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 9.16.1.0.0 11 Ahau 8 Tzec, which is within 9 days of 9.16.1.0.9 7 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 9.13.15.0.0 13 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 probably Yax. See fig. 19, _q, r_.

[193] Since the Maya New Year's day, 0 Pop, always fell on the 16th of July, the day 3 Yax always fell on Jan. 15th, at the commencement of the dry season.

[194] Since 0 Pop fell on July 16th (Old Style), 18 Kayab fell 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, 9.15.6.14.6 6 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 in _B_ instead 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 date 12 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 date 6 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 that Uayeb was the name for the _xma 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. 68 and 77), 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 9.17.0.0.0 6 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 9 Ahau 18 Yax and 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen on 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 counted _backward_ 1.14.6 from 6 Cimi 4 Tzec to reach 10 Ahau 8 Chen, we must _subtract_ 1.14.6 from the Initial-series value of 6 Cimi 4 Tzec to reach the Initial-series value of 10 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 uinals _always_ being 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 9.16.13.4.17 8 Caban 5 Yaxkin, which was just 2 katuns later than 9.14.13.4.17 12 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. 0.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Tzec 9.16. 5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 9.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop 9.17. 0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu etc.

[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