Fig. 76Fig.76. The Cycle-10 Initial Series from Quen Santo (from drawings):A, Stela 1;B, Stela 2. There is less than a year's difference in time between the Chichen Itza Initial Series and the Initial Series inB.
Fig.76. The Cycle-10 Initial Series from Quen Santo (from drawings):A, Stela 1;B, Stela 2. There is less than a year's difference in time between the Chichen Itza Initial Series and the Initial Series inB.
Two other Initial Series whose cycle coefficient is 10 yet remain to be considered, namely, Stelæ 1 and 2 at Quen Santo.[171]The first of these is shown in figure76, A, but unfortunately only a fragment of this monument has been recovered. In A1-B2 appears a perfectly regular form of the introducing glyph (see fig.24), and this is followed in A3-B4 by the Initial-series number itself, with the exception of the kin, the glyph representing which has been broken off. The student will readily identify A3 as 10 cycles, noting the clasped hand on the head-variant period glyph, and B3 as 2 katuns. The glyph in A4 has very clearly the coefficient 5, and even though it does not seem to have the fleshless lower jaw of the tun head, from its position alone—after the unmistakable katun sign in B3 we are perfectly justified in assuming that 5 tuns are recorded here. Both the coefficient and the glyph in B4 are unfamiliar. However, as the former must be one of the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, since it is not one of the numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, it is clear that it must be a new form for 0. The sign to which it is attached bears no resemblance to either the normal form for the uinal or the head variant; but since it occupies the 4th position after the introducing glyph, B4, we are justified in assuming that 0 uinals are recorded here. Beyond this we can not proceed with certainty, though the values for the missing parts suggested below are probably those recorded on the lost fragments of the monument. As recorded in A3-B4 this number reads 10.2.5.0.?. Now, if we assume that the missing term is filled with 0, we shall have recorded the end of an even hotun in the Long Count, and this monument becomes a regular hotun-marker. That this monument was a hotun-marker is corroborated by the fact that Stela 2 from Quen Santo very clearly records the close of the hotun next after 10.2.5.0.0, which the writer believes this monument marks. Forthis reason it seems probable that the glyph which stood in A5 recorded 0 kins.
Reducing this number to units of the first order by means of TableXIII, we obtain:
Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 76 (see TableXVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be9 Ahau 18 Yax, and the whole Initial Series originally recorded on this monument was probably 10.2.5.0.09 Ahau 18 Yax.
In figure76,B, is shown Stela 2 from Quen Santo. The workmanship on this monument is somewhat better than on Stela 1 and, moreover, its Initial Series is complete. The introducing glyph appears in A1-B2 and is followed by the Initial-series number in A3-A5. Again, 10 cycles are very clearly recorded in A3, the clasped hand of the cycle head still appearing in spite of the weathering of this glyph. The katun sign in B3 is almost entirely effaced, though sufficient traces of its coefficient remain to enable us to identify it as 2. Note the position of the uneffaced dot with reference to the horizontal axis of the glyph. Another dot the same distance above the axis would come as near the upper left-hand corner of the glyph-block as the uneffaced dot does to the lower left-hand corner. Moreover, if 3 had been recorded here the uneffaced dot would have been nearer the bottom. It is clear that 1 and 4 are quite out of the question and that 2 remains the only possible value of the numeral here. We are justified in assuming that the effaced period glyph was the katun sign. In A4 10 tuns are very clearly recorded; note the fleshless lower jaw of the tun head. The uinal head with its characteristic mouth curl appears in B4. The coefficient of this latter glyph is identical with the uinal coefficient in the preceding text (see fig.76,A) in B4, which we there identified as a form for 0. Therefore we must make the same identification here, and B4 then becomes 0 uinals. From its position, if not from its appearance, we are justified in designating the glyph in A5 the head for the kin period; since the coefficient attached to this head is the same as the one in the preceding glyph (B4), we may therefore conclude that 0 kins are recorded here. The whole number expressed in A3-A5 istherefore 10.2.10.0.0. Reducing this to units of the first order by means of TableXIII, we have:
Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 76 (see TableXVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be2 Ahau 13 Chen. Although the day sign in B5 is effaced, the coefficient 2 appears quite clearly. The month glyph is recorded in A6. The student will have little difficulty in restoring the coefficient as 13, and the month glyph is certainly eitherChen, Yax, Zac, orCeh(compare fig.19,oandp,qandr,sandt, anduandv, respectively). Moreover, since the month coefficient is 13, the day sign in B5 can have been onlyChicchan, Oc, Men, orAhau(see TableVII); since the kin coefficient in A5 is 0, the effaced day sign must have beenAhau. Therefore the Initial Series on Stela 2 at Quen Santo reads 10.2.10.0.02 Ahau 13 Chenand marked the hotun immediately following the hotun commemorated by Stela 1 at the same site.
The student will note also that the date on Stela 2 at Quen Santo is less than a year later than the date recorded by the Initial Series on the Temple lintel from Chichen Itza (see fig.75,B). And a glance at the map in plate1will show, further, that Chichen Itza and Quen Santo are separated from each other by almost the entire length (north and south) of the Maya territory, the former being in the extreme northern part of Yucatan and the latter considerably to the south of the central Maya cities. The presence of two monuments so close together chronologically and yet so far apart geographically is difficult to explain. Moreover, the problem is further complicated by the fact that not one of the many cities lying between has yielded thus far a date as late as either of these.[173]The most logical explanation of this interesting phenomenon seems to be that while the main body of the Maya moved northward into Yucatan after the collapse of the southern cities others retreated southward into the highlands of Guatemala; that while the northern emigrantswere colonizing Yucatan the southern branch was laying the foundation of the civilization which was to flourish later under the name of the Quiche and other allied peoples; and finally, that as Chichen Itza was a later northern city, so Quen Santo was a later southern site, the two being at one period of their existence at least approximately contemporaneous, as these two Initial Series show.
It should be noted in this connection that Cycle-10 Initial Series are occasionally recorded in the Dresden Codex, though the dates in these cases are all later than those recorded on the Chichen Itza lintel and the Quen Santo stelæ. Before closing the presentation of Initial-series texts it is first necessary to discuss two very unusual and highly irregular examples of this method of dating, namely, the Initial Series from the east side of Stela C at Quirigua and the Initial Series from the tablet in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. The dates recorded in these two texts, so far as known,[174]are the only ones which are not counted from the starting point of Maya chronology, the date4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
In figure77,A, is shown the Initial Series on the east side of Stela C at Quirigua.[175]The introducing glyph appears in A1-B2, and is followed by the Initial-series number in A3-A5. The student will easily read this as 13.0.0.0.0. Reducing this number to units of the first order by means of TableXIII, we have:
Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 98[176](see TableXVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141), respectively, to the remainder, the terminal date reached should be, under ordinary circumstances,4 Ahau 3 Kankin. An inspection of our text, however, will show that the terminal date recorded in B5-A6 is unmistakably4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and not4 Ahau 3 Kankin. The month part in A6 is unusually clear, and there can be no doubtthat it is8 Cumhu. Compare A6 with figure19,g', h'. If we have made no mistake in calculations, then it is evident that 13.0.0.0.0 counted forward from the starting point of Maya chronology,4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, will not reach the terminal date recorded. Further, since the count in Initial Series has never been known to be backward,[177]we are forced to accept one of two conclusions: Either the starting point is not4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, or there is some error in the original text. However, there is one way by means of which we can ascertain the date from which the number 13.0.0.0.0 is counted. The terminal date reached by the count is recorded very clearly as4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. Now, if we reverse our operation and count the given number, 13.0.0.0.0,backwardfrom the known terminal date,4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, we reach the starting point from which the count proceeds.
Fig. 77Fig.77. Initial Series which proceed from a date prior to4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology:A, Stela C (east side) at Quirigua;B, Temple of the Cross at Palenque.
Fig.77. Initial Series which proceed from a date prior to4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology:A, Stela C (east side) at Quirigua;B, Temple of the Cross at Palenque.
Deducting from this number, as before, all the Calendar Rounds possible, 98 (see p.203, footnote 3), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140,141, respectively) to the remainder, remembering that in each operation the direction of the count isbackward, not forward,—the starting point will be found to be4 Ahau 8 Zotz. This is the first Initial Series yet encountered which has not proceeded from the date4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and until the new starting point here indicated can be substantiated it will be well to accept the correctness of this text only with a reservation. The most we can say at present is that if the number recorded in A3-A5, 13.0.0.0.0, be counted forward from4 Ahau 8 Zotzas a starting point, the terminal date reached by calculation will agree with the terminal date as recorded in B5-A6,4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
Let us next examine the Initial Series on the tablet from the Temple of the Cross at Palenque, which is shown in figure77,B.[178]The introducing glyph appears in A1-B2, and is followed by the Initial-series number in A3-B7. The period glyphs in B3, B4, B5, B6, and B7 are all expressed by their corresponding normal forms, which will be readily recognized. Passing over the cycle coefficient in A3 for the present, it is clear that the katun coefficient in A4 is 19. Note the dots around the mouth, characteristic of the head for 9 (fig.52,g-l), and the fleshless lower jaw, the essential element of the head for 10 (fig.52,m-r). The combination of the two gives the head in A4 the value of 19. The tun coefficient in A5 is equally clear as 13. Note the banded headdress, characteristic of the head for 3 (fig.51,h, i), and the fleshless lower jaw of the 10 head, the combination of the two giving the head for 13 (fig.52,w).[179]The head for 4 and the hand zero sign appear as the coefficient of the uinal and kin signs in A6 and A7, respectively. The number will read, therefore, ?.19.13.4.0. Let us examine the cycle coefficient in A3 again. The natural assumption, of course, is that it is 9. But the dots characteristic of the head for 9 are not to be found here. As this head has no fleshless lower jaw, it can not be 10 or any number above 13, and as there is no clasped hand associated with it, it can not signify 0, so we are limited to the numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,[180]6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13, as the numeral here recorded. Comparing this form with these numerals in figures51and52, it is evident that it can not be 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 13, and that it must therefore be 2, 11, or 12. Substituting these three values in turn, we have 2.19.13.4.0, 11.19.13.4.0, and 12.19.13.4.0 as the possible numbers recorded in A3-B7, and reducing these numbers to units of the first order and deducting the highest number of Calendar Rounds possible from each, and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively) to their remainders, the terminal dates reached will be:
If this text is perfectly regular and our calculations are correct, one of these three terminal dates will be found recorded, and the value of the cycle coefficient in A3 can be determined.
The terminal date of this Initial Series is recorded in A8-B9 and the student will easily read it as8 Ahau 18 Tzec. The only differencebetween the day coefficient and the month coefficient is that the latter has a fleshless lower jaw, increasing its value by 10. Moreover, comparison of the month sign in B9 withgandh, figure19, shows unmistakably that the month here recorded isTzec. But the terminal date as recorded does not agree with any one of the three above terminal dates as reached by calculation and we are forced to accept one of the two conclusions which confronted us in the preceding text (fig.77, A): Either the starting point of this Initial Series is not the date4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, or there is some error in the original text.[181]
Assuming that the ancient scribes made no mistakes in this inscription, let us count backward from the recorded terminal date,8 Ahau 18 Tzec, each of the three numbers 2.19.13.4.0, 11.19.13.4.0, and 12.19.13.4.0, one of which, we have seen, is recorded in A3-B7.
Reducing these numbers to units of the first order by means of TableXIII, and deducting all the Calendar Rounds possible from each (see TableXVI), and, finally, applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively), to the remainders, the starting points will be found to be:
Which of these starting points are we to accept as the one from which this number is counted? The correct answer to this question will give at the same time the value of the cycle coefficient, which, as we have seen, must be 2, 11, or 12. Most Maya students have accepted as the starting point of this Initial-series number the last of the three dates above given,4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which involves also the identification of the cycle coefficient in A3 as 12. The writer has reached the same conclusion from the following points:
1. The cycle coefficient in A3, except for its very unusual headdress, is almost identical with the other two head-variant numerals, whose values are known to be 12. These three head numerals are shown side by side in figure52,t-v, tbeing the form in A3 above, inserted in this figure for the sake of comparison. Although these three heads show no single element or characteristic that is present in all (see p.100), each is very similar to the other two and at the same time is dissimilar from all other head-variant numerals. This fact warrants the conclusion that the head in A3 represents the numeral 12, and if this is so the starting point of the Initial Series under discussion is4 Ahau 8 Zotz.
2. Aside from the fact that 12 seems to be the best reading of the head in A3, and consequently that the starting point of this number is4 Ahau 8 Zotz, the writer believes that4 Ahau 8 Zotzshould be selected, if for no other reason than that another Initial Series has been found which proceeds from this same date, while no other Initial Series known is counted from either7 Ahau 3 Molor3 Ahau 18 Mac.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 16
Plate 16INITIAL SERIES AND SECONDARY SERIES ON LINTEL 21, YAXCHILAN
INITIAL SERIES AND SECONDARY SERIES ON LINTEL 21, YAXCHILAN
As we have seen in discussing the preceding text, from the east side of Stela C at Quirigua (fig.77,A), the Initial Series there recorded was counted from the same starting point,4 Ahau 8 Zotz, as the Initial Series from the Temple of the Cross at Palenque, if we read the latter as 12.19.13.4.0. This coincidence, the writer believes, is sufficient to warrant the identification of the head in A3 (fig.77,B) as the head numeral 12 and the acceptance of this Initial Series as proceeding from the same starting point as the Quirigua text just described, namely, the date4 Ahau 8 Zotz. With these two examples the discussion of Initial-series texts will be closed.
Texts Recording Initial Series and Secondary Series
It has been explained (see pp.74-76) that in addition to Initial-series dating the Maya had another method of expressing their dates, known as Secondary Series, which was used when more than one date had to be recorded on the same monument. It was stated, further, that the accuracy of Secondary-series dating depended solely on the question whether or not the Secondary Series was referred to some date whose position in the Long Count was fixed either by the record of its Initial Series or in some other way. The next class of texts to be presented will be those showing the use of Secondary Series in connection with an Initial Series, by means of which the Initial-series values of the Secondary-series dates, that is, their proper positions in the Long Count, may be worked out even though they are not recorded in the text.
The first example presented will be the inscription on Lintel 21 at Yaxchilan, which is figured in plate16.[182]As usual, when an Initial Series is recorded, the introducing glyph opens the text and this sign appears in A1, being followed by the Initial-series number itself in B1-B3. This the student will readily decipher as 9.0.19.2.4, recording apparently a very early date in Maya history, within 20 years of 9.0.0.0.08 Ahau 13 Ceh, the date arbitrarily fixed by the writer as the opening of the first great period.
Reducing this number by means of TableXIIIto units of the first order[183]and deducting all the Calendar Rounds possible, 68 (see TableXVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be2 Kan 2 Yax. This date the student will find recorded in A4 and A7a, glyph B6b being the month-sign "indicator," or the closing glyph of theSupplementary Series, here shown with the coefficient 9. Compare the day sign in A4a with the sign forKanin figure16,f, and the month sign in A7a with the sign forYaxin figure19,q, r. We have then recorded in A1-A4[184], and A7a the Initial-series date 9.0.19.2.42 Kan 2 Yax. At first sight it would appear that this early date indicates the time at or near which this lintel was inscribed, but a closer examination reveals a different condition. Following along through the glyphs of this text, there is reached in C3-C4 still another number in which the normal forms of the katun, tun, and uinal signs clearly appear in connection with bar and dot coefficients. The question at once arises, Has the number recorded here anything to do with the Initial Series, which precedes it at the beginning of this text?
Let us first examine this number before attempting to answer the above question. It is apparent at the outset that it differs from the Initial-series numbers previously encountered in several respects:
1. There is no introducing glyph, a fact which at once eliminates the possibility that it might be an Initial Series.
2. There is no kin period glyph, the uinal sign in C3 having two coefficients instead of one.
3. The order of the period glyphs is reversed, the highest period, here the katun, closing the series instead of commencing it as heretofore.
It has been explained (see p.129) that in Secondary Series the order of the period glyphs is almost invariably the reverse of that shown by the period glyphs in Initial Series; and further, that the former are usually presented as ascending series, that is, with the lowest units first, and the latter invariably as descending series, with the highest units first. It has been explained also (see p.128) that in Secondary Series the kin period glyph is usually omitted, the kin coefficient being attached to the left of the uinal sign. Since both of these points (see 2 and 3, above) are characteristic of the number in C3-C4, it is probable that a Secondary Series is recorded here, and that it expresses 5 kins, 16 uinals, 1 tun, and 15 katuns. Reversing this, and writing it according to the notation followed by most Maya students (see p.138, footnote 1), we have as the number recorded by C3-C4, 15.1.16.5.
Reducing this number to units of the first order by means of TableXIII, we have:
Since all the Calendar Rounds which this number contains, 5 (seeTableXVI) may be deducted from it without affecting its value, we can further reduce it to 13,785 (108,685-94,900), and this will be the number used in the following calculations.
It was stated (on p.135) in describing the direction of the count that numbers are usually counted forward from the dates next preceding them in a text, although this is not invariably true. Applying this rule to the present case, it is probable that the Secondary-series number 15.1.16.5, which we have reduced to 13,785 units of the first order, is countedforwardfrom the date2 Kan 2 Yax, the one next preceding it in our text, a date, moreover, the Initial-series value of which is known.
Remembering that this date2 Kan 2 Yaxis our new starting point, and that the count is forward, by applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively), to 13,785, the new terminal date reached will be7 Muluc 17 Tzec; and this date is recorded in C5-D5. Compare C5 with the sign for the dayMulucin figure16,m, n, and D5 with the sign for the monthTzecin figure19,g, h. Furthermore, by adding the Secondary-series number 15.1.16.5 to 9.0.19.2.4 (the Initial-series number which fixes the position of the date2 Kan 2 Yaxin the Long Count), the Initial-series value of the terminal date of the Secondary Series (calculated and identified above as7 Muluc 17 Tzec) can also be determined as follows:
The student may verify the above calculations by treating 9.16.1.0.9 as a new Initial-series number, and counting it forward from4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology. The terminal date reached will be found to be the same date as the one recorded in C5-D5, namely,7 Muluc 17 Tzec.
What is the meaning then of this text, which records two dates nearly 300 years apart?[185]It must be admitted at the outset that the nature of the events which occurred on these two dates, a matter probably set forth in the glyphs of unknown meaning in the text, is totally unknown. It is possible to gather from other sources, however, some little data concerning their significance. In the first place, 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzecis almost surely the "contemporaneous date" of this lintel, the date indicating the time at or near which it was formally dedicated or put into use. This point is established almost to a certainty by the fact that all the other dates known at Yaxchilan are very much nearer to 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzecin pointof time than to 9.0.19.2.42 Kan 2 Yax, the Initial-series date recorded on this lintel. Indeed, while they range from 9 days[186]to 75 years from the former, the one nearest the latter is more than 200 years later. This practically proves that 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzecindicates the "contemporaneous time" of this lintel and that 9.0.19.2.42 Kan 2 Yaxreferred to some earlier event which took place perhaps even before the founding of the city. And finally, since this inscription is on a lintel, we may perhaps go a step further and hazard the conclusion that 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzecrecords the date of the erection of the structure of which this lintel is a part.
We may draw from this inscription a conclusion which will be found to hold good in almost all cases, namely, that the last date in a text almost always indicates the "contemporaneous time" of the monument upon which it appears. In the present text, for example, the Secondary-series date7 Muluc 17 Tzec, the Initial-series value of which was found to be 9.16.1.0.9, is in all probability its contemporaneous date, or very near thereto. It will be well to remember this important point, since it enables us to assign monuments upon which several different dates are recorded to their proper periods in the Long Count.
The next example illustrating the use of Secondary Series with an Initial Series is the inscription from Stela 1 at Piedras Negras, figured in plate17.[187]The order of the glyphs in this text is somewhat irregular. It will be noted that there is an uneven number of glyph columns, so that one column will have to be read by itself. The natural assumption would be that A and B, C and D, and E and F are read together, leaving G, the last column, to be read by itself. This is not the case, however, for A, presenting the Initial Series, is read first, and then B C, D E, and F G, in pairs. The introducing glyph of the Initial Series appears in A1 and is followed by the Initial-series number 9.12.2.0.16 in A2-A6. The student should be perfectly familiar by this time with the processes involved in counting this number from its starting point, and should have no difficulty in determing by calculation the terminal date recorded in A7, C2, namely,5 Cib 14 Yaxkin.[188]Compare A7 with the sign forCibin figure16,z, and C2 with the sign forYaxkinin figure19,k, l. The Initial Series recorded in A1-A7, C2 is 9.12.2.0.165 Cib 14 Yaxkin.
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 17
Plate 17INITIAL SERIES AND SECONDARY SERIES ON STELA 1, PIEDRAS NEGRAS
INITIAL SERIES AND SECONDARY SERIES ON STELA 1, PIEDRAS NEGRAS
Passing over the glyphs in B3-E1, the meanings of which are unknown, we reach in D2 E2 a number showing very clearly the tun and uinal signs, the latter having two coefficients instead of one. Moreover, the order of these period glyphs is reversed, the lower standing first in the series. As explained in connection with the preceding text, these points are both characteristic of Secondary-series numbers, and we may conclude therefore that D2 E2 records a number of this kind. Finally, since the kin coefficient in Secondary Series usually appears on the left of the uinal sign, we may express this number in the commonly accepted notation as follows: 12.9.15. Reducing this to units of the first order, we have:
Remembering that Secondary-series numbers are usually counted from the dates next preceding them in the texts, in this case5 Cib 14 Yaxkin, and proceeding according to rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively), the terminal date of the Secondary Series reached will be9 Chuen 9 Kankin, which is recorded in F1 G1, though unfortunately these glyphs are somewhat effaced. Moreover, since the position of5 Cib 14 Yaxkinin the Long Count is known, that is, its Initial-series value, it is possible to determine the Initial-series value of this new date,9 Chuen 9 Kankin:
But the end of this text has not been reached with the date9 Chuen 9 Kankinin F1 G1. Passing over F2 G2, the meanings of which are unknown, we reach in F3 an invertedAhauwith the coefficient 5 above it. As explained on page72, this probably signifies 5 kins, the inversion of the glyph changing its meaning from that of a particular day sign,Ahau, to a general sign for the kin day period (see fig.34,d). The writer recalls but one other instance in which the invertedAhaustands for the kin sign—on the north side of Stela C at Quirigua.
We have then another Secondary-series number consisting of 5 kins, which is to be counted from some date, and since Secondary-series numbers are usually counted from the date next preceding them in the text, we are justified in assuming that9 Chuen 9 Kankinis our new starting point.
Counting 5 forward from this date, according to rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively), the terminal date reached will be1 Cib 14 Kankin, and this latter date is recorded in G3-G4. Compare G3 with the sign forCibin A7 and in figure16,z, and G4 with the sign forKankinin figure19,y, z. Moreover, since the Initial-series value of9 Chuen 9 Kankinwas calculated above as 9.12.14.10.11,the Initial-series value of this new date,1 Cib 14 Kankin, also can be calculated from it:
Passing over G5 as unknown, we reach in G6-G7 another Secondary-series number. The student will have little difficulty in identifying G6 as 2 uinals, 5 kins, and G7 as 1 katun. It will be noted that no tun sign appears in this number, which is a very unusual condition. By far the commoner practice in such cases in which 0 units of some period are involved is to record the period with a coefficient 0. However, this was not done in the present case, and since no tuns are recorded, we may conclude that none were involved, and G6-G7 may be written 1.(0).2.5. Reducing this number to units of the first order, we have:
Remembering that the starting point from which this number is counted is the date next preceding it,1 Cib 14 Kankin, and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp.139,140, and141, respectively), the terminal date reached will be5 Imix 19 Zac; this latter date is recorded in G8-G9. Compare G8 with the sign forImixin figure16,a, b, and G9 with the sign forZacin figure19,s, t. Moreover, since the Initial Series of1 Cib 14 Kankinwas obtained by calculation from the date next preceding it, the Initial Series of5 Imix 19 Zacmay be determined in the same way.
With the above date closes the known part of this text, the remaining glyphs, G10-G12, being of unknown meaning.
Assembling all the glyphs deciphered above, the known part of this text reads as follows:
BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGYBULLETIN 57 PLATE 18