chapter will be devoted to the discussion of the Maya system of counting time.
The glyphs for these twenty days are shown in figures 16 and 17. The forms in figure 16 are from the inscriptions and those in figure 17 from the codices. In several cases variants are given to facilitate identification. A study of the glyphs in these two figures shows on the whole a fairly close similarity between the forms for the same day in each. The sign for the first day, Imix, is practically identical in both. Compare figure 16, a and b, with figure 17, a and b. The usual form for the day Ik in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, c), however, is unlike the glyph for the same day in the codices (fig. 17, c, d). The forms for Akbal and Kan are practically the same in each (see fig. 16, d, e, and f, and fig. 17, e and f, respectively). The day Chicchan, figure 16, g, occurs rarely in the inscriptions; when present, it takes the form of a grotesque head. In the codices the common form for this day is very different (fig. 17, g). The head variant, however (fig. 17, h), shows a slightly closer similarity to the form from the inscriptions. The forms in both figure 16, h, i, and figure 17, i, j, for the day Cimi show little resemblance to each other. Although figure 17, i, represents the common form in the codices, the variant in j more closely resembles the form in figure 16, h, i. The day Manik is practically the same in both (see figs. 16, j, and 17, k), as is also Lamat (figs. 16, k, l, and 17, l, m). The day Muluc occurs rarely in the inscriptions (fig. 16, m, n). Of these two variants m more closely resembles the form from the codices (fig. 17, n). The glyph for the day Oc (fig. 16, o, p, q) is not often found in the inscriptions. In the codices, on the other hand, this day is frequently represented as shown in figure 17, o. This form bears no resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. There is, however, a head-variant form found very rarely in the codices that bears a slight resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. The day Chuen occurs but once in the inscriptions where the form is clear enough to distinguish its characteristic (see fig. 16, r). This form bears a general resemblance to the glyph for this day in the codices (fig. 17, p, q). The forms for the day Eb in both figures 16, s, t, u, and 17, r, are grotesque heads showing but remote resemblance to one another. The essential element in both, however, is the same, that is, the element occupying the position of the ear. Although the day Ben occurs but rarely in the inscriptions, its form (fig. 16, v) is practically identical with that in the codices (see fig. 17, s). The day Ix in the inscriptions appears as in figure 16, w, x. The form in the codices is shown in figure 17, t. The essential element in each seems to be the three prominent dots or circles. The day Men occurs very rarely on the monuments. The form shown in figure 16, y, is a grotesque head not unlike the sign for this day in the codices (fig. 17, u). The signs for the day Cib in the inscriptions and the codices (figs. 16, z, and 17, v, w), respectively, are very dissimilar. Indeed, the form for Cib (fig. 17, v) in the codices resembles more closely the sign for the day Caban (fig. 16, a', b') than it does the form for Cib in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, z). The only element common to both is the line paralleling the upper part of the glyph (*
) and the short vertical lines connecting it with the outline at the top. The glyphs for the day Caban in both figures 16, a', b', and 17, x, y, show a satisfactory resemblance to each other. The forms for the day Eznab are also practically identical (see figs. 16, c', and 17, z, a'). The forms for the day Cauac, on the other hand, are very dissimilar; compare figures 16, d', and 17, b'. The only point of resemblance between the two seems to be the element which appears in the eye of the former and at the lower left-hand side of the latter. The last of the twenty Maya days, and by far the most important, since it is found in both the codices and the inscriptions more frequently than all of the others combined, is Ahau (see figs. 16, e'-k', and 17, c', d'). The latter form is the only one found in the codices, and is identical with e', f', figure 16, the usual sign for this day in the inscriptions. The variants in figure 16, g'-k', appear on some of the monuments, and because of the great importance of this day Ahau it is necessary to keep all of them in mind.
This round of the 260 differently named days was called by the Aztec the tonalamatl, or "book of days." The Maya name for this period is unknown[29] and students have accepted the Aztec name for it. The tonalamatl is frequently represented in the Maya codices, there being more than 200 examples in the Codex Tro-Cortesiano alone. It was a very useful period for the calculations of the priests because of the different sets of factors into which it can be resolved, namely, 4×65, 5×52, 10×26, 13×20, and 2×130. Tonalamatls divided into 4, 5, and 10 equal parts of 65, 52, and 26 days, respectively, occur repeatedly throughout the codices.
The sign for the month Yaxkin is identical in both figures 19, k, l, and 20, i, j. The sign for the month Mol in figures 19, m, n, and 20, k exhibits the same close similarity. The forms for the month Chen in figures 19, o, p, and 20, l, m, on the other hand, bear only a slight resemblance to each other. The forms for the months Yax (figs. 19, q, r, and 20, n), Zac (figs. 19, s, t, and 20, o), and Ceh (figs. 19, u, v, and 20, p) are again identical in each case. The signs for the next month, Mac, however, are entirely dissimilar, the form commonly found in the inscriptions (fig. 19, w) bearing absolutely no resemblance to that shown in figure 20, q, r, the only form for this month in the codices. The very unusual variant (fig. 19, x), from Stela 25 at Piedras Negras is perhaps a trifle nearer the form found in the codices. The flattened oval in the main part of the variant is somewhat like the upper part of the glyph in figure 20, q. The essential element of the glyph for the month Mac, so far as the inscriptions are concerned, is the element (*
) found as the superfix in both w and x, figure 19. The sign for the month Kankin (figs. 19, y, z, and 20, s, t) and the signs for the month Muan (figs. 19, a', b', and 20, u, v) show only a general similarity. The signs for the last three months of the year, Pax (figs. 19, c', and 20, w), Kayab (figs. 19, d'-f', and 20, x, y), and Cumhu (figs. 19, g', h', and 20, z, a', b') in the inscriptions and codices, respectively, are practically identical. The closing division of the year, the five days of the xma kaba kin, called Uayeb, is represented by essentially the same glyph in both the inscriptions and the codices. Compare figure 19, i', with figure 20, c'.
It will greatly aid the student in his comprehension of the discussion to follow if he will constantly bear in mind the fact that one Calendar Round followed another without interruption or the interpolation of a single day; and further, that the Calendar Round may be likened to a large cogwheel having 18,980 teeth, each one of which represented one of the dates of this period, and that this wheel revolved forever, each cog passing a fixed point once every 52 years.
Table VIII shows the several periods of Maya chronology by means of which the passage of time was measured. All are the exact terms of a vigesimal system of numeration, except in the 2d place (uinals), in which 18 units instead of 20 make 1 unit of the 3d place, or order next higher (tuns). The break in the regularity of the vigesimal progression in the 3d place was due probably to the desire to bring the unit of this order (the tun) into agreement with the solar year of 365 days, the number 360 being much closer to 365 than 400, the third term of a constant vigesimal progression. We have seen on page 45 that the 18 uinals of the haab were equivalent to 360 days or kins, precisely the number contained in the third term of the above table, the tun. The fact that the haab, or solar year, was composed of 5 days more than the tun, thus causing a discrepancy of 5 days as compared with the third place of the chronological system, may have given to these 5 closing days of the haab—that is, the xma kaba kin—the unlucky character they were reputed to possess.
The student will better comprehend this Initial-series method of dating if he will imagine the Calendar Round represented by a large cogwheel A, figure 23, having 18,980 teeth, each one of which is named after one of the dates of the calendar. Furthermore, let him suppose that the arrow B in the same figure points to the tooth, or cog, named 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu; and finally that from this as its original position the wheel commences to revolve in the direction indicated by the arrow in A.
As head variants also should be classified the so-called "full-figure glyphs," in which the periods given in Table VIII are represented by full figures instead of by heads. In these forms, however, only the heads of the figures are essential, since they alone present the determining characteristics, by means of which in each case identification is possible. Moreover, the head part of any full-figure variant is characterized by precisely the same essential elements as the corresponding head variant for the same period, or in other words, the addition of the body parts in full-figure glyphs in no way influences or changes their meanings. For this reason head-variant and full-figure forms have been treated together. These full-figure glyphs are exceedingly rare, having been found only in five Initial Series throughout the Maya area: (1) On Stela D at Copan; (2) on Zoömorph B at Quirigua; (3) on east side Stela D at Quirigua; (4) on west side Stela D at Quirigua; (5) on Hieroglyphic Stairway at Copan. A few full-figure glyphs have been found also on an oblong altar at Copan, though not as parts of an Initial Series, and on Stela 15 as a period glyph of an Initial Series.
The period of the 4th place or order was called by the Maya the katun; that is to say, 20 tuns, since it contained 20 units of the 3d order (see Table VIII). The normal form of the katun glyph is shown in figure 27, a-d. It is composed of the normal form of the tun sign (fig. 29, a, b) surmounted by the pair of comblike appendages, which we have elsewhere seen meant 20, and which were probably derived from the representation of a fish. The whole glyph thus graphically portrays the concept 20 tuns, which according to Table VIII is equal to 1 katun. The normal form of the katun glyph in the codices (fig. 27, c, d) is identical with the normal form in the inscriptions (fig. 27, a, b). Several head variants are found. The most easily recognized, though not the most common, is shown in figure 27, e, in which the superfix is the same as in the normal form; that is, the element (†
), which probably signifies 20 in this connection. To be logical, therefore, the head element should be the same as the head variant of the tun glyph, but this is not the case (see fig. 29, e-h). When this superfix is present, the identification of the head variant of the katun glyph is an easy matter, but when it is absent it is difficult to fix on any essential characteristic. The general shape of the head is like the head variant of the cycle glyph. Perhaps the oval (**
) in the top of the head in figure 27, f-h, and the small curling fang (††) represented as protruding from the back part of the mouth are as constant as any of the other elements. The head of the full-figure variant in figure 28 presents the same lack of essential characteristics as the head variant, though in this form the small curling fang is also found. Again, the body attached to this head is that of a bird which has been identified as an eagle.
3. Variation. Throughout the range of time covered by the Initial Series the normal forms for any given time-period differ but little from one another, all following very closely one fixed type. Although nearly 200 years apart in point of time, the early form of the tun sign in figure 36, a, closely resembles the late form shown in b of the same figure, as to its essentials. Or again, although 375 years apart, the early form of the katun sign in figure 36, c, is practically identical with the form in figure 36, d. Instances of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely, but the foregoing are sufficient to demonstrate that in so far as the normal-form period glyphs are concerned but little variation occurred from first to last. Similarly, it may be said, the head variants for any given period, while differing greatly in appearance at different epochs, retained, nevertheless, the same essential characteristic throughout. For example, although the uinal sign in figure 36, e, precedes the one in figure 36, f, by some 800 years, the same essential element—the large mouth curl—appears in both. Again, although 300 years separate the cycle signs shown in g and h, figure 36, the essential characteristic of the early form (fig. 36, g), the hand, is still retained as the essential part of the late form (h).
Thus having one date on a monument the Initial Series of which was expressed, it was possible by referring subsequent dates to it, or to other dates which in turn had been referred to it, to fix accurately the positions of any number of dates in the Long Count without the use of their corresponding Initial Series. Dates thus recorded are known as "secondary dates," and the periods which express their distances from other dates of known position in the Long Count, as "distance numbers." A secondary date with its corresponding distance number has been designated a Secondary Series. In the example above given the distance number 3 kins and the date 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu would constitute a Secondary Series.
Dates of the character just described may be called Calendar-round dates, since they are accurate only within the Calendar Round, or range of 52 years. While accurate enough for the purpose of distinguishing dates in the course of a single lifetime, this method breaks down when used to express dates covering a long period. Witness the chaotic condition of Aztec chronology. The Maya seem to have realized the limitations of this method of dating and did not employ it extensively. It was used chiefly at Yaxchilan on the Usamacintla River, and for this reason the chronology of that city is very much awry, and it is difficult to assign its various dates to their proper positions in the Long Count.
The hand-ending sign rarely appears as modifying period glyphs, although a few examples of such use have been found (see fig. 37, j, k). This ending sign usually appears as the main element in a separate glyph, which precedes the sign of the period whose end is recorded (see fig. 37, l-q). In these cases the subordinate elements differ somewhat, although the element (*
) appears as the suffix in l, m, n, q, and the element (†) as a postfix therein, also in o and p. In a few cases the hand is combined with the other ending signs, sometimes with one and sometimes with the other.
On these two facts rests the whole Maya conception of time.
Examples of the normal-form numerals as used with the day, month, and period glyphs in both the inscriptions and the codices are shown in figure 50. Under each is given its meaning in English.[66] The student is advised to familiarize himself with these forms, since on his ability to recognize them will largely depend his progress in reading the inscriptions. This figure illustrates the use of all the foregoing forms except the sign for 20 in figure 45 and the sign for zero in figure 46. As these two forms never occur with day, month, or period glyphs, and as they have been found only in the codices, examples showing their use will not be given until Chapter VI is reached, which treats of the codices exclusively.
Head-variant numerals never occur independently, but are always prefixed to some period, day, or month sign. Bar and dot numerals, on the other hand, frequently stand by themselves in the codices unattached to other signs. In such cases, however, some sign was to be supplied mentally with the bar and dot numeral.
The numbers 360 to 7,199, inclusive, are indicated by multiplying the kin, uinal, and tun signs by the numerals 0 to 19, and adding together the resulting products. For example, the number 360 is shown in figure 56, g. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 tun = 18 uinals; but 18 uinals = 360 kins (18 × 20 = 360); therefore 1 tun also = 360 kins. However, in order to show that no uinals and kins are involved in forming this number, it is necessary to record this fact, which was done by writing 0 uinals immediately below the 1 tun, and 0 kins immediately below the 0 uinals. The sum of these three products equals 360 (360 + 0 + 0 = 360). Again, the number 3,602 is shown in figure 56, h. The 10 tuns = 10 × 360 = 3,600 kins. This falls short of 3,602 by only 2 units of the first order (2 kins), therefore no uinals are involved in forming this number, a fact which is shown by the use of 0 uinals between the 10 tuns and 2 kins. The sum of these three products = 3,602 (3,600 + 0 + 2). Again, in figure 56, i, the number 7,100 is recorded. The 19 tuns = 19 × 360 = 6,840 kins, which falls short of 7,100 kins by 7,100 - 6,840 = 260 kins. But 260 kins = 13 uinals with no kins remaining. Consequently, the sum of these products equals 7,100 (6,840 + 260 + 0).
We have seen that the order of the periods in the numbers in figure 56 was just the reverse of that in the numbers shown in figures 58 and 59; that in one place the kins stand at the top and in the other at the bottom; and finally, that this difference was not a vital one, since it had no effect on the values of the numbers. This is true, because in the first method of expressing the higher numbers, it matters not which end of the number comes first, the highest or the lowest period, so long as its several periods always stand in the same relation to each other. For example, in figure 56, q, 6 cycles, 17 katuns, 2 tuns, 10 uinals, and 0 kins represent exactly the same number as 0 kins, 10 uinals, 2 tuns, 17 katuns, and 6 cycles; that is, with the lowest term first.
We have seen in the foregoing pages (1) how the Maya wrote their 20 numerals, and (2) how these numerals were used to express the higher numbers. The next question which concerns us is, How did they use these numbers in their calculations; or in other words, how was their arithmetic applied to their calendar? It may be said at the very outset in answer to this question, that in so far as known, numbers appear to have had but one use throughout the Maya texts, namely, to express the time elapsing between dates.[88] In the codices and the inscriptions alike all the numbers whose use is understood have been found to deal exclusively with the counting of time.
The reduction of units of the higher orders to units of the first order has been explained on pages 105-133, but in order to provide the student with this same information in a more condensed and accessible form, it is presented in the following tables, of which Table XIII is to be used for reducing numbers to their primary units in the inscriptions, and Table XIV for the same purpose in the codices.
It should be noted, however, in connection with this rule, that the starting date hardly ever immediately precedes the number from which it is counted, but that several glyphs nearly always stand between.[92] Certain exceptions to the above rule are by no means rare, and the student must be continually on the lookout for such reversals of the regular order. These exceptions are cases in which the starting date (1) follows the number counted from it, and (2) stands elsewhere in the text, entirely disassociated from, and unattached to, the number counted from it.
Rule 1. In Initial Series the count is always forward, and, in general throughout the inscriptions. The very few cases in which the count is backward, are confined chiefly to Secondary Series, and it is in dealing with this kind of series that the student will find the greatest number of exceptions to the general rule.
One more example presenting a "backward count" will suffice to illustrate this method. Let us count the number 14.13.4.17 backward from the Initial Series 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab. Reducing 14.13.4.17 to units of the 1st order, we have 105,577. Counting this number backward from 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as indicated in the rules on pages 138-143, we find that the terminal date will be 8 Ahau 13 Ceh. Moreover, since the Initial-series value of the starting point 12 Caban 5 Kayab is known, namely, 9.14.13.4.17, the Initial-series value of the terminal date may be calculated by subtracting the distance number 14.13.4.17 from the Initial Series of the starting point:
If both of the above alternatives are found not to apply, that is, if both our calculations and the original texts are free from error, we are obliged to accept the third alternative as the source of trouble, namely, that the case in point lies without the operation of our rules. In such cases it is obviously impossible to go further in the present state of our knowledge. Special conditions presented by glyphs whose meanings are unknown may govern such cases. At all events, the failure of the rules under 1-4 to reach the terminal dates recorded as under 5 introduces a new phase of glyph study—the meaning of unknown forms with which the beginner has no concern. Consequently, when a text falls without the operation of the rules given in this chapter—a very rare contingency—the beginner should turn his attention elsewhere.
The student will note the close similarity between this inscription and that on Stela J (figured in figs. 78 and 79), a summary of which appears on page 239. Both commence with the same date, 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab; both show the date 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec; both have dates which are just 1 katun in advance of the hotuns which they mark; and finally, both are hotun-markers, Stela J preceding Stela F by just 1 hotun. The date from which both proceed, 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab, is an important one at Quirigua, being the earliest date there. It appears on four monuments, namely, Stelæ J, F, and E, and Zoömorph G. Although the writer has not been able to prove the point, he is of the opinion that the glyph shown in figure 80, a, tells the meaning of the event which happened on this date, which is, moreover, the earliest date at Quirigua which it is possible to regard as being contemporaneous. Hence, it is not improbable that it might refer to the founding of the city or some similar event, though this is of course a matter of speculation. The fact, however, that 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab is the earliest date on four different hotun-markers shows that it was of supreme importance in the history of Quirigua. This concludes the discussion of texts showing the use of Secondary Series with Initial Series.
Sometimes, however, monuments showing Calendar-round dates stand alone, and in such cases it is almost impossible to fix their dates in the Long Count. At Yaxchilan in particular Calendar-round dating seems to have been extensively employed, and for this reason less progress has been made there than elsewhere in deciphering the inscriptions.
That we have succeeded in deciphering, up to the present time, only the calendric parts of the inscriptions, the chronological skeleton of Maya history as it were, stripped of the events which would vitalize it, should not discourage the student nor lead him to minimize the importance of that which is already gained. Thirty years ago the Maya inscriptions were a sealed book, yet to-day we read in the glyphic writing the rise and fall of the several cities in relation to one another, and follow the course of Maya development even though we can not yet fill in the accompanying background. Future researches, we may hope, will reconstruct this background from the undeciphered glyphs, and will reveal the events of Maya history which alone can give the corresponding chronology a human interest.
In closing this discussion of the tonalamatl it may not be out of place to mention here those whose names stand as pioneers in this particular field of glyphic research. To the investigations of Prof. Ernst Förstemann we owe the elucidation of the calendric part of the tonalamatl, and to Dr. Paul Schellhas the identification of the gods and their corresponding name glyphs in parts (2) and (3), above. As pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, the most promising line of research in the codices is the groups of glyphs above the pictures, and from their decipherment will probably come the determination of the meaning of this interesting and unusual period.
Interpreting in the same way the glyphs in figure 85, we have the record that Kin 4 of Uinal 4 of Tun 9 of Katun 15 (of Cycle 9, unexpressed) fell (or ended) on the date 9 Kan 12 Kayab. Changing this Period-ending date into its corresponding Initial Series and solving for its terminal date, the latter date will be found to be 13 Kan 12 Ceh, instead of 9 Kan 12 Kayab. At first this would appear to be even farther from the mark than our preceding attempt, but if the reader will admit a slight correction, the above number can be made to reach the date recorded. The date 13 Kan 12 Ceh is just 5 uinals earlier than 9 Kan 12 Kayab, and if we add one bar to the four dots of the uinal coefficient, this passage can be explained in the above manner, and yet agree in all particulars. This is true since 9.15.9.9.4 reaches the date 9 Kan 12 Kayab. On the above grounds the writer is inclined to believe that the last three Serpent numbers on plate 32, which were shown to have proceeded from a date 9 Kan 12 Kayab, were counted from the date 9.15.9.9.4 9 Kan 12 Kayab.
THE MAYA TERRITORY, SHOWING LOCATIONS OF PRINCIPAL CITIES
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE MAYA HIEROGLYPHS
By SYLVANUS GRISWOLD MORLEY
Chapter I. THE MAYA
Habitat
Broadly speaking, the Maya were a lowland people, inhabiting the Atlantic coast plains of southern Mexico and northern Central America. (See pl. 1.) The southern part of this region is abundantly watered by a network of streams, many of which have their rise in the Cordillera, while the northern part, comprising the peninsula of Yucatan, is entirely lacking in water courses and, were it not for natural wells (cenotes) here and there, would be uninhabitable. This condition in the north is due to the geologic formation of the peninsula, a vast plain underlaid by limestone through which water quickly percolates to subterranean channels.
In the south the country is densely forested, though occasional savannas break the monotony of the tropical jungles. The rolling surface is traversed in places by ranges of hills, the most important of which are the Cockscomb Mountains of British Honduras; these attain an elevation of 3,700 feet. In Yucatan the nature of the soil and the water-supply not being favorable to the growth of a luxuriant vegetation, this region is covered with a smaller forest growth and a sparser bush than the area farther southward.
The climate of the region occupied by the Maya is tropical; there are two seasons, the rainy and the dry. The former lasts from May or June until January or February, there being considerable local variation not only in the length of this season but also in the time of its beginning.
Deer, tapirs, peccaries, jaguars, and game of many other kinds abound throughout the entire region, and doubtless formed a large part of the food supply in ancient times, though formerly corn was the staple, as it is now.
There are at present upward of twenty tribes speaking various dialects of the Maya language, perhaps half a million people in all. These live in the same general region their ancestors occupied, but under greatly changed conditions. Formerly the Maya were the van of civilization in the New World,[1] but to-day they are a dwindling race, their once remarkable civilization is a thing of the past, and its manners and customs are forgotten.
History
The ancient Maya, with whom this volume deals, emerged from barbarism probably during the first or second century of the Christian Era; at least their earliest dated monument can not be ascribed with safety to a more remote period.[2] How long a time had been required for the development of their complex calendar and hieroglyphic system to the point of graphic record, it is impossible to say, and any estimate can be only conjectural. It is certain, however, that a long interval must have elapsed from the first crude and unrelated scratches of savagery to the elaborate and involved hieroglyphs found on the earliest monuments, which represent not only the work of highly skilled sculptors, but also the thought of intensively developed minds. That this period was measured by centuries rather than by decades seems probable; the achievement was far too great to have been performed in a single generation or even in five or ten.
It seems safe to assume, therefore, that by the end of the second century of the Christian Era the Maya civilization was fairly on its feet. There then began an extraordinary development all along the line. City after city sprang into prominence throughout the southern part of the Maya territory,[3] each contributing its share to the general progress and art of the time. With accomplishment came confidence and a quickening of pace. All activities doubtless shared in the general uplift which followed, though little more than the material evidences of architecture and sculpture have survived the ravages of the destructive environment in which this culture flourished; and it is chiefly from these remnants of ancient Maya art that the record of progress has been partially reconstructed.
This period of development, which lasted upward of 400 years, or until about the close of the sixth century, may be called perhaps the "Golden Age of the Maya"; at least it was the first great epoch in their history, and so far as sculpture is concerned, the one best comparable to the classic period of Greek art. While sculpture among the Maya never again reached so high a degree of perfection, architecture steadily developed, almost to the last. Judging from the dates inscribed upon their monuments, all the great cities of the south flourished during this period: Palenque and Yaxchilan in what is now southern Mexico; Piedras Negras, Seibal, Tikal, Naranjo, and Quirigua in the present Guatemala; and Copan in the present Honduras. All these cities rose to greatness and sank again into insignificance, if not indeed into oblivion, before the close of this Golden Age.
The causes which led to the decline of civilization in the south are unknown. It has been conjectured that the Maya were driven from their southern homes by stronger peoples pushing in from farther south and from the west, or again, that the Maya civilization, having run its natural course, collapsed through sheer lack of inherent power to advance. Which, if either, of these hypotheses be true, matters little, since in any event one all-important fact remains: Just after the close of Cycle 9 of Maya chronology, toward the end of the sixth century, there is a sudden and final cessation of dates in all the southern cities, apparently indicating that they were abandoned about this time.
Still another condition doubtless hastened the general decline if indeed it did no more. There is strong documentary evidence[4] that about the middle or close of the fifth century the southern part of Yucatan was discovered and colonized. In the century following, the southern cities one by one sank into decay; at least none of their monuments bear later dates, and coincidently Chichen Itza, the first great city of the north, was founded and rose to prominence. In the absence of reliable contemporaneous records it is impossible to establish the absolute accuracy of any theory relating to times so remote as those here under consideration; but it seems not improbable that after the discovery of Yucatan and the subsequent opening up of that vast region, the southern cities commenced to decline. As the new country waxed the old waned, so that by the end of the sixth century the rise of the one and the fall of the other had occurred.
The occupation and colonization of Yucatan marked the dawn of a new era for the Maya although their Renaissance did not take place at once. Under pressure of the new environment, at best a parched and waterless land, the Maya civilization doubtless underwent important modification.[5] The period of colonization, with the strenuous labor by which it was marked, was not conducive to progress in the arts. At first the struggle for bare existence must have absorbed in a large measure the energies of all, and not until their foothold was secure could much time have been available for the cultivation of the gentler pursuits. Then, too, at first there seems to have been a feeling of unrest in the new land, a shifting of homes and a testing of localities, all of which retarded the development of architecture, sculpture, and other arts. Bakhalal (see pl. 1), the first settlement in the north, was occupied for only 60 years. Chichen Itza, the next location, although occupied for more than a century, was finally abandoned and the search for a new home resumed. Moving westward from Chichen Itza, Chakanputun was seized and occupied at the beginning of the eighth century. Here the Maya are said to have lived for 260 years, until the destruction of Chakanputun by fire about 960 A. D. again set them wandering. By this time, however, some four centuries had elapsed since the first colonization of the country, and they doubtless felt themselves fully competent to cope with any problems arising from their environment. Once more their energies had begun to find outlet in artistic expression. The Transitional Period was at an end, and The Maya Renaissance, if the term may be used, was fully under way.
The opening of the eleventh century witnessed important and far-reaching political changes in Yucatan. After the destruction of Chakanputun the horizon of Maya activity expanded. Some of the fugitives from Chakanputun reoccupied Chichen Itza while others established themselves at a new site called Mayapan. About this time also the city of Uxmal seems to have been founded. In the year 1000 these three cities—Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Mayapan—formed a confederacy,[6] in which each was to share equally in the government of the country. Under the peaceful conditions which followed the formation of this confederacy for the next 200 years the arts blossomed forth anew.
This was the second and last great Maya epoch. It was their Age of Architecture as the first period had been their Age of Sculpture. As a separate art sculpture languished; but as an adjunct, an embellishment to architecture, it lived again. The one had become handmaiden to the other. Façades were treated with a sculptural decoration, which for intricacy and elaboration has rarely been equaled by any people at any time; and yet this result was accomplished without sacrifice of beauty or dignity. During this period probably there arose the many cities which to-day are crumbling in decay throughout the length and breadth of Yucatan, their very names forgotten. When these were in their prime, the country must have been one great beehive of activity, for only a large population could have left remains so extensive.
This era of universal peace was abruptly terminated about 1200 A. D. by an event which shook the body politic to its foundations and disrupted the Triple Alliance under whose beneficent rule the land had grown so prosperous. The ruler of Chichen Itza, Chac Xib Chac, seems to have plotted against his colleague of Mayapan, one Hunnac Ceel, and in the disastrous war which followed, the latter, with the aid of Nahua allies,[7] utterly routed his opponent and drove him from his city. The conquest of Chichen Itza seems to have been followed during the thirteenth century by attempted reprisals on the part of the vanquished Itza, which plunged the country into civil war; and this struggle in turn paved the way for the final eclipse of Maya supremacy in the fifteenth century.
After the dissolution of the Triple Alliance a readjustment of power became necessary. It was only natural that the victors in the late war should assume the chief direction of affairs, and there is strong evidence that Mayapan became the most important city in the land. It is not improbable also that as a result of this war Chichen Itza was turned over to Hunnac Ceel's Nahua allies, perhaps in recognition of their timely assistance, or as their share in the spoils of war. It is certain that sometime during its history Chichen Itza came under a strong Nahua influence. One group of buildings in particular[8] shows in its architecture and bas-reliefs that it was undoubtedly inspired by Nahua rather than by Maya ideals.
According to Spanish historians, the fourteenth century was characterized by increasing arrogance and oppression on the part of the rulers of Mayapan, who found it necessary to surround themselves with Nahua allies in order to keep the rising discontent of their subjects in check.[9] This unrest finally reached its culmination about the middle of the fifteenth century, when the Maya nobility, unable longer to endure such tyranny, banded themselves together under the leadership of the lord of Uxmal, sacked Mayapan, and slew its ruler.
All authorities, native as well as Spanish, agree that the destruction of Mayapan marked the end of strongly centralized government in Yucatan. Indeed there can be but little doubt that this event also sounded the death knell of Maya civilization. As one of the native chronicles tersely puts it, "The chiefs of the country lost their power." With the destruction of Mayapan the country split into a number of warring factions, each bent on the downfall of the others. Ancient jealousies and feuds, no longer held in leash by the restraining hand of Mayapan, doubtless revived, and soon the land was rent with strife. Presently to the horrors of civil war were added those of famine and pestilence, each of which visited the peninsula in turn, carrying off great numbers of people.
These several calamities, however, were but harbingers of worse soon to come. In 1517 Francisco de Cordoba landed the first Spanish expedition[10] on the shores of Yucatan. The natives were so hostile, however, that he returned to Cuba, having accomplished little more than the discovery of the country. In the following year Juan de Grijalva descended on the peninsula, but he, too, met with so determined a resistance that he sailed away, having gained little more than hard knocks for his pains. In the following year (1519) Hernando Cortez landed on the northeast coast but reembarked in a few days for Mexico, again leaving the courageous natives to themselves. Seven years later, however, in 1526, Francisco Montejo, having been granted the title of Adelantado of Yucatan, set about the conquest of the country in earnest. Having obtained the necessary "sinews of war" through his marriage to a wealthy widow of Seville, he sailed with 3 ships and 500 men for Yucatan. He first landed on the island of Cozumel, off the northeast coast, but soon proceeded to the mainland and took formal possession of the country in the name of the King of Spain. This empty ceremony soon proved to be but the prelude to a sanguinary struggle, which broke out almost immediately and continued with extraordinary ferocity for many years, the Maya fighting desperately in defense of their homes. Indeed, it was not until 14 years later, on June 11, 1541 (old style), that, the Spaniards having defeated a coalition of Maya chieftains near the city of Ichcanzihoo, the conquest was finally brought to a close and the pacification of the country accomplished. With this event ends the independent history of the Maya.
Manners and Customs
According to Bishop Landa,[11] who wrote his remarkable history of Yucatan in 1565, the Maya of that day were a tall race, active and strong. In childhood the forehead was artificially flattened and the ears and nose were pierced for the insertion of earrings and nose-ornaments, of which the people were very fond. Squint-eye was considered a mark of beauty, and mothers strove to disfigure their children in this way by suspending pellets of wax between their eyes in order to make them squint, thus securing the desired effect. The faces of the younger boys were scalded by the application of hot cloths, to prevent the growth of the beard, which was not popular. Both men and women wore their hair long. The former had a large spot burned on the back of the head, where the hair always remained short. With the exception of a small queue, which hung down behind, the hair was gathered around the head in a braid. The women wore a more beautiful coiffure divided into two braids. The faces of both sexes were much disfigured as a result of their religious beliefs, which led to the practice of scarification. Tattooing also was common to both sexes, and there were persons in almost every community who were especially proficient in this art. Both men and women painted themselves red, the former decorating their entire bodies, and the latter all except their faces, which modesty decreed should be left unpainted. The women also anointed themselves very freely with fragrant gums and perfumes. They filed their teeth to sharp points, a practice which was thought to enhance their beauty.
The clothing of the men was simple. They wore a breechclout wrapped several times around the loins and tied in such a way that one end fell in front between the legs and the other in the corresponding position behind. These breechclouts were carefully embroidered by the women and decorated with featherwork. A large square cape hung from the shoulders, and sandals of hemp or leather completed the costume. For persons of high rank the apparel was much more elaborate, the humble breechclout and cape of the laboring man giving place to panaches of gorgeously colored feathers hanging from wooden helmets, rich mantles of tiger skins, and finely wrought ornaments of gold and jade.
The women sometimes wore a simple petticoat, and a cloth covering the breasts and passing under the arms. More often their costume consisted of a single loose sacklike garment called the hipil, which reached to the feet and had slits for the arms. This garment, with the addition of a cloth or scarf wrapped around the shoulders, constituted the women's clothing a thousand years ago, just as it does to-day.
In ancient times the women were very chaste and modest. When they passed men on the road, they stepped to one side, turning their backs and hiding their faces. The age of marriage was about 20, although children were frequently affianced when very young. When boys arrived at a marriageable age their fathers consulted the professional matchmakers of the community, to whom arrangements for marriage were ordinarily intrusted, it being considered vulgar for parents or their sons to take an active part in arranging these affairs. Having sought out the girl's parents, the matchmaker arranged with them the matter of the dowry, which the young man's father paid, his wife at the same time giving the necessary clothing for her son and prospective daughter-in-law. On the day of the wedding the relatives and guests assembled at the house of the young man's parents, where a great feast had been prepared. Having satisfied himself that the young couple had sufficiently considered the grave step they were about to take, the priest gave the bride to her husband. The ceremony closed with a feast in which all participated. Immediately after the wedding the young husband went to the home of his wife's parents, where he was obliged to work five or six years for his board. If he refused to comply with this custom he was driven from the house, and the marriage presumably was annulled. This step seems rarely to have been necessary, however, and the mother-in-law on her part saw to it that her daughter fed the young husband regularly, a practice which betokened their recognition of the marriage rite.
Widowers and widows married without ceremony, it being considered sufficient for a widower to call on his prospective wife and eat in her house. Marriage between people of the same name was considered an evil practice, possibly in deference to some former exogamic law. It was thought improper to marry a mother-in-law or an aunt by marriage, or a sister-in-law; otherwise a man could marry whom he would, even his first cousin.
The Maya were of a very jealous nature and divorces were frequent. These were effected merely by the desertion of the husband or wife, as the case might be. The parents tried to bring the couple together and effect a reconciliation, but if their efforts proved unsuccessful both parties were at liberty to remarry. If there were young children the mother kept them; if the children were of age the sons followed the father, the daughters remaining with their mother. Although divorce was of common occurrence, it was condemned by the more respectable members of the community. It is interesting to note that polygamy was unknown among the Maya.
Agriculture was the chief pursuit, corn and other grains being extensively cultivated, and stored against time of need in well-appointed granaries. Labor was largely communal; all hands joined to do one another's work. Bands of twenty or more each, passing from field to field throughout the community, quickly finished sowing or harvesting. This communal idea was carried to the chase, fifty or more men frequently going out together to hunt. At the conclusion of these expeditions the meat was roasted and then carried back to town. First, the lord of the district was given his share, after which the remainder was distributed among the hunters and their friends. Communal fishing parties are also mentioned.
Another occupation in high favor was that of trade or commerce. Salt, cloth, and slaves were the chief articles of barter; these were carried as far as Tabasco. Cocoa, stone counters, and highly prized red shells of a peculiar kind were the media of exchange. These were accepted in return for all the products of the country, even including the finely worked stones, jades possibly, with which the chiefs adorned themselves at their fetes. Credit was asked and given, all debts were honestly paid, and no usury was exacted.
The sense of justice among the Maya was highly developed. If a man committed an offense against one of another village, the former's lord caused satisfaction to be rendered, otherwise the communities would come to blows. Troubles between men of the same village were taken to a judge, who having heard both sides, fixed appropriate damages. If the malefactor could not pay these, the obligation extended to his wife and relatives. Crimes which could be satisfied by the payment of an indemnity were accidental killings, quarrels between man and wife, and the accidental destruction of property by fire. Malicious mischief could be atoned for only by blows and the shedding of blood. The punishment of murder was left in the hands of the deceased's relatives, who were at liberty to exact an indemnity or the murderer's life as they pleased. The thief was obliged to make good whatever he had stolen, no matter how little; in event of failure to do so he was reduced to slavery. Adultery was punishable by death. The adulterer was led into the courtyard of the chief's house, where all had assembled, and after being tied to a stake, was turned over to the mercies of the outraged husband, who either pardoned him or crushed his head with a heavy rock. As for the guilty woman, her infamy was deemed sufficient punishment for her, though usually her husband abandoned her.
The Maya were a very hospitable people, always offering food and drink to the stranger within their gates, and sharing with him to the last crumb. They were much given to conviviality, particularly the lords, who frequently entertained one another with elaborate feasts, accompanied by music and dancing, expending at times on a single occasion the proceeds of many days' accumulation. They usually sat down to eat by twos or fours. The meal, which consisted of vegetable stews, roast meats, corn cakes, and cocoa (to mention only a few of the viands) was spread upon mats laid on the ground. After the repast was finished beautiful young girls acting as cupbearers passed among the guests, plying them industriously with wine until all were drunk. Before departing each guest was presented with a handsome vase and pedestal, with a cloth cover therefor. At these orgies drinking was frequently carried to such excess that the wives of the guests were obliged to come for their besotted husbands and drag them home. Each of the guests at such a banquet was required to give one in return, and not even death could stay the payment of a debt of this kind, since the obligation descended to the recipient's heirs. The poor entertained less lavishly, as became their means. Guests at the humbler feasts, moreover, were not obliged to return them in kind.
The chief amusements of the Maya were comedies and dances, in both of which they exhibited much skill and ingenuity. There was a variety of musical instruments—drums of several kinds, rattles, reed flutes, wooden horns, and bone whistles. Their music is described as having been sad, owing perhaps to the melancholy sound of the instruments which produced it.
The frequent wars which darken the final pages of Maya history doubtless developed the military organization to a high degree of efficiency. At the head of the army stood two generals, one hereditary and the other elective (nacon), the latter serving for three years. In each village throughout the country certain men (holcanes) were chosen to act as soldiers; these constituted a kind of a standing army, thoroughly trained in the art of war. They were supported by the community, and in times of peace caused much disturbance, continuing the tumult of war after war had ceased. In times of great stress when it became necessary to call on all able-bodied men for military service, the holcanes mustered all those available in their respective districts and trained them in the use of arms. There were but few weapons: Wooden bows strung with hemp cords, and arrows tipped with obsidian or bone; long lances with sharp flint points; and metal (probably copper) axes, provided with wooden handles. The defensive armor consisted of round wicker shields strengthened with deer hide, and quilted cotton coats, which were said to have extraordinary resisting power against the native weapons. The highest chiefs wore wooden helmets decorated with brilliant plumes, and cloaks of "tiger" (jaguar) skin, thrown over their shoulders.
With a great banner at their head the troops silently stole out of the city, and moved against the enemy, hoping thus to surprise them. When the enemies' position had been ascertained, they fell on them suddenly with extraordinary ferocity, uttering loud cries. Barricades of trees, brush, and stone were used in defense, behind which archers stood, who endeavored to repulse the attack. After a battle the victors mutilated the bodies of the slain, cutting out the jawbones and cleaning them of flesh. These were worn as bracelets after the flesh had been removed. At the conclusion of their wars the spoils were offered in sacrifice. If by chance some leader or chief had been captured, he was sacrificed as an offering particularly acceptable to the gods. Other prisoners became the slaves of those who had captured them.
The Maya entertained an excessive and constant fear of death, many of their religious practices having no other end in view than that of warding off the dread visitor. After death there followed a prolonged period of sadness in the bereaved family, the days being given over to fasting, and the more restrained indulgence in grief, and the nights to dolorous cries and lamentations, most pitiful to hear. Among the common people the dead were wrapped in shrouds; their mouths were filled with ground corn and bits of worked stone so that they should not lack for food and money in the life to come. The Maya buried their dead inside the houses[12] or behind them, putting into the tomb idols, and objects indicating the profession of the deceased—if a priest, some of his sacred books; if a seer, some of his divinatory paraphernalia. A house was commonly abandoned after a death therein, unless enough remained in the household to dispel the fear which always followed such an occurrence.
In the higher walks of life the mortuary customs were more elaborate. The bodies of chiefs and others of high estate were burned and their ashes placed in large pottery vessels. These were buried in the ground and temples erected over them.[13] When the deceased was of very high rank the pottery sarcophagus took the form of a human statue. A variant of the above procedure was to burn only a part of the body, inclosing the ashes in the hollow head of a wooden statue, and sealing them in with a piece of skin taken from the back of the dead man's skull. The rest of the body was buried. Such statues were jealously preserved among the figures of the gods, being held in deep veneration.
The lords of Mayapan had still another mortuary practice. After death the head was severed from the body and cooked in order to remove all flesh. It was then sawed in half from side to side, care being taken to preserve the jaw, nose, eyes, and forehead in one piece. Upon this as a form the features of the dead man were filled in with a kind of a gum. Such was their extraordinary skill in this peculiar work that the finished mask is said to have appeared exactly like the countenance in life. The carefully prepared faces, together with the statues containing the ashes of the dead, were deposited with their idols. Every feast day meats were set before them so they should lack for nothing in that other world whither they had gone.
Very little is known about the governmental organization of the southern Maya, and it seems best, therefore, first to examine conditions in the north, concerning which the early authorities, native as well as Spanish, have much to say. The northern Maya lived in settlements, some of very considerable extent, under the rule of hereditary chiefs called halach uinicil, or "real men," who were, in fact as well as name, the actual rulers of the country. The settlements tributary to each halach uinic were doubtless connected by tribal ties, based on real or fancied blood relationship.
During the period of the Triple Alliance (1000-1200 A. D.) there were probably only three of these embryonic nations: Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Mayapan, among which the country seems to have been apportioned. After the conquest of Chichen Itza, however, the halach uinic of Mayapan probably attempted to establish a more autocratic form of government, arrogating to himself still greater power. The Spanish authorities relate that the chiefs of the country assembled at Mayapan, acknowledged the ruler of that city as their overlord, and finally agreed to live there, each binding himself at the same time to conduct the affairs of his own domain through a deputy.
This attempt to unite the country under one head and bring about a further centralization of power ultimately failed, as has been seen, through the tyranny of the Cocom family, in which the office of halach uinic of Mayapan was vested. This tyranny led to the overthrow of the Cocoms and the destruction of centralized government, so that when the Spaniards arrived they found a number of petty chieftains, acknowledging no overlord, and the country in chaos.
The powers of the halach uinic are not clearly understood. He seems to have stood at the apex of the governmental organization, and doubtless his will prevailed just so far as he had sufficient strength to enforce it. The batabs, or underchiefs, were obliged to visit him and render him their homage. They also accompanied him in his tours about the country, which always gave rise to feasting back and forth. Finally they advised him on all important matters. The office would seem to have been no stronger in any case than its incumbent, since we hear of the halach uinic of Mayapan being obliged to surround himself with foreign troops in order to hold his people in check.
Each batab governed the territory of which he was the hereditary ruler, instructing his heir in the duties of the position, and counseling that he treat the poor with benevolence and maintain peace and encourage industry, so that all might live in plenty. He settled all lawsuits, and through trusted lieutenants ordered and adjusted the various affairs of his domain. When he went abroad from his city or even from his house a great crowd accompanied him. He often visited his underchiefs, holding court in their houses, and meeting at night in council to discuss matters touching the common good. The batabs frequently entertained one another with dancing, hunting, and feasting. The people as a community tilled the batab's fields, reaped his corn, and supplied his wants in general. The underchiefs were similarly provided for, each according to his rank and needs.
The ahkulel, the next highest official in each district, acted as the batab's deputy or representative; he carried a short thick baton in token of his office. He had charge of the localities subject to his master's rule as well as of the officers immediately over them. He kept these assistants informed as to what was needed in the batab's house, as birds, game, fish, corn, honey, salt, and cloth, which they supplied when called on. The ahkulel was, in short, a chief steward, and his house was the batab's business office.
Another important position was that of the nacon, or war-chief. In times of war this functionary was second only to the hereditary chief, or batab, and was greatly venerated by all. His office was elective, the term being three years, during which he was obliged to refrain from intercourse with women, and to hold himself aloof from all.
An important civil position was that held by the ahholpop, in whose keeping was the tunkul, or wooden drum, used in summoning people to the dances and public meetings, or as a tocsin in case of war. He had charge also of the "town hall" in which all public business was transacted.
The question of succession is important. Bishop Landa distinctly states in one passage "That when the lord died, although his oldest son succeeded him, the others were always loved and served and even regarded as lords." This would seem to indicate definitely that descent was by primogeniture. However, another passage suggests that the oldest son did not always succeed his father: "The lords were the governors and confirmed their sons in their offices if they [the sons] were acceptable." This suggests the possibility, at least, that primogeniture could sometimes be set aside, particularly when the first-born lacked the necessary qualifications for leadership. In a somewhat drawn-out statement the same authority discusses the question of "princely succession" among the Maya:
If the children were too young to be intrusted with the management of their own affairs, these were turned over to a guardian, the nearest relation. He gave the children to their mothers to bring up, because according to their usage the mother has no power of her own. When the guardian was the brother of the deceased [the children's paternal uncle] they take the children from their mother. These guardians give what was intrusted to them to the heirs when they come of age, and not to do so was considered a great dishonesty and was the cause of much contention.... If when the lord died there were no sons [ready, i. e., of age] to rule and he had brothers, the oldest or most capable of his brothers ruled, and they [the guardians] showed the heir the customs and fetes of his people until he should be a man, and these brothers, although the heir were [ready] to rule, commanded all their lives, and, if there were no brothers the priests and principal people selected a man suitable for the position.[14]
The foregoing would seem to imply that the rulers were succeeded by their eldest sons if the latter were of age and otherwise generally acceptable; and that, if they were minors when their fathers died, their paternal uncles, if any, or otherwise some capable man selected by the priests, took the reins of government, instructing the heir in the duties of the position which he was to occupy some day; and finally that the regent did not lay down his authority until death, even though the heir had previously attained his majority. This custom is so unusual that its existence may well be doubted, and it is not at all improbable that Bishop Landa's statement to the contrary may have arisen from some misapprehension. Primogeniture was not confined to the executive succession alone, since Bishop Landa states further that the high priest Ahau can mai was succeeded in his dignity by his sons, or those next of kin.
Nepotism doubtless prevailed extensively, all the higher offices of the priesthood as well as the executive offices being hereditary, and in all probability filled with members of the halach uinic's family.
The priests instructed the younger sons of the ruling family as well as their own, in the priestly duties and learning; in the computation of years, months, and days; in unlucky times; in fetes and ceremonies; in the administration of the sacraments; in the practices of prophecy and divination; in treating the sick; in their ancient history; and finally in the art of reading and writing their hieroglyphics, which was taught only to those of high degree. Genealogies were carefully preserved, the term meaning "of noble birth" being ah kaba, "he who has a name." The elaborate attention given to the subject of lineage, and the exclusive right of the ah kaba to the benefits of education, show that in the northern part of the Maya territory at least government rested on the principle of hereditary succession. The accounts of native as well as of Spanish writers leave the impression that a system not unlike a modified form of feudalism prevailed.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 2
DIAGRAM SHOWING PERIODS OF OCCUPANCY OF PRINCIPAL SOUTHERN CITIES
In attempting to gain an approximate understanding of the form of government which existed in the southern part of the Maya territory it is necessary in the absence of all documentary information to interpret the southern chronology, architecture, and sculpture—practically all that remains of the older culture—in the light of the known conditions in the north. The chronology of the several southern cities (see pl. 2) indicates that many of them were contemporaneous, and that a few, namely, Tikal, Naranjo, Palenque, and Copan were occupied approximately 200 years, a much longer period than any of the others.[15] These four would seem to have been centers of population for a long time, and at least three of them, Tikal, Palenque, and Copan, attained considerable size. Indeed they may well have been, like Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Mayapan, at a later epoch in the north, the seats of halach uincil, or overlords, to whom all the surrounding chiefs were tributary. Geographically considered, the country was well apportioned among these cities: Tikal dominating the north, Palenque, the west, and Copan, the south.
The architecture, sculpture, and hieroglyphic writing of all the southern centers is practically identical, even to the borrowing of unessential details, a condition which indicates a homogeneity only to be accounted for by long-continued and frequent intercourse. This characteristic of the culture, together with the location and contemporaneity of its largest centers, suggests that originally the southern territory was divided into several extensive political divisions, all in close intercourse with one another, and possibly united in a league similar to that which later united the principal cities of the north. The unmistakable priestly or religious character of the sculptures in the southern area clearly indicates the peaceful temper of the people, and the conspicuous absence of warlike subjects points strongly to the fact that the government was a theocracy, the highest official in the priesthood being at the same time, by virtue of his sacerdotal rank, the highest civil authority. Whether the principle of hereditary succession determined or even influenced the selection of rulers in the south is impossible to say. However, since the highest offices, both executive and priestly, in the north were thus filled, it may be assumed that similar conditions prevailed in the south, particularly as the northern civilization was but an outgrowth of the southern. There is some ground for believing that the highest office in the south may have been elective, the term being a hotun[16] (1,800 days), and the choice restricted to the members of a certain family. The existence of this restriction, which closely parallels the Aztec procedure in selecting rulers,[17] rests on very slender evidence, however, so far as the Maya are concerned and is mentioned here simply by way of suggestion.
Fig. 1. Itzamna, chief deity of the Maya Pantheon (note his name glyphs, below).
The religion of the ancient Maya was polytheistic, its pantheon containing about a dozen major deities and a host of lesser ones. At its head stood Itzamna, the father of the gods and creator of mankind, the Mayan Zeus or Jupiter. He was the personification of the East, the rising sun, and, by association, of light, life, and knowledge. He was the founder of the Maya civilization, the first priest of the Maya religion, the inventor of writing and books, and the great healer. Whether Itzamna has been identified with any of the deities in the ancient Maya picture-writings is uncertain, though there are strong reasons for believing that this deity is the god represented in figure 1. His characteristics here are: The aged face, Roman nose, and sunken toothless mouth.
Fig. 2. Kukulcan, God of Learning (note his name glyph, below).
Scarcely less important was the great god Kukulcan, or Feathered Serpent, the personification of the West. It is related of him that he came into Yucatan from the west and settled at Chichen Itza, where he ruled for many years and built a great temple. During his sojourn he is said to have founded the city of Mayapan, which later became so important. Finally, having brought the country out of war and dissension to peace and prosperity, he left by the same way he had entered, tarrying only at Chakanputun on the west coast to build a splendid temple as an everlasting memorial of his residence among the people. After his departure he was worshipped as a god because of what he had done for the public good. Kukulcan was the Maya counterpart of the Aztec Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican god of light, learning, and culture. In the Maya pantheon he was regarded as having been the great organizer, the founder of cities, the framer of laws, and the teacher of their new calendar. Indeed, his attributes and life history are so human that it is not improbable he may have been an actual historical character, some great lawgiver and organizer, the memory of whose benefactions lingered long after death, and whose personality was eventually deified. The episodes of his life suggest he may have been the recolonizer of Chichen Itza after the destruction of Chakanputun. Kukulcan has been identified by some as the "old god" of the picture-writings (fig. 2), whose characteristics are: Two deformed teeth, one protruding from the front and one from the back part of his mouth, and the long tapering nose. He is to be distinguished further by his peculiar headdress.
[1] All things considered, the Maya may be regarded as having developed probably the highest aboriginal civilization in the Western Hemisphere, although it should be borne in mind that they were surpassed in many lines of endeavor by other races. The Inca, for example, excelled them in the arts of weaving and dyeing, the Chiriqui in metal working, and the Aztec in military proficiency.
[2] The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology herein followed is that suggested by the writer in "The Correlation of Maya and Christian Chronology" (Papers of the School of American Archæology, No. 11). See Morley, 1910 b, cited in Bibliography, pp. XV, XVI. There are at least six other systems of correlation, however, on which the student must pass judgment. Although no two of these agree, all are based on data derived from the same source, namely, the Books of Chilan Balam (see p. 3, footnote 1). The differences among them are due to the varying interpretations of the material therein presented. Some of the systems of correlation which have been proposed, besides that of the writer, are:
[3] It is probable that at this early date Yucatan had not been discovered, or at least not colonized.
[4] This evidence is presented by The Books of Chilan Balam, "which were copied or compiled in Yucatan by natives during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, from much older manuscripts now lost or destroyed. They are written in the Maya language in Latin characters, and treat, in part at least, of the history of the country before the Spanish Conquest. Each town seems to have had its own book of Chilan Balam, distinguished from others by the addition of the name of the place where it was written, as: The Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, The Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimia, and so on. Although much of the material presented in these manuscripts is apparently contradictory and obscure, their importance as original historical sources can not be overestimated, since they constitute the only native accounts of the early history of the Maya race which have survived the vandalism of the Spanish Conquerors. Of the sixteen Books of Chilan Balam now extant, only three, those of the towns of Mani, Tizimin, and Chumayel, contain historical matter. These have been translated into English, and published by Dr. D. G. Brinton [1882 b] under the title of "The Maya Chronicles." This translation with a few corrections has been freely consulted in the following discussion."—Morley, 1910 b: p. 193.
[5] As will appear later, on the calendric side the old system of counting time and of recording events gave place to a more abbreviated though less accurate chronology. In architecture and art also the change of environment made itself felt, and in other lines as well the new land cast a strong influence over Maya thought and achievement. In his work entitled "A Study of Maya Art, its Subject Matter and Historical Development" (1913), to which students are referred for further information, Dr. H. J. Spinden has treated this subject extensively.
[6] The confederation of these three Maya cities may have served as a model for the three Nahua cities, Tenochtitlan, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan, when they entered into a similar alliance some four centuries later.
[7] By Nahua is here meant the peoples who inhabited the valley of Mexico and adjacent territory at this time.
[8] The Ball Court, a characteristically Nahua development.
[9] One authority (Landa, 1864: p. 48) says in this connection: "The governor, Cocom—the ruler of Mayapan—began to covet riches; and for this purpose he treated with the people of the garrison, which the kings of Mexico had in Tabasco and Xicalango, that he should deliver his city [i. e. Mayapan] to them; and thus he brought the Mexican people to Mayapan and he oppressed the poor and made many slaves, and the lords would have killed him if they had not been afraid of the Mexicans."
[10] The first appearance of the Spaniards in Yucatan was six years earlier (in 1511), when the caravel of Valdivia, returning from the Isthmus of Darien to Hispaniola, foundered near Jamaica. About 10 survivors in an open boat were driven upon the coast of Yucatan near the Island of Cozumel. Here they were made prisoners by the Maya and five, including Valdivia himself, were sacrificed. The remainder escaped only to die of starvation and hardship, with the exception of two, Geronimo de Aguilar and Gonzalo Guerrero. Both of these men had risen to considerable prominence in the country by the time Cortez arrived eight years later. Guerrero had married a chief's daughter and had himself become a chief. Later Aguilar became an interpreter for Cortez. This handful of Spaniards can hardly be called an expedition, however.
[11] Diego de Landa, second bishop of Merida, whose remarkable book entitled "Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan" is the chief authority for the facts presented in the following discussion of the manners and customs of the Maya, was born in Cifuentes de l'Alcarria, Spain, in 1524. At the age of 17 he joined the Franciscan order. He came to Yucatan during the decade following the close of the Conquest, in 1549, where he was one of the most zealous of the early missionaries. In 1573 he was appointed bishop of Merida, which position he held until his death in 1579. His priceless Relacion, written about 1565, was not printed until three centuries later, when it was discovered by the indefatigable Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg in the library of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid, and published by him in 1864. The Relacion is the standard authority for the customs prevalent in Yucatan at the time of the Conquest, and is an invaluable aid to the student of Maya archeology. What little we know of the Maya calendar has been derived directly from the pages of this book, or by developing the material therein presented.
[12] The excavations of Mr. E. H. Thompson at Labna, Yucatan, and of Dr. Merwin at Holmul, Guatemala, have confirmed Bishop Landa's statement concerning the disposal of the dead. At Labna bodies were found buried beneath the floors of the buildings, and at Holmul not only beneath the floors but also lying on them.
[13] Examples of this type of burial have been found at Chichen Itza and Mayapan in Yucatan. At the former site Mr. E. H. Thompson found in the center of a large pyramid a stone-lined shaft running from the summit into the ground. This was filled with burials and funeral objects—pearls, coral, and jade, which from their precious nature indicated the remains of important personages. At Mayapan, burials were found in a shaft of similar construction and location in one of the pyramids.
[14] Landa, 1864: p. 137.
[15] As the result of a trip to the Maya field in the winter of 1914, the writer made important discoveries in the chronology of Tikal, Naranjo, Piedras Negras, Altar de Sacrificios, Quirigua, and Seibal. The occupancy of Tikal and Seibal was found to have extended to 10.2.0.0.0; of Piedras Negras to 9.18.5.0.0; of Naranjo to 9.19.10.0.0; and of Altar de Sacrificios to 9.14.0.0.0. (This new material is not embodied in pl. 2.)
[16] As will be explained in chapter V, the writer has suggested the name hotun for the 5 tun, or 1,800 day, period.
[17] Succession in the Aztec royal house was not determined by primogeniture, though the supreme office, the tlahtouani, as well as the other high offices of state, was hereditary in one family. On the death of the tlahtouani the electors (four in number) seem to have selected his successor from among his brothers, or, these failing, from among his nephews. Except as limiting the succession to one family, primogeniture does not seem to have obtained; for example, Moctezoma (Montezuma) was chosen tlahtouani over the heads of several of his older brothers because he was thought to have the best qualifications for that exalted office. The situation may be summarized by the statement that while the supreme ruler among the Aztec had to be of the "blood royal," his selection was determined by personal merit rather than by primogeniture.
Fig. 3. Ahpuch, God of Death (note his name glyphs, below).
The most feared and hated of all the Maya deities was Ahpuch, the Lord of Death, God "Barebones" as an early manuscript calls him, from whom evil and especially death were thought to come. He is frequently represented in the picture-writings (fig. 3), usually in connection with the idea of death. He is associated with human sacrifice, suicide by hanging, death in childbirth, and the beheaded captive. His characteristics are typical and unmistakable. His head is the fleshless skull, showing the truncated nose, the grinning teeth, and fleshless lower jaw, sometimes even the cranial sutures are portrayed. In some places the ribs and vertebrae are shown, in others the body is spotted black as if to suggest the discoloration of death. A very constant symbol is the stiff feather collar with small bells attached. These bells also appear as ornaments on the head, arms, and ankles. The to us familiar crossbones were also another Maya death symbol. Even the hieroglyph of this god (fig. 3) suggests the dread idea for which he stood. Note the eye closed in death.
Fig. 4. The God of War (note his name glyph, below).
Closely associated with the God of Death is the God of War, who probably stood as well for the larger idea of death by violence. He is characterized (fig. 4) by a black line painted on his face, sometimes curving, sometimes straight, supposed to be symbolical of war paint, or, according to others, of his gaping wounds. He appears in the picture-writings as the Death God's companion. He presides with him over the body of a sacrificial victim, and again follows him applying torch and knife to the habitations of man. His hieroglyph shows as its characteristic the line of black paint (fig. 4).
Another unpropitious deity was Ek Ahau, the Black Captain, also a war god, being represented (fig. 5) in the picture-writings as armed with a spear or an ax. It was said of him that he was a very great and very cruel warrior, who commanded a band of seven blackamoors like himself. He is characterized by his black color, his drooping lower lip, and the two curved lines at the right of his eye. His hieroglyph is a black eye (fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Ek Ahau, the Black Captain, war deity (note his name glyph, below).
Contrasted with these gods of death, violence, and destruction was the Maize God, Yum Kaax, Lord of the Harvest Fields (fig. 6). Here we have one of the most important figures in the whole Maya pantheon, the god of husbandry and the fruits of the earth, of fertility and prosperity, of growth and plenty. The Maize God was as well disposed toward mankind as Ahpuch and his companions were unpropitious. In many of the picture-writings Yum Kaax is represented as engaged in agricultural pursuits. He is portrayed as having for his head-dress a sprouting ear of corn surrounded by leaves, symbolic of growth, for which he stands. Even the hieroglyph of this deity (fig. 6) embodies the same idea, the god's head merging into the conventionalized ear of corn surrounded by leaves.
Fig. 6. Yum Kaax, Lord of the Harvest (note his name glyph, below).
Another important deity about whom little or nothing is known was Xaman Ek, the North Star. He is spoken of as the "guide of the merchants," and in keeping with that character is associated in the picture-writings with symbols of peace and plenty. His one characteristic seems to be his curious head, which also serves as his name hieroglyph (fig. 7).
Other Maya deities were: Ixchel, the Rainbow, consort of Itzamna and goddess of childbirth and medicine; Ixtab, patroness of hunting and hanging; Ixtubtun, protectress of jade cutters; Ixchebelyax, the inventress of painting and color designing as applied to fabrics.
Although the deities above described represent only a small fraction of the Maya pantheon, they include, beyond all doubt, its most important members, the truly great, who held the powers of life and death, peace and war, plenty and famine—who were, in short, the arbiters of human destiny.
The Maya conceived the earth to be a cube, which supported the celestial vase resting on its four legs, the four cardinal points. Out of this grew the Tree of Life, the flowers of which were the immortal principle of man, the soul. Above hung heavy clouds, the fructifying waters upon which all growth and life depend. The religion was dualistic in spirit, a constant struggle between the powers of light and of darkness. On one side were arrayed the gods of plenty, peace, and life; on the other those of want, war, and destruction; and between these two there waged an unending strife for the control of man. This struggle between the powers of light and darkness is graphically portrayed in the picture-writings. Where the God of Life plants the tree, Death breaks it in twain (fig. 8); where the former offers food, the latter raises an empty vase symbolizing famine; where one builds, the other destroys. The contrast is complete, the conflict eternal.
Fig. 7. Xaman Ek, the North Star God (note his name glyph, below).
The Maya believed in the immortality of the soul and in a spiritual life hereafter. As a man lived in this world so he was rewarded in the next. The good and righteous went to a heaven of material delights, a place where rich foods never failed and pain and sorrow were unknown. The wicked were consigned to a hell called Mitnal, over which ruled the archdemon Hunhau and his minions; and here in hunger, cold, and exhaustion they suffered everlasting torment. The materialism of the Maya heaven and hell need not surprise, nor lower our estimate of their civilization. Similar realistic conceptions of the hereafter have been entertained by peoples much higher in the cultural scale than the Maya.
Fig. 8. Conflict between the Gods of Life and Death (Kukulcan and Ahpuch).
Worship doubtless was the most important feature of the Maya scheme of existence, and an endless succession of rites and ceremonies was considered necessary to retain the sympathies of the good gods and to propitiate the malevolent ones. Bishop Landa says that the aim and object of all Maya ceremonies were to secure three things only: Health, life, and sustenance; modest enough requests to ask of any faith. The first step in all Maya religious rites was the expulsion of the evil spirits from the midst of the worshipers. This was accomplished sometimes by prayers and benedictions, set formulæ of proven efficacy, and sometimes by special sacrifices and offerings.
It would take us too far afield to describe here even the more important ceremonies of the Maya religion. Their number was literally legion, and they answered almost every contingency within the range of human experience. First of all were the ceremonies dedicated to special gods, as Itzamna, Kukulcan, and Ixchel. Probably every deity in the pantheon, even the most insignificant, had at least one rite a year addressed to it alone, and the aggregate must have made a very considerable number. In addition there were the annual feasts of the ritualistic year brought around by the ever-recurring seasons. Here may be mentioned the numerous ceremonies incident to the beginning of the new year and the end of the old, as the renewal of household utensils and the general renovation of all articles, which took place at this tine; the feasts of the various trades and occupations—the hunters, fishers, and apiarists, the farmers, carpenters, and potters, the stonecutters, wood carvers, and metal workers—each guild having its own patron deity, whose services formed another large group of ceremonials. A third class comprised the rites of a more personal nature, those connected with baptism, confession, marriage, setting out on journeys, and the like. Finally, there was a fourth group of ceremonies, held much less frequently than the others, but of far greater importance. Herein fall the ceremonies held on extraordinary occasions, as famine, drought, pestilence, victory, or defeat, which were probably solemnized by rites of human sacrifice.
The direction of so elaborate a system of worship necessitated a numerous and highly organized priesthood. At the head of the hierarchy stood the hereditary high priest, or ahaucan mai, a functionary of very considerable power. Although he had no actual share in the government, his influence was none the less far-reaching, since the highest lords sought his advice, and deferred to his judgment in the administration of their affairs. They questioned him concerning the will of the gods on various points, and he in response framed the divine replies, a duty which gave him tremendous power and authority. In the ahuacan mai was vested also the exclusive right to fill vacancies in the priesthood. He examined candidates on their knowledge of the priestly services and ceremonies, and after their appointment directed them in the discharge of their duties. He rarely officiated at sacrifices except on occasions of the greatest importance, as at the principal feasts or in times of general need. His office was maintained by presents from the lords and enforced contributions from the priesthood throughout the country.
The priesthood included within its ranks women as well as men. The duties were highly specialized and there were many different ranks and grades in the hierarchy. The chilan was one of the most important. This priest was carried upon the shoulders of the people when he appeared in public. He taught their sciences, appointed the holy days, healed the sick, offered sacrifices, and most important of all, gave the responses of the gods to petitioners. The ahuai chac was a priest who brought the rains on which the prosperity of the country was wholly dependent. The ah macik conjured the winds; the ahpul caused sickness and induced sleep; the ahuai xibalba communed with the dead. At the bottom of the ladder seems to have stood the nacon, whose duty it was to open the breasts of the sacrificed victims. An important elective office in each community was that held by the chac, or priest's assistant. These officials, of which there were four, were elected from the nucteelob, or village wise men. They served for a term of one year and could never be reelected. They aided the priest in the various ceremonies of the year, officiating in minor capacities. Their duties seem to have been not unlike those of the sacristan in the Roman Catholic Church of to-day.
In closing this introduction nothing could be more appropriate than to call attention once more to the supreme importance of religion in the life of the ancient Maya. Religion was indeed the very fountain-head of their civilization, and on its rites and observances they lavished a devotion rarely equaled in the annals of man. To its great uplifting force was due the conception and evolution of the hieroglyphic writing and calendar, alike the invention and the exclusive property of the priesthood. To its need for sanctuary may be attributed the origin of Maya architecture; to its desire for expression, the rise of Maya sculpture. All activities reflected its powerful influence and all were more or less dominated by its needs and teachings. In short, religion was the foundation upon which the structure of the Maya civilization was reared.
Chapter II. THE MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING
The inscriptions herein described are found throughout the region formerly occupied by the Maya people (pl. 1), though by far the greater number have been discovered at the southern, or older, sites. This is due in part, at least, to the minor role played by sculpture as an independent art among the northern Maya, for in the north architecture gradually absorbed in its decoration the sculptural activity of the people which in the south had been applied in the making of the hieroglyphic monuments.
Fig. 9. Outlines of the glyphs: a, b, In the codices; c, in the inscriptions.
The materials upon which the Maya glyphs are presented are stone, wood, stucco, bone, shell, metal, plaster, pottery, and fiber-paper; the first-mentioned, however, occurs more frequently than all of the others combined. Texts have been found carved on the wooden lintels of Tikal, molded in the stucco reliefs of Palenque, scratched on shells from Copan and Belize, etched on a bone from Wild Cane Key, British Honduras, engraved on metal from Chichen Itza, drawn on the plaster-covered walls of Kabah, Chichen Itza, and Uxmal, and painted in fiber-paper books. All of these, however, with the exception of the first and the last (the inscriptions on stone and the fiber-paper books or codices) just mentioned, occur so rarely that they may be dismissed from present consideration.
The stones bearing inscriptions are found in a variety of shapes, the commonest being the monolithic shafts or slabs known as stelæ. Some of the shaft-stelæ attain a height of twenty-six feet (above ground); these are not unlike roughly squared obelisks, with human figures carved on the obverse and the reverse, and glyphs on the other faces. Slab-stelæ, on the other hand, are shorter and most of them bear inscriptions only on the reverse. Frequently associated with these stelæ are smaller monoliths known as "altars," which vary greatly in size, shape, and decoration, some bearing glyphs and others being without them.
The foregoing monuments, however, by no means exhaust the list of stone objects that bear hieroglyphs. As an adjunct to architecture inscriptions occur on wall-slabs at Palenque, on lintels at Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, on steps and stairways at Copan, and on piers and architraves at Holactun; and these do not include the great number of smaller pieces, as inscribed jades and the like. Most of the glyphs in the inscriptions are square in outline except for rounded corners (fig. 9, c). Those in the codices, on the other hand, approximate more nearly in form rhomboids or even ovals (fig. 9, a, b). This difference in outline, however, is only superficial in significance and involves no corresponding difference in meaning between otherwise identical glyphs; it is due entirely to the mechanical dissimilarity of the two materials. Disregarding this consideration as unessential, we may say that the glyphs in both the inscriptions and the codices belong to one and the same system of writing, and if it were possible to read either, the other could no longer withhold its meaning from us.
In Maya inscriptions the glyphs are arranged in parallel columns, which are to be read two columns at a time, beginning with the uppermost glyph in the left-hand column, and then from left to right and top to bottom, ending with the lowest glyph in the second column. Then the next two columns are read in the same order, and so on. In reading glyphs in a horizontal band, the order is from left to right in pairs. The writer knows of no text in which the above order of reading is not followed.
A brief examination of any Maya text, from either the inscriptions or the codices, reveals the presence of certain elements which occur repeatedly but in varying combinations. The apparent multiplicity of these combinations leads at first to the conclusion that a great number of signs were employed in Maya writing, but closer study will show that, as compared with the composite characters or glyphs proper, the simple elements are few in number. Says Doctor Brinton (1894 b: p. 10) in this connection: "If we positively knew the meaning ... of a hundred or so of these simple elements, none of the inscriptions could conceal any longer from us the general tenor of its contents." Unfortunately, it must be admitted that but little advance has been made toward the solution of this problem, perhaps because later students have distrusted the highly fanciful results achieved by the earlier writers who "interpreted" these "simple elements."
Fig. 10. Examples of glyph elision, showing elimination of all parts except essential element (here, the crossed bands).
Moreover, there is encountered at the very outset in the study of these elements a condition which renders progress slow and results uncertain. In Egyptian texts of any given period the simple phonetic elements or signs are unchanging under all conditions of composition. Like the letters of our own alphabet, they never vary and may be recognized as unfailingly. On the other hand, in Maya texts each glyph is in itself a finished picture, dependent on no other for its meaning, and consequently the various elements entering into it undergo very considerable modifications in order that the resulting composite character may not only be a balanced and harmonious design, but also may exactly fill its allotted space. All such modifications probably in no way affect the meaning of the element thus mutilated.
Fig. 11. Normal-form and head-variant glyphs, showing retention of essential element in each.
The element shown in figure 10, a-e is a case in point. In a and b we have what may be called the normal or regular forms of this element. In c, however, the upper arm has been omitted for the sake of symmetry in a composite glyph, while in d the lower arm has been left out for want of space. Finally in e both arms have disappeared and the element is reduced to the sign (*
Nor is this feature of Maya writing (i. e., the presence of "head variants") the only pitfall which awaits the beginner who attempts to classify the glyphs according to their appearance. In some cases two entirely dissimilar forms express exactly the same idea. For example, no two glyphs could differ more in appearance than a and b, figure 12, yet both of these forms have the same meaning. This is true also of the two glyphs c and d, and e and f. The occurrence of forms so absolutely unlike in appearance, yet identical in meaning, greatly complicates the problem of glyph identification. Indeed, identity in both meaning and use must be clearly established before we can recognize as variants of the same glyph, forms so dissimilar as the examples above given. Hence, because their meanings are unknown we are unable to identify g and h, figure 12, as synonyms, notwithstanding the fact that their use seems to be identical, h occurring in two or three texts under exactly the same conditions as does g in all the others.
Fig. 12. Normal-form and head-variant glyphs, showing absence of common essential element.
A further source of error in glyph identification is the failure to recognize variations due merely to individual peculiarities of style, which are consequently unessential. Just as handwriting differs in each individual, so the delineation of glyphs differed among the ancient Maya, though doubtless to a lesser extent. In extreme cases, however, the differences are so great that identification of variants as forms of one and the same glyph is difficult if indeed not impossible. Here also are to be included variations due to differences in the materials upon which the glyphs are delineated, as well as those arising from careless drawing and actual mistakes.
The foregoing difficulties, as well as others which await the student who would classify the Maya glyphs according to form and appearance, have led the author to discard this method of classification as unsuited to the purposes of an elementary work. Though a problem of first importance, the analysis of the simple elements is far too complex for presentation to the beginner, particularly since the greatest diversity of opinion concerning them prevails among those who have studied the subject, scarcely any two agreeing at any one point; and finally because up to the present time success in reading Maya writing has not come through this channel.
The classification followed herein is based on the general meaning of the glyphs, and therefore has the advantage of being at least self-explanatory. It divides the glyphs into two groups: (1) Astronomical, calendary, and numerical signs, that is, glyphs used in counting time; and (2) glyphs accompanying the preceding, which have an explanatory function of some sort, probably describing the nature of the occasions which the first group of glyphs designate.
According to this classification, the great majority of the glyphs whose meanings have been determined fall into the first group, and those whose meanings are still unknown into the second. This is particularly true of the inscriptions, in which the known glyphs practically all belong to the first group. In the codices, on the other hand, some little progress has made been in reading glyphs of the second group. The name-glyphs of the principal gods, the signs for the cardinal points and associated colors, and perhaps a very few others may be mentioned in this connection.[18]
Of the unknown glyphs in both the inscriptions and the codices, a part at least have to do with numerical calculations of some kind, a fact which relegates such glyphs to the first group. The author believes that as the reading of the Maya glyphs progresses, more and more characters will be assigned to the first group and fewer and fewer to the second. In the end, however, there will be left what we may perhaps call a "textual residue," that is, those glyphs which explain the nature of the events that are to be associated with the corresponding chronological parts. It is here, if anywhere, that fragments of Maya history will be found recorded, and precisely here is the richest field for future research, since the successful interpretation of this "textual residue" will alone disclose the true meaning of the Maya writings.
Three principal theories have been advanced for the interpretation of Maya writing:
1. That the glyphs are phonetic, each representing some sound, and entirely dissociated from the representation of any thought or idea.
2. That the glyphs are ideographic, each representing in itself some complete thought or idea.
3. That the glyphs are both phonetic and ideographic, that is, a combination of 1 and 2.
It is apparent at the outset that the first of these theories can not be accepted in its entirety; for although there are undeniable traces of phoneticism among the Maya glyphs, all attempts to reduce them to a phonetic system or alphabet, which will interpret the writing, have signally failed. The first and most noteworthy of these so-called "Maya alphabets," because of its genuine antiquity, is that given by Bishop Landa in his invaluable Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, frequently cited in Chapter I. Writing in the year 1565, within 25 years of the Spanish Conquest, Landa was able to obtain characters for 27 sounds, as follows: Three a's, two b's, c, t, e, h, i, ca, k, two l's, m, n, two o's, pp, p, cu, ku, two x's, two v's, z. This alphabet, which was first published in 1864 by Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg (see Landa, 1864), was at once heralded by Americanists as the long-awaited key which would unlock the secrets of the Maya writing. Unfortunately these confident expectations have not been realized, and all attempts to read the glyphs by means of this alphabet or of any of the numerous others[19] which have appeared since, have completely broken down.
This failure to establish the exclusive phonetic character of the Maya glyphs has resulted in the general acceptance of the second theory, that the signs are ideographic. Doctor Brinton (1894b: p. 14), however, has pointed out two facts deducible from the Landa alphabet which render impossible not only the complete acceptance of this second theory but also the absolute rejection of the first: (1) That a native writer was able to give a written character for an unfamiliar sound, a sound, moreover, which was without meaning to him, as, for example, that of a Spanish letter; and (2) that the characters he employed for this purpose were also used in the native writings. These facts Doctor Brinton regards as proof that some sort of phonetic writing was not unknown, and, indeed, both the inscriptions and the codices establish the truth of this contention. For example, the sign in a, figure 13, has the phonetic value kin, and the sign in b the phonetic value yax. In the latter glyph, however, only the upper part (reproduced in c) is to be regarded as the essential element. It is strongly indicative of phoneticism therefore to find the sound yaxkin, a combination of these two, expressed by the sign found in d. Similarly, the character representing the phonetic value kin is found also as an element in the glyphs for the words likin and chikin (see e and f, respectively, fig. 13), each of which has kin as its last syllable. Again, the phonetic value tun is expressed by the glyph in g, and the sound ca (c hard) by the sign h. The sound katun is represented by the character in i, a combination of these two. Sometimes the glyph for this same sound takes the form of j, the fish element in k replacing the comblike element h. Far from destroying the phonetic character of this composite glyph, however, this variant k in reality strengthens it, since in Maya the word for fish is cay (c hard) and consequently the variant reads caytun, a close phonetic approximation of katun. The remaining element of this glyph (l) has the value cauac, the first syllable of which is also expressed by either h or k, figure 13. Its use in i and j probably may be regarded as but a further emphasis of the phonetic character of the glyph.
It must be remembered, however, that all of the above glyphs have meanings quite independent of their phonetic values, that primarily their function was to convey ideas, and that only secondarily were they used in their phonetic senses.
Fig. 13. Glyphs built up on a phonetic basis.
If neither the phonetic nor the ideographic character of the glyphs can be wholly admitted, what then is the true nature of the Maya writing? The theory now most generally accepted is, that while chiefly ideographic, the glyphs are sometimes phonetic, and that although the idea of a glyphic alphabet must finally be abandoned, the phonetic use of syllables as illustrated above must as surely be recognized.
This kind of writing Doctor Brinton has called ikonomatic, more familiarly known to us under the name of rebus, or puzzle writing. In such writing the characters do not indicate the ideas of the objects which they portray, but only the sounds of their names, and are used purely in a phonetic sense, like the letters of the alphabet. For example, the rebus in figure 14 reads as follows: "I believe Aunt Rose can well bear all for you." The picture of the eye recalls not the idea "eye" but the sound of the word denoting this object, which is also the sound of the word for the first person singular of the personal pronoun I. Again, the picture of a bee does not represent the idea of that insect, but stands for the sound of its name, which used with a leaf indicates the sound "beeleaf," or in other words, "believe."[20]
It has long been known that the Aztec employed ikonomatic characters in their writing to express the names of persons and places, though this practice does not seem to have been extended by them to the representation of abstract words. The Aztec codices contain many glyphs which are to be interpreted ikonomatically, that is, like our own rebus writing. For example in figure 15, a, is shown the Aztec hieroglyph for the town of Toltitlan, a name which means "near the place of the rushes." The word tollin means "place of the rushes," but only its first syllable tol appears in the word Toltitlan. This syllable is represented in a by several rushes. The word tetlan means "near something" and its second syllable tlan is found also in the word tlantli, meaning "teeth." In a therefore, the addition of the teeth to the rushes gives the word Toltitlan. Another example of this kind of writing is given in figure 15, b, where the hieroglyph for the town of Acatzinco is shown. This word means "the little reed grass," the diminutive being represented by the syllable tzinco. The reed grass (acatl) is shown by the pointed leaves or spears which emerge from the lower part of a human figure. This part of the body was called by the Aztecs tzinco, and as used here expresses merely the sound tzinco in the diminutive acatzinco, "the little reed grass," the letter l of acatl being lost in composition.
Fig. 14. A rebus. Aztec, and probably Maya, personal and place names were written in a corresponding manner.
The presence of undoubted phonetic elements in these Aztec glyphs expressing personal names and place names would seem to indicate that some similar usage probably prevailed among the Maya. While admitting this restricted use of phonetic composition by the Maya, Professor Seler refuses to recognize its further extension:
Certainly there existed in the Maya writing compound hieroglyphs giving the name of a deity, person, or a locality, whose elements united on the phonetic principle. But as yet it is not proved that they wrote texts. And without doubt the greater part of the Maya hieroglyphics were conventional symbols built up on the ideographic principle.
Doctor Förstemann also regards the use of phonetic elements as restricted to little more than the above when he says, "Finally the graphic system of the Maya ... never even achieved the expression of a phrase or even a verb."
On the other hand, Mr. Bowditch (1910: p. 255) considers the use of phonetic composition extended considerably beyond these limits:
As far as I am aware, the use of this kind of writing [rebus] was confined, among the Aztecs, to the names of persons and places, while the Mayas, if they used the rebus form at all, used it also for expressing common nouns and possibly abstract ideas. The Mayas surely used picture writing and the ideographic system, but I feel confident that a large part of their hieroglyphs will be found to be made up of rebus forms and that the true line of research will be found to lie in this direction.
Fig. 15. Aztec place names: a, The sign for the town Toltitlan; b, the sign for the town Acatzinco.
Doctor Brinton (1894 b: p. 13) held an opinion between these two, perhaps inclining slightly toward the former: "The intermediate position which I have defended, is that while chiefly ideographic, they [the Maya glyphs] are occasionally phonetic, in the same manner as are confessedly the Aztec picture-writings."
These quotations from the most eminent authorities on the subject well illustrate their points of agreement and divergence. All admit the existence of phonetic elements in the glyphs, but disagree as to their extent. And here, indeed, is the crux of the whole phonetic question. Just how extensively do phonetic elements enter into the composition of the Maya glyphs? Without attempting to dispose of this point definitely one way or the other, the author may say that he believes that as the decipherment of Maya writing progresses, more and more phonetic elements will be identified, though the idea conveyed by a glyph will always be found to overshadow its phonetic value.
The various theories above described have not been presented for the reader's extended consideration, but only in order to acquaint him with the probable nature of the Maya glyphs. Success in deciphering, as we shall see, has not come through any of the above mentioned lines of research, which will not be pursued further in this work.
In taking up the question of the meaning of Maya writing, it must be admitted at the outset that in so far as they have been deciphered both the inscriptions and the codices have been found to deal primarily, if indeed not exclusively, with the counting of time in some form or other. Doctor Förstemann, the first successful interpreter of the codices, has shown that these writings have for their principal theme the passage of time in its varying relations to the Maya calendar, ritual, and astronomy. They deal in great part with the sacred year of 260 days, known to the Aztec also under the name of the tonalamatl, in connection with which various ceremonies, offerings, sacrifices, and domestic occupations are set forth. Doctor Förstemann believed that this 260-day period was employed by the priests in casting horoscopes and foretelling the future of individuals, classes, and tribes, as well as in predicting coming political events and natural phenomena; or in other words, that in so far as the 260-day period was concerned, the codices are nothing more nor less than books of prophecy and divination.
The prophetic character of some of these native books at least is clearly indicated in a passage from Bishop Landa's Relacion (p. 286). In describing a festival held in the month Uo, the Bishop relates that "the most learned priest opened a book, in which he examined the omens of the year, which he announced to all those who were present." Other early Spanish writers state that these books contain the ancient prophecies and indicate the times appointed for their fulfillment.
Doctor Thomas regarded the codices as religious calendars, or rituals for the guidance of the priests in the celebration of feasts, ceremonies, and other duties, seemingly a natural inference from the character of the scenes portrayed in connection with these 260-day periods.
Another very important function of the codices is the presentation of astronomical phenomena and calculations. The latter had for their immediate object in each case the determination of the lowest number which would exactly contain all the numbers of a certain group. These lowest numbers are in fact nothing more nor less than the least common multiple of changing combinations of numbers, each one of which represents the revolution of some heavenly body. In addition to these calculations deities are assigned to the several periods, and a host of mythological allusions are introduced, the significance of most of which is now lost.
The most striking proof of the astronomical character of the codices is to be seen in pages 46-50 of the Dresden Manuscript. Here, to begin with, a period of 2,920 days is represented, which exactly contains five Venus years of 584[21] days each (one on each page) as well as eight solar years of 365 days each. Each of the Venus years is divided into four parts, respectively, 236, 90, 250, and 8 days. The first and third of these constitute the periods when Venus was the morning and the evening star, respectively, and the second and fourth, the periods of invisibility after each of these manifestations. This Venus-solar period of 2,920 days was taken as the basis from which the number 37,960 was formed. This contains 13 Venus-solar periods, 65 Venus-years, 104 solar years, and 146 tonalamatls, or sacred years of 260 days each. Finally, the last number (37,960) with all the subdivisions above given was thrice repeated, so that these five pages of the manuscript record the passage of 113,880 days, or 312 solar years.
Again, on pages 51-58 of the same manuscript, 405 revolutions of the moon are set down; and so accurate are the calculations involved that although they cover a period of nearly 33 years the total number of days recorded (11,959) is only 89⁄100 of a day less than the true time computed by the best modern method[22]—certainly a remarkable achievement for the aboriginal mind. It is probable that the revolutions of the planets Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and Saturn are similarly recorded in the same manuscript.
Toward the end of the Dresden Codex the numbers become greater and greater until, in the so-called "serpent numbers," a grand total of nearly twelve and a half million days (about thirty-four thousand years) is recorded again and again. In these well-nigh inconceivable periods all the smaller units may be regarded as coming at last to a more or less exact close. What matter a few score years one way or the other in this virtual eternity? Finally, on the last page of the manuscript, is depicted the Destruction of the World (see pl. 3), for which these highest numbers have paved the way. Here we see the rain serpent, stretching across the sky, belching forth torrents of water. Great streams of water gush from the sun and moon. The old goddess, she of the tiger claws and forbidding aspect, the malevolent patroness of floods and cloudbursts, overturns the bowl of the heavenly waters. The crossbones, dread emblem of death, decorate her skirt, and a writhing snake crowns her head. Below with downward-pointed spears, symbolic of the universal destruction, the black god stalks abroad, a screeching bird raging on his fearsome head. Here, indeed, is portrayed with graphic touch the final all-engulfing cataclysm.
According to the early writers, in addition to the astronomic, prophetic, and ritualistic material above described, the codices contained records of historical events. It is doubtful whether this is true of any of the three codices now extant, though there are grounds for believing that the Codex Peresianus may be in part at least of an historical nature.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 3
[18] There can be no doubt that Förstemann has identified the sign for the planet Venus and possibly a few others. (See Förstemann, 1906: p. 116.)
[19] Brasseur de Bourbourg, the "discoverer" of Landa's manuscript, added several signs of his own invention to the original Landa alphabet. See his introduction to the Codex Troano published by the French Government. Leon de Rosny published an alphabet of 29 letters with numerous variants. Later Dr. F. Le Plongeon defined 23 letters with variants and made elaborate interpretations of the texts with this "alphabet" as his key. Another alphabet was that proposed by Dr. Hilborne T. Cresson, which included syllables as well as letters, and with which its originator also essayed to read the texts. Scarce worthy of mention are the alphabet and volume of interlinear translations from both the inscriptions and the codices published by F. A. de la Rochefoucauld. This is very fantastic and utterly without value unless, as Doctor Brinton says, it be taken "as a warning against the intellectual aberrations to which students of these ancient mysteries seem peculiarly prone." The late Dr. Cyrus Thomas, of the Bureau of American Ethnology, was the last of those who endeavored to interpret the Maya texts by means of alphabets; though he was perhaps the best of them all, much of his work in this particular respect will not stand.
[20] Thus the whole rebus in figure 14 reads: "Eye bee leaf ant rose can well bear awl four ewe." These words may be replaced by their homophones as follows: "I believe Aunt Rose can well bear all for you."
[21] The period of the synodical revolution of Venus as computed to-day is 583.920 days.
[22] According to modern calculations, the period of the lunar revolution is 29.530588, or approximately 29½ days. For 405 revolutions the accumulated error would be .03×405=12.15 days. This error the Maya obviated by using 29.5 in some calculations and 29.6 in others, the latter offsetting the former. Thus the first 17 revolutions of the sequence are divided into three groups; the first 6 revolutions being computed at 29.5, each giving a total of 177 days; and the second 6 revolutions also being computed at 29.5 each, giving a total of another 177 days. The third group of 5 revolutions, however, was computed at 29.6 each, giving a total of 148 days. The total number of days in the first 17 revolutions was thus computed to be 177+177+147=502, which is very close to the time computed by modern calculations, 502.02.
PAGE 74 OF THE DRESDEN CODEX, SHOWING THE END OF THE WORLD (ACCORDING TO FÖRSTEMANN)
Much less progress has been made toward discovering the meaning of the inscriptions. Doctor Brinton (1894 b: p.32) states:
My own conviction is that they [the inscriptions and codices] will prove to be much more astronomical than even the latter [Doctor Förstemann] believes; that they are primarily and essentially records of the motions of the heavenly bodies; and that both figures and characters are to be interpreted as referring in the first instance to the sun and moon, the planets, and those constellations which are most prominent in the nightly sky in the latitude of Yucatan.
Mr. Bowditch (1910: p. 199) has also brought forward very cogent points tending to show that in part at least the inscriptions treat of the intercalation of days necessary to bring the dated monuments, based on a 365-day year, into harmony with the true solar year of 365.2421 days.[23]
While admitting that the inscriptions may, and probably do, contain such astronomical matter as Doctor Brinton and Mr. Bowditch have suggested, the writer believes nevertheless that fundamentally they are historical; that the monuments upon which they are presented were erected and inscribed on or about the dates they severally record; and finally, that the great majority of these dates are those of contemporaneous events, and as such pertain to the subject-matter of history.
The reasons which have led him to this conclusion follow:
First. The monuments at most of the southern Maya sites show a certain periodicity in their sequence. This is most pronounced at Quirigua, where all of the large monuments fall into an orderly series, in which each monument is dated exactly 1,800 days later than the one immediately preceding it in the sequence. This is also true at Copan, where, in spite of the fact that there are many gaps in the sequence, enough monuments conforming to the plan remain to prove its former existence. The same may be said also of Naranjo, Seibal, and Piedras Negras, and in fact of almost all the other large cities which afford sufficient material for a chronological arrangement.
This interval of 1,800 days quite obviously was not determined by the recurrence of any natural phenomenon. It has no parallel in nature, but is, on the contrary, a highly artificial unit. Consequently, monuments the erection of which was regulated by the successive returns of this period could not depend in the least for the fact of their existence on any astronomical phenomenon other than that of the rising and setting of eighteen hundred successive suns, an arbitrary period.
The Maya of Yucatan had a similar method of marking time, though their unit of enumeration was 7,200 days, or four times the length of the one used for the same purpose in the older cities. The following quotations from early Spanish chroniclers explain this practice and indicate that the inscriptions presented on these time-markers were of an historical nature:
There were discovered in the plaza of that city [Mayapan] seven or eight stones each ten feet in length, round at the end, and well worked. These had some writings in the characters which they use, but were so worn by water that they could not be read. Moreover, they think them to be in memory of the foundation and destruction of that city. There are other similar ones, although higher, at Zilan, one of the coast towns. The natives when asked what these things were, replied that they were accustomed to erect one of these stones every twenty years, which is the number they use for counting their ages.[24]
The other is even more explicit:
Their lustras having reached five in number, which made twenty years, which they call a katun, they place a graven stone on another of the same kind laid in lime and sand in the walls of their temples and the houses of the priests, as one still sees to-day in the edifices in question, and in some ancient walls of our own convent at Merida, about which there are some cells. In a city named Tixhualatun, which signifies "place where one graven stone is placed upon another," they say are their archives, where everybody had recourse for events of all kinds, as we do to Simancas.[25]
It seems almost necessary to conclude from such a parallel that the inscriptions of the southern cities will also be found to treat of historical matters.
Second. When the monuments of the southern cities are arranged according to their art development, that is, in stylistic sequence, they are found to be arranged in their chronological order as well. This important discovery, due largely to the researches of Dr. H. J. Spinden, has enabled us to determine the relative ages of various monuments quite independent of their respective dates. From a stylistic consideration alone it has been possible not only to show that the monuments date from different periods, but also to establish the sequence of these periods and that of the monuments in them. Finally, it has demonstrated beyond all doubt that the great majority of the dates on Maya monuments refer to the time of their erection, so that the inscriptions which they present are historical in that they are the contemporaneous records of different epochs.
Third. The dates on the monuments are such as to constitute a strong antecedent probability of their historical character. Like the records of most ancient peoples, the Maya monuments, judging from their dates, were at first scattered and few. Later, as new cities were founded and the nation waxed stronger and stronger, the number of monuments increased, until at the flood tide of Maya prosperity they were, comparatively speaking, common. Finally, as decline set in, fewer and fewer monuments were erected, and eventually effort in this field ceased altogether. The increasing number of the monuments by ten-year periods is shown in plate 4, where the passage of time (i. e., the successive ten-year periods) is represented from left to right, and the number of dates in each ten-year period from bottom to top. Although other dated monuments will be found from time to time, which will necessarily change the details given in this diagram, such additional evidence in all probability will never controvert the following general conclusions, embodied in what has just been stated, which are deducible from it:
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 4
DIAGRAM SHOWING OCCURRENCE OF DATES RECORDED IN CYCLE 9
1. At first there was a long period of slow growth represented by few monuments, which, however, increased in number toward the end.
2. This was followed without interruption by a period of increased activity, the period from which the great majority of the monuments date.
3. Finally this period came to rather an abrupt end, indicated by the sudden cessation in the erection of dated monuments.
The consideration of these indisputable facts tends to establish the historical rather than the astronomical character of the monuments. For had the erection of the monuments depended on the successive recurrences of some astronomical phenomenon, there would be corresponding intervals between the dates of such monuments[26] the length of which would indicate the identity of the determining phenomenon; and they would hardly have presented the same logical increase due to the natural growth of a nation, which the accompanying diagram clearly sets forth.
Fourth. Although no historical codices[27] are known to have survived, history was undoubtedly recorded in these ancient Maya books. The statements of the early Spanish writers are very explicit on this point, as the following quotations from their works will show. Bishop Landa (here, as always, one of the most reliable authorities) says: "And the sciences which they [the priests] taught were the count of the years, months and days, the feasts and ceremonies, the administration of their sacraments, days, and fatal times, their methods of divination and prophecy, and foretelling events, and the remedies for the sick, and their antiquities" [p. 44]. And again, "they [the priests] attended the service of the temples and to the teaching of their sciences and how to write them in their books." And again, [p. 316], "This people also used certain characters or letters with which they wrote in their books their ancient matters and sciences."
Father Lizana says (see Landa, 1864: p. 352): "The history and authorities we can cite are certain ancient characters, scarcely understood by many and explained by some old Indians, sons of the priests of their gods, who alone knew how to read and expound them and who were believed in and revered as much as the gods themselves."
Father Ponce (tome LVIII, p. 392) who visited Yucatan as early as 1588, is equally clear: "The natives of Yucatan are among all the inhabitants of New Spain especially deserving of praise for three things. First that before the Spaniards came they made use of characters and letters with which they wrote out their histories, their ceremonies, the order of sacrifices to their idols and their calendars in books made of the bark of a certain tree."
Doctor Aguilar, who wrote but little later (1596), gives more details as to the kind of events which were recorded. "On these [the fiber books] they painted in color the reckoning of their years, wars, pestilences, hurricanes, inundations, famines and other events."
Finally, as late as 1697, some of these historical codices were in the possession of the last great independent Maya ruler, one Canek. Says Villagutierre (1701: lib. VI, cap. IV) in this connection: "Because their king [Canek] had read it in his analtehes [fiber-books or codices] they had knowledge of the provinces of Yucatan, and of the fact that their ancestors had formerly come from them; analtehes or histories being one and the same thing."
It is clear from the foregoing extracts, that the Maya of Yucatan recorded their history up to the time of the Spanish Conquest, in their hieroglyphic books, or codices. That fact is beyond dispute. It must be remembered also in this connection, that the Maya of Yucatan were the direct inheritors of that older Maya civilization in the south, which had produced the hieroglyphic monuments. For this latter reason the writer believes that the practice of recording history in the hieroglyphic writing had its origin, along with many another custom, in the southern area, and consequently that the inscriptions on the monuments of the southern cities are probably, in part at least, of an historical nature.
Whatever may be the meaning of the undeciphered glyphs, enough has been said in this chapter about those of known meaning to indicate the extreme importance of the element of time in Maya writing. The very great preponderance of astronomical, calendary, and numerical signs in both the codices and the inscriptions has determined, so far as the beginner is concerned, the best way to approach the study of the glyphs. First, it is essential to understand thoroughly the Maya system of counting time, in other words, their calendar and chronology. Second, in order to make use of this knowledge, as did the Maya, it is necessary to familiarize ourselves with their arithmetic and its signs and symbols. Third, and last, after this has been accomplished, we are ready to apply ourselves to the deciphering of the inscriptions and the codices. For this reason the next chapter will be devoted to the discussion of the Maya system of counting time.
Chapter III. HOW THE MAYA RECKONED TIME
Among all peoples and in all ages the most obvious unit for the measurement of time has been the day; and the never-failing reappearance of light after each interval of darkness has been the most constant natural phenomenon with which the mind of man has had to deal. From the earliest times successive returns of the sun have regulated the whole scheme of human existence. When it was light, man worked; when it was dark, he rested. Conformity to the operation of this natural law has been practically universal.
Indeed, as primitive man saw nature, day was the only division of time upon which he could absolutely rely. The waxing and waning of the moon, with its everchanging shape and occasional obscuration by clouds, as well as its periodic disappearances from the heavens all combined to render that luminary of little account in measuring the passage of time. The round of the seasons was even more unsatisfactory. A late spring or an early winter by hastening or retarding the return of a season caused the apparent lengths of succeeding years to vary greatly. Even where a 365-day year had been determined, the fractional loss, amounting to a day every four years, soon brought about a discrepancy between the calendar and the true year. The day, therefore, as the most obvious period in nature, as well as the most reliable, has been used the world over as the fundamental unit for the measurement of longer stretches of time.
Table I. THE TWENTY MAYA DAY NAMES
Imix Ik Akbal Kan Chicchan Cimi Manik Lamat Muluc Oc Chuen Eb Ben Ix Men Cib Caban Eznab Cauac AhauIn conformity with the universal practice just mentioned the Maya made the day, which they called kin, the primary unit of their calendar. There were twenty such units, named as in Table I; these followed each other in the order there shown. When Ahau, the last day in the list, had been reached, the count began anew with Imix, and thus repeated itself again and again without interruption, throughout time. It is important that the student should fix this Maya conception of the rotation of days firmly in his mind at the outset, since all that is to follow depends upon the absolute continuity of this twenty-day sequence in endless repetition.
Fig. 16. The day signs in the inscriptions.
Fig. 17. The day signs in the codices.
The glyphs for these twenty days are shown in figures 16 and 17. The forms in figure 16 are from the inscriptions and those in figure 17 from the codices. In several cases variants are given to facilitate identification. A study of the glyphs in these two figures shows on the whole a fairly close similarity between the forms for the same day in each. The sign for the first day, Imix, is practically identical in both. Compare figure 16, a and b, with figure 17, a and b. The usual form for the day Ik in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, c), however, is unlike the glyph for the same day in the codices (fig. 17, c, d). The forms for Akbal and Kan are practically the same in each (see fig. 16, d, e, and f, and fig. 17, e and f, respectively). The day Chicchan, figure 16, g, occurs rarely in the inscriptions; when present, it takes the form of a grotesque head. In the codices the common form for this day is very different (fig. 17, g). The head variant, however (fig. 17, h), shows a slightly closer similarity to the form from the inscriptions. The forms in both figure 16, h, i, and figure 17, i, j, for the day Cimi show little resemblance to each other. Although figure 17, i, represents the common form in the codices, the variant in j more closely resembles the form in figure 16, h, i. The day Manik is practically the same in both (see figs. 16, j, and 17, k), as is also Lamat (figs. 16, k, l, and 17, l, m). The day Muluc occurs rarely in the inscriptions (fig. 16, m, n). Of these two variants m more closely resembles the form from the codices (fig. 17, n). The glyph for the day Oc (fig. 16, o, p, q) is not often found in the inscriptions. In the codices, on the other hand, this day is frequently represented as shown in figure 17, o. This form bears no resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. There is, however, a head-variant form found very rarely in the codices that bears a slight resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. The day Chuen occurs but once in the inscriptions where the form is clear enough to distinguish its characteristic (see fig. 16, r). This form bears a general resemblance to the glyph for this day in the codices (fig. 17, p, q). The forms for the day Eb in both figures 16, s, t, u, and 17, r, are grotesque heads showing but remote resemblance to one another. The essential element in both, however, is the same, that is, the element occupying the position of the ear. Although the day Ben occurs but rarely in the inscriptions, its form (fig. 16, v) is practically identical with that in the codices (see fig. 17, s). The day Ix in the inscriptions appears as in figure 16, w, x. The form in the codices is shown in figure 17, t. The essential element in each seems to be the three prominent dots or circles. The day Men occurs very rarely on the monuments. The form shown in figure 16, y, is a grotesque head not unlike the sign for this day in the codices (fig. 17, u). The signs for the day Cib in the inscriptions and the codices (figs. 16, z, and 17, v, w), respectively, are very dissimilar. Indeed, the form for Cib (fig. 17, v) in the codices resembles more closely the sign for the day Caban (fig. 16, a', b') than it does the form for Cib in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, z). The only element common to both is the line paralleling the upper part of the glyph (*
These examples of the glyphs, which stand for the twenty Maya days, are in each case as typical as possible. The student must remember, however, that many variations occur, which often render the correct identification of a form difficult. As explained in the preceding chapter, such variations are due not only to individual peculiarities of style, careless drawing, and actual error, but also to the physical dissimilarities of materials on which they are portrayed, as the stone of the monuments and the fiber paper of the codices; consequently, such differences may be regarded as unessential. The ability to identify variants differing from those shown in figures 16 and 17 will come only through experience and familiarity with the glyphs themselves. The student should constantly bear in mind, however, that almost every Maya glyph, the signs for the days included, has an essential element peculiar to it, and the discovery of such elements will greatly facilitate his study of Maya writing.
Why the named days should have been limited to twenty is difficult to understand, as this number has no parallel period in nature. Some have conjectured that this number was chosen because it represents the number of man's digits, the twenty fingers and toes. Mr. Bowditch has pointed out in this connection that the Maya word for the period composed of these twenty named days is uinal, while the word for 'man' is uinik. The parallel is interesting and may possibly explain why the number twenty was selected as the basis of the Maya system of numeration, which, as we shall see later, was vigesimal, that is, increasing by twenties or multiples thereof.
The Tonalamatl, or 260-day Period
Merely calling a day by one of the twenty names given in Table I, however, did not sufficiently describe it according to the Maya notion. For instance, there was no day in the Maya calendar called merely Imix, Ik, or Akbal, or, in fact, by any of the other names given in Table I. Before the name of a day was complete it was necessary to prefix to it a number ranging from 1 to 13, inclusive, as 6 Imix or 13 Akbal. Then and only then did a Maya day receive its complete designation and find its proper place in the calendar.
The manner in which these thirteen numbers, 1 to 13, inclusive, were joined to the twenty names of Table I was as follows: Selecting any one of the twenty names[28] as a starting point, Kan for example, the number 1 was prefixed to it. See Table II, in which the names of Table I have been repeated with the numbers prefixed to them in a manner to be explained hereafter. The star opposite the name Kan indicates the starting point above chosen. The name Chicchan immediately following Kan in Table II was given the next number in order (2), namely, 2 Chicchan. The next name, Cimi, was given the next number (3), namely, 3 Cimi, and so on as follows: 4 Manik, 5 Lamat, 6 Muluc, 7 Oc, 8 Chuen, 9 Eb, 10 Ben, 11 Ix, 12 Men, 13 Cib.
Table II. SEQUENCE OF MAYA DAYS
*5 Imix *6 Ik *7 Akbal *1 Kan *2 Chicchan *3 Cimi *4 Manik *5 Lamat *6 Muluc *7 Oc 08 Chuen 09 Eb 10 Ben 11 Ix 12 Men 13 Cib 01 Caban 02 Eznab 03 Cauac 04 AhauInstead of giving to the next name in Table II (Caban) the number 14, the number 1 was prefixed; for, as previously stated, the numerical coefficients of the days did not rise above the number 13. Following the day 1 Caban, the sequence continued as before: 2 Eznab, 3 Cauac, 4 Ahau. After the day 4 Ahau, the last in Table II, the next number in order, in this case 5, was prefixed to the next name in order—that is, Imix, the first name in Table II—and the count continued without interruption: 5 Imix, 6 Ik, 7 Akbal, or back to the name Kan with which it started. There was no break in the sequence, however, even at this point (or at any other, for that matter). The next name in Table II, Kan, selected for the starting point, was given the number next in order, i. e., 8, and the day following 7 Akbal in Table II would be, therefore, 8 Kan, and the sequence would continue to be formed in the same way: 8 Kan, 9 Chicchan, 10 Cimi, 11 Manik, 12 Lamat, 13 Muluc, 1 Oc, 2 Chuen, 3 Eb, and so on. So far as the Maya conception of time was concerned, this sequence of days went on without interruption, forever.
While somewhat unusual at first sight, this sequence is in reality exceedingly simple, being governed by three easily remembered rules:
Rule 1. The sequence of the 20 day names repeats itself again and again without interruption.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 5
TONALAMATL WHEEL, SHOWING SEQUENCE OF THE 260 DIFFERENTLY NAMED DAYS
Rule 2. The sequence of the numerical coefficients 1 to 13, inclusive, repeats itself again and again without interruption, 1 following immediately 13.
Rule 3. The 13 numerical coefficients are attached to the 20 names, so that after a start has been made by prefixing any one of the 13 numbers to any one of the 20 names, the number next in order is given to the name next in order, and the sequence continues indefinitely in this manner.
It is a simple question of arithmetic to determine the number of days which must elapse before a day bearing the same designation as a previous one in the sequence can reappear. Since there are 13 numbers and 20 names, and since each of the 13 numbers must be attached in turn to each one of the 20 names before a given number can return to a given name, we must find the least common multiple of 13 and 20. As these two numbers, contain no common factor, their least common multiple is their product (260), which is the number sought. Therefore, any given day can not reappear in the sequence until after the 259 days immediately following it shall have elapsed. Or, in other words, the 261st day will have the same designation as the 1st, the 262d the same as the 2d, and so on.
This is graphically shown in the wheel figured in plate 5, where the sequence of the days, commencing with 1 Imix, which is indicated by a star, is represented as extending around the rim of the wheel. After the name of each day, its number in the sequence beginning with the starting point 1 Imix, is shown in parenthesis. Now, if the star opposite the day 1 Imix be conceived to be stationary and the wheel to revolve in a sinistral circuit, that is contra-clockwise, the days will pass the star in the order which they occupy in the 260-day sequence. It appears from this diagram also that the day 1 Imix can not recur until after 260 days shall have passed, and that it always follows the day 13 Ahau. This must be true since Ahau is the name immediately preceding Imix in the sequence of the day names and 13 is the number immediately preceding 1. After the day 13 Ahau (the 260th from the starting point) is reached, the day 1 Imix, the 261st, recurs and the sequence, having entered into itself again, begins anew as before.
Fig. 18. Sign for the tonalamatl (according to Goodman).
This round of the 260 differently named days was called by the Aztec the tonalamatl, or "book of days." The Maya name for this period is unknown[29] and students have accepted the Aztec name for it. The tonalamatl is frequently represented in the Maya codices, there being more than 200 examples in the Codex Tro-Cortesiano alone. It was a very useful period for the calculations of the priests because of the different sets of factors into which it can be resolved, namely, 4×65, 5×52, 10×26, 13×20, and 2×130. Tonalamatls divided into 4, 5, and 10 equal parts of 65, 52, and 26 days, respectively, occur repeatedly throughout the codices.
It is all the more curious, therefore, that this period is rarely represented in the inscriptions. The writer recalls but one city (Copan) in which this period is recorded to any considerable extent. It might almost be inferred from this fact alone that the inscriptions do not treat of prophecy, divinations, or ritualistic and ceremonial matters, since these subjects in the codices are always found in connection with tonalamatls. If true this considerably restricts the field of which the inscriptions may treat.
Mr. Goodman has identified the glyph shown in figure 18 as the sign for the 260-day period, but on wholly insufficient evidence the writer believes. On the other hand, so important a period as the tonalamatl undoubtedly had its own particular glyph, but up to the present time all efforts to identify this sign have proved unsuccessful.
The Haab, or Year of 365 Days
Having explained the composition and nature of the tonalamatl, or so-called Sacred Year, let us turn to the consideration of the Solar Year, which was known as haab in the Maya language.
The Maya used in their calendar system a 365-day year, though they doubtless knew that the true length of the year exceeds this by 6 hours. Indeed, Bishop Landa very explicitly states that such knowledge was current among them. "They had," he says, "their perfect year, like ours, of 365 days and 6 hours;" and again, "The entire year had 18 of these [20-day periods] and besides 5 days and 6 hours." In spite of Landa's statements, however, it is equally clear that had the Maya attempted to take note of these 6 additional hours by inserting an extra day in their calendar every fourth year, their day sequence would have been disturbed at once. An examination of the tonalamatl, or round of days (see pl. 5), shows also that the interpolation of a single day at any point would have thrown into confusion the whole Maya calendar, not only interfering with the sequence but also destroying its power of reentering itself at the end of 260 days. The explanation of this statement is found in the fact that the Maya calendar had no elastic period corresponding to our month of February, which is increased in length whenever the accumulation of fractional days necessitates the addition of an extra day, in order to keep the calendar year from gaining on the true year.
If the student can be made to realize that all Maya periods, from the lowest to the highest known, are always in a continuous sequence, each returning into itself and beginning anew after completion, he will have grasped the most fundamental principle of Maya chronology—its absolute continuity throughout.
It may be taken for granted, therefore, in the discussion to follow that no interpolation of intercalary days was actually made. It is equally probable, however, that the priests, in whose hands such matters rested, corrected the calendar by additional calculations which showed just how many days the recorded year was ahead of the true year at any given time. Mr. Bowditch (1910: Chap. XI) has cited several cases in which such additional calculations exactly correct the inscriptions on the monument upon which they appear and bring their dates into harmony with the true solar year.
So far as the calendar is concerned, then, the year consisted of but 365 days. It was divided into 18 periods of 20 days each, designated in Maya uinal, and a closing period of 5 days known as the xma kaba kin, or "days without name." The sum of these (18×20+5) exactly made up the calendar year.
Table III. THE DIVISIONS OP THE MAYA YEAR
Pop Uo Zip Zotz Tzec Xul Yaxkin Mol Chen Yax Zac Ceh Mac Kankin Muan Pax Kayab Cumhu UayebThe names of these 19 divisions of the year are given in Table III in the order in which they follow one another; the twentieth day of one month was succeeded by the first day of the next month.
The first day of the Maya year was the first day of the month Pop, which, according to the early Spanish authorities, Bishop Landa (1864: p. 276) included, always fell on the 16th of July.[30] Uayeb, the last division of the year, contained only 5 days, the last day of Uayeb being at the same time the 365th day of the year. Consequently, when this day was completed, the next in order was the Maya New Year's Day, the first day of the month Pop, after which the sequence repeated itself as before.
The xma kaba kin, or "days without name," were regarded as especially unlucky and ill-omened. Says Pio Perez (see Landa, 1864: p. 384) in speaking of these closing days of the year: "Some call them u yail kin or u yail haab, which may be translated, the sorrowful and laborious days or part of the year; for they [the Maya] believed that in them occurred sudden deaths and pestilences, and that they were diseased by poisonous animals, or devoured by wild beasts, fearing that if they went out to the field to their labors, some tree would pierce them or some other kind of misfortune happen to them." The Aztec held the five closing days of the year in the same superstitious dread. Persons born in this unlucky period were held to be destined by this fact to wretchedness and poverty for life. These days were, moreover, prophetic in character; what occurred during them continued to happen ever afterward. Hence, quarreling was avoided during this period lest it should never cease.
Having learned the number, length, and names of the several periods into which the Maya divided their year, and the sequence in which these followed one another, the next subject which claims attention is the positions of the several days in these periods. In order properly to present this important subject, it is first necessary to consider briefly how we count and number our own units of time, since through an understanding of these practices we shall better comprehend those of the ancient Maya.
It is well known that our methods of counting time are inconsistent with each other. For example, in describing the time of day, that is, in counting hours, minutes, and seconds, we speak in terms of elapsed time. When we say it is 1 o'clock, in reality the first hour after noon, that is, the hour between 12 noon and 1 p. m., has passed and the second hour after noon is about to commence. When we say it is 2 o'clock, in reality the second hour after noon is finished and the third hour about to commence. In other words, we count the time of day by referring to passed periods and not current periods. This is the method used in reckoning astronomical time. During the passage of the first hour after midnight the hours are said to be zero, the time being counted by the number of minutes and seconds elapsed. Thus, half past 12 is written: 0hr. 30min. 0sec., and quarter of 1, 0hr. 45min. 0sec.. Indeed one hour can not be written until the first hour after midnight is completed, or until it is 1 o'clock, namely, 1hr. 0min. 0sec..
We use an entirely different method, however, in counting our days, years, and centuries, which are referred to as current periods of time. It is the 1st day of January immediately after midnight December 31. It was the first year of the Eleventh Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1000 A. D. And finally, it was the Twentieth Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1900 A. D. In this category should be included also the days of the week and the months, since the names of these periods also refer to present time. In other words when we speak of our days, months, years, and centuries, we do not have in mind, and do not refer to completed periods of time, but on the contrary to current periods.
It will be seen that in the first method of counting time, in speaking of 1 o'clock, 1 hour, 30 minutes, we use only the cardinal forms of our numbers; but in the second method we say the 1st of January, the Twentieth Century, using the ordinal forms, though even here we permit ourselves one inconsistency. In speaking of our years, which are reckoned by the second method, we say "nineteen hundred and twelve," when, to be consistent, we should say "nineteen hundred and twelfth," using the ordinal "twelfth" instead of the cardinal "twelve."
We may then summarize our methods of counting time as follows: (1) All periods less than the day, as hours, minutes, and seconds, are referred to in terms of past time; and (2) the day and all greater periods are referred to in terms of current time.
The Maya seem to have used only the former of these two methods in counting time; that is, all the different periods recorded in the codices and the inscriptions seemingly refer to elapsed time rather than to current time, to a day passed, rather than to a day present. Strange as this may appear to us, who speak of our calendar as current time, it is probably true nevertheless that the Maya, in so far as their writing is concerned, never designated a present day but always treated of a day gone by. The day recorded is yesterday because to-day can not be considered an entity until, like the hour of astronomical time, it completes itself and becomes a unit, that is, a yesterday.
This is well illustrated by the Maya method of numbering the positions of the days in the months, which, as we shall see, was identical with our own method of counting astronomical time. For example, the first day of the Maya month Pop was written Zero Pop, (0 Pop) for not until one whole day of Pop had passed could the day 1 Pop be written; by that time, however, the first day of the month had passed and the second day commenced. In other words, the second day of Pop was written 1 Pop; the third day, 2 Pop; the fourth day, 3 Pop; and so on through the 20 days of the Maya month. This method of numbering the positions of the days in the month led to calling the last day of a month 19 instead of 20. This appears in Table IV, in which the last 6 days of one year and the first 22 of the next year are referred to their corresponding positions in the divisions of the Maya year. It must be remembered in using this Table that the closing period of the Maya year, the xma kaba kin, or Uayeb, contained only 5 days, whereas all the other periods (the 18 uinals) had 20 days each.
Curiously enough no glyph for the haab, or year, has been identified as yet, in spite of the apparent importance of this period.[31] The glyphs which represent the 18 different uinals and the xma kaba kin, however, are shown in figures 19 and 20. The forms in figure 19 are taken from the inscriptions and those in figure 20 from the codices.
Table IV. POSITIONS OF DAYS AT THE END OF A YEAR
360th day of the year
19 Cumhu
last day of the month
Cumhu.
361st day of the year
00 Uayeb
first day of
Uayeb.
362d
tday of the year
01 Uayeb
363d
tday of the year
02 Uayeb
364th day of the year
03 Uayeb
365th day of the year
04 Uayeb
last day of
Uayeband of the year.
01st day of next year
00 Pop
first day of the month
Pop, and of the next year.
02d
tday of next year
01 Pop
03d
tday of next year
02 Pop
04th day of next year
03 Pop
05th day of next year
04 Pop
06th day of next year
05 Pop
07th day of next year
06 Pop
08th day of next year
07 Pop
09th day of next year
08 Pop
10th day of next year
09 Pop
11th day of next year
10 Pop
12th day of next year
11 Pop
13th day of next year
12 Pop
14th day of next year
13 Pop
15th day of next year
14 Pop
16th day of next year
15 Pop
17th day of next year
16 Pop
18th day of next year
17 Pop
19th day of next year
18 Pop
20th day of next year
19 Pop
last day of the month
Pop.
21st day of next year
00 Uo
first day of the month
Uo.
22d
tday of next year
01 Uo
00etc.
00etc.
The signs for the first four months, Pop, Uo, Zip, and Zotz, show a convincing similarity in both the inscriptions and the codices. The essential elements of Pop (figs. 19, a, and 20, a) are the crossed bands and the kin sign. The latter is found in both the forms figured, though only a part of the former appears in figure 20, a. Uo has two forms in the inscriptions (see fig. 19, b, c),[32] which are, however, very similar to each other as well as to the corresponding forms in the codices (fig. 20, b, c). The glyphs for the month Zip are identical in both figures 19, d, and 20, d. The grotesque heads for Zotz in figures 19, e, f,[33] and 20, e, are also similar to each other. The essential characteristic seems to be the prominent upturned and flaring nose. The forms for Tzec (figs. 19, g, h, and 20, f) show only a very general similarity, and those for Xul, the next month, are even more unlike. The only sign for Xul in the inscriptions (fig. 19, i, j) bears very little resemblance to the common form for this month in the codices (fig. 20, g), though it is not unlike the variant in h, figure 20. The essential characteristic seems to be the familiar ear and the small mouth, shown in the inscription as an oval and in the codices as a hook surrounded with dots.
[23] This is the tropical year or the time from one equinox to its return.
[24] Landa, 1864: p. 52.
[25] Cogolludo, 1688: I, lib. IV, V, p. 186.
[26] For example, if the revolution of Venus had been the governing phenomenon, each monument would be distant from some other by 584 days; if that of Mars, 780 days; if that of Mercury, 115 or 116 days, etc. Furthermore, the sequence, once commenced, would naturally have been more or less uninterrupted. It is hardly necessary to repeat that the intervals which have been found, namely, 7200 and 1800, rest on no known astronomical phenomena but are the direct result of the Maya vigesimal system of numeration.
[27] It is possible that the Codex Peresianus may treat of historical matter, as already explained.
[28] Since the sequence of the twenty day names was continuous, it is obvious that it had no beginning or ending, like the rim of a wheel; consequently any day name may be chosen arbitrarily as the starting point. In the accompanying example
Kan has been chosen to begin with, though Bishop Landa (p. 236) states with regard to the Maya: "The character or letter with which they commence their count of the days or calendar is called Hun-ymix [i. e. 1 Imix]". Again, "Here commences the count of the calendar of the Indians, saying in their language Hun Imix (*) [i. e. 1 Imix]." (Ibid., p. 246.)
[29] Professor Seler says the Maya of Guatemala called this period the kin katun, or "order of the days." He fails to give his authority for this statement, however, and, as will appear later, these terms have entirely different meanings. (See Bulletin 28, p. 14.)
[30] As Bishop Landa wrote not later than 1579, this is Old Style. The corresponding day in the Gregorian Calendar would be July 27.
[31] This is probably to be accounted for by the fact that in the Maya system of chronology, as we shall see later, the 365-day year was not used in recording time. But that so fundamental a period had therefore no special glyph does not necessarily follow, and the writer believes the sign for the haab will yet be discovered.
[32] Later researches of the writer (1914) have convinced him that figure 19, c, is not a sign for Uo, but a very unusual variant of the sign for Zip, found only at Copan, and there only on monuments belonging to the final period.
[33] The writer was able to prove during his last trip to the Maya field that figure 19, f, is not a sign for the month Zotz, as suggested by Mr. Bowditch, but a very unusual form representing Kankin. This identification is supported by a number of examples at Piedras Negras.
Fig. 19. The month signs in the inscriptions.
Fig. 20. The month signs in the codices.
The sign for the month Yaxkin is identical in both figures 19, k, l, and 20, i, j. The sign for the month Mol in figures 19, m, n, and 20, k exhibits the same close similarity. The forms for the month Chen in figures 19, o, p, and 20, l, m, on the other hand, bear only a slight resemblance to each other. The forms for the months Yax (figs. 19, q, r, and 20, n), Zac (figs. 19, s, t, and 20, o), and Ceh (figs. 19, u, v, and 20, p) are again identical in each case. The signs for the next month, Mac, however, are entirely dissimilar, the form commonly found in the inscriptions (fig. 19, w) bearing absolutely no resemblance to that shown in figure 20, q, r, the only form for this month in the codices. The very unusual variant (fig. 19, x), from Stela 25 at Piedras Negras is perhaps a trifle nearer the form found in the codices. The flattened oval in the main part of the variant is somewhat like the upper part of the glyph in figure 20, q. The essential element of the glyph for the month Mac, so far as the inscriptions are concerned, is the element (*
It will be seen from the foregoing comparison that on the whole the glyphs for the months in the inscriptions are similar to the corresponding forms in the codices, and that such variations as are found may readily be accounted for by the fact that the codices and the inscriptions probably not only emanate from different parts of the Maya territory but also date from different periods.
The student who wishes to decipher Maya writing is strongly urged to memorize the signs for the days and months given in figures 16, 17, 19, and 20, since his progress will depend largely on his ability to recognize these glyphs when he encounters them in the texts.
The Calendar Round, or 18980-day Period
Before taking up the study of the Calendar Round let us briefly summarize the principal points ascertained in the preceding pages concerning the Maya method of counting time. In the first place we learned from the tonalamatl (pl. 5) three things: (1) The number of differently named days; (2) the names of these days; (3) the order in which they invariably followed one another. And in the second place we learned in the discussion of the Maya year, or haab, just concluded, four other things: (1) The length of the year; (2) the number, length, and names of the several periods into which it was divided; (3) the order in which these periods invariably followed one another; (4) the positions of the days in these periods.
The proper combination of these two, the tonalamatl, or "round of days," and the haab, or year of uinals, and the xma kaba kin, formed the Calendar Round, to which the tonalamatl contributed the names of the days and the haab the positions of these days in the divisions of the year. The Calendar Round was the most important period in Maya chronology, and a comprehension of its nature and of the principles which governed its composition is therefore absolutely essential to the understanding of the Maya system of counting time.
It has been explained (see p. 41) that the complete designation or name of any day in the tonalamatl consisted of two equally essential parts: (1) The name glyph, and (2) the numerical coefficient. Disregarding the latter for the present, let us first see which of the twenty names in Table I, that is, the name parts of the days, can stand at the beginning of the Maya year.
In applying any sequence of names or numbers to another there are only three possibilities concerning the names or numbers which can stand at the head of the resulting sequence:
1. When the sums of the units in each of the two sequences contain no common factor, each one of the units in turn will stand at the head of the resulting sequence.
2. When the sum of the units in one of the two sequences is a multiple of the sum of the units in the other, only the first unit can stand at the head of the resulting sequence.
3. When the sums of the units in the two sequences contain a common factor (except in those cases which fall under (2), that is, in which one is a multiple of the other) only certain units can stand at the head of the sequence.
Now, since our two numbers (the 20 names in Table I and the 365 days of the year) contain a common factor, and since neither is a multiple of the other, it is clear that only the last of the three contingencies just mentioned concerns us here; and we may therefore dismiss the first two from further consideration.
The Maya year, then, could begin only with certain of the days in Table I, and the next task is to find out which of these twenty names invariably stood at the beginnings of the years.
When there is a sequence of 20 names in endless repetition, it is evident that the 361st will be the same as the 1st, since 360 = 20 × 18. Therefore the 362d will be the same as the 2d, the 363d as the 3d, the 364th as the 4th, and the 365 as the 5th. But the 365th, or 5th, name is the name of the last day of the year, consequently the 1st day of the following year (the 366th from the beginning) will have the 6th name in the sequence. Following out this same idea, it appears that the 361st day of the second year will have the same name as that with which it began, that is, the 6th name in the sequence, the 362d day the 7th name, the 363d the 8th, the 364th the 9th, and the 365th, or last day of the second year, the 10th name. Therefore the 1st day of the third year (the 731st from the beginning) will have the 11th name in the sequence. Similarly it could be shown that the third year, beginning with the 11th name, would necessarily end with the 15th name; and the fourth year, beginning with the 16th name (the 1096th from the beginning) would necessarily end with the 20th, or last name, in the sequence. It results, therefore, from the foregoing progression that the fifth year will have to begin with the 1st name (the 1461st from the beginning), or the same name with which the first year also began.
This is capable of mathematical proof, since the 1st day of the fifth year has the 1461st name from the beginning of the sequence, for 1461 = 4×365+1 = 73×20+1. The 1 in the second term of this equation indicates that the beginning day of the fifth year has been reached; and the 1 in the third term indicates that the name-part of this day is the 1st name in the sequence of twenty. In other words, every fifth year began with a day, the name part of which was the same, and consequently only four of the names in Table I could stand at the beginnings of the Maya years.
The four names which successively occupied this, the most important position of the year, were: Ik, Manik, Eb, and Caban (see Table V, in which these four names are shown in their relation to the sequence of twenty). Beginning with any one of these, Ik for example, the next in order, Manik, is 5 days distant, the next, Eb, another five days, the next, Caban, another 5 days, and the next, Ik, the name with which the Table started, another 5 days.
Table V. RELATIVE POSITIONS OF DAYS BEGINNING MAYA YEARS
IK Akbal Kan Chicchan Cimi MANIK Lamat Muluc Oc Chuen EB Ben Ix Men Cib CABAN Eznab Cauac Ahau ImixSince one of the four names just given invariably began the Maya year, it follows that in any given year, all of its nineteen divisions, the 18 uinals and the xma kaba kin, also began with the same name, which was the name of the first day of the first uinal. This is necessarily true because these 19 divisions of the year, with the exception of the last, each contained 20 days, and consequently the name of the first day of the first division determined the names of the first days of all the succeeding divisions of that particular year. Furthermore, since the xma kaba kin, the closing division of the year, contained but 5 days, the name of the first day of the following year; as well as the names of the first days of all of its divisions, was shifted forward in the sequence another 5 days, as shown above.
This leads directly to another important conclusion: Since the first days of all the divisions of any given year always had the same name-part, it follows that the second days of all the divisions of that year had the same name, that is, the next succeeding in the sequence of twenty. The third days in each division of that year must have had the same name, the fourth days the same name, and so on, throughout the 20 days of the month. For example, if a year began with the day-name Ik, all of the divisions in that year also began with the same name, and the second days of all its divisions had the day-name Akbal, the third days the name Kan, the fourth days the name Chicchan, and so forth. This enables us to formulate the following—
Rule. The 20 day-names always occupy the same positions in all the divisions of any given year.
But since the year and its divisions must begin with one of four names, it is clear that the second positions also must be filled with one of another group of four names, and the third positions with one of another group of four names, and so on, through all the positions of the month. This enables us to formulate a second—
Rule. Only four of the twenty day-names can ever occupy any given position in the divisions of the years.
But since, in the years when Ik is the 1st name, Manik will be the 6th, Eb the 11th, and Caban the 16th, and in the years when Manik is the 1st, Eb will be the 6th, Caban the 11th, and Ik the 16th, and in the years when Eb is the 1st, Caban will be the 6th, Ik the 11th, and Manik the 16th, and in the years when Caban is the 1st, Ik will be the 6th, Manik the 11th, and Eb the 16th, it is clear that any one of this group which begins the year may occupy also three other positions in the divisions of the year, these positions being 5 days distant from each other. Consequently, it follows that Akbal, Lamat, Ben, and Eznab in Table V, the names which occupy the second positions in the divisions of the year, will fill the 7th, 12th, and 17th positions as well. Similarly Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac will fill the 3d, 8th, 13th, and 18th positions, and so on. This enables us to formulate a third—
Rule. The 20 day-names are divided into five groups of four names each, any name in any group being five days distant from the name next preceding it in the same group, and furthermore, the names of any one group will occupy four different positions in the divisions of successive years, these positions being five days apart in each case. This is expressed in Table VI, in which these groups are shown as well as the positions in the divisions of the years which the names of each group may occupy. A comparison with Table V will demonstrate that this arrangement is inevitable.
Table VI. POSITIONS OF DAYS IN DIVISIONS OF MAYA YEAR
Positions held by days
1st, 6th,
11th, 16th
2d, 7th,
12th, 17th
3d, 8th,
13th, 18th
4th, 9th,
14th, 19th
5th, 10th,
15th, 20th
Names of days in each group
But we have seen on page 47 and in Table IV that the Maya did not designate the first days of the several divisions of the years according to our system. It was shown there that the first day of Pop was not written 1 Pop, but 0 Pop, and similarly the second day of Pop was written not 2 Pop, but 1 Pop, and the last day, not 20 Pop, but 19 Pop. Consequently, before we can use the names in Table VI as the Maya used them, we must make this shift, keeping in mind, however, that Ik, Manik, Eb, and Caban (the only four of the twenty names which could begin the year and which were written 0 Pop, 5 Pop, 10 Pop, or 15 Pop) would be written in our notation 1st Pop, 6th Pop, 11th Pop, and 16th Pop, respectively. This difference, as has been previously explained, results from the Maya method of counting time by elapsed periods.
Table VII shows the positions of the days in the divisions of the year according to the Maya conception, that is, with the shift in the month coefficient made necessary by this practice of recording their days as elapsed time.
The student will find Table VII very useful in deciphering the texts, since it shows at a glance the only positions which any given day can occupy in the divisions of the year. Therefore when the sign for a day has been recognized in the texts, from Table VII can be ascertained the only four positions which this day can hold in the month, thus reducing the number of possible month coefficients for which search need be made, from twenty to four.
Table VII. POSITIONS OF DAYS IN DIVISIONS OF MAYA YEAR ACCORDING TO MAYA NOTATION
Positions held by days
expressed in Mayan notation
0, 5, 10, 15
1, 6, 11, 16
2, 7, 12, 17
3, 8, 13, 18
4, 9, 14, 19
Names of days in each group
Now let us summarize the points which we have successively established as resulting from the combination of the tonalamatl and haab, remembering always that as yet we have been dealing only with the name parts of the days and not their complete designations. Bearing this in mind, we may state the following facts concerning the 20 day-names and their positions in the divisions of the year:
1. The Maya year and its several divisions could begin only with one of these four day-names: Ik, Manik, Eb, and Caban.
2. Consequently, any particular position in the divisions of the year could be occupied only by one of four day-names.
3. Consequently, every fifth year any particular day-name returned to the same position in the divisions of the year.
4. Consequently, any particular day-name could occupy only one of four positions in the divisions of the year, each of which it held in successive years, returning to the same position every fifth year.
5. Consequently, the twenty day-names were divided into five groups of four day-names each, any day-name of any group being five days distant from the day-name of the same group next preceding it.
6. Finally, in any given year any particular day-name occupied the same relative position throughout the divisions of that year.
Up to this point, however, as above stated, we have not been dealing with the complete designations of the Maya days, but only their name parts or name glyphs, the positions of which in the several divisions of the year we have ascertained.
It now remains to join the tonalamatl, which gives the complete names of the 260 Maya days, to the haab, which gives the positions of the days in the divisions of the year, in such a way that any one of the days whose name-part is Ik, Manik, Eb, or Caban shall occupy the first position of the first division of the year; that is, 0 Pop, or, as we should write it, the first day of Pop. It matters little which one of these four name parts we choose first, since in four years each one of them in succession will have appeared in the position 0 Pop.
Perhaps the easiest way to visualize the combination of the tonalamatl and the haab is to conceive these two periods as two cogwheels revolving in contact with each other. Let us imagine that the first of these, A (fig. 21), has 260 teeth, or cogs, each one of which is named after one of the 260 days of the tonalamatl and follows the sequence shown in plate 5. The second wheel, B (fig. 21), is somewhat larger, having 365 cogs. Each of the spaces or sockets between these represents one of the 365 positions of the days in the divisions of the year, beginning with 0 Pop and ending with 4 Uayeb. See Table IV for the positions of the days at the end of one year and the commencement of the next. Finally, let us imagine that these two wheels are brought into contact with each other in such a way that the tooth or cog named 2 Ik in A shall fit into the socket named 0 Pop in B, after which both wheels start to revolve in the directions indicated by the arrows.
Fig. 21. Diagram showing engagement of tonalamatl wheel of 260 days (A), and haab wheel of 365 positions (B); the combination of the two giving the Calendar Round, or 52-year period.
The first day of the year whose beginning is shown at the point of contact of the two wheels in figure 21 is 2 Ik 0 Pop, that is, the day 2 Ik which occupies the first position in the month Pop. The next day in succession will be 3 Akbal 1 Pop, the next 4 Kan 2 Pop, the next 5 Chicchan 3 Pop, the next 6 Cimi 4 Pop, and so on. As the wheels revolve in the directions indicated, the days of the tonalamatl successively fall into their appropriate positions in the divisions of the year. Since the number of cogs in A is smaller than the number in B, it is clear that the former will have returned to its starting point, 2 Ik (that is, made one complete revolution), before the latter will have made one complete revolution; and, further, that when the latter (B) has returned to its starting point, 0 Pop, the corresponding cog in B will not be 2 Ik, but another day (3 Manik), since by that time the smaller wheel will have progressed 105 cogs, or days, farther, to the cog 3 Manik.
The question now arises, how many revolutions will each wheel have to make before the day 2 Ik will return to the position 0 Pop. The solution of this problem depends on the application of one sequence to another, and the possibilities concerning the numbers or names which stand at the head of the resulting sequence, a subject already discussed on page 52. In the present case the numbers in question, 260 and 365, contain a common factor, therefore our problem falls under the third contingency there presented. Consequently, only certain of the 260 days can occupy the position 0 Pop, or, in other words, cog 2 Ik in A will return to the position 0 Pop in B in fewer than 260 revolutions of A. The actual solution of the problem is a simple question of arithmetic. Since the day 2 Ik can not return to its original position in A until after 260 days shall have passed, and since the day 0 Pop can not return to its original position in B until after 365 days shall have passed, it is clear that the day 2 Ik 0 Pop can not recur until after a number of days shall have passed equal to the least common multiple of these numbers, which is (260/5)×(365/5)×5, or 52×73×5 = 18,980 days. But 18,980 days = 52×365 = 73×260; in other words the day 2 Ik 0 Pop can not recur until after 52 revolutions of B, or 52 years of 365 days each, and 73 revolutions of A, or 73 tonalamatls of 260 days each. The Maya name for this 52-year period is unknown; it has been called the Calendar Round by modern students because it was only after this interval of time had elapsed that any given day could return to the same position in the year. The Aztec name for this period was xiuhmolpilli or toxiuhmolpia.[34]
The Calendar Round was the real basis of Maya chronology, since its 18,980 dates included all the possible combinations of the 260 days with the 365 positions of the year. Although the Maya developed a much more elaborate system of counting time, wherein any date of the Calendar Round could be fixed with absolute certainty within a period of 374,400 years, this truly remarkable feat was accomplished only by using a sequence of Calendar Rounds, or 52-year periods, in endless repetition from a fixed point of departure.
In the development of their chronological system the Aztec probably never progressed beyond the Calendar Round. At least no greater period of time than the round of 52 years has been found in their texts. The failure of the Aztec to develop some device which would distinguish any given day in one Calendar Round from a day of the same name in another has led to hopeless confusion in regard to various events of their history. Since the same date occurred at intervals of every 52 years, it is often difficult to determine the particular Calendar Round to which any given date with its corresponding event is to be referred; consequently, the true sequence of events in Aztec history still remains uncertain.
Professor Seler says in this connection:[35]
Anyone who has ever taken the trouble to collect the dates in old Mexican history from the various sources must speedily have discovered that the chronology is very much awry, that it is almost hopeless to look for an exact chronology. The date of the fall of Mexico is definitely fixed according to both the Indian and the Christian chronology ... but in regard to all that precedes this date, even to events tolerably near the time of the Spanish conquest, the statements differ widely.
Such confusion indeed is only to be expected from a system of counting time and recording events which was so loose as to permit the occurrence of the same date twice, or even thrice, within the span of a single life; and when a system so inexact was used to regulate the lapse of any considerable number of years, the possibilities for error and misunderstanding are infinite. Thus it was with Aztec chronology.
On the other hand, by conceiving the Calendar Rounds to be in endless repetition from a fixed point of departure, and measuring time by an accurate system, the Maya were able to secure precision in dating their events which is not surpassed even by our own system of counting time.
Fig. 22. Signs for the Calendar Round: a, According to Goodman; b, according to Förstemann.
The glyph which stood for the Calendar Round has not been determined with any degree of certainty. Mr. Goodman believes the form shown in figure 22, a, to be the sign for this period, while Professor Förstemann is equally sure that the form represented by b of this figure expressed the same idea. This difference of opinion between two authorities so eminent well illustrates the prevailing doubt as to just what glyph actually represented the 52-year period among the Maya. The sign in figure 22, a, as the writer will endeavor to show later, is in all probability the sign for the great cycle.
As will be seen in the discussion of the Long Count, the Maya, although they conceived time to be an endless succession of Calendar Rounds, did not reckon its passage by the lapse of successive Calendar Rounds; consequently, the need for a distinctive glyph which should represent this period was not acute. The contribution of the Calendar Round to Maya chronology was its 18,980 dates, and the glyphs which composed these are found repeatedly in both the codices and the inscriptions (see figs. 16, 17, 19, 20). No signs have been found as yet, however, for either the haab or the tonalamatl, probably because, like the Calendar Round, these periods were not used as units in recording long stretches of time.
It will greatly aid the student in his comprehension of the discussion to follow if he will constantly bear in mind the fact that one Calendar Round followed another without interruption or the interpolation of a single day; and further, that the Calendar Round may be likened to a large cogwheel having 18,980 teeth, each one of which represented one of the dates of this period, and that this wheel revolved forever, each cog passing a fixed point once every 52 years.
The Long Count
We have seen:
1. How the Maya distinguished 1 day from the 259 others in the tonalamatl;
2. How they distinguished the position of 1 day from the 364 others in the haab, or year; and, finally,
3. How by combining (1) and (2) they distinguished 1 day from the other 18,979 of the Calendar Round.
It remains to explain how the Maya insured absolute accuracy in fixing a day within a period of 374,400 years, as stated above, or how they distinguished 1 day from 136,655,999 others.
The Calendar Round, as we have seen, determined the position of a given day within a period of only 52 years. Consequently, in order to prevent confusion of days of the same name in successive Calendar Rounds or, in other words, to secure absolute accuracy in dating events, it was necessary to use additional data in the description of any date.
In nearly all systems of chronology that presume to deal with really long periods the reckoning of years proceeds from fixed starting points. Thus in Christian chronology the starting point is the Birth of Christ, and our years are reckoned as B. C. or A. D. according as they precede or follow this event. The Greeks reckoned time from the earliest Olympic Festival of which the winner's name was known, that is, the games held in 776 B. C., which were won by a certain Coroebus. The Romans took as their starting point the supposed date of the foundation of Rome, 753 B. C. The Babylonians counted time as beginning with the Era of Nabonassar, 747 B. C. The death of Alexander the Great, in 325 B. C., ushered in the Era of Alexander. With the occupation of Babylon in 311 B. C. by Seleucus Nicator began the so-called Era of Seleucidæ. The conquest of Spain by Augustus Cæsar in 38 B. C. marked the beginning of a chronology which endured for more than fourteen centuries. The Mohammedans selected as their starting point the flight of their prophet Mohammed from Mecca in 622 A. D., and events in this chronology are described as having occurred so many years after the Hegira (The Flight). The Persian Era began with the date 632 A. D., in which year Yezdegird III ascended the throne of Persia.
It will be noted that each of the above-named systems of chronology has for its starting point some actual historic event, the occurrence, if not the date of which, is indubitable. Some chronologies, however, commence with an event of an altogether different character, the date of which from its very nature must always remain hypothetical. In this class should be mentioned such chronologies as reckon time from the Creation of the World. For example, the Era of Constantinople, the chronological system used in the Greek Church, commences with that event, supposed to have occurred in 5509 B. C. The Jews reckoned the same event as having taken place in 3761 B. C. and begin the counting of time from this point. A more familiar chronology, having for its starting point the Creation of the World, is that of Archbishop Usher, in the Old Testament, which assigns this event to the year 4004 B. C.
In common with these other civilized peoples of antiquity the ancient Maya had realized in the development of their chronological system the need for a fixed starting point, from which all subsequent events could be reckoned, and for this purpose they selected one of the dates of their Calendar Round. This was a certain date, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu,[36] that is, a day named 4 Ahau, which occupied the 9th position in the month Cumhu, the next to last division of the Maya year (see Table III).
While the nature of the event which took place on this date[37] is unknown, its selection as the point from which time was subsequently reckoned alone indicates that it must have been of exceedingly great importance to the native mind. In attempting to approximate its real character, however, we are not without some assistance from the codices and the inscriptions. For instance, it is clear that all Maya dates which it is possible to regard as contemporaneous[38] refer to a time fully 3,000 years later than the starting point (4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) from which each is reckoned. In other words, Maya history is a blank for more than 3,000 years after the initial date of the Maya chronological system, during which time no events were recorded.
This interesting condition strongly suggests that the starting point of Maya chronology was not an actual historical event, as the founding of Rome, the death of Alexander, the birth of Christ, or the flight of Mohammed from Mecca, but that on the contrary it was a purely hypothetical occurrence, as the Creation of the World or the birth of the gods; and further, that the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu was not chosen as the starting point until long after the time it designates. This, or some similar assumption, is necessary to account satisfactorily for the observed facts:
1. That, as stated, after the starting point of Maya chronology there is a silence of more than 3,000 years, unbroken by a single contemporaneous record, and
2. That after this long period had elapsed all the dated monuments[39] had their origin in the comparatively short period of four centuries.
Consequently, it is safe to conclude that no matter what the Maya may have believed took place on this date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, in reality when this day was present time they had not developed their distinctive civilization or even achieved a social organization.
It is clear from the foregoing that in addition to the Calendar Round, the Maya made use of a fixed starting point in describing their dates. The next question is, Did they record the lapse of more than 3,000 years simply by using so unwieldy a unit as the 52-year period or its multiples? A numerical system based on 52 as its primary unit immediately gives rise to exceedingly awkward numbers for its higher terms; that is, 52, 104, 156, 208, 260, 312, etc. Indeed, the expression of really large numbers in terms of 52 involves the use of comparatively large multipliers and hence of more or less intricate multiplications, since the unit of progression is not decimal or even a multiple thereof. The Maya were far too clever mathematicians to have been satisfied with a numerical system which employed units so inconvenient as 52 or its multiples, and which involved processes so clumsy, and we may therefore dismiss the possibility of its use without further consideration.
In order to keep an accurate account of the large numbers used in recording dates more than 3,000 years distant from the starting point, a numerical system was necessary whose terms could be easily handled, like the units, tens, hundreds, and thousands of our own decimal system. Whether the desire to measure accurately the passage of time actually gave rise to their numerical system, or vice versa, is not known, but the fact remains that the several periods of Maya chronology (except the tonalamatl, haab, and Calendar Round, previously discussed) are the exact terms of a vigesimal system of numeration, with but a single exception. (See Table VIII.)
Table VIII. THE MAYA TIME-PERIODS
1 kin
=
1 day
s20 kins
=
1 uinal
=
20 days
18 uinals
=
1 tun
=
360 days
20 tuns
=
1 katun
=
7,200 days
20 katuns
=
1 cycle
=
144,000 days
20
[40]cycles
=
1 great cycle
=
2,880,000 days
Table VIII shows the several periods of Maya chronology by means of which the passage of time was measured. All are the exact terms of a vigesimal system of numeration, except in the 2d place (uinals), in which 18 units instead of 20 make 1 unit of the 3d place, or order next higher (tuns). The break in the regularity of the vigesimal progression in the 3d place was due probably to the desire to bring the unit of this order (the tun) into agreement with the solar year of 365 days, the number 360 being much closer to 365 than 400, the third term of a constant vigesimal progression. We have seen on page 45 that the 18 uinals of the haab were equivalent to 360 days or kins, precisely the number contained in the third term of the above table, the tun. The fact that the haab, or solar year, was composed of 5 days more than the tun, thus causing a discrepancy of 5 days as compared with the third place of the chronological system, may have given to these 5 closing days of the haab—that is, the xma kaba kin—the unlucky character they were reputed to possess.
The periods were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, 20 units of any order (except the 2d) always appearing as 1 unit of the order next higher. For example, a number involving the use of 20 kins was written 1 uinal instead.
We are now in possession of all the different factors which the Maya utilized in recording their dates and in counting time:
1. The names of their dates, of which there could be only 18,980 (the number of dates in the Calendar Round).
2. The date, or starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, from which time was reckoned.
3. The counters, that is, the units, used in measuring the passage of time.
It remains to explain how these factors were combined to express the various dates of Maya chronology.
Initial Series
The usual manner in which dates are written in both the codices and the inscriptions is as follows: First, there is set down a number composed of five periods, that is, a certain number of cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins, which generally aggregate between 1,300,000 and 1,500,000 days; and this number is followed by one of the 18,980 dates of the Calendar Round. As we shall see in the next chapter, if this large number of days expressed as above be counted forward from the fixed starting point of Maya chronology, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the date invariably[41] reached will be found to be the date written at the end of the long number. This method of dating has been called the Initial Series, because when inscribed on a monument it invariably stands at the head of the inscription.
The student will better comprehend this Initial-series method of dating if he will imagine the Calendar Round represented by a large cogwheel A, figure 23, having 18,980 teeth, each one of which is named after one of the dates of the calendar. Furthermore, let him suppose that the arrow B in the same figure points to the tooth, or cog, named 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu; and finally that from this as its original position the wheel commences to revolve in the direction indicated by the arrow in A.
The glyphs for these twenty days are shown in figures 16 and 17. The forms in figure 16 are from the inscriptions and those in figure 17 from the codices. In several cases variants are given to facilitate identification. A study of the glyphs in these two figures shows on the whole a fairly close similarity between the forms for the same day in each. The sign for the first day, Imix, is practically identical in both. Compare figure 16, a and b, with figure 17, a and b. The usual form for the day Ik in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, c), however, is unlike the glyph for the same day in the codices (fig. 17, c, d). The forms for Akbal and Kan are practically the same in each (see fig. 16, d, e, and f, and fig. 17, e and f, respectively). The day Chicchan, figure 16, g, occurs rarely in the inscriptions; when present, it takes the form of a grotesque head. In the codices the common form for this day is very different (fig. 17, g). The head variant, however (fig. 17, h), shows a slightly closer similarity to the form from the inscriptions. The forms in both figure 16, h, i, and figure 17, i, j, for the day Cimi show little resemblance to each other. Although figure 17, i, represents the common form in the codices, the variant in j more closely resembles the form in figure 16, h, i. The day Manik is practically the same in both (see figs. 16, j, and 17, k), as is also Lamat (figs. 16, k, l, and 17, l, m). The day Muluc occurs rarely in the inscriptions (fig. 16, m, n). Of these two variants m more closely resembles the form from the codices (fig. 17, n). The glyph for the day Oc (fig. 16, o, p, q) is not often found in the inscriptions. In the codices, on the other hand, this day is frequently represented as shown in figure 17, o. This form bears no resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. There is, however, a head-variant form found very rarely in the codices that bears a slight resemblance to the forms in the inscriptions. The day Chuen occurs but once in the inscriptions where the form is clear enough to distinguish its characteristic (see fig. 16, r). This form bears a general resemblance to the glyph for this day in the codices (fig. 17, p, q). The forms for the day Eb in both figures 16, s, t, u, and 17, r, are grotesque heads showing but remote resemblance to one another. The essential element in both, however, is the same, that is, the element occupying the position of the ear. Although the day Ben occurs but rarely in the inscriptions, its form (fig. 16, v) is practically identical with that in the codices (see fig. 17, s). The day Ix in the inscriptions appears as in figure 16, w, x. The form in the codices is shown in figure 17, t. The essential element in each seems to be the three prominent dots or circles. The day Men occurs very rarely on the monuments. The form shown in figure 16, y, is a grotesque head not unlike the sign for this day in the codices (fig. 17, u). The signs for the day Cib in the inscriptions and the codices (figs. 16, z, and 17, v, w), respectively, are very dissimilar. Indeed, the form for Cib (fig. 17, v) in the codices resembles more closely the sign for the day Caban (fig. 16, a', b') than it does the form for Cib in the inscriptions (see fig. 16, z). The only element common to both is the line paralleling the upper part of the glyph (*
) and the short vertical lines connecting it with the outline at the top. The glyphs for the day Caban in both figures 16, a', b', and 17, x, y, show a satisfactory resemblance to each other. The forms for the day Eznab are also practically identical (see figs. 16, c', and 17, z, a'). The forms for the day Cauac, on the other hand, are very dissimilar; compare figures 16, d', and 17, b'. The only point of resemblance between the two seems to be the element which appears in the eye of the former and at the lower left-hand side of the latter. The last of the twenty Maya days, and by far the most important, since it is found in both the codices and the inscriptions more frequently than all of the others combined, is Ahau (see figs. 16, e'-k', and 17, c', d'). The latter form is the only one found in the codices, and is identical with e', f', figure 16, the usual sign for this day in the inscriptions. The variants in figure 16, g'-k', appear on some of the monuments, and because of the great importance of this day Ahau it is necessary to keep all of them in mind.
We use an entirely different method, however, in counting our days, years, and centuries, which are referred to as current periods of time. It is the 1st day of January immediately after midnight December 31. It was the first year of the Eleventh Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1000 A. D. And finally, it was the Twentieth Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1900 A. D. In this category should be included also the days of the week and the months, since the names of these periods also refer to present time. In other words when we speak of our days, months, years, and centuries, we do not have in mind, and do not refer to completed periods of time, but on the contrary to current periods.
The proper combination of these two, the tonalamatl, or "round of days," and the haab, or year of uinals, and the xma kaba kin, formed the Calendar Round, to which the tonalamatl contributed the names of the days and the haab the positions of these days in the divisions of the year. The Calendar Round was the most important period in Maya chronology, and a comprehension of its nature and of the principles which governed its composition is therefore absolutely essential to the understanding of the Maya system of counting time.
[34] The meanings of these words in Nahuatl, the language spoken by the Aztec, are "year bundle" and "our years will be bound," respectively. These doubtless refer to the fact that at the expiration of this period the Aztec calendar had made one complete round; that is, the years were bound up and commenced anew.
[35] Bulletin 28, p. 330.
[36] All Initial Series now known, with the exception of two, have the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu as their common point of departure. The two exceptions, the Initial Series on the east side of Stela C at Quirigua and the one on the tablet in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque, proceed from the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz—more than 5,000 years in advance of the starting point just named. The writer has no suggestions to offer in explanation of these two dates other than that he believes they refer to some mythological event. For instance, in the belief of the Maya the gods may have been born on the day 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, and 5,000 years later approximately on 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu the world, including mankind, may have been created.
[37] Some writers have called the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the normal date, probably because it is the standard date from which practically all Maya calculations proceed. The writer has not followed this practice, however.
[38] That is, dates which signified present time when they were recorded.
[39] This statement does not take account of the Tuxtla Statuette and the Holactun Initial Series, which extend the range of the dated monuments to ten centuries.
[40] For the discussion of the number of cycles in a great cycle, a question concerning which there are two different opinions, see pp. 107 et seq.
If the student can be made to realize that all Maya periods, from the lowest to the highest known, are always in a continuous sequence, each returning into itself and beginning anew after completion, he will have grasped the most fundamental principle of Maya chronology—its absolute continuity throughout.
[41] There are only two known exceptions to this statement, namely, the Initial Series on the Temple of the Cross at Palenque and that on the east side of Stela C at Quirigua, already noted.
Fig. 23. Diagram showing section of Calendar-round wheel.
It is clear that after one complete revolution of A, 18,980 days will have passed the starting point B, and that after two revolutions 37,960 days will have passed, and after three, 56,940, and so on. Indeed, it is only a question of the number of revolutions of A until as many as 1,500,000, or any number of days in fact, will have passed the starting point B, or, in other words, will have elapsed since the initial date, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This is actually what happened according to the Maya conception of time.
For example, let us imagine that a certain Initial Series expresses in terms of cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins, the number 1,461,463, and that the date recorded by this number of days is 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu. Referring to figure 23, it is evident that 77 revolutions of the cogwheel A, that is, 77 Calendar Rounds, will use up 1,461,460 of the 1,461,463 days, since 77×18,980 = 1,461,460. Consequently, when 77 Calendar Rounds shall have passed we shall still have left 3 days (1,461,463 - 1,461,460 = 3), which must be carried forward into the next Calendar Round. The 1,461,461st day will be 5 Imix 9 Cumhu, that is, the day following 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu (see fig. 23); the 1,461,462d day will be 6 Ik 10 Cumhu, and the 1,461,463d day, the last of the days in our Initial Series, 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu, the date recorded. Examples of this method of dating (by Initial Series) will be given in Chapter V, where this subject will be considered in greater detail.
THE INTRODUCING GLYPH
In the inscriptions an Initial Series is invariably preceded by the so-called "introducing glyph," the Maya name for which is unknown. Several examples of this glyph are shown in figure 24. This sign is composed of four constant elements:
1. The trinal superfix.
2. The pair of comblike lateral appendages.
3. The tun sign (see fig. 29, a, b).
4. The trinal subfix.
Fig. 24. Initial-series "introducing glyph."
In addition to these four constant elements there is one variable element which is always found between the pair of comblike lateral appendages. In figure 24, a, b, e, this is a grotesque head; in c, a natural head; and in d, one of the 20 day-signs, Ik. This element varies greatly throughout the inscriptions, and, judging from its central position in the "introducing glyph" (itself the most prominent character in every inscription in which it occurs), it must have had an exceedingly important meaning.[42] A variant of the comblike appendages is shown in figure 24, c, e, in which these elements are replaced by a pair of fishes. However, in such cases, all of which occur at Copan, the treatment of the fins and tail of the fish strongly suggests the elements they replace, and it is not improbable, therefore, that the comblike appendages of the "introducing glyph" are nothing more nor less than conventionalized fish fins or tails; in other words, that they are a kind of glyphic synecdoche in which a part (the fin) stands for the whole (the fish). That the original form of this element was the fish and not its conventionalized fin (*
Without pressing this point further, it seems not unlikely that the comblike elements in the katun glyph, as well as in the "introducing glyph," may well have been derived from the fish sign.
Turning to the codices, it must be admitted that in spite of the fact that many Initial Series are found therein, the "introducing glyph" has not as yet been positively identified. It is possible, however, that the sign shown in figure 24, f, may be a form of the "introducing glyph"; at least it precedes an Initial Series in four places in the Dresden Codex (see pl. 32). It is composed of the trinal superfix and a conventionalized fish (?).
Mr. Goodman calls this glyph (fig. 24, a-e) the sign for the great cycle or unit of the 6th place (see Table VIII). He bases this identification on the fact that in the codices units of the 6th place stand immediately above[44] units of the 5th place (cycles), and consequently since this glyph stands immediately above the units of the 5th place in the inscriptions it must stand for the units of the 6th place. While admitting that the analogy here is close, the writer nevertheless is inclined to reject Mr. Goodman's identification on the following grounds: (1) This glyph never occurs with a numerical coefficient, while units of all the other orders—that is, cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins are never without them. (2) Units of the 6th order in the codices invariably have a numerical coefficient, as do all the other orders. (3) In the only three places in the inscriptions[45] in which six periods are seemingly recorded, though not as Initial Series, the 6th period has a numerical coefficient just as have the other five, and, moreover, the glyph in the 6th position is unlike the forms in figure 24. (4) Five periods, not six, in every Initial Series express the distance from the starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, to the date recorded at the end of the long numbers.
It is probable that when the meaning of the "introducing glyph" has been determined it will be found to be quite apart from the numerical side of the Initial Series, at least in so far as the distance of the terminal date from the starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, is concerned.
While an Initial Series in the inscriptions, as has been previously explained, is invariably preceded by an "introducing glyph," the opposite does not always obtain. Some of the very earliest monuments at Copan, notably Stelæ 15, 7, and P, have "introducing glyphs" inscribed on two or three of their four sides, although but one Initial Series is recorded on each of these monuments. Examples of this use of the "introducing glyph," that is, other than as standing at the head of an Initial Series, are confined to a few of the earliest monuments at Copan, and are so rare that the beginner will do well to disregard them altogether and to follow this general rule: That in the inscriptions a glyph of the form shown in figure 24, a-e, will invariably be followed by an Initial Series.
Having reached the conclusion that the introducing glyph was not a sign for the period of the 6th order, let us next examine the signs for the remaining orders or periods of the chronological system (cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins), constantly bearing in mind that these five periods alone express the long numbers of an Initial Series.[46]
Each of the above periods has two entirely different glyphs which may express it. These have been called (1) The normal form; (2) The head variant. In the inscriptions examples of both these classes occur side by side in the same Initial Series, seemingly according to no fixed rule, some periods being expressed by their normal forms and others by their head variants. In the codices, on the other hand, no head-variant period glyphs have yet been identified, and although the normal forms of the period glyphs have been found, they do not occur as units in Initial Series.
As head variants also should be classified the so-called "full-figure glyphs," in which the periods given in Table VIII are represented by full figures instead of by heads. In these forms, however, only the heads of the figures are essential, since they alone present the determining characteristics, by means of which in each case identification is possible. Moreover, the head part of any full-figure variant is characterized by precisely the same essential elements as the corresponding head variant for the same period, or in other words, the addition of the body parts in full-figure glyphs in no way influences or changes their meanings. For this reason head-variant and full-figure forms have been treated together. These full-figure glyphs are exceedingly rare, having been found only in five Initial Series throughout the Maya area: (1) On Stela D at Copan; (2) on Zoömorph B at Quirigua; (3) on east side Stela D at Quirigua; (4) on west side Stela D at Quirigua; (5) on Hieroglyphic Stairway at Copan. A few full-figure glyphs have been found also on an oblong altar at Copan, though not as parts of an Initial Series, and on Stela 15 as a period glyph of an Initial Series.
THE CYCLE GLYPH
Fig. 25. Signs for the cycle: a-c, Normal forms; d-f, head variants.
Fig. 26. Full-figure variant of cycle sign.
The Maya name for the period of the 5th order in Table VIII is unknown. It has been called "the cycle," however, by Maya students, and in default of its true designation, this name has been generally adopted. The normal form of the cycle glyph is shown in figure 25, a, b, c. It is composed of an element which appears twice over a knotted support. The repeated element occurs also in the signs for the months Chen, Yax, Zac, and Ceh (see figs. 19, o-v, 20, l-p). This has been called the Cauac element because it is similar to the sign for the day Cauac in the codices (fig. 17, b'), though on rather inadequate grounds the writer is inclined to believe. The head variant of the cycle glyph is shown in figure 25, d-f. The essential characteristic of this grotesque head with its long beak is the hand element (*
THE KATUN GLYPH
Fig. 27. Signs for the katun: a-d, Normal forms; e-h, head variants.
Fig. 28. Full-figure variant of katun sign.
The period of the 4th place or order was called by the Maya the katun; that is to say, 20 tuns, since it contained 20 units of the 3d order (see Table VIII). The normal form of the katun glyph is shown in figure 27, a-d. It is composed of the normal form of the tun sign (fig. 29, a, b) surmounted by the pair of comblike appendages, which we have elsewhere seen meant 20, and which were probably derived from the representation of a fish. The whole glyph thus graphically portrays the concept 20 tuns, which according to Table VIII is equal to 1 katun. The normal form of the katun glyph in the codices (fig. 27, c, d) is identical with the normal form in the inscriptions (fig. 27, a, b). Several head variants are found. The most easily recognized, though not the most common, is shown in figure 27, e, in which the superfix is the same as in the normal form; that is, the element (†
THE TUN GLYPH
Fig. 29. Signs for the tun: a-d, Normal forms; e-h, head variants.
Fig. 30. Full-figure variant of tun sign.
The period of the 3d place or order was called by the Maya the tun, which means "stone," possibly because a stone was set up every 360 days or each tun or some multiple thereof. Compare so-called hotun or katun stones described on page 34. The normal sign for the tun in the inscriptions (see fig. 29, a, b) is identical with the form found in the codices (see fig. 29, c). The head variant, which bears a general resemblance to the head variant for the cycle and katun, has several forms. The one most readily recognized, because it has the normal sign for its superfix, is shown in figure 29, d, e. The determining characteristic of the head variant of the tun glyph, however, is the fleshless lower jaw (‡
THE UINAL GLYPH
Fig. 31. Signs for the uinal: a-c, Normal forms; d-f, head variants.
Fig. 32. Full-figure variant of uinal sign on Zoömorph B, Quirigua.
Fig. 33. Full-figure variant of uinal sign on Stela D, Copan.
The period occupying the 2d place was called by the Maya uinal or u. This latter word means also "the moon" in Maya, and the fact that the moon is visible for just about 20 days in each lunation may account for the application of its name to the 20-day period. The normal form of the uinal glyph in the inscriptions (see fig. 31, a, b) is practically identical with the form in the codices (see fig. 31, c). Sometimes the subfixial element (‡‡
THE KIN GLYPH
Fig. 34. Signs for the kin: a, b, Normal forms; c, d, miscellaneous; e-k, head variants.
The period of the 1st, or lowest, order was called by the Maya kin, which meant the "sun" and by association the "day." The kin, as has been explained, was the primary unit used by the Maya in counting time. The normal form of this period glyph in the inscriptions is shown in figure 34, a, which is practically identical with the form in the codices (fig. 34, b). In addition to the normal form of the kin sign, however, there are several other forms representing this period which can not be classified either as head variants or full-figure variants, as in figure 34, c, for example, which bears no resemblance whatever to the normal form of the kin sign. It is difficult to understand how two characters as dissimilar as those shown in a and c, figure 34, could ever be used to express the same idea, particularly since there seems to be no element common to both. Indeed, so dissimilar are they that one is almost forced to believe that they were derived from two entirely distinct glyphs. Still another and very unusual sign for the kin is shown in figure 34, d; indeed, the writer recalls but two places where it occurs: Stela 1 at Piedras Negras, and Stela C (north side) at Quirigua. It is composed of the normal form of the sign for the day Ahau (fig. 16, e') inverted and a subfixial element which varies in each of the two cases. These variants (fig. 34, c, d) are found only in the inscriptions. The head variants of the kin period differ from each other as much as the various normal forms above given. The form shown in figure 34, e, may be readily recognized by its subfixial element (*
Fig. 35. Full-figure variant of kin sign.
This concludes the presentation of the various forms which stand for the several periods of Table VIII. After an exhaustive study of these as found in Maya texts the writer has reached the following generalizations concerning them:
1. Prevalence. The periods in Initial Series are expressed far more frequently by head variants than by normal forms. The preponderance of the former over the latter in all Initial Series known is in the proportion of about 80 per cent of the total[48] against 12 per cent, the periods in the remaining 8 per cent being expressed by these two forms used side by side. In other words, four-fifths of all the Initial Series known have their periods expressed by head-variant glyphs.
2. Antiquity. Head-variant period glyphs seem to have been used very much earlier than the normal forms. Indeed, the first use of the former preceded the first use of the latter by about 300 years, while in Initial Series normal-form period glyphs do not occur until nearly 100 years later, or about 400 years after the first use of head variants for the same purpose.
3. Variation. Throughout the range of time covered by the Initial Series the normal forms for any given time-period differ but little from one another, all following very closely one fixed type. Although nearly 200 years apart in point of time, the early form of the tun sign in figure 36, a, closely resembles the late form shown in b of the same figure, as to its essentials. Or again, although 375 years apart, the early form of the katun sign in figure 36, c, is practically identical with the form in figure 36, d. Instances of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely, but the foregoing are sufficient to demonstrate that in so far as the normal-form period glyphs are concerned but little variation occurred from first to last. Similarly, it may be said, the head variants for any given period, while differing greatly in appearance at different epochs, retained, nevertheless, the same essential characteristic throughout. For example, although the uinal sign in figure 36, e, precedes the one in figure 36, f, by some 800 years, the same essential element—the large mouth curl—appears in both. Again, although 300 years separate the cycle signs shown in g and h, figure 36, the essential characteristic of the early form (fig. 36, g), the hand, is still retained as the essential part of the late form (h).
Fig. 36. Period glyphs, from widely separated sites and of different epochs, showing persistence of essential elements.
4. Derivation. We have seen that the full-figure glyphs probably show the original life-forms from which the head variants were developed. And since from (2), above, it seems probable that the head variants are older than the so-called normal forms, we may reasonably infer that the full-figure glyphs represent the life-forms whose names the Maya originally applied to their periods, and further that the first signs for those periods were the heads of these life-forms. This develops a contradiction in our nomenclature, for if the forms which we have called head variants are the older signs for the periods and are by far the most prevalent, they should have been called the normal forms and not variants, and vice versa. However, the use of the term "normal forms" is so general that it would be unwise at this time to attempt to introduce any change in nomenclature.
Secondary Series
The Initial Series method of recording dates, although absolutely accurate,[49] was nevertheless somewhat lengthy, since in order to express a single date by means of it eight distinct glyphs were required, namely: (1) The Introducing glyph; (2) the Cycle glyph; (3) the Katun glyph; (4) the Tun glyph; (5) the Uinal glyph; (6) the Kin glyph; (7) the Day glyph; (8) the Month glyph. Moreover, its use in any inscription which contained more than one date would have resulted in needless repetition. For example, if all the dates on any given monument were expressed by Initial Series, every one would show the long distance (more than 3,000 years) which separated it from the common starting point of Maya chronology. It would be just like writing the legal holidays of the current year in this way: February 22d, 1913, A. D., May 30th, 1913, A. D., July 4th, 1913, A. D., December 25th, 1913, A. D.; or in other words, repeating in each case the designation of time elapsed from the starting point of Christian chronology.
The Maya obviated this needless repetition by recording but one Initial Series date on a monument;[50] and from this date as a new point of departure they proceeded to reckon the number of days to the next date recorded; from this date the numbers of days to the next; and so on throughout that inscription. By this device the position of any date in the Long Count (its Initial Series) could be calculated, since it could be referred back to a date, the Initial Series of which was expressed. For example, the terminal day of the Initial Series given on page 64 is 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu, and its position in the Long Count is fixed by the statement in cycles, katuns, tuns, etc., that 1,461,463 days separate it from the starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. Now let us suppose we have the date 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu, which is recorded as being 3 days later than the day 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu,[51] the Initial Series of which is known to be 1,461,463. It is clear that the Initial Series corresponding to the date 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu, although not actually expressed, will also be known since it must equal 1,461,463 (Initial Series of 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu) + 3 (distance from 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu to 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu), or 1,461,466. Therefore it matters not whether we count three days forward from 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu, or whether we count 1,461,466 days forward from the starting point of Maya chronology, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu since in each case the date reached will be the same, namely, 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu. The former method, however, was used more frequently than all of the other methods of recording dates combined, since it insured all the accuracy of an Initial Series without repeating for each date so great a number of days.
Thus having one date on a monument the Initial Series of which was expressed, it was possible by referring subsequent dates to it, or to other dates which in turn had been referred to it, to fix accurately the positions of any number of dates in the Long Count without the use of their corresponding Initial Series. Dates thus recorded are known as "secondary dates," and the periods which express their distances from other dates of known position in the Long Count, as "distance numbers." A secondary date with its corresponding distance number has been designated a Secondary Series. In the example above given the distance number 3 kins and the date 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu would constitute a Secondary Series.
Here, then, in addition to the Initial Series is a second method, the Secondary Series, by means of which the Maya recorded their dates. The earliest use of a Secondary Series with which the writer is familiar (that on Stela 36 at Piedras Negras) does not occur until some 280 years after the first Initial Series. It seems to have been a later development, probably owing its origin to the desire to express more than one date on a single monument. Usually Secondary Series are to be counted from the dates next preceding them in the inscriptions in which they are found, though occasionally they are counted from other dates which may not even be expressed, and which can be ascertained only by counting backward the distance number from its corresponding terminal date. The accuracy of a Secondary series date depends entirely on the fact that it has been counted from an Initial Series, or at least from another Secondary series date, which in turn has been derived from an Initial Series. If either of these contingencies applies to any Secondary series date, it is as accurate a method of fixing a day in the Long Count as though its corresponding Initial Series were expressed in full. If, on the other hand, a Secondary series date can not be referred ultimately to an Initial Series or to a date the Initial Series of which is known though it may not be expressed, such a Secondary series date becomes only one of the 18,980 dates of the Calendar Round, and will recur at intervals of every 52 years. In other words, its position in the Long Count will be unknown.
Calendar-round Dates
Dates of the character just described may be called Calendar-round dates, since they are accurate only within the Calendar Round, or range of 52 years. While accurate enough for the purpose of distinguishing dates in the course of a single lifetime, this method breaks down when used to express dates covering a long period. Witness the chaotic condition of Aztec chronology. The Maya seem to have realized the limitations of this method of dating and did not employ it extensively. It was used chiefly at Yaxchilan on the Usamacintla River, and for this reason the chronology of that city is very much awry, and it is difficult to assign its various dates to their proper positions in the Long Count.
Period-ending Dates
The Maya made use of still another method of dating, which, although not so exact as the Initial Series or the Secondary Series, is, on the other hand, far more accurate than Calendar round dating. In this method a date was described as being at the end of some particular period in the Long Count; that is, closing a certain cycle, katun, or tun.[52] It is clear also that in this method only the name Ahau out of the 20 given in Table I can be recorded, since it alone can stand at the end of periods higher than the kin. This is true, since:
1. The higher periods, as the uinal, tun, katun, and cycle are exactly divisible by 20 in every case (see Table VIII), and—
2. They are all counted from a day, Ahau, that is, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. Consequently, all the periods of the Long Count, except the kin or primary unit, end with days the name parts of which are the sign Ahau.
This method of recording dates always involves the use of at least two factors, and usually three:
1. A particular period of the Long Count, as Cycle 9, or Katun 14, etc.
2. The date which ends the particular period recorded, as 8 Ahau 13 Ceh, or 6 Ahau 13 Muan, the closing dates respectively of Cycle 9 and Katun 14 of Cycle 9; and
3. A glyph or element which means "ending" or "is ended," or which indicates at least that the period to which it is attached has come to its close.
The first two of these factors are absolutely essential to this method of dating, while the third, the so-called "ending sign," is usually, though not invariably, present. The order in which these factors are usually found is first the date composed of the day glyph and month glyph, next the "ending sign," and last the glyph of the period whose closing day has just been recorded. Very rarely the period glyph and its ending sign precede the date.
The ending glyph has three distinct variants: (1) the element shown as the prefix or superfix in figure 37, a-h, t, all of which are forms of the same variant; (2) the flattened grotesque head appearing either as the prefix or superfix in i, r, u, v of the same figure; and (3) the hand, which appears as the main element in the forms shown in figure 37, j-q. The two first of these never stand by themselves but always modify some other sign. The first (fig. 37, a-h, t) is always attached to the sign of the period whose end is recorded either as a superfix (see fig. 37, a, whereby the end of Cycle 10 is indicated[53]), or as a prefix (see t, whereby the end of Katun 14 is recorded). The second form is seen as a prefix in u, whereby the end of Katun 12 is recorded, and in i, whereby the end of Katun 11 is shown. This latter sign is found also as a superfix in r.
[42] Mr. Bowditch (1910: App. VIII, 310-18) discusses the possible meanings of this element.
[43] For explanation of the term "full-figure glyphs," see p. 67.
This failure to establish the exclusive phonetic character of the Maya glyphs has resulted in the general acceptance of the second theory, that the signs are ideographic. Doctor Brinton (1894b: p. 14), however, has pointed out two facts deducible from the Landa alphabet which render impossible not only the complete acceptance of this second theory but also the absolute rejection of the first: (1) That a native writer was able to give a written character for an unfamiliar sound, a sound, moreover, which was without meaning to him, as, for example, that of a Spanish letter; and (2) that the characters he employed for this purpose were also used in the native writings. These facts Doctor Brinton regards as proof that some sort of phonetic writing was not unknown, and, indeed, both the inscriptions and the codices establish the truth of this contention. For example, the sign in a, figure 13, has the phonetic value kin, and the sign in b the phonetic value yax. In the latter glyph, however, only the upper part (reproduced in c) is to be regarded as the essential element. It is strongly indicative of phoneticism therefore to find the sound yaxkin, a combination of these two, expressed by the sign found in d. Similarly, the character representing the phonetic value kin is found also as an element in the glyphs for the words likin and chikin (see e and f, respectively, fig. 13), each of which has kin as its last syllable. Again, the phonetic value tun is expressed by the glyph in g, and the sound ca (c hard) by the sign h. The sound katun is represented by the character in i, a combination of these two. Sometimes the glyph for this same sound takes the form of j, the fish element in k replacing the comblike element h. Far from destroying the phonetic character of this composite glyph, however, this variant k in reality strengthens it, since in Maya the word for fish is cay (c hard) and consequently the variant reads caytun, a close phonetic approximation of katun. The remaining element of this glyph (l) has the value cauac, the first syllable of which is also expressed by either h or k, figure 13. Its use in i and j probably may be regarded as but a further emphasis of the phonetic character of the glyph.
[44] See the discussion of Serpent numbers in Chapter VI.
[45] These three inscriptions are found on Stela N, west side, at Copan, the tablet of the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, and Stela 10 at Tikal. For the discussion of these inscriptions, see pp. 114-127.
[46] The discussion of glyphs which may represent the great cycle or period of the 6th order will be presented on pp. 114-127 in connection with the discussion of numbers having six or more orders of units.
The Maya of Yucatan had a similar method of marking time, though their unit of enumeration was 7,200 days, or four times the length of the one used for the same purpose in the older cities. The following quotations from early Spanish chroniclers explain this practice and indicate that the inscriptions presented on these time-markers were of an historical nature:
[47] The figure on Zoömorph B at Quirigua, however, has a normal human head without grotesque characteristics.
[48] The full-figure glyphs are included with the head variants in this proportion.
[49] Any system of counting time which describes a date in such a manner that it can not recur, satisfying all the necessary conditions, for 374,400 years, must be regarded as absolutely accurate in so far as the range of human life on this planet is concerned.
[50] There are a very few monuments which have two Initial Series instead of one. So far as the writer knows, only six monuments in the entire Maya area present this feature, namely, Stelæ F, D, E, and A at Quirigua, Stela 17 at Tikal, and Stela 11 at Yaxchilan.
The student will better comprehend this Initial-series method of dating if he will imagine the Calendar Round represented by a large cogwheel A, figure 23, having 18,980 teeth, each one of which is named after one of the dates of the calendar. Furthermore, let him suppose that the arrow B in the same figure points to the tooth, or cog, named 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu; and finally that from this as its original position the wheel commences to revolve in the direction indicated by the arrow in A.
[51] Refer to p. 64 and figure 23. It will be noted that the third tooth (i. e. day) after the one named 7 Akbal 11 Cumhu is 10 Cimi 14 Cumhu.
[52] This method of dating does not seem to have been used with either uinal or kin period endings, probably because of the comparative frequency with which any given date might occur at the end of either of these two periods.
[53] In Chapter IV it will be shown that two bars stand for the number 10. It will be necessary to anticipate the discussion of Maya numerals there presented to the extent of stating that a bar represented 5 and a dot or ball, 1. The varying combinations of these two elements gave the values up to 20.
Fig. 37. Ending signs and elements.
The hand-ending sign rarely appears as modifying period glyphs, although a few examples of such use have been found (see fig. 37, j, k). This ending sign usually appears as the main element in a separate glyph, which precedes the sign of the period whose end is recorded (see fig. 37, l-q). In these cases the subordinate elements differ somewhat, although the element (*
The use of the hand as expressing the meaning "ending" is quite natural. The Aztec, we have seen, called their 52-year period the xiuhmolpilli, or "year bundle." This implies the concomitant idea of "tying up." As a period closed, metaphorically speaking, it was "tied up" or "bundled up." The Maya use of the hand to express the idea "ending" may be a graphic representation of the member by means of which this "tying up" was effected, the clasped hand indicating the closed period.
This method of describing a date may be called "dating by period endings." It was far less accurate than Initial-series or Secondary-series dating, since a date described as occurring at the end of a certain katun could recur after an interval of about 18,000 years in round numbers, as against 374,400 years in the other 2 methods. For all practical purposes, however, 18,000 years was as accurate as 374,400 years, since it far exceeds the range of time covered by the written records of mankind the world over.
Period-ending dates were not used much, and, as has been stated above, they are found only in connection with the larger periods—most frequently with the katun, next with the cycle, and but very rarely with the tun. Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 176 et seq.) has reviewed fully the use of ending signs, and students are referred to his work for further information on this subject.
U Kahlay Katunob
In addition to the foregoing methods of measuring time and recording dates, the Maya of Yucatan used still another, which, however, was probably derived directly from the application of Period-ending dating to the Long Count, and consequently introduces no new elements. This has been designated the Sequence of the Katuns, because in this method the katun, or 7,200-day period, was the unit used for measuring the passage of time. The Maya themselves called the Sequence of the Katuns u tzolan katun, "the series of the katuns"; or u kahlay uxocen katunob, "the record of the count of the katuns"; or even more simply, u kahlay katunob, "the record of the katuns." These names accurately describe this system, which is simply the record of the successive katuns, comprising in the aggregate the range of Maya chronology.
Each katun of the u kahlay katunob was named after the designation of its ending day, a practice derived no doubt from Period-ending dating, and the sequence of these ending days represented passed time, each ending day standing for the katun of which it was the close. The katun, as we have seen on page 77, always ended with some day Ahau, consequently this day-name is the only one of the twenty which appears in the u kahlay katunob. In this method the katuns were distinguished from one another, not by the positions which they occupied in the cycle, as Katun 14, for example, but by the different days Ahau with which they ended, as Katun 2 Ahau, Katun 13 Ahau, etc. See Table IX.
Table IX.—SEQUENCE OF KATUNS IN U KAHLAY KATUNOB
Katun
02 Ahau
Katun
08 Ahau
Katun 13 Ahau
Katun
06 Ahau
Katun 11 Ahau
Katun
04 Ahau
Katun
09 Ahau
Katun
02 Ahau
Katun
07 Ahau
Katun 13 Ahau
Katun
05 Ahau
Katun 11 Ahau
Katun
03 Ahau
Katun
09 Ahau
Katun
01 Ahau
Katun
07 Ahau
Katun 12 Ahau
Katun
05 Ahau
Katun 10 Ahau
Katun 03 Ahau, etc.
The peculiar retrograding sequence of the numerical coefficients in Table IX, decreasing by 2 from katun to katun, as 2, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, etc., results directly from the number of days which the katun contains. Since the 13 possible numerical coefficients, 1 to 13, inclusive, succeed each other in endless repetition, 1 following immediately after 13, it is clear that in counting forward any given number from any given numerical coefficient, the resulting numerical coefficient will not be affected if we first deduct all the 13s possible from the number to be counted forward. The mathematical demonstration of this fact follows. If we count forward 14 from any given coefficient, the same coefficient will be reached as if we had counted forward but 1. This is true because, (1) there are only 13 numerical coefficients, and (2) these follow each other without interruption, 1 following immediately after 13; hence, when 13 has been reached, the next coefficient is 1, not 14; therefore 13 or any multiple thereof may be counted forward or backward from any one of the 13 numerical coefficients without changing its value. This truth enables us to formulate the following rule for finding numerical coefficients: Deduct all the multiples of 13 possible from the number to be counted forward, and then count forward the remainder from the known coefficient, subtracting 13 if the resulting number is above 13, since 13 is the highest possible number which can be attached to a day sign. If we apply this rule to the sequence of the numerical coefficients in Table IX, we shall find that it accounts for the retrograding sequence there observed. The first katun in Table IX, Katun 2 Ahau, is named after its ending day, 2 Ahau. Now let us see whether the application of this rule will give us 13 Ahau as the ending day of the next katun. The number to be counted forward from 2 Ahau is 7,200, the number of days in one katun; therefore we must first deduct from 7,200 all the 13s possible. 7,200 ÷ 13 = 55311⁄13. In other words, after we have deducted all the 13's possible, that is, 553 of them, there is a remainder of 11. This the rule says is to be added (or counted forward) from the known coefficient (in this case 2) in order to reach the resulting coefficient. 2 + 11 = 13. Since this number is not above 13, 13 is not to be deducted from it; therefore the coefficient of the ending day of the second katun is 13, as shown in Table IX. Similarly we can prove that the coefficient of the ending day of the third katun in Table IX will be 11. Again, we have 7,200 to count forward from the known coefficient, in this case 13 (the coefficient of the ending day of the second katun). But we have seen above that if we deduct all the 13s possible from 7,200 there will be a remainder of 11; consequently this remainder 11 must be added to 13, the known coefficient. 13 + 11 = 24; but since this number is above 13, we must deduct 13 from it in order to find out the resulting coefficient. 24 - 13 = 11, and 11 is the coefficient of the ending day of the third katun in Table IX. By applying the above rule, all of the coefficients of the ending days of the katuns could be shown to follow the sequence indicated in Table IX. And since the ending days of the katuns determined their names, this same sequence is also that of the katuns themselves.
The above table enables us to establish a constant by means of which we can always find the name of the next katun. Since 7,200 is always the number of days in any katun, after deducting all the 13s possible the remainder will always be 11, which has to be added to the known coefficient to find the unknown. But since 13 has to be deducted from the resulting number when it is above 13, subtracting 2 will always give us exactly the same coefficient as adding 11; consequently we may formulate for determining the numerical coefficients of the ending days of katuns the following simple rule: Subtract 2 from the coefficient of the ending day of the preceding katun in every case. A glance at Table IX will demonstrate the truth of this rule.
In the names of the katuns given in Table IX it is noteworthy that the positions which the ending days occupied in the divisions of the haab, or 365-day year, are not mentioned. For example, the first katun was not called Katun 2 Ahau 8 Zac, but simply Katun 2 Ahau, the month part of the day, that is, its position in the year, was omitted. This omission of the month parts of the ending days of the katuns in the u kahlay katunob has rendered this method of dating far less accurate than any of the others previously described except Calendar-round Dating. For example, when a date was recorded as falling within a certain katun, as Katun 2 Ahau, it might occur anywhere within a period of 7,200 days, or nearly 20 years, and yet fulfill the given conditions. In other words, no matter how accurately this Katun 2 Ahau itself might be fixed in a long stretch of time, there was always the possibility of a maximum error of about 20 years in such dating, since the statement of the katun did not fix a date any closer than as occurring somewhere within a certain 20-year period. When greater accuracy was desired the particular tun in which the date occurred was also given, as Tun 13 of Katun 2 Ahau. This fixed a date as falling somewhere within a certain 360 days, which was accurately fixed in a much longer period of time. Very rarely, in the case of an extremely important event, the Calendar-round date was also given as 9 Imix 19 Zip of Tun 9 of Katun 13 Ahau. A date thus described satisfying all the given conditions could not recur until after the lapse of at least 7,000 years. The great majority of events, however, recorded by this method are described only as occurring in some particular katun, as Katun 2 Ahau, for example, no attempt being made to refer them to any particular division (tun) of this period. Such accuracy doubtless was sufficient for recording the events of tribal history, since in no case could an event be more than 20 years out of the way.
Aside from this initial error, the accuracy of this method of dating has been challenged on the ground that since there were only thirteen possible numerical coefficients, any given katun, as Katun 2 Ahau, for example, in Table IX would recur in the sequence after the lapse of thirteen katuns, or about 256 years, thus paving the way for much confusion. While admitting that every thirteenth katun in the sequence had the same name (see Table IX), the writer believes, nevertheless, that when the sequence of the katuns was carefully kept, and the record of each entered immediately after its completion, so that there could be no chance of confusing it with an earlier katun of the same name in the sequence, accuracy in dating could be secured for as long a period as the sequence remained unbroken. Indeed, the u kahlay katunob[54] from which the synopsis of Maya history given in Chapter I was compiled, accurately fixes the date of events, ignoring the possible initial inaccuracy of 20 years, within a period of more than 1,100 years, a remarkable feat for any primitive chronology.
How early this method of recording dates was developed is uncertain. It has not yet been found (surely) in the inscriptions in either the south or the north; on the other hand, it is so closely connected with the Long Count and Period-ending dating, which occurs repeatedly throughout the inscriptions, that it seems as though the u kahlay katunob must have been developed while this system was still in use.
There should be noted here a possible exception to the above statement, namely, that the u kahlay katunob has not been found in the inscriptions. Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 192 et seq.) has pointed out what seem to be traces of another method of dating. This consists of some day Ahau modified by one of the two elements shown in figure 38 (a-d and e-h, respectively). In such cases the month part is sometimes recorded, though as frequently the day Ahau stands by itself. It is to be noted that in the great majority of these cases the days Ahau thus modified are the ending days of katuns, which are either expressed or at least indicated in adjacent glyphs. In other words, the day Ahau thus modified is usually the ending day of the next even katun after the last date recorded. The writer believes that this modification of certain days Ahau by either of the two elements shown in figure 38 may indicate that such days were the katun ending days nearest to the time when the inscriptions presenting them were engraved. The snake variants shown in figure 38, a-d, are all from Palenque; the knot variants (e-h of the same figure) are found at both Copan and Quirigua.
Fig. 38. "Snake" or "knot" element as used with day sign Ahau, possibly indicating presence of the u kahlay katunob in the inscriptions.
It may be objected that one katun ending day in each inscription is far different from a sequence of katun ending days as shown in Table IX, and that one katun ending day by itself can not be construed as an u kahlay katunob, or sequence of katuns. The difference here, however, is apparent rather than real, and results from the different character of the monuments and the native chronicles. The u kahlay katunob in Table IX is but a part of a much longer sequence of katuns, which is shown in a number of native chronicles written shortly after the Spanish Conquest, and which record the events of Maya history for more than 1,100 years. They are in fact chronological synopses of Maya history, and from their very nature they have to do with long periods. This is not true of the monuments,[55] which, as we have seen, were probably set up to mark the passage of certain periods, not exceeding a katun in length in any case. Consequently, each monument would have inscribed upon it only one or two katun ending days and the events which were connected more or less closely with it. In other words, the monuments were erected at short intervals[56] and probably recorded events contemporaneous with their erection, while the u kahlay katunob, on the other hand, were historical summaries reaching back to a remote time. The former were the periodicals of current events, the latter histories of the past. The former in the great majority of cases had no concern with the lapse of more than one or two katuns, while the latter measured centuries by the repetition of the same unit. The writer believes that from the very nature of the monuments—markers of current time—no u kahlay katunob will be found on them, but that the presence of the katun ending days above described indicates that the u kahlay katunob had been developed while the other system was still in use. If the foregoing be true, the signs in figure 38, a-h, would have this meaning: "On this day came to an end the katun in which fall the accompanying dates," or some similar significance.
If we exclude the foregoing as indicating the u kahlay katunob, we have but one aboriginal source, that is one antedating the Spanish Conquest, which probably records a count of this kind. It has been stated (p. 33) that the Codex Peresianus probably treats in part at least of historical matter. The basis for this assertion is that in this particular manuscript an u kahlay katunob is seemingly recorded; at least there is a sequence of the ending days of katuns shown, exactly like the one in Table IX, that is, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, etc.
At the time of the Spanish Conquest the Long Count seems to have been recorded entirely by the ending days of its katuns, that is, by the u kahlay katunob, and the use of Initial-series dating seems to have been discontinued, and perhaps even forgotten. Native as well as Spanish authorities state that at the time of the Conquest the Maya measured time by the passage of the katuns, and no mention is made of any system of dating which resembles in the least the Initial Series so prevalent in the southern and older cities. While the Spanish authorities do not mention the u kahlay katunob as do the native writers, they state very clearly that this was the system used in counting time. Says Bishop Landa (1864: p. 312) in this connection: "The Indians not only had a count by years and days ... but they had a certain method of counting time and their affairs by ages, which they made from twenty to twenty years ... these they call katunes." Cogolludo (1688: lib. iv, cap. v, p. 186) makes a similar statement: "They count their eras and ages, which they put in their books from twenty to twenty years ... [these] they call katun." Indeed, there can be but little doubt that the u kahlay katunob had entirely replaced the Initial Series in recording the Long Count centuries before the Spanish Conquest; and if the latter method of dating were known at all, the knowledge of it came only from half-forgotten records the understanding of which was gradually passing from the minds of men.
It is clear from the foregoing that an important change in recording the passage of time took place sometime between the epoch of the great southern cities and the much later period when the northern cities flourished. In the former, time was reckoned and dates were recorded by Initial Series; in the latter, in so far as we can judge from post-Conquest sources, the u kahlay katunob and Calendar-round dating were the only systems used. As to when this change took place, we are not entirely in the dark. It is certain that the use of the Initial Series extended to Yucatan, since monuments presenting this method of dating have been found at a few of the northern cities, namely, at Chichen Itza, Holactun, and Tuluum. On the other hand, it is equally certain that Initial Series could not have been used very extensively in the north, since they have been discovered in only these three cities in Yucatan up to the present time. Moreover, the latest, that is, the most recent of these three, was probably contemporaneous with the rise of the Triple Alliance, a fairly early event of Northern Maya history. Taking these two points into consideration, the limited use of Initial Series in the north and the early dates recorded in the few Initial Series known, it seems likely that Initial-series dating did not long survive the transplanting of the Maya civilization in Yucatan.
Why this change came about is uncertain. It could hardly have been due to the desire for greater accuracy, since the u kahlay katunob was far less exact than Initial-series dating; not only could dates satisfying all given conditions recur much more frequently in the u kahlay katunob, but, as generally used, this method fixed a date merely as occurring somewhere within a period of about 20 years.
The writer believes the change under consideration arose from a very different cause; that it was in fact the result of a tendency toward greater brevity, which was present in the glyphic writing from the very earliest times, and which is to be noted on some of the earliest monuments that have survived the ravages of the passing centuries. At first, when but a single date was recorded on a monument, an Initial Series was used. Later, however, when the need or desire had arisen to inscribe more than one date on the same monument, additional dates were not expressed as Initial Series, each of which, as we have seen, involves the use of 8 glyphs, but as a Secondary Series, which for the record of short periods necessitated the use of fewer glyphs than were employed in Initial Series. It would seem almost as though Secondary Series had been invented to avoid the use of Initial Series when more than one date had to be recorded on the same monument. But this tendency toward brevity in dating did not cease with the invention of Secondary Series. Somewhat later, dating by period-endings was introduced, obviating the necessity for the use of even one Initial Series on every monument, in order that one date might be fixed in the Long Count to which the others (Secondary Series) could be referred. For all practical purposes, as we have seen, Period-ending dating was as accurate as Initial-series dating for fixing dates in the Long Count, and its substitution for Initial-series dating resulted in a further saving of glyphs and a corresponding economy of space. Still later, probably after the Maya had colonized Yucatan, the u kahlay katunob, which was a direct application of Period-ending dating to the Long Count, came into general use. At this time a rich history lay behind the Maya people, and to have recorded all of its events by their corresponding Initial Series would have been far too cumbersome a practice. The u kahlay katunob offered a convenient and facile method by means of which long stretches of time could be recorded and events approximately dated; that is, within 20 years. This, together with the fact that the practice of setting up dated period-markers seems to have languished in the north, thus eliminating the greatest medium of all for the presentation of Initial Series, probably gave rise to the change from the one method of recording time to the other.
This concludes the discussion of the five methods by means of which the Maya reckoned time and recorded dates: (1) Initial-series dating; (2) Secondary-series dating; (3) Calendar-round dating; (4) Period-ending dating; (5) Katun-ending dating, or the u kahlay katunob. While apparently differing considerably from one another, in reality all are expressions of the same fundamental idea, the combination of the numbers 13 and 20 (that is, 260) with the solar year conceived as containing 365 days, and all were recorded by the same vigesimal system of numeration; that is:
1. All used precisely the same dates, the 18,980 dates of the Calendar Round;
2. All may be reduced to the same fundamental unit, the day; and
3. All used the same time counters, those shown in Table VIII.
In conclusion, the student is strongly urged constantly to bear in mind two vital characteristics of Maya chronology:
1. The absolute continuity of all sequences which had to do with the counting of time: The 13 numerical coefficients of the day names, the 20 day names, the 260 days of the tonalamatl, the 365 positions of the haab, the 18,980 dates of the Calendar Round, and the kins, uinals, tuns, katuns, and cycles of the vigesimal system of numeration. When the conclusion of any one of these sequences had been reached, the sequence began anew without the interruption or omission of a single unit and continued repeating itself for all time.
2. All Maya periods expressed not current time, but passed time, as in the case of our hours, minutes, and seconds.
On these two facts rests the whole Maya conception of time.
Chapter IV
MAYA ARITHMETIC
The present chapter will be devoted to the consideration of Maya arithmetic in its relation to the calendar. It will be shown how the Maya expressed their numbers and how they used their several time periods. In short, their arithmetical processes will be explained, and the calculations resulting from their application to the calendar will be set forth.
The Maya had two different ways of writing their numerals,[57] namely: (1) With normal forms, and (2) with head variants; that is, each of the numerals up to and including 19 had two distinct characters which stood for it, just as in the case of the time periods and more rarely, the days and months. The normal forms of the numerals may be compared to our Roman figures, since they are built up by the combination of certain elements which had a fixed numerical value, like the letters I, V, X, L, C, D, and M, which in Roman notation stand for the values 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, and 1,000, respectively. The head-variant numerals, on the other hand, more closely resemble our Arabic figures, since there was a special head form for each number up to and including 13, just as there are special characters for the first nine figures and zero in Arabic notation. Moreover, this parallel between our Arabic figures and the Maya head-variant numerals extends to the formation of the higher numbers. Thus, the Maya formed the head-variant numerals for 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 by applying the essential characteristic of the head variant for 10 to the head variants for 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, just as the sign for 10—that is, one in the tens place and zero in the units place—is used in connection with the signs for the first nine figures in Arabic notation to form the numbers 11 to 19, inclusive. Both of these notations occur in the inscriptions, but with very few exceptions[58] no head-variant numerals have yet been found in the codices.
Bar and Dot Numerals
The Maya "Roman numerals"—that is, the normal-form numerals, up to and including 19—were expressed by varying combinations of two elements, the dot (
Fig. 39. Normal forms of numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, in the codices.
Fig. 40. Normal forms of numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, in the inscriptions.
Fig. 41. Examples of bar and dot numeral 5, showing the ornamentation which the bar underwent without affecting its numerical value.
An important exception to this statement should be noted here in connection with the normal forms for the numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17, that is, all which involve the use of one or two dots in their composition.[59] In the inscriptions, as we have seen in Chapter II, every glyph was a balanced picture, exactly fitting its allotted space, even at the cost of occasionally losing some of its elements. To have expressed the numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 as in the codices, with just the proper number of bars and dots in each case, would have left unsightly gaps in the outlines of the glyph blocks (see fig. 42, a-h, where these numbers are shown as the coefficients of the katun sign). In a, c, e, and g of the same figure (the numbers 1, 6, 11, and 16, respectively) the single dot does not fill the space on the left-hand[60] side of the bar, or bars, as the case may be, and consequently the left-hand edge of the glyph block in each case is ragged. Similarly in b, d, f, and h, the numbers 2, 7, 12, and 17, respectively, the two dots at the left of the bar or bars are too far apart to fill in the left-hand edge of the glyph blocks neatly, and consequently in these cases also the left edge is ragged. The Maya were quick to note this discordant note in glyph design, and in the great majority of the places where these numbers (1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17) had to be recorded, other elements of a purely ornamental character were introduced to fill the empty spaces. In figure 43, a, c, e, g, the spaces on each side of the single dot have been filled with ornamental crescents about the size of the dot, and these give the glyph in each case a final touch of balance and harmony, which is lacking without them. In b, d, f, and h of the same figure a single crescent stands between the two numerical dots, and this again harmoniously fills in the glyph block. While the crescent (*
Fig. 42. Examples showing the way in which the numerals 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are not used with period, day, or month signs.
Fig. 43. Examples showing the way in which the numerals 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are used with period, day, or month signs. Note the filling of the otherwise vacant spaces with ornamental elements.
Fig. 44. Normal forms of numerals 1 to 13, inclusive, in the Books of Chilan Balam.
The use of these purely ornamental elements, to fill the empty spaces in the normal forms of the numerals 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17, is a fruitful source of error to the student of the inscriptions. Slight weathering of an inscription is often sufficient to make ornamental crescents look exactly like numerical dots, and consequently the numerals 1, 2, 3 are frequently mistaken for one another, as are also 6, 7, and 8; 11, 12, and 13; and 16, 17, and 18. The student must exercise the greatest caution at all times in identifying these numerals in the inscriptions, or otherwise he will quickly find himself involved in a tangle from which there seems to be no egress. Probably more errors in reading the inscriptions have been made through the incorrect identification of these numerals than through any other one cause, and the student is urged to be continually on his guard if he would avoid making this capital blunder.
Although the early Spanish authorities make no mention of the fact that the Maya expressed their numbers by bars and dots, native testimony is not lacking on this point. Doctor Brinton (1882 b: p. 48) gives this extract, accompanied by the drawing shown in figure 44, from a native writer of the eighteenth century who clearly describes this system of writing numbers:
They [our ancestors] used [for numerals in their calendars] dots and lines [i. e., bars] back of them; one dot for one year, two dots for two years, three dots for three years, four dots for four, and so on; in addition to these they used a line; one line meant five years, two lines meant ten years; if one line and above it one dot, six years; if two dots above the line, seven years; if three dots above, eight years; if four dots above the line, nine; a dot above two lines, eleven; if two dots, twelve; if three dots, thirteen.
This description is so clear, and the values therein assigned to the several combinations of bars and dots have been verified so extensively throughout both the inscriptions and the codices, that we are justified in identifying the bar and dot as the signs for five and one, respectively, wherever they occur, whether they are found by themselves or in varying combinations.
In the codices, as will appear in Chapter VI, the bar and dot numerals were painted in two colors, black and red. These colors were used to distinguish one set of numerals from another, each of which has a different use. In such cases, however, bars of one color are never used with dots of the other color, each number being either all red or all black (see p. 93, footnote 1, for the single exception to this rule).
By the development of a special character to represent the number 5 the Maya had far surpassed the Aztec in the science of mathematics; indeed, the latter seem to have had but one numerical sign, the dot, and they were obliged to resort to the clumsy makeshift of repeating this in order to represent all numbers above 1. It is clearly seen that such a system of notation has very definite limitations, which must have seriously retarded mathematical progress among the Aztec.
In the Maya system of numeration, which was vigesimal, there was no need for a special character to represent the number 20,[61] because (1) as we have seen in Table VIII, 20 units of any order (except the 2d, in which only 18 were required) were equal to 1 unit of the order next higher, and consequently 20 could not be attached to any period-glyph, since this number of periods (with the above exception) was always recorded as 1 period of the order next higher; and (2) although there were 20 positions in each period except the uinal, as 20 kins in each uinal, 20 tuns in each katun, 20 katuns in each cycle, these positions were numbered not from 1 to 20, but on the contrary from 0 to 19, a system which eliminated the need for a character expressing 20.
Fig. 45. Sign for 20 in the codices.
In spite of the foregoing fact, however, the number 20 has been found in the codices (see fig. 45). A peculiar condition there, however, accounts satisfactorily for its presence. In the codices the sign for 20 occurs only in connection with tonalamatls, which, as we shall see later, were usually portrayed in such a manner that the numbers of which they were composed could not be presented from bottom to top in the usual way, but had to be written horizontally from left to right. This destroyed the possibility of numeration by position,[62] according to the Maya point of view, and consequently some sign was necessary which should stand for 20 regardless of its position or relation to others. The sign shown in figure 45 was used for this purpose. It has not yet been found in the inscriptions, perhaps because, as was pointed out in Chapter II, the inscriptions generally do not appear to treat of tonalamatls.
Fig. 46. Sign for 0 in the codices.
If the Maya numerical system had no vital need for a character to express the number 20, a sign to represent zero was absolutely indispensable. Indeed, any numerical system which rises to a second order of units requires a character which will signify, when the need arises, that no units of a certain order are involved; as zero units and zero tens, for example, in writing 100 in our own Arabic notation.
The character zero seems to have played an important part in Maya calculations, and signs for it have been found in both the codices and the inscriptions. The form found in the codices (fig. 46) is lenticular; it presents an interior decoration which does not follow any fixed scheme.[63] Only a very few variants occur. The last one in figure 46 has clearly as one of its elements the normal form (lenticular). The remaining two are different. It is noteworthy, however, that these last three forms all stand in the 2d, or uinal, place in the texts in which they occur, though whether this fact has influenced their variation is unknown.
Dates of the character just described may be called Calendar-round dates, since they are accurate only within the Calendar Round, or range of 52 years. While accurate enough for the purpose of distinguishing dates in the course of a single lifetime, this method breaks down when used to express dates covering a long period. Witness the chaotic condition of Aztec chronology. The Maya seem to have realized the limitations of this method of dating and did not employ it extensively. It was used chiefly at Yaxchilan on the Usamacintla River, and for this reason the chronology of that city is very much awry, and it is difficult to assign its various dates to their proper positions in the Long Count.
[54] The u kahlay katunob on which the historical summary given in Chapter I is based shows an absolutely uninterrupted sequence of katuns for more than 1,100 years. See Brinton (1882 b: pp. 152-164). It is necessary to note here a correction on p. 153 of that work. Doctor Brinton has omitted a Katun 8 Ahau from this u kahlay katunob, which is present in the Berendt copy, and he has incorrectly assigned the abandonment of Chichen Itza to the preceding katun, Katun 10 Ahau, whereas the Berendt copy shows this event took place during the katun omitted, Katun 8 Ahau.
[55] There are, of course, a few exceptions to this rule—that is, there are some monuments which indicate an interval of more than 3,000 years between the extreme dates. In such cases, however, this interval is not divided into katuns, nor in fact into any regularly recurring smaller unit, with the single exception mentioned in footnote 1, p. 84.
[56] On one monument, the tablet from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, there seems to be recorded a kind of u kahlay katunob; at least, there is a sequence of ten consecutive katuns.
[57] The word "numeral," as used here, has been restricted to the first twenty numbers, 0 to 19, inclusive.
[58] See p. 96, footnote 1.
[59] In one case, on the west side of Stela E at Quirigua, the number 14 is also shown with an ornamental element (*
). This is very unusual and, so far as the writer knows, is the only example of its kind. The four dots in the numbers 4, 9, 14, and 19 never appear thus separated in any other text known.
[60] In the examples given the numerical coefficients are attached as prefixes to the katun sign. Frequently, however, they occur as superfixes. In such cases, however, the above observations apply equally well.
If the Maya numerical system had no vital need for a character to express the number 20, a sign to represent zero was absolutely indispensable. Indeed, any numerical system which rises to a second order of units requires a character which will signify, when the need arises, that no units of a certain order are involved; as zero units and zero tens, for example, in writing 100 in our own Arabic notation.
[61] Care should be taken to distinguish the number or figure 20 from any period which contained 20 periods of the order next below it; otherwise the uinal, katun, and cycle glyphs could all be construed as signs for 20, since each of these periods contains 20 units of the period next lower.
[62] The Maya numbered by relative position from bottom to top, as will be presently explained.
[63] This form of zero is always red and is used with black bar and dot numerals as well as with red in the codices.
Fig. 47. Sign for 0 in the inscriptions.
Fig. 48. Figure showing possible derivation of the sign for 0 in the inscriptions: a, Outline of the days of the tonalamatl as represented graphically in the Codex Tro-Cortesiano; b, half of same outline, which is also sign for 0 shown in fig. 47.
Both normal forms and head variants for zero, as indeed for all the numbers, have been found in the inscriptions. The normal forms for zero are shown in figure 47. They are common and are unmistakable. An interesting origin for this sign has been suggested by Mr. A. P. Maudslay. On pages 75 and 76 of the Codex Tro-Cortesiano[64] the 260 days of a tonalamatl are graphically represented as forming the outline shown in figure 48, a. Half of this (see fig. 48, b) is the sign which stands for zero (compare with fig. 47). The train of association by which half of the graphic representation of a tonalamatl could come to stand for zero is not clear. Perhaps a of figure 48 may have signified that a complete tonalamatl had passed with no additional days. From this the sign may have come to represent the idea of completeness as apart from the tonalamatl, and finally the general idea of completeness applicable to any period; for no period could be exactly complete without a fractional remainder unless all the lower periods were wanting; that is, represented by zero. Whether this explains the connection between the outline of the tonalamatl and the zero sign, or whether indeed there be any connection between the two, is of course a matter of conjecture.
There is still one more normal form for zero not included in the examples given above, which must be described. This form (fig. 49), which occurs throughout the inscriptions and in the Dresden Codex,[65] is chiefly interesting because of its highly specialized function. Indeed, it was used for one purpose only, namely, to express the first, or zero, position in each of the 19 divisions of the haab, or year, and for no other. In other words, it denotes the positions 0 Pop, 0 Uo, 0 Zip, etc., which, as we have seen (pp. 47, 48), corresponded with our first days of the months. The forms shown in figure 49, a-e, are from the inscriptions and those in f-h from the Dresden Codex. They are all similar. The general outline of the sign has suggested the name "the spectacle" glyph. Its essential characteristic seems to be the division into two roughly circular parts, one above the other, best seen in the Dresden Codex forms (fig. 49, f-h) and a roughly circular infix in each. The lower infix is quite regular in all of the forms, being a circle or ring. The upper infix, however, varies considerably. In figure 49, a, b, this ring has degenerated into a loop. In c and d of the same figure it has become elaborated into a head. A simpler form is that in f and g. Although comparatively rare, this glyph is so unusual in form that it can be readily recognized. Moreover, if the student will bear in mind the two following points concerning its use, he will never fail to identify it in the inscriptions: The "spectacle" sign (1) can be attached only to the glyphs for the 19 divisions of the haab, or year, that is, the 18 uinals and the xma kaba kin; in other words, it is found only with the glyphs shown in figures 19 and 20, the signs for the months in the inscriptions and codices, respectively.
Fig. 49. Special sign for 0 used exclusively as a month coefficient.
(2) It can occur only in connection with one of the four day-signs, Ik, Manik, Eb, and Caban (see figs. 16, c, j, s, t, u, a', b', and 17, c, d, k, r, x, y, respectively), since these four alone, as appears in Table VII, can occupy the 0 (zero) positions in the several divisions of the haab.
Fig. 50. Examples of the use of bar and dot numerals with period, day, or month signs. The translation of each glyph appears below it.
Examples of the normal-form numerals as used with the day, month, and period glyphs in both the inscriptions and the codices are shown in figure 50. Under each is given its meaning in English.[66] The student is advised to familiarize himself with these forms, since on his ability to recognize them will largely depend his progress in reading the inscriptions. This figure illustrates the use of all the foregoing forms except the sign for 20 in figure 45 and the sign for zero in figure 46. As these two forms never occur with day, month, or period glyphs, and as they have been found only in the codices, examples showing their use will not be given until Chapter VI is reached, which treats of the codices exclusively.
Head-variant Numerals
Let us next turn to the consideration of the Maya "Arabic notation," that is, the head-variant numerals, which, like all other known head variants, are practically restricted to the inscriptions.[67] It should be noted here before proceeding further that the full-figure numerals found in connection with full-figure period, day, and month glyphs in a few inscriptions, have been classified with the head-variant numerals. As explained on page 67, the body-parts of such glyphs have no function in determining their meanings, and it is only the head-parts which present in each case the determining characteristics of the form intended.
In the "head" notation each of the numerals, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13[68] is expressed by a distinctive type of head; each type has its own essential characteristic, by means of which it can be distinguished from all of the others. Above 13 and up to but not including 20, the head numerals are expressed by the application of the essential characteristic of the head for 10 to the heads for 3 to 9, inclusive. No head forms for the numeral 20 have yet been discovered.
The identification of these head-variant numerals in some cases is not an easy matter, since their determining characteristics are not always presented clearly. Moreover, in the case of a few numerals, notably the heads for 2, 11, and 12, the essential elements have not yet been determined. Head forms for these numerals occur so rarely in the inscriptions that the comparative data are insufficient to enable us to fix on any particular element as the essential one. Another difficulty encountered in the identification of head-variant numerals is the apparent irregularity of the forms in the earlier inscriptions. The essential elements of these early head numerals in some cases seem to differ widely from those of the later forms, and consequently it is sometimes difficult, indeed even impossible, to determine their corresponding numerical values.
Fig. 51. Head-variant numerals 1 to 7, inclusive.
The head-variant numerals are shown in figures 51-53. Taking these up in their numerical order, let us commence with the head signifying 1; see figure 51, a-e. The essential element of this head is its forehead ornament, which, to signify the number 1, must be composed of more than one part (*
The head for 2 (fig. 51, f, g) has been found only twice in the inscriptions—on Lintel 2 at Piedras Negras and on the tablet in the Temple of the Initial Series at Holactun. The oval at the top of the head seems to be the only element these two forms have in common, and the writer therefore accepts this element as the essential characteristic of the head for 2, admitting at the same time that the evidence is insufficient.
Fig. 52. Head-variant numerals 8 to 13, inclusive.
The head for 3 is shown in figure 51, h, i. Its determining characteristic is the fillet, or headdress.
The head for 4 is shown in figure 51, j-m. It is to be distinguished by its large prominent eye and square irid (*
The head for 5 (fig. 51, n-s) is always to be identified by its peculiar headdress (†
Fig. 53. Head-variant numerals 14 to 19, inclusive, and 0.
The head for 6 (fig. 51, t-v) is similarly unmistakable. It is always characterized by the so-called hatchet eye (††
The head for 7 (fig. 51, w) is found only once in the inscriptions—on the east side of Stela D at Quirigua. Its essential characteristic, the large ornamental scroll passing under the eye and curling up in front of the forehead (‡
The head for 8 is shown in figure 52, a-f. It is very similar to the head for 1, as previously explained (compare figs. 51, a-e and 52, a-f), and is to be distinguished from it only by the character of the forehead ornament, which is composed of but a single element (‡‡
The head for 9 occurs more frequently than all of the others with the exception of the zero head, because the great majority of all Initial Series record dates which fell after the completion of Cycle 9, but before the completion of Cycle 10. Consequently, 9 is the coefficient attached to the cycle glyph in almost all Initial Series.[69] The head for 9 is shown in figure 52, g-l. It has for its essential characteristic the dots on the lower cheek or around the mouth (*
The head for 10 (fig. 52, m-r) is extremely important since its essential element, the fleshless lower jaw (*
The head for 11 (fig. 52, s) has been found only once in the inscriptions, namely, on Lintel 2 at Piedras Negras; hence comparative data are lacking for the determination of its essential element. This head has no fleshless lower jaw and consequently would seem, therefore, not to be built up of the heads for 1 and 10.
Similarly, the head for 12 (fig. 52, t-v) has no fleshless lower jaw, and consequently can not be composed of the heads for 10 and 2. It is to be noted, however, that all three of the faces are of the same type, even though their essential characteristic has not yet been determined.
The head for 13 is shown in figure 52, w-b'. Only the first of these forms, w, however, is built on the 10 + 3 basis. Here we see the characteristic 3 head with its banded headdress or fillet (compare h and i, fig. 51), to which has been added the essential element of the 10 head, the fleshless lower jaw, the combination of the two giving the head for 13. The other form for 13 seems to be a special character, and not a composition of the essential elements of the heads for 3 and 10, as in the preceding example. This form of the 13 head (fig. 52, x-b') is grotesque. It seems to be characterized by its long pendulous nose surmounted by a curl (*
The head for 14 (fig. 53, a) is found but once—in the inscriptions on the west side of Stela F at Quirigua. It has the fleshless lower jaw denoting 10, while the rest of the head shows the characteristics of 4—the bulging eye and snaglike tooth (compare fig. 51, j-m). The curl protruding from the back part of the mouth is wanting because the whole lower part of the 4 head has been replaced by the fleshless lower jaw.
The head for 15 (fig. 53, b-e) is composed of the essential element of the 5 head (the tun sign; see fig. 51, n-s) and the fleshless lower jaw of the head for 10.
The head for 16 (fig. 53, f-i) is characterized by the fleshless lower jaw and the hatchet eye of the 6 head. Compare figures 51, t-v, and 52, m-r, which together form 16 (10 + 6).
The head for 17 (fig. 53, j-m) is composed of the essential element of the 7 head (the scroll projecting above the nose; see fig. 51, w) and the fleshless lower jaw of the head for 10.
The head for 18 (fig. 53, n-q) has the characteristic forehead ornament of the 8 head (compare fig. 52, a-f) and the fleshless lower jaw denoting 10.
Only one example (fig. 53, r) of the 19 head has been found in the inscriptions. This occurs on the Temple of the Cross at Palenque and seems to be formed regularly, both the dots of the 9 head and the fleshless lower jaw of the 10 head appearing.
The head for 0 (zero), figure 53, s-w, is always to be distinguished by the hand clasping the lower part of the face (*
That the hand in "ending signs" had exactly the same meaning as the hand in the head variants for zero (fig. 53, s-w) receives striking corroboration from the rather unusual sign for zero shown in figure 54, to which attention was called above. The essential elements of this sign are[70] (1) the clasped hand, identical with the hand in the head-variant forms for zero, and (2) the large element above it, containing a curling infix. This latter element also occurs though below the clasped hand, in the "ending signs" shown in figure 37, l, m, n, the first two of which accompany the closing date of Katun 14, and the last the closing date of Cycle 13. The resemblance of these three "ending signs" to the last three forms in figure 54 is so close that the conclusion is well-nigh inevitable that they represented one and the same idea. The writer is of the opinion that this meaning of the hand (ending or completion) will be found to explain its use throughout the inscriptions.
Fig. 54. A sign for 0, used also to express the idea "ending" or "end of" in Period-ending dates. (See figs. 47 and 53 s-w, for forms used interchangeably in the inscriptions to express the idea of 0 or of completion.)
In order to familiarize the student with the head-variant numerals, their several essential characteristics have been gathered together in Table X, where they may be readily consulted. Examples covering their use with period, day, and month glyphs are given in figure 55 with the corresponding English translations below.
Head-variant numerals do not occur as frequently as the bar and dot forms, and they seem to have been developed at a much later period. At least, the earliest Initial Series recorded with bar and dot numerals antedates by nearly two hundred years the earliest Initial Series the numbers of which are expressed by head variants. This long priority in the use of the former would doubtless be considerably diminished if it were possible to read the earliest Initial Series which have head-variant numerals; but that the earliest of these latter antedate the earnest bar and dot Initial Series may well be doubted.
Table X. CHARACTERISTICS OF HEAD-VARIANT NUMERALS 0 TO 19, INCLUSIVE
Forms
Characteristics
Head for 0
Clasped hand across lower part of face.
Head for 1
Forehead ornament composed of
more than one part.
Head for 2
Oval in upper part of head. (?)
Head for 3
Banded headdress or fillet.
Head for 4
Bulging eye with square irid, snaglike front tooth, curling fang from back of mouth.
Head for 5
Normal form of tun sign as headdress.
Head for 6
"Hatchet eye."
Head for 7
Large scroll passing under eye and curling up in front of forehead.
Head for 8
Forehead ornament composed of
one part.
Head for 9
Dots on lower cheek or around mouth and in some cases beard.
Head for 10
Fleshless lower jaw and in some cases other death's-head characteristics, truncated nose, etc.
Head for 11
Undetermined.
Head for 12
Undetermined; type of head known, however.
Head for 13
(
a) Long pendulous nose, bulging eye, and curling fang from back of mouth.
(
b) Head for 3 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 14
(b)Head for 4 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 15
(b)Head for 5 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 16
(b)Head for 6 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 17
(b)Head for 7 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 18
(b)Head for 8 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Head for 19
(b)Head for 9 with fleshless lower jaw of head for 10.
Mention should be made here of a numerical form which can not be classified either as a bar and dot numeral or a head variant. This is the thumb (*
We have seen in the foregoing pages the different characters which stood for the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive. The next point claiming our attention is, how were the higher numbers written, numbers which in the codices are in excess of 12,000,000, and in the inscriptions, in excess of 1,400,000? In short, how were numbers so large expressed by the foregoing twenty (0 to 19, inclusive) characters?
The Maya expressed their higher numbers in two ways, in both of which the numbers rise by successive terms of the same vigesimal system:
1. By using the numbers 0 to 19, inclusive, as multipliers with the several periods of Table VIII (reduced in each case to units of the lowest order) as the multiplicands, and—
2. By using the same numbers[71] in certain relative positions, each of which had a fixed numerical value of its own, like the positions to the right and left of the decimal point in our own numerical notation.
The first of these methods is rarely found outside of the inscriptions, while the second is confined exclusively to the codices. Moreover, although the first made use of both normal-form and head-variant numerals, the second could be expressed by normal forms only, that is, bar and dot numerals. This enables us to draw a comparison between these two forms of Maya numerals:
Fig. 55. Examples of the use of head-variant numerals with period, day, or month signs. The translation of each glyph appears below it.
Head-variant numerals never occur independently, but are always prefixed to some period, day, or month sign. Bar and dot numerals, on the other hand, frequently stand by themselves in the codices unattached to other signs. In such cases, however, some sign was to be supplied mentally with the bar and dot numeral.
First Method of Numeration
Fig. 56. Examples of the first method of numeration, used almost exclusively in the inscriptions.
In the first of the above methods the numbers 0 to 19, inclusive, were expressed by multiplying the kin sign by the numerals[72] 0 to 19 in turn. Thus, for example, 6 days was written as shown in figure 56, a, 12 days as shown in b, and 17 days as shown in c of the same figure. In other words, up to and including 19 the numbers were expressed by prefixing the sign for the number desired to the kin sign, that is, the sign for 1 day.[73]
The numbers 20 to 359, inclusive, were expressed by multiplying both the kin and uinal signs by the numerical forms 0 to 19, and adding together the resulting products. For example, the number 257 was written as shown in figure 56, d. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 uinal = 20 kins, consequently 12 uinals (the 12 being indicated by 2 bars and 2 dots) = 240 kins. However, as this number falls short of 257 by 17 kins, it is necessary to express these by 17 kins, which are written immediately below the 12 uinals. The sum of these two products = 257. Again, the number 300 is written as in figure 56, e. The 15 uinals (three bars attached to the uinal sign) = 15 × 20 = 300 kins, exactly the number expressed. However, since no kins are required to complete the number, it is necessary to show that none were involved, and consequently 0 kins, or "no kins" is written immediately below the 15 uinals, and 300 + 0 = 300. One more example will suffice to show how the numbers 20 to 359 were expressed. In figure 56, f, the number 198 is shown. The 9 uinals = 9 × 20 = 180 kins. But this number falls short of 198 by 18, which is therefore expressed by 18 kins written immediately below the 9 uinals: and the sum of these two products is 198, the number to be recorded.
The numbers 360 to 7,199, inclusive, are indicated by multiplying the kin, uinal, and tun signs by the numerals 0 to 19, and adding together the resulting products. For example, the number 360 is shown in figure 56, g. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 tun = 18 uinals; but 18 uinals = 360 kins (18 × 20 = 360); therefore 1 tun also = 360 kins. However, in order to show that no uinals and kins are involved in forming this number, it is necessary to record this fact, which was done by writing 0 uinals immediately below the 1 tun, and 0 kins immediately below the 0 uinals. The sum of these three products equals 360 (360 + 0 + 0 = 360). Again, the number 3,602 is shown in figure 56, h. The 10 tuns = 10 × 360 = 3,600 kins. This falls short of 3,602 by only 2 units of the first order (2 kins), therefore no uinals are involved in forming this number, a fact which is shown by the use of 0 uinals between the 10 tuns and 2 kins. The sum of these three products = 3,602 (3,600 + 0 + 2). Again, in figure 56, i, the number 7,100 is recorded. The 19 tuns = 19 × 360 = 6,840 kins, which falls short of 7,100 kins by 7,100 - 6,840 = 260 kins. But 260 kins = 13 uinals with no kins remaining. Consequently, the sum of these products equals 7,100 (6,840 + 260 + 0).
The numbers 7,200 to 143,999 were expressed by multiplying the kin, uinal, tun, and katun signs by the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, and adding together the resulting products. For example, figure 56, j, shows the number 7,204. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 katun = 20 tuns, and we have seen that 20 tuns = 7,200 kins (20 × 360); therefore 1 katun = 7,200 kins. This number falls short of the number recorded by exactly 4 kins, or in other words, no tuns or uinals are involved in its composition, a fact shown by the 0 tuns and 0 uinals between the 1 katun and the 4 kins. The sum of these four products = 7,204 (7,200 + 0 + 0 + 4). The number 75,550 is shown in figure 56, k. The 10 katuns = 72,000; the 9 tuns, 3,240; the 15 uinals, 300; and the 10 kins, 10. The sum of these four products = 75,550 (72,000 + 3,240 + 300 + 10). Again, the number 143,567 is shown in figure 56, l. The 19 katuns = 136,800; the 18 tuns, 6,480; the 14 uinals, 280; and the 7 kins, 7. The sum of these four products = 143,567 (136,800 + 6,480 + 280 + 7).
The numbers 144,000 to 1,872,000 (the highest number, according to some authorities, which has been found[74] in the inscriptions) were expressed by multiplying the kin, uinal, tun, katun, and cycle signs by the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, and adding together the resulting products. For example, the number 987,322 is shown in figure 56, m. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 cycle = 20 katuns, but 20 katuns = 144,000 kins; therefore 6 cycles = 864,000 kins; and 17 katuns = 122,400 kins; and 2 tuns, 720 kins; and 10 uinals, 200 kins; and the 2 kins, 2 kins. The sum of these five products equals the number recorded, 987,322 (864,000 + 122,400 + 720 + 200 + 2). The highest number in the inscriptions upon which all are agreed is 1,872,000, as shown in figure 56, n. It equals 13 cycles (13 × 144,000), and consequently all the periods below—the katun, tun, uinal, and kin—are indicated as being used 0 times.
Number of Cycles in a Great Cycle
This brings us to the consideration of an extremely important point concerning which Maya students entertain two widely different opinions; and although its presentation will entail a somewhat lengthy digression from the subject under consideration it is so pertinent to the general question of the higher numbers and their formation, that the writer has thought best to discuss it at this point.
In a vigesimal system of numeration the unit of increase is 20, and so far as the codices are concerned, as we shall presently see, this number was in fact the only unit of progression used, except in the 2d order, in which 18 instead of 20 units were required to make 1 unit of the 3d order. In other words, in the codices the Maya carried out their vigesimal system to six places without a break other than the one in the 2d place, just noted. See Table VIII.
In the inscriptions, however, there is some ground for believing that only 13 units of the 5th order (cycles), not 20, were required to make 1 unit of the 6th order, or 1 great cycle. Both Mr. Bowditch (1910: App. IX, 319-321) and Mr. Goodman (1897: p. 25) incline to this opinion, and the former, in Appendix IX of his book, presents the evidence at some length for and against this hypothesis.
This hypothesis rests mainly on the two following points:
1. That the cycles in the inscriptions are numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and not from 0 to 19, inclusive, as in the case of all the other periods except the uinal, which is numbered from 0 to 17, inclusive.
2. That the only two Initial Series which are not counted from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, are counted from a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which is exactly 13 cycles in advance of the former date.
Let us examine the passages in the inscriptions upon which these points rest. In three places[75] in the inscriptions the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is declared to have occurred at the end of a Cycle 13; that is, in these three places this date is accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13. In another place in the inscriptions, although the starting point 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is not itself expressed, the second cycle thereafter is declared to have been a Cycle 2, not a Cycle 15, as it would have been had the cycles been numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, like all the other periods.[76] In still another place the ninth cycle after the starting point (that is, the end of a Cycle 13) is not a Cycle 2 in the following great cycle, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but a Cycle 9, as if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. Again, the end of the tenth cycle after the starting point is recorded in several places, but not as Cycle 3 of the following great cycle, as if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but as Cycle 10, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. The above examples leave little doubt that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and not from 0 to 19, as in the case of the other periods. Thus, there can be no question concerning the truth of the first of the two above points on which this hypothesis rests.
But because this is true it does not necessarily follow that 13 cycles made 1 great cycle. Before deciding this point let us examine the two Initial Series mentioned above, as not proceeding from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, but from a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, exactly 13 cycles in advance of the former date.
These are in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque and on the east side of Stela C at Quirigua. In these two cases, if the long numbers expressed in terms of cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins are reduced to kins, and counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, in neither case will the recorded terminal day of the Initial Series be reached; hence these two Initial Series could not have had the day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu as their starting point. It may be noted here that these two Initial Series are the only ones throughout the inscriptions known at the present time which are not counted from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.[77] However, by counting backward each of these long numbers from their respective terminal days, 8 Ahau 18 Tzec, in the case of the Palenque Initial Series, and 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, in the case of the Quirigua Initial Series, it will be found that both of them proceed from the same starting point, a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, exactly 13 cycles in advance of the starting point of Maya chronology. Or, in other words, the starting point of all Maya Initial Series save two, was exactly 13 cycles later than the starting point of these two. Because of this fact and the fact that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, as shown above, Mr. Bowditch and Mr. Goodman have reached the conclusion that in the inscriptions only 13 cycles were required to make 1 great cycle.
It remains to present the points against this hypothesis, which seem to indicate that the great cycle in the inscriptions contained the same number of cycles (20) as in the codices:
1. In the codices where six orders (great cycles) are recorded it takes 20 of the 5th order (cycles) to make 1 of the 6th order. This absolute uniformity in a strict vigesimal progression in the codices, so similar in other respects to the inscriptions, gives presumptive support at least to the hypothesis that the 6th order in the inscriptions was formed in the same way.
2. The numerical system in both the codices and inscriptions is identical even to the slight irregularity in the second place, where only 18 instead of 20 units were required to make 1 of the third place. It would seem probable, therefore, that had there been any irregularity in the 5th place in the inscriptions (for such the use of 13 in a vigesimal system must be called), it would have been found also in the codices.
3. Moreover, in the inscriptions themselves the cycle glyph occurs at least twice (see fig. 57, a, b) with a coefficient greater than 13, which would seem to imply that more than 13 cycles could be recorded, and consequently that it required more than 13 to make 1 of the period next higher. The writer knows of no place in the inscriptions where 20 kins, 18 uinals, 20 tuns, or 20 katuns are recorded, each of these being expressed as 1 uinal, 1 tun, 1 katun, and 1 cycle, respectively.[78] Therefore, if 13 cycles had made 1 great cycle, 14 cycles would not have been recorded, as in figure 57, a, but as 1 great cycle and 1 cycle; and 17 cycles would not have been recorded, as in b of the same figure, but as 1 great cycle and 4 cycles. The fact that they were not recorded in this latter manner would seem to indicate, therefore, that more than 13 cycles were required to make a great cycle, or unit of the 6th place, in the inscriptions as well as in the codices.
[64] It is interesting to note in this connection that the Zapotec made use of the same outline in graphic representations of the tonalamatl. On page 1 of the Zapotec Codex Féjerváry-Mayer an outline formed by the 260 days of the tonalamatl exactly like the one in fig. 48, a, is shown.
[65] This form of zero has been found only in the Dresden Codex. Its absence from the other two codices is doubtless due to the fact that the month glyphs are recorded only a very few times in them—but once in the Codex Tro-Cortesiano and three times in the Codex Peresianus.
We use an entirely different method, however, in counting our days, years, and centuries, which are referred to as current periods of time. It is the 1st day of January immediately after midnight December 31. It was the first year of the Eleventh Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1000 A. D. And finally, it was the Twentieth Century immediately after midnight December 31, 1900 A. D. In this category should be included also the days of the week and the months, since the names of these periods also refer to present time. In other words when we speak of our days, months, years, and centuries, we do not have in mind, and do not refer to completed periods of time, but on the contrary to current periods.
Curiously enough no glyph for the haab, or year, has been identified as yet, in spite of the apparent importance of this period.[31] The glyphs which represent the 18 different uinals and the xma kaba kin, however, are shown in figures 19 and 20. The forms in figure 19 are taken from the inscriptions and those in figure 20 from the codices.
[66] The forms shown attached to these numerals are those of the day and month signs (see figs. 16, 17, and 19, 20, respectively), and of the period glyphs (see figs. 25-35, inclusive). Reference to these figures will explain the English translation in the case of any form which the student may not remember.
[67] The following possible exceptions, however, should be noted: In the Codex Peresianus the normal form of the tun sign sometimes occurs attached to varying heads, as (*
). Whether these heads denote numerals is unknown, but the construction of this glyph in such cases (a head attached to the sign of a time period) absolutely parallels the use of head-variant numerals with time-period glyphs in the inscriptions. A much stronger example of the possible use of head numerals with period glyphs in the codices, however, is found in the Dresden Codex. Here the accompanying head (†
) is almost surely that for the number 16, the hatchet eye denoting 6 and the fleshless lower jaw 10. Compare (†) with fig. 53, f-i, where the head for 16 is shown. The glyph (‡
) here shown is the normal form for the kin sign. Compare fig. 34, b. The meaning of these two forms would thus seem to be 16 kins. In the passage in which these glyphs occur the glyph next preceding the head for 16 is "8 tuns," the numerical coefficient 8 being expressed by one bar and three dots. It seems reasonably clear here, therefore, that the form in question is a head numeral. However, these cases are so very rare and the context where they occur is so little understood, that they have been excluded in the general consideration of head-variant numerals presented above.
Mr. Goodman calls this glyph (fig. 24, a-e) the sign for the great cycle or unit of the 6th place (see Table VIII). He bases this identification on the fact that in the codices units of the 6th place stand immediately above[44] units of the 5th place (cycles), and consequently since this glyph stands immediately above the units of the 5th place in the inscriptions it must stand for the units of the 6th place. While admitting that the analogy here is close, the writer nevertheless is inclined to reject Mr. Goodman's identification on the following grounds: (1) This glyph never occurs with a numerical coefficient, while units of all the other orders—that is, cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins are never without them. (2) Units of the 6th order in the codices invariably have a numerical coefficient, as do all the other orders. (3) In the only three places in the inscriptions[45] in which six periods are seemingly recorded, though not as Initial Series, the 6th period has a numerical coefficient just as have the other five, and, moreover, the glyph in the 6th position is unlike the forms in figure 24. (4) Five periods, not six, in every Initial Series express the distance from the starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, to the date recorded at the end of the long numbers.
[68] It will appear presently that the number 13 could be expressed in two different ways: (1) by a special head meaning 13, and (2) by the essential characteristic of the head for 10 applied to the head for 3 (i. e., 10 + 3 = 13).
[69] For the discussion of Initial Series in cycles other than Cycle 9, see pp. 194-207.
[70] The subfixial element in the first three forms of fig. 54 does not seem to be essential, since it is wanting in the last.
[71] As previously explained, the number 20 is used only in the codices and there only in connection with tonalamatls.
[72] Whether the Maya used their numerical system in the inscriptions and codices for counting anything besides time is not known. As used in the texts, the numbers occur only in connection with calendric matters, at least in so far as they have been deciphered. It is true many numbers are found in both the inscriptions and codices which are attached to signs of unknown meaning, and it is possible that these may have nothing to do with the calendar. An enumeration of cities or towns, or of tribute rolls, for example, may be recorded in some of these places. Both of these subjects are treated of in the Aztec manuscripts and may well be present in Maya texts.
[73] The numerals and periods given in fig. 56 are expressed by their normal forms in every case, since these may be more readily recognized than the corresponding head variants, and consequently entail less work for the student. It should be borne in mind, however, that any bar and dot numeral or any period in fig. 56 could be expressed equally well by its corresponding head form without affecting in the least the values of the resulting numbers.
[74] There may be three other numbers in the inscriptions which are considerably higher (see pp. 114-127).
[75] These are: (1) The tablet from the Temple of the Cross at Palenque; (2) Altar 1 at Piedras Negras; and (3) The east side of Stela C at Quirigua.
[76] This case occurs on the tablet from the Temple of the Foliated Cross at Palenque.
[77] It seems probable that the number on the north side of Stela C at Copan was not counted from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. The writer has not been able to satisfy himself, however, that this number is an Initial Series.
[78] Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 41-42) notes a seeming exception to this, not in the inscription, however, but in the Dresden Codex, in which, in a series of numbers on pp. 71-73, the number 390 is written 19 uinals and 10 kins, instead of 1 tun, 1 uinal, and 10 kins.
Fig. 57. Signs for the cycle showing coefficients above 13: a, From the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque; b, from Stela N, Copan.
The above points are simply positive evidence in support of this hypothesis, however, and in no way attempt to explain or otherwise account for the undoubtedly contradictory points given in the discussion of (1) on pages 108-109. Furthermore, not until these contradictions have been cleared away can it be established that the great cycle in the inscriptions was of the same length as the great cycle in the codices. The writer believes the following explanation will satisfactorily dispose of these contradictions and make possible at the same time the acceptance of the theory that the great cycle in the inscriptions and in the codices was of equal length, being composed in each case of 20 cycles.
Assuming for the moment that there were 13 cycles in a great cycle; it is clear that if this were the case 13 cycles could never be recorded in the inscriptions, for the reason that, being equal to 1 great cycle, they would have to be recorded in terms of a great cycle. This is true because no period in the inscriptions is ever expressed, so far as now known, as the full number of the periods of which it was composed. For example, 1 uinal never appears as 20 kins; 1 tun is never written as its equivalent, 18 uinals; 1 katun is never recorded as 20 tuns, etc. Consequently, if a great cycle composed of 13 cycles had come to its end with the end of a Cycle 13, which fell on a day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, such a Cycle 13 could never have been expressed, since in its place would have been recorded the end of the great cycle which fell on the same day. In other words, if there had been 13 cycles in a great cycle, the cycles would have been numbered from 0 to 12, inclusive, and the last, Cycle 13, would have been recorded instead as completing some great cycle. It is necessary to admit this point or repudiate the numeration of all the other periods in the inscriptions. The writer believes, therefore, that, when the starting point of Maya chronology is declared to be a date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, which an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13 further declare fell at the close of a Cycle 13, this does not indicate that there were 13 cycles in a great cycle, but that it is to be interpreted as a Period-ending date, pure and simple. Indeed, where this date is found in the inscriptions it occurs with a Cycle 13, and an "ending sign" which is practically identical with other undoubted "ending signs." Moreover, if we interpret these places as indicating that there were only 13 cycles in a great cycle, we have equal grounds for saying that the great cycle contained only 10 cycles. For example, on Zoömorph G at Quirigua the date 7 Ahau 18 Zip is accompanied by an "ending sign" and Cycle 10, which on this basis of interpretation would signify that a great cycle had only 10 cycles. Similarly, it could be shown by such an interpretation that in some cases a cycle had 14 katuns, that is, where the end of a Katun 14 was recorded, or 17 katuns, where the end of a Katun 17 was recorded. All such places, including the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, which closed a Cycle 13 at the starting point of Maya chronology, are only Period-ending dates, the writer believes, and have no reference to the number of periods which any higher period contains whatsoever. They record merely the end of a particular period in the Long Count as the end of a certain Cycle 13, or a certain Cycle 10, or a certain Katun 14, or a certain Katun 17, as the case may be, and contain no reference to the beginning or the end of the period next higher.
There can be no doubt, however, as stated above, that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and then began again with 1. This sequence strikingly recalls that of the numerical coefficients of the days, and in the parallel which this latter sequence affords, the writer believes, lies the true explanation of the misconception concerning the length of the great cycle in the inscriptions.
Table XI. SEQUENCE OF TWENTY CONSECUTIVE DATES IN THE MONTH POP
01 Ik
0 Pop
11 Eb
10 Pop
02 Akbal
1 Pop
12 Ben
11 Pop
03 Kan
2 Pop
13 Ix
12 Pop
04 Chicchan
3 Pop
01 Men
13 Pop
05 Cimi
4 Pop
02 Cib
14 Pop
06 Manik
5 Pop
03 Caban
15 Pop
07 Lamat
6 Pop
04 Eznab
16 Pop
08 Muluc
7 Pop
05 Cauac
17 Pop
09 Oc
8 Pop
06 Ahau
18 Pop
10 Chuen
9 Pop
07 Imix
19 Pop
The numerical coefficients of the days, as we have seen, were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and then began again with 1. See Table XI, in which the 20 days of the month Pop are enumerated. Now it is evident from this table that, although the coefficients of the days themselves do not rise above 13, the numbers showing the positions of these days in the month continue up through 19. In other words, two different sets of numerals were used in describing the Maya days: (1) The numerals 1 to 13, inclusive, the coefficients of the days, and an integral part of their names; and (2) The numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, showing the positions of these days in the divisions of the year—the uinals, and the xma kaba kin. It is clear from the foregoing, moreover, that the number of possible day coefficients (13) has nothing whatever to do in determining the number of days in the period next higher. That is, although the coefficients of the days are numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, it does not necessarily follow that the next higher period (the uinal) contained only 13 days. Similarly, the writer believes that while the cycles were undoubtedly numbered—that is, named—from 1 to 13, inclusive, like the coefficients of the days, it took 20 of them to make a great cycle, just as it took 20 kins to make a uinal. The two cases appear to be parallel. Confusion seems to have arisen through mistaking the name of the period for its position in the period next higher—two entirely different things, as we have seen.
A somewhat similar case is that of the katuns in the u kahlay katunob in Table IX. Assuming that a cycle commenced with the first katun there given, the name of this katun is Katun 2 Ahau, although it occupied the first position in the cycle. Again, the name of the second katun in the sequence is Katun 13 Ahau, although it occupied the second position in the cycle. In other words, the katuns of the u kahlay katunob were named quite independently of their position in the period next higher (the cycle), and their names do not indicate the corresponding positions of the katun in the period next higher.
Applying the foregoing explanation to those passages in the inscriptions which show that the enumeration of the cycles was from 1 to 13, inclusive, we may interpret them as follows: When we find the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in the inscriptions, accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13, that "Cycle 13," even granting that it stands at the end of some great cycle, does not signify that there were only 13 cycles in the great cycle of which it was a part. On the contrary, it records only the end of a particular Cycle 13, being a Period-ending date pure and simple. Such passages no more fix the length of the great cycle as containing 13 cycles than does the coefficient 13 of the day name 13 Ix in Table XI limit the number of days in a uinal to 13, or, again, the 13 of the katun name 13 Ahau in Table IX limit the number of katuns in a cycle to 13. This explanation not only accounts for the use of the 14 cycles or 17 cycles, as shown in figure 57, a, b, but also satisfactorily provides for the enumeration of the cycles from 1 to 13, inclusive.
If the date "4 Ahau 8 Cumhu ending Cycle 13" be regarded as a Period-ending date, not as indicating that the number of cycles in a great cycle was restricted to 13, the next question is—Did a great cycle also come to an end on the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu—the starting point of Maya chronology and the closing date of a Cycle 13? That it did the writer is firmly convinced, although final proof of the point can not be presented until numerical series containing more than 5 terms shall have been considered. (See pp. 114-127 for this discussion.) The following points, however, which may be introduced here, tend to prove this condition:
1. In the natural course of affairs the Maya would have commenced their chronology with the beginning of some great cycle, and to have done this in the Maya system of counting time—that is, by elapsed periods—it was necessary to reckon from the end of the preceding great cycle as the starting point.
2. Moreover, it would seem as though the natural cycle with which to commence counting time would be a Cycle 1, and if this were done time would have to be counted from a Cycle 13, since a Cycle 1 could follow only a Cycle 13.
On these two probabilities, together with the discussion on pages 114-127, the writer is inclined to believe that the Maya commenced their chronology with the beginning of a great cycle, whose first cycle was named Cycle 1, which was reckoned from the close of a great cycle whose ending cycle was a Cycle 13 and whose ending day fell on the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
The second point (see p. 108) on which rests the hypothesis of "13 cycles to a great cycle" in the inscriptions admits of no such plausible explanation as the first point. Indeed, it will probably never be known why in two inscriptions the Maya reckoned time from a starting point different from that used in all the others, one, moreover, which was 13 cycles in advance of the other, or more than 5,000 years earlier than the beginning of their chronology, and more than 8,000 years earlier than the beginning of their historic period. That this remoter starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, from which proceed so far as known only two inscriptions throughout the whole Maya area, stood at the end of a great cycle the writer does not believe, in view of the evidence presented on pages 114-127. On the contrary, the material given there tends to show that although the cycle which ended on the day 4 Ahau 8 Zotz was also named Cycle 13,[79] it was the 8th division of the grand cycle which ended on the day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, and not the closing division of the preceding grand cycle. However, without attempting to settle this question at this time, the writer inclines to the belief, on the basis of the evidence at hand, that the great cycle in the inscriptions was of the same length as in the codices, where it is known to have contained 20 cycles.
Let us return to the discussion interrupted on page 107, where the first method of expressing the higher numbers was being explained. We saw there how the higher numbers up to and including 1,872,000 were written, and the digression just concluded had for its purpose ascertaining how the numbers above this were expressed; that is, whether 13 or 20 units of the 5th order were equal to 1 unit of the 6th order. It was explained also that this number, 1,872,000, was perhaps the highest which has been found in the inscriptions. Three possible exceptions, however, to this statement should be noted here: (1) On the east side of Stela N at Copan six periods are recorded (see fig. 58); (2) on the west panel from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque six and probably seven periods occur (see fig. 59); and (3) on Stela 10 at Tikal eight and perhaps nine periods are found (see fig. 60). If in any of these cases all of the periods belong to one and the same numerical series, the resulting numbers would be far higher than 1,872,000. Indeed, such numbers would exceed by many millions all others throughout the range of Maya writings, in either the codices or the inscriptions.
Before presenting these three numbers, however, a distinction should be drawn between them. The first and second (figs. 58, 59) are clearly not Initial Series. Probably they are Secondary Series, although this point can not be established with certainty, since they can not be connected with any known date the position of which is definitely fixed. The third number (fig. 60), on the other hand, is an Initial Series, and the eight or nine periods of which it is composed may fix the initial date of Maya chronology (4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) in a much grander chronological scheme, as will appear presently.
Fig. 58. Part of the inscription on Stela N, Copan, showing a number composed of six periods.
Fig. 59. Part of the inscription in the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, showing a number composed of seven periods.
Fig. 60. Part of the inscription on Stela 10, Tikal (probably an Initial Series), showing a number composed of eight periods.
The first of these three numbers (see fig. 58), if all its six periods belong to the same series, equals 42,908,400. Although the order of the several periods is just the reverse of that in the numbers in figure 56, this difference is unessential, as will shortly be explained, and in no way affects the value of the number recorded. Commencing at the bottom of figure 58 with the highest period involved and reading up, A6,[80] the 14 great cycles = 40,320,000 kins (see Table VIII, in which 1 great cycle = 2,880,000, and consequently 14 = 14 × 2,880,000 = 40,320,000); A5, the 17 cycles = 2,448,000 kins (17 × 144,000); A4, the 19 katuns = 136,800 kins (19 × 7,200); A3, the 10 tuns = 3,600 kins (10 × 360); A2, the 0 uinals, 0 kins; and the 0 kins, 0 kins. The sum of these products = 40,320,000 + 2,448,000 + 136,800 + 3,600 + 0 + 0 = 42,908,400.
The second of these three numbers (see fig. 59), if all of its seven terms belong to one and the same number, equals 455,393,401. Commencing at the bottom as in figure 58, the first term A4, has the coefficient 7. Since this is the term following the sixth, or great cycle, we may call it the great-great cycle. But we have seen that the great cycle = 2,880,000; therefore the great-great cycle = twenty times this number, or 57,600,000. Our text shows, however, that seven of these great-great cycles are used in the number in question, therefore our first term = 403,200,000. The rest may be reduced by means of Table VIII as follows: B3, 18 great cycles = 51,840,000; A3, 2 cycles = 288,000; B2, 9 katuns = 64,800; A2, 1 tun = 360; B1, 12 uinals = 240; B1, 1 kin = 1. The sum of these (403,200,000 + 51,840,000 + 288,000 + 64,800 + 360 + 240 +1) = 455,393,401.
The third of these numbers (see fig. 60), if all of its terms belong to one and the same number, equals 1,841,639,800. Commencing with A2, this has a coefficient of 1. Since it immediately follows the great-great cycle, which we found above consisted of 57,600,000, we may assume that it is the great-great-great cycle, and that it consisted of 20 great-great cycles, or 1,152,000,000. Since its coefficient is only 1, this large number itself will be the first term in our series. The rest may readily be reduced as follows: A3, 11 great-great cycles = 633,600,000; A4, 19 great cycles = 54,720,000; A5, 9 cycles = 1,296,000; A6, 3 katuns = 21,600; A7, 6 tuns = 2,160; A8, 2 uinals = 40; A9, 0 kins = 0.[81] The sum of these (1,152,000,000 + 633,600,000 + 54,720,000 + 1,296,000 + 21,600 + 2,160 + 40 + 0) = 1,841,639,800, the highest number found anywhere in the Maya writings, equivalent to about 5,000,000 years.
Whether these three numbers are actually recorded in the inscriptions under discussion depends solely on the question whether or not the terms above the cycle in each belong to one and the same series. If it could be determined with certainty that these higher periods in each text were all parts of the same number, there would be no further doubt as to the accuracy of the figures given above; and more important still, the 17 cycles of the first number (see A5, fig. 58) would then prove conclusively that more than 13 cycles were required to make a great cycle in the inscriptions as well as in the codices. And furthermore, the 14 great cycles in A6, figure 58, the 18 in B3, figure 59, and the 19 in A4, figure 60, would also prove that more than 13 great cycles were required to make one of the period next higher—that is, the great-great cycle. It is needless to say that this point has not been universally admitted. Mr. Goodman (1897: p. 132) has suggested in the case of the Copan inscription (fig. 58) that only the lowest four periods—the 19 katuns, the 10 tuns, the 0 uinals, and the 0 kins—A2, A3, and A4,[82] here form the number; and that if this number is counted backward from the Initial Series of the inscription, it will reach a Katun 17 of the preceding cycle. Finally, Mr. Goodman believes this Katun 17 is declared in the glyph following the 19 katuns (A5), which the writer identifies as 17 cycles, and consequently according to the Goodman interpretation the whole passage is a Period-ending date. Mr. Bowditch (1910: p. 321) also offers the same interpretation as a possible reading of this passage. Even granting the truth of the above, this interpretation still leaves unexplained the lowest glyph of the number, which has a coefficient of 14 (A6).
The strongest proof that this passage will not bear the construction placed on it by Mr. Goodman is afforded by the very glyph upon which his reading depends for its verification, namely, the glyph which he interprets Katun 17. This glyph (A5) bears no resemblance to the katun sign standing immediately above it, but on the contrary has for its lower jaw the clasping hand (*
The passages in the Palenque and Tikal texts (figs. 59 and 60, respectively) have never been satisfactorily explained. In default of calendric checks, as the known distance between two dates, for example, which may be applied to these three numbers to test their accuracy, the writer knows of no better check than to study the characteristics of this possible great-cycle glyph in all three, and of the possible great-great-cycle glyph in the last two.
Passing over the kins, the normal form of the uinal glyph appears in figures 58, A2, and 59, B1 (see fig. 31, a, b), and the head variant in figure 60, A8. (See fig. 31, d-f.) Below the uinal sign in A3, figure 58, and A2, figure 59, and above A7, in figure 60 the tuns are recorded as head variants, in all three of which the fleshless lower jaw, the determining characteristic of the tun head, appears. Compare these three head variants with the head variant for the tun in figure 29, d-g. In the Copan inscription (fig. 58) the katun glyph, A4, appears as a head variant, the essential elements of which seem to be the oval in the top part of the head and the curling fang protruding from the back part of the mouth. Compare this head with the head variant for the katun in figure 27, e-h. In the Palenque and Tikal texts (see figs. 59, B2, and 60, A6, respectively), on the other hand, the katun is expressed by its normal form, which is identical with the normal form shown in figure 27, a, b. In figures 58, A5, and 59, A3, the cycle is expressed by its head variant, and the determining characteristic, the clasped hand, appears in both. Compare the cycle signs in figures 58, A5, and 59, A3, with the head variant for the cycle shown in figure 25; d-f. The cycle glyph in the Tikal text (fig. 60, A5) is clearly the normal form. (See fig. 25, a-c.) The glyph following the cycle sign in these three texts (standing above the cycle sign in figure 60 at A4) probably stands for the period of the sixth order, the so-called great cycle. These three glyphs are redrawn in figure 61, a-c, respectively. In the Copan inscription this glyph (fig. 61, a) is a head variant, while in the Palenque and Tikal texts (a and b of the same figure, respectively) it is a normal form.
Inasmuch as these three inscriptions are the only ones in which numerical series composed of 6 or more consecutive terms are recorded, it is unfortunate that the sixth term in all three should not have been expressed by the same form, since this would have facilitated their comparison. Notwithstanding this handicap, however, the writer believes it will be possible to show clearly that the head variant in figure 61, a, and the normal forms in b and c are only variants of one and the same sign, and that all three stand for one and the same thing, namely, the great cycle, or unit of the sixth order.
Fig. 61. Signs for the great cycle (a-c), and the great-great cycle (d, e): a, Stela N, Copan; b, d, Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque; c, e, Stela 10, Tikal.
In the first place, it will be noted that each of the three glyphs just mentioned is composed in part of the cycle sign. For example, in figure 61, a, the head variant has the same clasped hand as the head-variant cycle sign in the same text (see fig. 58, A5), which, as we have seen elsewhere, is the determining characteristic of the head variant for the cycle. In figure 61, b, c, the normal forms there presented contain the entire normal form for the cycle sign; compare figure 25, a, c. Indeed, except for its superfix, the glyphs in figure 61, b, c, are normal forms of the cycle sign; and the glyph in a of the same figure, except for its superfixial element, is similarly the head variant for the cycle. It would seem, therefore, that the determining characteristics of these three glyphs must be their superfixial elements. In the normal form in figure 61, b, the superfix is very clear. Just inside the outline and parallel to it there is a line of smaller circles, and in the middle there are two infixes like shepherds' crooks facing away from the center (*
1. All three of these glyphs, head-variant as well as normal forms, are made up of the corresponding forms of the cycle sign plus another element, a superfix, which is probably the determining characteristic in each case.
2. All three of these superfixes are probably identical, thus showing that the three glyphs in which they occur are probably variants of the same sign.
3. All three of these glyphs occur in numerical series, the preceding term of which in each case is a cycle sign, thus showing that by position they are the logical "next" term (the sixth) of the series.
Let us next examine the two texts in which great-great-cycle glyphs may occur. (See figs. 59, 60.) The two glyphs which may possibly be identified as the sign for this period are shown in figure 61, d, e.
A comparison of these two forms shows that both are composed of the same elements: (1) The cycle sign; (2) a superfix in which the hand is the principal element.
The superfix in figure 61, d, consists of a hand and a tassel-like postfix, not unlike the upper half of the ending signs in figure 37, l-q. However, in the present case, if we accept the hypothesis that d of figure 61 is the sign for the great-great cycle, we are obliged to see in its superfix alone the essential element of the great-great-cycle sign, since the rest of this glyph (the lower part) is quite clearly the normal form for the cycle.
The superfix in figure 61, e, consists of the same two elements as the above, with the slight difference that the hand in e holds a rod. Indeed, the similarity of the two forms is so close that in default of any evidence to the contrary the writer believes they may be accepted as signs for one and the same period, namely, the great-great cycle.
The points on which this conclusion is based may be summarized as follows:
1. Both glyphs are made up of the same elements—(a) The normal form of the cycle sign; (b) a superfix composed of a hand with a tassel-like postfix.
2. Both glyphs occur in numerical series the next term but one of which is the cycle, showing that by position they are the logical next term but one, the seventh or great-great cycle, of the series.
3. Both of these glyphs stand next to glyphs which have been identified as great-cycle signs, that is, the sixth terms of the series in which they occur.
By this same line of reasoning it seems probable that A2 in figure 60 is the sign for the great-great-great cycle, although this fact can not be definitely established because of the lack of comparative evidence.
This possible sign for the great-great-great cycle, or period of the 8th order, is composed of two parts, just like the signs for the great cycle and the great-great cycle already described. These are: (1) The cycle sign; (2) a superfix composed of a hand and a semicircular postfix, quite distinct from the superfixes of the great cycle and great-great cycle signs.
However, since there is no other inscription known which presents a number composed of eight terms, we must lay aside this line of investigation and turn to another for further light on this point.
An examination of figure 60 shows that the glyphs which we have identified as the signs for the higher periods (A2, A3, A4, and A5,) contain one element common to all—the sign for the cycle, or period of 144,000 days. Indeed, A5 is composed of this sign alone with its usual coefficient of 9. Moreover, the next glyphs (A6, A7, A8, and A9[83]) are the signs for the katun, tun, uinal, and kin, respectively, and, together with A5, form a regular descending series of 5 terms, all of which are of known value.
The next question is, How is this glyph in the sixth place formed? We have seen that in the only three texts in which more than five periods are recorded this sign for the sixth period is composed of the same elements in each: (1) The cycle sign; (2) a superfix containing two "shepherd's crook" infixes and surrounded by dots.
Further, we have seen that in two cases in the inscriptions the cycle sign has a coefficient greater than 13, thus showing that in all probability 20, not 13, cycles made 1 great cycle.
Therefore, since the great-cycle signs in figure 61, a-c, are composed of the cycle sign plus a superfix (*
It has been shown that the last six glyphs in figure 60 (A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9) all belong to the same series. Let us next examine the seventh glyph or term from the bottom (A3) and see how it is formed. We have seen that in the only two texts in which more than six periods are recorded the signs for the seventh period (see fig. 61, d, e) are composed of the same elements in each: (1) The cycle sign; (2) a superfix having the hand as its principal element. We have seen, further, that in the only three places in which great cycles are recorded in the Maya writing (fig. 61, a-c) the coefficient in every case is greater than 13, thus showing that in all probability 20, not 13, great cycles made 1 great-great cycle.
Therefore, since the great-great cycle signs in figure 61, d, e, are composed of the cycle sign plus a superfix (*
It has been shown that the first seven glyphs (A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9) probably all belong to the same series. Let us next examine the eighth term (A2) and see how it is formed.
As stated above, comparative evidence can help us no further, since the text under discussion is the only one which presents a number composed of more than seven terms. Nevertheless, the writer believes it will be possible to show by the morphology of this, the only glyph which occupies the position of an eighth term, that it is 20 times the glyph in the seventh position, and consequently that the vigesimal system was perfect to the highest known unit found in the Maya writing.
We have seen (1) that the sixth term was composed of the fifth term plus a superfix which increased the fifth 20 times, and (2) that the seventh term was composed of the fifth term plus a superfix which increased the fifth 400 times, or the sixth 20 times.
Now let us examine the only known example of a sign for the eighth term (A2, fig. 60). This glyph is composed of (1) the cycle sign; (2) a superfix of two elements, (a) the hand, and (b) a semicircular element in which dots appear.
But this same hand in the super-fix of the great-great cycle increased the cycle sign 400 times (20 × 20; see A3, fig. 60). Therefore we must assume the same condition obtains here. And finally, since the eighth term = 20 × 20 × 20 × cycle, we must recognize in the second element of the superfix (*
A close study of this element shows that it has two important points of resemblance to the superfix of the great-cycle glyph (see A4, fig. 60), which was shown to have the value 20: (1) Both elements have the same outline, roughly semicircular; (2) both elements have the same chain of dots around their edges.
Compare this element in A2, figure 60, with the superfixes in figure 61, a, b, bearing in mind that there is more than 275 years' difference in time between the carving of A2, figure 60, and a, figure 61, and more than 200 years between the former and figure 61, b. The writer believes both are variants of the same element, and consequently A2, figure 60, is probably composed of elements which signify 20 × 400 (20 × 20) × the cycle, which equals one great-great-great cycle, or term of the eighth place.
Thus on the basis of the glyphs themselves it seems possible to show that all belong to one and the same numerical series, which progresses according to the terms of a vigesimal system of numeration.
The several points supporting this conclusion may be summarized as follows:
1. The eight periods[84] in figure 60 are consecutive, their sequence being uninterrupted throughout. Consequently it seems probable that all belong to one and the same number.
2. It has been shown that the highest three period glyphs are composed of elements which multiply the cycle sign by 20, 400, and 8,000, respectively, which has to be the case if they are the sixth, seventh, and eighth terms, respectively, of the Maya vigesimal system of numeration.
3. The highest three glyphs have numerical coefficients, just like the five lower ones; this tends to show that all eight are terms of the same numerical series.
4. In the two texts which alone can furnish comparative data for this sixth term, the sixth-period glyph in each is identical with A4, figure 60, thus showing the existence of a sixth period in the inscriptions and a generally[85] accepted sign for it.
5. In the only other text which can furnish comparative data for the seventh term, the period glyph in its seventh place is identical with A3, figure 60; thus showing the existence of a seventh period in the inscriptions and a generally accepted sign for it.
6. The one term higher than the cycle in the Copan text, the two terms higher in the Palenque text, and the three terms higher in this text, are all built on the same basic element, the cycle, thus showing that in each case the higher term or terms is a continuation of the same number, not a Period-ending date, as suggested by Mr. Goodman for the Copan text.
7. The other two texts, showing series composed of more than five terms, have all their period glyphs in an unbroken sequence in each, like the text under discussion, thus showing that in each of these other two texts all the terms present probably belong to one and the same number.
8. Finally, the two occurrences of the cycle sign with a coefficient above 13, and the three occurrences of the great-cycle sign with a coefficient above 13, indicate that 20, not 13, was the unit of progression in the higher numbers in the inscriptions just as it was in the codices.
Before closing the discussion of this unique inscription, there is one other important point in connection with it which must be considered, because of its possible bearing on the meaning of the Initial-series introducing glyph.
The first five glyphs on the east side of Stela 10 at Tikal are not illustrated in figure 60. The sixth glyph is A1 in figure 60, and the remaining glyphs in this figure carry the text to the bottom of this side of the monument. The first of these five unfigured glyphs is very clearly an Initial-series introducing glyph. Of this there can be no doubt. The second resembles the day 8 Manik, though it is somewhat effaced. The remaining three are unknown. The next glyph, A1, figure 60, is very clearly another Initial-series introducing glyph, having all of the five elements common to that sign. Compare A1 with the forms for the Initial series introducing glyph in figure 24. This certainly would seem to indicate that an Initial Series is to follow. Moreover, the fourth glyph of the eight-term number following in A2-A9, inclusive (that is, A5), records "Cycle 9," the cycle in which practically all Initial-series dates fall. Indeed, if A2, A3, and A4 were omitted and A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9 were recorded immediately after A1, the record would be that of a regular Initial-series number (9.3.6.2.0). Can this be a matter of chance? If not, what effect can A2, A3, and A4 have on the Initial-series date in A1, A5-A9?
The writer believes that the only possible effect they could have would be to fix Cycle 9 of Maya chronology in a far more comprehensive and elaborate chronological conception, a conception which indeed staggers the imagination, dealing as it does with more than five million years.
If these eight terms all belong to one and the same numerical series, a fact the writer believes he has established in the foregoing pages, it means that Cycle 9, the first historic period of the Maya civilization, was Cycle 9 of Great Cycle 19 of Great-great Cycle 11 of Great-great-great Cycle 1. In other words, the starting point of Maya chronology, which we have seen was the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, 9 cycles before the close of a Cycle 9, was in reality 1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, or simply a fixed point in a far vaster chronological conception.
Furthermore, it proves, as contended by the writer on page 113, that a great cycle came to an end on this date, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This is true because on the above date (1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) all the five periods lower than the great cycle are at 0. It proves, furthermore, as the writer also contended, that the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, 13 cycles in advance of the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, did not end a great cycle—
1.
11.
19.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4 Ahau 8 Cumhu
13.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
11.
18.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4 Ahau 8 Cumhu
but, on the contrary, was a Cycle 7 of Great Cycle 18, the end of which (19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) was the starting point of Maya chronology.
It seems to the writer that the above construction is the only one that can be put on this text if we admit that the eight periods in A2-A9, figure 60, all belong to one and the same numerical series.
Furthermore, it would show that the great cycle in which fell the first historic period of the Maya civilization (Cycle 9) was itself the closing great cycle of a great-great cycle, namely, Great-great Cycle 11:
1.
11.
19.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
12.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
That is to say, that when Great Cycle 19 had completed itself, Great-great Cycle 12 would be ushered in.
We have seen on pages 108-113 that the names of the cycles followed one another in this sequence: Cycle 1, Cycle 2, Cycle 3, etc., to Cycle 13, which was followed by Cycle 1, and the sequence repeated itself. We saw, however, that these names probably had nothing to do with the positions of the cycles in the great cycle; that on the contrary these numbers were names and not positions in a higher term.
Now we have seen that Maya chronology began with a Cycle 1; that is, it was counted from the end of a Cycle 13. Therefore, the closing cycle of Great Cycle 19 of Great-great Cycle 11 of Great-great-great Cycle 1 was a Cycle 13, that is to say, 1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 13 Cumhu concluded a great cycle, the closing cycle of which was named Cycle 13. This large number, composed of one great-great-great cycle, eleven great-great cycles, and nineteen great cycles, contains exactly 12,780 cycles, as below:
1 great-great-great cycle
= 1 × 20 × 20 × 20 cycles
=
8,000 cycles
11 great-great cycles
= 11 × 20 × 20 cycles
=
4,400 cycles
19 great cycles
= 19 × 20 cycles
=
380 cycles
———
12,780 cycles
But the closing cycle of this number was named Cycle 13, and by deducting all the multiples of 13 possible (983) we can find the name of the first cycle of Great-great-great Cycle 1, the highest Maya time period of which we have any knowledge: 983 × 13 = 12,779. And deducting this from the number of cycles involved (12,780), we have—
12,780
12,779
———
1
This counted backward from Cycle 1, brings us again to a Cycle 13 as the name of the first cycle in the Maya conception of time. In other words, the Maya conceived time to have commenced, in so far as we can judge from the single record available, with a Cycle 13, not with the beginning of a Cycle 1, as they did their chronology.
We have still to explain A1, figure 60. This glyph is quite clearly a form of the Initial-series introducing glyph, as already explained, in which the five components of that glyph are present in usual form: (1) Trinal superfix; (2) pair of comb-like lateral appendages; (3) the tun sign; (4) the trinal subfix; (5) the variable central element, here represented by a grotesque head.
Of these, the first only claims our attention here. The trinal superfix in A1 (fig. 60), as its name signifies, is composed of three parts, but, unlike other forms of this element, the middle part seems to be nothing more nor less than a numerical dot or 1. The question at once arises, can the two flanking parts be merely ornamental and the whole element stand for the number 1? The introducing glyph at the beginning of this text (not figured here), so far as it can be made out, has a trinal superfix of exactly the same character—a dot with an ornamental scroll on each side. What can be the explanation of this element, and indeed of the whole glyph? Is it one great-great-great-great cycle—a period twenty times as great as the one recorded in A2, or is it not a term of the series in glyphs A2-A9? The writer believes that whatever it may be, it is at least not a member of this series, and in support of his belief he suggests that if it were, why should it alone be retained in recording all Initial-series dates, whereas the other three—the great-great-great cycle, the great-great cycle, and the great-cycle signs—have disappeared.
The following explanation, the writer believes, satisfactorily accounts for all of these points, though it is advanced here only by way of suggestion as a possible solution of the meaning of the Initial-series introducing glyph. It is suggested that in A1 we may have a sign representing "eternity," "this world," "time"; that is to say, a sign denoting the duration of the present world-epoch, the epoch of which the Maya civilization occupied only a small part. The middle dot of the upper element, being 1, denotes that this world-epoch is the first, or present, one, and the whole glyph itself might mean "the present world." The appropriateness of such a glyph ushering in every Initial-series date is apparent. It signified time in general, while the succeeding 7 glyphs denoted what particular day of time was designated in the inscription.
But why, even admitting the correctness of this interpretation of A1, should the great-great-great cycle, the great-great cycle, and the great cycle of their chronological scheme be omitted, and Initial-series dates always open with this glyph, which signifies time in general, followed by the current cycle? The answer to this question, the writer believes, is that the cycle was the greatest period with which the Maya could have had actual experience. It will be shown in Chapter V that there are a few Cycle-8 dates actually recorded, as well as a half a dozen Cycle-10 dates. That is, the cycle, which changed its coefficient every 400 years, was a period which they could not regard as never changing within the range of human experience. On the other hand, it was the shortest period of which they were uncertain, since the great cycle could change its coefficient only every 8,000 years—practically eternity so far as the Maya were concerned. Therefore it could be omitted as well as the two higher periods in a date without giving rise to confusion as to which great cycle was the current one. The cycle, on the contrary, had to be given, as its coefficient changed every 400 years, and the Maya are known to have recorded dates in at least three cycles—Nos. 8, 9, and 10. Hence, it was Great Cycle 19 for 8,000 years, Great-great Cycle 11 for 160,000, and Great-great-great Cycle 1 for 3,200,000 years, whereas it was Cycle 9 for only 400 years. This, not the fact that the Maya never had a period higher than the cycle, the writer believes was the reason why the three higher periods were omitted from Initial-series dates—they were unnecessary so far as accuracy was concerned, since there could never be any doubt concerning them.
It is not necessary to press this point further, though it is believed the foregoing conception of time had actually been worked out by the Maya. The archaic date recorded by Stela 10 at Tikal (9.3.6.2.0) makes this monument one of the very oldest in the Maya territory; indeed, there is only one other stela which has an earlier Initial Series, Stela 3 at Tikal. In the archaic period from which this monument dates the middle dot of the trinal superfix in the Initial-series introducing glyph may still have retained its numerical value, 1, but in later times this middle dot lost its numerical characteristics and frequently appears as a scroll itself.
The early date of Stela 10 makes it not unlikely that this process of glyph elaboration may not have set in at the time it was erected, and consequently that we have in this simplified trinal element the genesis of the later elaborated form; and, finally, that A1, figure 60, may have meant "the present world-epoch" or something similar.
In concluding the presentation of these three numbers the writer may express the opinion that a careful study of the period glyphs in figures 58-60 will lead to the following conclusions: (1) That the six periods recorded in the first, the seven in the second, and the eight or nine in the third, all belong to the same series in each case; and (2) that throughout the six terms of the first, the seven of the second, and the eight of the third, the series in each case conforms strictly to the vigesimal system of numeration given in Table VIII.
As mentioned on page 116 (footnote 2), in this method of recording the higher numbers the kin sign may sometimes be omitted without affecting the numerical value of the series wherein the omission occurs. In such cases the coefficient of the kin sign is usually prefixed to the uinal sign, the coefficient of the uinal itself standing above the uinal sign. In figure 58, for example, the uinal and the kin coefficients are both 0. In this case, however, the 0 on the left of the uinal sign is to be understood as belonging to the kin sign, which is omitted, while the 0 above the uinal sign is the uinal's own coefficient 0. Again in figure 59, the kin sign is omitted and the kin coefficient 1 is prefixed to the uinal sign, while the uinal's own coefficient 12 stands above the uinal sign. Similarly, the 12 uinals and 17 kins recorded in figure 56, d, might as well have been written as in o of the same figure, that is, with the kin sign omitted and its coefficient 17 prefixed to the uinal sign, while the uinal's own coefficient 12 appears above. Or again, the 9 uinals and 18 kins recorded in f also might have been written as in p, that is, with the kin sign omitted and the kin coefficient 18 prefixed to the uinal sign while the uinal's own coefficient 9 appears above.
In all the above examples the coefficients of the omitted kin signs are on the left of the uinal signs, while the uinal coefficients are above the uinal signs. Sometimes, however, these positions are reversed, and the uinal coefficient stands on the left of the uinal sign, while the kin coefficient stands above. This interchange in certain cases probably resulted from the needs of glyphic balance and symmetry. For example, in figure 62, a, had the kin coefficient 19 been placed on the left of the uinal sign, the uinal coefficient 4 would have been insufficient to fill the space above the period glyph, and consequently the corner of the glyph block would have appeared ragged. The use of the 19 above and the 4 to the left, on the other hand, properly fills this space, making a symmetrical glyph. Such cases, however, are unusual, and the customary position of the kin coefficient, when the kin sign is omitted, is on the left of the uinal sign, not above it. This practice, namely, omitting the kin sign in numerical series, seems to have prevailed extensively in connection with both Initial Series and Secondary Series; indeed, in the latter it is the rule to which there are but few exceptions.
In a vigesimal system of numeration the unit of increase is 20, and so far as the codices are concerned, as we shall presently see, this number was in fact the only unit of progression used, except in the 2d order, in which 18 instead of 20 units were required to make 1 unit of the 3d order. In other words, in the codices the Maya carried out their vigesimal system to six places without a break other than the one in the 2d place, just noted. See Table VIII.
Let us examine the passages in the inscriptions upon which these points rest. In three places[75] in the inscriptions the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is declared to have occurred at the end of a Cycle 13; that is, in these three places this date is accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13. In another place in the inscriptions, although the starting point 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is not itself expressed, the second cycle thereafter is declared to have been a Cycle 2, not a Cycle 15, as it would have been had the cycles been numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, like all the other periods.[76] In still another place the ninth cycle after the starting point (that is, the end of a Cycle 13) is not a Cycle 2 in the following great cycle, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but a Cycle 9, as if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. Again, the end of the tenth cycle after the starting point is recorded in several places, but not as Cycle 3 of the following great cycle, as if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but as Cycle 10, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. The above examples leave little doubt that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and not from 0 to 19, as in the case of the other periods. Thus, there can be no question concerning the truth of the first of the two above points on which this hypothesis rests.
The second point (see p. 108) on which rests the hypothesis of "13 cycles to a great cycle" in the inscriptions admits of no such plausible explanation as the first point. Indeed, it will probably never be known why in two inscriptions the Maya reckoned time from a starting point different from that used in all the others, one, moreover, which was 13 cycles in advance of the other, or more than 5,000 years earlier than the beginning of their chronology, and more than 8,000 years earlier than the beginning of their historic period. That this remoter starting point, 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, from which proceed so far as known only two inscriptions throughout the whole Maya area, stood at the end of a great cycle the writer does not believe, in view of the evidence presented on pages 114-127. On the contrary, the material given there tends to show that although the cycle which ended on the day 4 Ahau 8 Zotz was also named Cycle 13,[79] it was the 8th division of the grand cycle which ended on the day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, and not the closing division of the preceding grand cycle. However, without attempting to settle this question at this time, the writer inclines to the belief, on the basis of the evidence at hand, that the great cycle in the inscriptions was of the same length as in the codices, where it is known to have contained 20 cycles.
But why, even admitting the correctness of this interpretation of A1, should the great-great-great cycle, the great-great cycle, and the great cycle of their chronological scheme be omitted, and Initial-series dates always open with this glyph, which signifies time in general, followed by the current cycle? The answer to this question, the writer believes, is that the cycle was the greatest period with which the Maya could have had actual experience. It will be shown in Chapter V that there are a few Cycle-8 dates actually recorded, as well as a half a dozen Cycle-10 dates. That is, the cycle, which changed its coefficient every 400 years, was a period which they could not regard as never changing within the range of human experience. On the other hand, it was the shortest period of which they were uncertain, since the great cycle could change its coefficient only every 8,000 years—practically eternity so far as the Maya were concerned. Therefore it could be omitted as well as the two higher periods in a date without giving rise to confusion as to which great cycle was the current one. The cycle, on the contrary, had to be given, as its coefficient changed every 400 years, and the Maya are known to have recorded dates in at least three cycles—Nos. 8, 9, and 10. Hence, it was Great Cycle 19 for 8,000 years, Great-great Cycle 11 for 160,000, and Great-great-great Cycle 1 for 3,200,000 years, whereas it was Cycle 9 for only 400 years. This, not the fact that the Maya never had a period higher than the cycle, the writer believes was the reason why the three higher periods were omitted from Initial-series dates—they were unnecessary so far as accuracy was concerned, since there could never be any doubt concerning them.
[79] That it was a Cycle 13 is shown from the fact that it was just 13 cycles in advance of Cycle 13 ending on the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
The numbers 360 to 7,199, inclusive, are indicated by multiplying the kin, uinal, and tun signs by the numerals 0 to 19, and adding together the resulting products. For example, the number 360 is shown in figure 56, g. We have seen in Table VIII that 1 tun = 18 uinals; but 18 uinals = 360 kins (18 × 20 = 360); therefore 1 tun also = 360 kins. However, in order to show that no uinals and kins are involved in forming this number, it is necessary to record this fact, which was done by writing 0 uinals immediately below the 1 tun, and 0 kins immediately below the 0 uinals. The sum of these three products equals 360 (360 + 0 + 0 = 360). Again, the number 3,602 is shown in figure 56, h. The 10 tuns = 10 × 360 = 3,600 kins. This falls short of 3,602 by only 2 units of the first order (2 kins), therefore no uinals are involved in forming this number, a fact which is shown by the use of 0 uinals between the 10 tuns and 2 kins. The sum of these three products = 3,602 (3,600 + 0 + 2). Again, in figure 56, i, the number 7,100 is recorded. The 19 tuns = 19 × 360 = 6,840 kins, which falls short of 7,100 kins by 7,100 - 6,840 = 260 kins. But 260 kins = 13 uinals with no kins remaining. Consequently, the sum of these products equals 7,100 (6,840 + 260 + 0).
[80] See p. 156 and fig. 66 for method of designating the individual glyphs in a text.
[81] The kins are missing from this number (see A9, fig. 60). At the maximum, however, they could increase this large number only by 19. They have been used here as at 0.
[82] As will be explained presently, the kin sign is frequently omitted and its coefficient attached to the uinal glyph. See p. 127.
[83] Glyph A9 is missing but undoubtedly was the kin sign and coefficient.
[84] The lowest period, the kin, is missing. See A9, fig. 60.
[85] The use of the word "generally" seems reasonable here; these three texts come from widely separated centers—Copan in the extreme southeast, Palenque in the extreme west, and Tikal in the central part of the area.
Applying the foregoing explanation to those passages in the inscriptions which show that the enumeration of the cycles was from 1 to 13, inclusive, we may interpret them as follows: When we find the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in the inscriptions, accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13, that "Cycle 13," even granting that it stands at the end of some great cycle, does not signify that there were only 13 cycles in the great cycle of which it was a part. On the contrary, it records only the end of a particular Cycle 13, being a Period-ending date pure and simple. Such passages no more fix the length of the great cycle as containing 13 cycles than does the coefficient 13 of the day name 13 Ix in Table XI limit the number of days in a uinal to 13, or, again, the 13 of the katun name 13 Ahau in Table IX limit the number of katuns in a cycle to 13. This explanation not only accounts for the use of the 14 cycles or 17 cycles, as shown in figure 57, a, b, but also satisfactorily provides for the enumeration of the cycles from 1 to 13, inclusive.
The second of these three numbers (see fig. 59), if all of its seven terms belong to one and the same number, equals 455,393,401. Commencing at the bottom as in figure 58, the first term A4, has the coefficient 7. Since this is the term following the sixth, or great cycle, we may call it the great-great cycle. But we have seen that the great cycle = 2,880,000; therefore the great-great cycle = twenty times this number, or 57,600,000. Our text shows, however, that seven of these great-great cycles are used in the number in question, therefore our first term = 403,200,000. The rest may be reduced by means of Table VIII as follows: B3, 18 great cycles = 51,840,000; A3, 2 cycles = 288,000; B2, 9 katuns = 64,800; A2, 1 tun = 360; B1, 12 uinals = 240; B1, 1 kin = 1. The sum of these (403,200,000 + 51,840,000 + 288,000 + 64,800 + 360 + 240 +1) = 455,393,401.