[149]There are one or two earlier Initial Series which probably record contemporaneous dates; these are not inscribed on large stone monuments but on smaller antiquities, namely, the Tuxtla Statuette and the Leyden Plate. For the discussion of these early contemporaneous Initial Series, see pp.194-198.[150]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 4-7.[151]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pls. 80-82.[152]As explained on p.179, footnote 1, this Initial Series refers probably to some mythological event rather than to any historical occurrence. The date here recorded precedes the historic period of the Maya civilization by upward of 3,000 years.[153]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902;IV, pls. 87-89.[154]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 23.[155]It is clear that if all the period coefficients above the kin have been correctly identified, even though the kin coefficient is unknown, by designating it 0 the date reached will be within 19 days of the date originally recorded. Even though its maximum value (19) had originally been recorded here, it could have carried the count only 19 days further. By using 0 as the kin coefficient, therefore, we can not be more than 19 days from the original date.[156]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 88, 89.[157]While at Copan the writer made a personal examination of this monument and found that Mr. Maudslay's drawing is incorrect as regards the coefficient of the day sign. The original has two numerical dots between two crescents, whereas the Maudslay drawing shows one numerical dot between two distinct pairs of crescents, each pair, however, of different shape.[158]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 41-44.[159]For the text of this monument see Spinden, 1913:VI, pl. 23, 2.[160]For the discussion of full-figure glyphs, see pp.65-73.[161]The characteristics of the heads for 7, 14, 16, and 19 will be found in the heads for 17, 4, 6, and 9, respectively.[162]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 47, 48.[163]The student will note also in connection with this glyph that the pair of comblike appendages usually found are here replaced by a pair of fishes. As explained on pp.65-66, the fish represents probably the original form from which the comblike element was derived in the process of glyph conventionalization. The full original form of this element is therefore in keeping with the other full-figure forms in this text.[164]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 66-71.[165]The student should remember that in this diagonal the direction of reading is from bottom to top. See pl.15,B, glyphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. Consequently the upper half of 13 follows the lower half in this particular glyph.[166]For the full text of this inscription see Hewett, 1911: pl.XXIIB.[167]A few monuments at Quirigua, namely, Stelæ F, D, E, and A, have two Initial Series each. In A both of the Initial Series have 0 for the coefficients of their uinal and kin glyphs, and in F, D, E, the Initial Series which shows the position of the monument in the Long Count, that is, the Initial Series showing the katun ending which it marks, has 0 for its uinal and kin coefficients.[168]In 1913 Mr. M. D. Landry, superintendent of the Quirigua district, Guatemala division of the United Fruit Co., found a still earlier monument about half a mile west of the main group. This has been named Stela S. It records the katun ending prior to the one on Stela H, i. e., 9.15.15.0.09 Ahau 18 Xul.[169]For the full text of this inscription see Holmes, 1907: pp. 691 et seq., and pls. 34-41.[170]For a full discussion of the Tuxtla Statuette, including the opinions of several writers as to its inscription, see Holmes, 1907: pp. 691 et seq. The present writer gives therein at some length the reasons which have led him to accept this inscription as genuine and contemporaneous.[171]For the full text of these inscriptions, see Seler, 1902-1908:II, 253, and 1901 c: I, 23, fig.7. During his last visit to the Maya territory the writer discovered that Stela 11 at Tikal has a Cycle-10 Initial Series, namely, 10.2.0.0.0.3 Ahau 3 Ceh.[172]Missing.[173]At Seibal a Period-ending date 10.1.0.0.05 Ahau 3 Kayabis clearly recorded, but this is some 30 years earlier than either of the Initial Series here under discussion, a significant period just at this particular epoch of Maya history, which we have every reason to believe was filled with stirring events and quickly shifting scenes. Tikal, with the Initial Series 10.2.0.0.03 Ahau 3 Ceh, and Seibal with the same date (not as an Initial Series, however) are the nearest, though even these fall 10 years short of the Quen Santo and Chichen Itza Initial Series.[174]Up to the present time no successful interpretation of the inscription on Stela C at Copan has been advanced. The inscription on each side of this monument is headed by an introducing glyph, but in neither case is this followed by an Initial Series. A number consisting of 11.14.5.1.0 is recorded in connection with the date6 Ahau 18 Kayab, but as this date does not appear to be fixed in the Long Count, there is no way of ascertaining whether it is earlier or later than the starting point of Maya chronology. Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 195-196) offers an interesting explanation of this monument, to which the student is referred for the possible explanation of this text. A personal inspection of this inscription failed to confirm, however, the assumption on which Mr. Bowditch's conclusions rest. For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 39-41.[175]For the full text of this inscription, see ibid.:II, pls. 16, 17, 19.[176]TableXVIcontains only 80 Calendar Rounds (1,518,400), but by adding 18 Calendar Rounds (341,640) the number to be subtracted, 98 Calendar Rounds (1,860,040), will be reached.[177]Counting 13.0.0.0.0 backward from the starting point of Maya chronology,4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, gives the date4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which is no nearer the terminal date recorded in B5-A6 than the date4 Ahau 3 Kankinreached by counting forward.[178]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pls. 73-77.[179]As noted in Chapter IV, this is one of the only two heads for 13 found in the inscriptions which is composed of the essential element of the 10 head applied to the 3 head, the combination of the two giving 13. Usually the head for 13 is represented by a form peculiar to this number alone and is not built up by the combination of lower numbers as in this case.[180]Although at first sight the headdress resembles the tun sign, a closer examination shows that it is not this element.[181]Similarly, it could be shown that the use of every other possible value of the cycle coefficient will not give the terminal date actually recorded.[182]For the full text of this inscription see Maler, 1903:II, No. 2, pl. 56.[183]From this point on this step will be omitted, but the student is urged to perform the calculations necessary in each case to reach the terminal dates recorded.[184]Since the introducing glyph always accompanies an Initial Series, it has here been included as a part of it, though, as has been explained elsewhere, its function is unknown.[185]The number 15.1.16.5 is equal to 108,685 days, or 297½ years.[186]It is interesting to note in this connection that the date 9.16.1.0.011 Ahau 8 Tzec, which is within 9 days of 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzec, is recorded in four different inscriptions at Yaxchilan, one of which (see pl.9,A) has already been figured.[187]For the full text of this inscription see Maler, 1901:II, No. 1, pl. 12.[188]The month-sign indicator appears in B2 with a coefficient 10.[189]Not expressed.[190]The writer has recently established the date of this monument as 9.13.15.0.013 Ahau 18 Pax, or 99 days later than the above date.[191]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 47-49.[192]Although the details of the day and month signs are somewhat effaced, the coefficient in each case is 3, agreeing with the coefficients in the Initial-series terminal date, and the outline of the month glyph suggests that it is probablyYax. See fig.19,q, r.[193]Since the Maya New Year's day,0 Pop, always fell on the 16th of July, the day3 Yaxalways fell on Jan. 15th, at the commencement of the dry season.[194]Since0 Popfell on July 16th (Old Style),18 Kayabfell on June 19th, which is very near the summer solstice, that is, the seeming northern limit of the sun, and roughly coincident with the beginning of the rainy season at Quirigua.[195]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 46.[196]Bracketed dates are those which are not actually recorded but which are reached by numbers appearing in the text.[197]Although not recorded, the number 1.14.6 is the distance from the date 9.15.5.0.0 reached by the Secondary Series on one side to the starting point of the Secondary Series on the other side, that is, 9.15.6.14.66 Cimi 4 Tzec.[198]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 37, 39, 40. For convenience in figuring, the lower parts of columns A and B are shown inBinstead of below the upper part. The numeration of the glyph-blocks, however, follows the arrangement in the original.[199]This is one of the two Initial Series which justified the assumptions made in the previous text that the date12 Caban 5 Kayab, which was recorded there, had the Initial-series value 9.14.13.4.17, as here.[200]This is the text in which the Initial-series value 9.15.6.14.6 was found attached to the date6 Cimi 4 Tzec.[201]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 38, 40.[202]The frontlet seems to be composed of but one element, indicating for this head the value 8 instead of 1. However, as the calculations point to 1, it is probable there was originally another element to the frontlet.[203]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 102, west side, glyphs A5b-A7a.[204]See ibid.:IV, pl. 81, glyphs N15 O15.[205]See Maler, 1908 b:IV, No. 2, pl. 38, east side, glyphs A17-B18.[206]See ibid., 1911:V, pl. 26, glyphs A1-A4.[207]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 104, glyphs A7, B7.[208]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 60, glyphs M1-N2.[209]Maler, 1911:V, pl. 17, east side, glyphs A4-A5.[210]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 19, west side, glyphs B10-A12.[211]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 75, glyphs D3-C5.[212]See Maler, 1901:II, No. 1, pl. 8, glyphs A1-A2.[213]See Maudslay, op. cit., pl. 81, glyphs C7-D8.[214]It will be remembered thatUayebwas the name for thexma kaba kin, the 5 closing days of the year. Dates which fall in this period are exceedingly rare, and in the inscriptions, so far as the writer knows, have been found only at Palenque and Tikal.[215]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 77, glyphs P14-R2. Glyphs Q15-P17 are omitted from pl.22,G, as they appear to be uncalendrical.[216]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 100, glyphs C1 D1, A2.[217]This excludes Stela C, which has two Initial Series (see figs.68and77), though neither of them, as explained on p.175, footnote 1, records the date of this monument. The true date of this monument is declared by the Period-ending date figured in pl.21,H, which is 9.17.0.0.06 Ahau 13 Kayab. (See p.226.)[218]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 44, west side, glyphs G4 H4, F5.[219]The dates 10.2.5.0.0 9Ahau 18 Yaxand 10.2.10.0.02 Ahau 13 Chenon Stelæ 1 and 2, respectively, at Quen Santo, are purposely excluded from this statement. Quen Santo is in the highlands of Guatemala (see pl.1) and is well to the south of the Usamacintla region. It rose to prominence probably after the collapse of the great southern cities and is to be considered as inaugurating a new order of things, if not indeed a new civilization.[220]See Maler, 1908 a:IV, No. 1, pl. 9, glyphs E2, F2, A3, and A4.[221]The student will note that the lower periods (the tun, uinal, and kin signs) are omitted and consequently are to be considered as having the coefficient 0.[222]The usual positions of the uinal and kin coefficients in D4a are reversed, the kin coefficient 10 standing above the uinal sign instead of at the left of it. The calculations show, however, that 10, not 11, is the kin coefficient.[223]In this number also the positions of the uinal and kin coefficients are reversed.[224]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 28-32.[225]The student will note that 12, not 13, tuns are recorded in A5. As explained elsewhere (see pp.247, 248), this is an error on the part of the ancient scribe who engraved this inscription. The correct tun coefficient is 13, as used above.[226]This Secondary-series number is doubly irregular. In the first place, the kin and uinal coefficients are reversed, the latter standing to the left of its sign instead of above, and in the second place, the uinal coefficient, although it is 14, has an ornamental dot between the two middle dots.[227]Since we countedbackward1.14.6 from6 Cimi 4 Tzecto reach10 Ahau 8 Chen, we mustsubtract1.14.6 from the Initial-series value of6 Cimi 4 Tzecto reach the Initial-series value of10 Ahau 8 Chen.[228]It is obvious that the kin and uinal coefficients are reversed in A17b since the coefficient above the uinal sign is very clearly 19, an impossible value for the uinal coefficient in the inscriptions, 19 uinalsalwaysbeing written 1 tun, 1 uinal. Therefore the 19 must be the kin coefficient. See also p.110, footnote 1.[229]The first glyph of the Supplementary Series, B6a, very irregularly stands between the kin period glyph and the day part of the terminal date.[230]Incorrectly recorded as 12. See pp.247,248.[231]In this table the numbers showing the distances have been omitted and all dates are shown in terms of their corresponding Initial-series numbers, in order to facilitate their comparison. The contemporaneous date of each monument is given in bold-faced figures and capital letters, and the student will note also that this date not only ends a hotun in each case but is, further, the latest date in each text.[232]The Initial Series on the west side of Stela D at Quirigua is 9.16.13.4.178 Caban 5 Yaxkin, which was just 2 katuns later than 9.14.13.4.1712 Caban 5 Kayab, or, in other words, the second katun anniversary, if the term anniversary may be thus used, of the latter date.[233]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 50.[234]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 112.[235]Every fourth hotun ending in the Long Count was a katun ending at the same time, namely:9.16.0.0.002 Ahau 13 Tzec9.16.5.0.008 Ahau 8 Zotz9.16.10.0.001 Ahau 3 Zip9.16.15.0.007 Ahau 18 Pop9.17.0.0.013 Ahau 18 Cumhuetc.[236]Maler, 1911: No. 1, p. 40.[237]For a seeming exception to this statement, in the codices, see p.110, footnote 1.[238]That is, the age of one compared with the age of another, without reference to their actual age as expressed in terms of our own chronology.[239]See Chapter II for the discussion of this point and the quotations from contemporary authorities, both Spanish and native, on which the above statement is based.[240]As explained on p.31, tonalamatls were probably used by the priests in making prophecies or divinations. This, however, is a matter apart from their composition, that is, length, divisions, dates, and method of counting, which more particularly concerns us here.[241]The codices are folded like a screen or fan, and when opened form a continuous strip sometimes several yards in length. As will appear later, in many cases one tonalamatl runs across several pages of the manuscript.[242]If there should be two or more columns of day signs the topmost sign of the left-hand column is to be read first.[243]In the original this last red dot has disappeared. The writer has inserted it here to avoid confusing the beginner in his first acquaintance with a tonalamatl.[244]This and similar outlines which follow are to be read down in columns.[245]The fifth sign in the lower row is also a sign of the Death God (see fig.3). Note the eyelashes, suggesting the closed eyes of the dead.[246]The last signChuen, as mentioned above, is only a repetition of the first sign, indicating that the tonalamatl has re-entered itself.[247]As previously stated, the order of reading the glyphs in columns is from left to right and top to bottom.[248]The right-hand dot of the 13 is effaced.[249]The manuscript has incorrectly 7.[250]In the title of plate30the page number should read 102 instead of 113.[251]The manuscript incorrectly has 24.[252]Incorrectly recorded as 13 in the text.[253]Incorrectly recorded as 15 in the text.[254]Bull. 28, Bur. Amer. Ethn., p. 400.[255]The terminal dates reached have been omitted, since for comparative work the Initial-series numbers alone are sufficient to show the relative positions in the Long Count.[256]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.13.3.13.2; that is, reversing the position of the tun and uinal coefficients.[257]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.8.3.16.4. The katun coefficient is changed to 13, above. These corrections are all suggested by Professor Förstemann and are necessary if the calculations he suggests are correct, as seems probable.[258]The manuscript incorrectly reads 8.16.4.11.0. The uinal coefficient is changed to an 8, above.[259]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.19.6.0.8. The uinal coefficient is changed to 1, above.[260]The manuscript incorrectly reads 9.16.4.10.18. The uinal coefficient is changed to 11, above.[261]The manuscript incorrectly reads 9.19.8.7.8. The tun coefficient is changed to 5, above.[262]Bowditch, 1909: p. 279.[263]The manuscript has incorrectly16 Uo. It is obvious this can not be correct, since from TableVIIKancan occupy only the 2d, 7th, 12th, or 17th position in the months. The correct reading here, as we shall see, is probably17 Uo. This reading requires only the addition of a single dot.[264]In the text the coefficient appears to be 8, but in reality it is 9, the lower dot having been covered by the marginal line at the bottom.[265]Counting backward 8.2.0 (2,920) from9 Ahau, 1 Ahauis reached.[266]Professor Förstemann restored the top terms of the four numbers in this row, so as to make them read as given above.[267]The manuscript reads 1.12.5.0, which Professor Förstemann corrects to 1.12.8.0; in other words, changing the uinal from 5 to 8. This correction is fully justified in the above calculations.
[149]There are one or two earlier Initial Series which probably record contemporaneous dates; these are not inscribed on large stone monuments but on smaller antiquities, namely, the Tuxtla Statuette and the Leyden Plate. For the discussion of these early contemporaneous Initial Series, see pp.194-198.
[150]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 4-7.
[151]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pls. 80-82.
[152]As explained on p.179, footnote 1, this Initial Series refers probably to some mythological event rather than to any historical occurrence. The date here recorded precedes the historic period of the Maya civilization by upward of 3,000 years.
[153]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902;IV, pls. 87-89.
[154]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 23.
[155]It is clear that if all the period coefficients above the kin have been correctly identified, even though the kin coefficient is unknown, by designating it 0 the date reached will be within 19 days of the date originally recorded. Even though its maximum value (19) had originally been recorded here, it could have carried the count only 19 days further. By using 0 as the kin coefficient, therefore, we can not be more than 19 days from the original date.
[156]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 88, 89.
[157]While at Copan the writer made a personal examination of this monument and found that Mr. Maudslay's drawing is incorrect as regards the coefficient of the day sign. The original has two numerical dots between two crescents, whereas the Maudslay drawing shows one numerical dot between two distinct pairs of crescents, each pair, however, of different shape.
[158]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 41-44.
[159]For the text of this monument see Spinden, 1913:VI, pl. 23, 2.
[160]For the discussion of full-figure glyphs, see pp.65-73.
[161]The characteristics of the heads for 7, 14, 16, and 19 will be found in the heads for 17, 4, 6, and 9, respectively.
[162]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 47, 48.
[163]The student will note also in connection with this glyph that the pair of comblike appendages usually found are here replaced by a pair of fishes. As explained on pp.65-66, the fish represents probably the original form from which the comblike element was derived in the process of glyph conventionalization. The full original form of this element is therefore in keeping with the other full-figure forms in this text.
[164]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 66-71.
[165]The student should remember that in this diagonal the direction of reading is from bottom to top. See pl.15,B, glyphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. Consequently the upper half of 13 follows the lower half in this particular glyph.
[166]For the full text of this inscription see Hewett, 1911: pl.XXIIB.
[167]A few monuments at Quirigua, namely, Stelæ F, D, E, and A, have two Initial Series each. In A both of the Initial Series have 0 for the coefficients of their uinal and kin glyphs, and in F, D, E, the Initial Series which shows the position of the monument in the Long Count, that is, the Initial Series showing the katun ending which it marks, has 0 for its uinal and kin coefficients.
[168]In 1913 Mr. M. D. Landry, superintendent of the Quirigua district, Guatemala division of the United Fruit Co., found a still earlier monument about half a mile west of the main group. This has been named Stela S. It records the katun ending prior to the one on Stela H, i. e., 9.15.15.0.09 Ahau 18 Xul.
[169]For the full text of this inscription see Holmes, 1907: pp. 691 et seq., and pls. 34-41.
[170]For a full discussion of the Tuxtla Statuette, including the opinions of several writers as to its inscription, see Holmes, 1907: pp. 691 et seq. The present writer gives therein at some length the reasons which have led him to accept this inscription as genuine and contemporaneous.
[171]For the full text of these inscriptions, see Seler, 1902-1908:II, 253, and 1901 c: I, 23, fig.7. During his last visit to the Maya territory the writer discovered that Stela 11 at Tikal has a Cycle-10 Initial Series, namely, 10.2.0.0.0.3 Ahau 3 Ceh.
[172]Missing.
[173]At Seibal a Period-ending date 10.1.0.0.05 Ahau 3 Kayabis clearly recorded, but this is some 30 years earlier than either of the Initial Series here under discussion, a significant period just at this particular epoch of Maya history, which we have every reason to believe was filled with stirring events and quickly shifting scenes. Tikal, with the Initial Series 10.2.0.0.03 Ahau 3 Ceh, and Seibal with the same date (not as an Initial Series, however) are the nearest, though even these fall 10 years short of the Quen Santo and Chichen Itza Initial Series.
[174]Up to the present time no successful interpretation of the inscription on Stela C at Copan has been advanced. The inscription on each side of this monument is headed by an introducing glyph, but in neither case is this followed by an Initial Series. A number consisting of 11.14.5.1.0 is recorded in connection with the date6 Ahau 18 Kayab, but as this date does not appear to be fixed in the Long Count, there is no way of ascertaining whether it is earlier or later than the starting point of Maya chronology. Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 195-196) offers an interesting explanation of this monument, to which the student is referred for the possible explanation of this text. A personal inspection of this inscription failed to confirm, however, the assumption on which Mr. Bowditch's conclusions rest. For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pls. 39-41.
[175]For the full text of this inscription, see ibid.:II, pls. 16, 17, 19.
[176]TableXVIcontains only 80 Calendar Rounds (1,518,400), but by adding 18 Calendar Rounds (341,640) the number to be subtracted, 98 Calendar Rounds (1,860,040), will be reached.
[177]Counting 13.0.0.0.0 backward from the starting point of Maya chronology,4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, gives the date4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which is no nearer the terminal date recorded in B5-A6 than the date4 Ahau 3 Kankinreached by counting forward.
[178]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pls. 73-77.
[179]As noted in Chapter IV, this is one of the only two heads for 13 found in the inscriptions which is composed of the essential element of the 10 head applied to the 3 head, the combination of the two giving 13. Usually the head for 13 is represented by a form peculiar to this number alone and is not built up by the combination of lower numbers as in this case.
[180]Although at first sight the headdress resembles the tun sign, a closer examination shows that it is not this element.
[181]Similarly, it could be shown that the use of every other possible value of the cycle coefficient will not give the terminal date actually recorded.
[182]For the full text of this inscription see Maler, 1903:II, No. 2, pl. 56.
[183]From this point on this step will be omitted, but the student is urged to perform the calculations necessary in each case to reach the terminal dates recorded.
[184]Since the introducing glyph always accompanies an Initial Series, it has here been included as a part of it, though, as has been explained elsewhere, its function is unknown.
[185]The number 15.1.16.5 is equal to 108,685 days, or 297½ years.
[186]It is interesting to note in this connection that the date 9.16.1.0.011 Ahau 8 Tzec, which is within 9 days of 9.16.1.0.97 Muluc 17 Tzec, is recorded in four different inscriptions at Yaxchilan, one of which (see pl.9,A) has already been figured.
[187]For the full text of this inscription see Maler, 1901:II, No. 1, pl. 12.
[188]The month-sign indicator appears in B2 with a coefficient 10.
[189]Not expressed.
[190]The writer has recently established the date of this monument as 9.13.15.0.013 Ahau 18 Pax, or 99 days later than the above date.
[191]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 47-49.
[192]Although the details of the day and month signs are somewhat effaced, the coefficient in each case is 3, agreeing with the coefficients in the Initial-series terminal date, and the outline of the month glyph suggests that it is probablyYax. See fig.19,q, r.
[193]Since the Maya New Year's day,0 Pop, always fell on the 16th of July, the day3 Yaxalways fell on Jan. 15th, at the commencement of the dry season.
[194]Since0 Popfell on July 16th (Old Style),18 Kayabfell on June 19th, which is very near the summer solstice, that is, the seeming northern limit of the sun, and roughly coincident with the beginning of the rainy season at Quirigua.
[195]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 46.
[196]Bracketed dates are those which are not actually recorded but which are reached by numbers appearing in the text.
[197]Although not recorded, the number 1.14.6 is the distance from the date 9.15.5.0.0 reached by the Secondary Series on one side to the starting point of the Secondary Series on the other side, that is, 9.15.6.14.66 Cimi 4 Tzec.
[198]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 37, 39, 40. For convenience in figuring, the lower parts of columns A and B are shown inBinstead of below the upper part. The numeration of the glyph-blocks, however, follows the arrangement in the original.
[199]This is one of the two Initial Series which justified the assumptions made in the previous text that the date12 Caban 5 Kayab, which was recorded there, had the Initial-series value 9.14.13.4.17, as here.
[200]This is the text in which the Initial-series value 9.15.6.14.6 was found attached to the date6 Cimi 4 Tzec.
[201]For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 38, 40.
[202]The frontlet seems to be composed of but one element, indicating for this head the value 8 instead of 1. However, as the calculations point to 1, it is probable there was originally another element to the frontlet.
[203]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 102, west side, glyphs A5b-A7a.
[204]See ibid.:IV, pl. 81, glyphs N15 O15.
[205]See Maler, 1908 b:IV, No. 2, pl. 38, east side, glyphs A17-B18.
[206]See ibid., 1911:V, pl. 26, glyphs A1-A4.
[207]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 104, glyphs A7, B7.
[208]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 60, glyphs M1-N2.
[209]Maler, 1911:V, pl. 17, east side, glyphs A4-A5.
[210]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 19, west side, glyphs B10-A12.
[211]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 75, glyphs D3-C5.
[212]See Maler, 1901:II, No. 1, pl. 8, glyphs A1-A2.
[213]See Maudslay, op. cit., pl. 81, glyphs C7-D8.
[214]It will be remembered thatUayebwas the name for thexma kaba kin, the 5 closing days of the year. Dates which fall in this period are exceedingly rare, and in the inscriptions, so far as the writer knows, have been found only at Palenque and Tikal.
[215]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:IV, pl. 77, glyphs P14-R2. Glyphs Q15-P17 are omitted from pl.22,G, as they appear to be uncalendrical.
[216]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 100, glyphs C1 D1, A2.
[217]This excludes Stela C, which has two Initial Series (see figs.68and77), though neither of them, as explained on p.175, footnote 1, records the date of this monument. The true date of this monument is declared by the Period-ending date figured in pl.21,H, which is 9.17.0.0.06 Ahau 13 Kayab. (See p.226.)
[218]See Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 44, west side, glyphs G4 H4, F5.
[219]The dates 10.2.5.0.0 9Ahau 18 Yaxand 10.2.10.0.02 Ahau 13 Chenon Stelæ 1 and 2, respectively, at Quen Santo, are purposely excluded from this statement. Quen Santo is in the highlands of Guatemala (see pl.1) and is well to the south of the Usamacintla region. It rose to prominence probably after the collapse of the great southern cities and is to be considered as inaugurating a new order of things, if not indeed a new civilization.
[220]See Maler, 1908 a:IV, No. 1, pl. 9, glyphs E2, F2, A3, and A4.
[221]The student will note that the lower periods (the tun, uinal, and kin signs) are omitted and consequently are to be considered as having the coefficient 0.
[222]The usual positions of the uinal and kin coefficients in D4a are reversed, the kin coefficient 10 standing above the uinal sign instead of at the left of it. The calculations show, however, that 10, not 11, is the kin coefficient.
[223]In this number also the positions of the uinal and kin coefficients are reversed.
[224]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pls. 28-32.
[225]The student will note that 12, not 13, tuns are recorded in A5. As explained elsewhere (see pp.247, 248), this is an error on the part of the ancient scribe who engraved this inscription. The correct tun coefficient is 13, as used above.
[226]This Secondary-series number is doubly irregular. In the first place, the kin and uinal coefficients are reversed, the latter standing to the left of its sign instead of above, and in the second place, the uinal coefficient, although it is 14, has an ornamental dot between the two middle dots.
[227]Since we countedbackward1.14.6 from6 Cimi 4 Tzecto reach10 Ahau 8 Chen, we mustsubtract1.14.6 from the Initial-series value of6 Cimi 4 Tzecto reach the Initial-series value of10 Ahau 8 Chen.
[228]It is obvious that the kin and uinal coefficients are reversed in A17b since the coefficient above the uinal sign is very clearly 19, an impossible value for the uinal coefficient in the inscriptions, 19 uinalsalwaysbeing written 1 tun, 1 uinal. Therefore the 19 must be the kin coefficient. See also p.110, footnote 1.
[229]The first glyph of the Supplementary Series, B6a, very irregularly stands between the kin period glyph and the day part of the terminal date.
[230]Incorrectly recorded as 12. See pp.247,248.
[231]In this table the numbers showing the distances have been omitted and all dates are shown in terms of their corresponding Initial-series numbers, in order to facilitate their comparison. The contemporaneous date of each monument is given in bold-faced figures and capital letters, and the student will note also that this date not only ends a hotun in each case but is, further, the latest date in each text.
[232]The Initial Series on the west side of Stela D at Quirigua is 9.16.13.4.178 Caban 5 Yaxkin, which was just 2 katuns later than 9.14.13.4.1712 Caban 5 Kayab, or, in other words, the second katun anniversary, if the term anniversary may be thus used, of the latter date.
[233]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:II, pl. 50.
[234]For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902:I, pl. 112.
[235]Every fourth hotun ending in the Long Count was a katun ending at the same time, namely:
[236]Maler, 1911: No. 1, p. 40.
[237]For a seeming exception to this statement, in the codices, see p.110, footnote 1.
[238]That is, the age of one compared with the age of another, without reference to their actual age as expressed in terms of our own chronology.
[239]See Chapter II for the discussion of this point and the quotations from contemporary authorities, both Spanish and native, on which the above statement is based.
[240]As explained on p.31, tonalamatls were probably used by the priests in making prophecies or divinations. This, however, is a matter apart from their composition, that is, length, divisions, dates, and method of counting, which more particularly concerns us here.
[241]The codices are folded like a screen or fan, and when opened form a continuous strip sometimes several yards in length. As will appear later, in many cases one tonalamatl runs across several pages of the manuscript.
[242]If there should be two or more columns of day signs the topmost sign of the left-hand column is to be read first.
[243]In the original this last red dot has disappeared. The writer has inserted it here to avoid confusing the beginner in his first acquaintance with a tonalamatl.
[244]This and similar outlines which follow are to be read down in columns.
[245]The fifth sign in the lower row is also a sign of the Death God (see fig.3). Note the eyelashes, suggesting the closed eyes of the dead.
[246]The last signChuen, as mentioned above, is only a repetition of the first sign, indicating that the tonalamatl has re-entered itself.
[247]As previously stated, the order of reading the glyphs in columns is from left to right and top to bottom.
[248]The right-hand dot of the 13 is effaced.
[249]The manuscript has incorrectly 7.
[250]In the title of plate30the page number should read 102 instead of 113.
[251]The manuscript incorrectly has 24.
[252]Incorrectly recorded as 13 in the text.
[253]Incorrectly recorded as 15 in the text.
[254]Bull. 28, Bur. Amer. Ethn., p. 400.
[255]The terminal dates reached have been omitted, since for comparative work the Initial-series numbers alone are sufficient to show the relative positions in the Long Count.
[256]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.13.3.13.2; that is, reversing the position of the tun and uinal coefficients.
[257]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.8.3.16.4. The katun coefficient is changed to 13, above. These corrections are all suggested by Professor Förstemann and are necessary if the calculations he suggests are correct, as seems probable.
[258]The manuscript incorrectly reads 8.16.4.11.0. The uinal coefficient is changed to an 8, above.
[259]The manuscript incorrectly reads 10.19.6.0.8. The uinal coefficient is changed to 1, above.
[260]The manuscript incorrectly reads 9.16.4.10.18. The uinal coefficient is changed to 11, above.
[261]The manuscript incorrectly reads 9.19.8.7.8. The tun coefficient is changed to 5, above.
[262]Bowditch, 1909: p. 279.
[263]The manuscript has incorrectly16 Uo. It is obvious this can not be correct, since from TableVIIKancan occupy only the 2d, 7th, 12th, or 17th position in the months. The correct reading here, as we shall see, is probably17 Uo. This reading requires only the addition of a single dot.
[264]In the text the coefficient appears to be 8, but in reality it is 9, the lower dot having been covered by the marginal line at the bottom.
[265]Counting backward 8.2.0 (2,920) from9 Ahau, 1 Ahauis reached.
[266]Professor Förstemann restored the top terms of the four numbers in this row, so as to make them read as given above.
[267]The manuscript reads 1.12.5.0, which Professor Förstemann corrects to 1.12.8.0; in other words, changing the uinal from 5 to 8. This correction is fully justified in the above calculations.