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.

[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."

Rebus writing depends on the principle of homophones; that is, words or characters which sound alike but have different meanings.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[44] See the discussion of Serpent numbers in