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. {65} 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.

[Illustration: 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 () seems to be indicated by several facts: (1) On Stela D at Copan, where only full-figure glyphs are presented,[43] the two comblike appendages of the "introducing glyph" appear unmistakably as two fishes. (2) In some of the earliest stelæ at Copan, as Stelæ 15 and P, while these elements are not fish forms, a head (fish?) appears with the conventionalized comb element in each case. The writer believes the interpretation of this phenomenon to be, that at the early epoch in which {66} Stelæ 15 and P were erected the conventionalization of the element in question had not been entirely accomplished, and that the head was added to indicate the form from which the element was derived. (3) If the fish was the original form of the comblike element in the "introducing glyph," it was also the original form of the same element in the katun glyph. (Compare the comb elements () in figures 27, _a_, _b_, _e_, and 24, _a_, _b_, _d_ with each other.) If this is true, a natural explanation for the use of the fish in the katun sign lies near at hand. As previously explained on page 28, the comblike element stands for the sound _ca_ (_c_ hard); while _kal_ in Maya means 20. Also the element () stands for the sound _tun_. Therefore _catun_ or _katun_ means 20 tuns. But the Maya word for "fish," _cay_ (_c_ hard) is also a close phonetic approximation of the sound _ca_ or _kal_. Consequently, the fish sign may have been the original element in the katun glyph, which expressed the concept 20, and which the conventionalization of glyphic forms gradually reduced to the element () without destroying, however, its phonetic value.

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, {67} 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 {68} 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

[Illustration: FIG. 25. Signs for the cycle: _a-c_, Normal forms; _d-f_, head variants.]

[Illustration: 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 (), which forms the lower jaw, though in a _very few instances_ even this is absent. In the full-figure forms this same head is joined to the body of a bird (see fig. 26). The bird intended is clearly a parrot, the feet, claws, and beak being portrayed in a very realistic manner. No glyph for the cycle has yet been found in the codices.

THE KATUN GLYPH

[Illustration: FIG. 27. Signs for the katun: _a-d_, Normal forms; _e-h_, head variants.]

[Illustration: 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 {69} 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. {70}

THE TUN GLYPH

[Illustration: FIG. 29. Signs for the tun: _a-d_, Normal forms; _e-h_, head variants.]

[Illustration: 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 (), as shown in figure 29 _f_, _g_, though even this is lacking in some few cases. The form shown in figure 29, _h_, is found at Palenque, where it seems to represent the tun period in several places. The head of the full-figure form (fig. 30) has the same fleshless lower jaw for its essential characteristic as the head-variant forms in figure 29. The body joined to this head is again that of a bird the identity of which has not yet been determined.

THE UINAL GLYPH

[Illustration: FIG. 31. Signs for the uinal: _a-c_, Normal forms; _d-f_, head variants.]

[Illustration: FIG. 32. Full-figure variant of uinal sign on Zoömorph B, Quirigua.]

[Illustration: 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_). {71} Sometimes the subfixial element () is omitted in the inscriptions, as in figure 31, a. The head variant of the uinal glyph (fig. 31, _d-f_) is the most constant of all of the head forms for the various periods. Its determining characteristic is the large curl emerging from the back part of the mouth. The sharp-pointed teeth in the upper jaw are also a fairly constant feature. In very rare cases both of these elements are wanting. In such cases the glyph seems to be without determining characteristics. The animal represented in the full-figure variants of the uinal is that of a frog (fig. 32,) the head of which presents precisely the same characteristics as the head variants of the uinal, just described. That the head variant of the uinal-period glyph was originally derived from the representation of a frog can hardly be denied in the face of such striking confirmatory evidence as that afforded by the full-figure form of the uinal in figure 33. Here the spotted body, flattened head, prominent mouth, and bulging eyes of the frog are so realistically portrayed that there is no doubt as to the identity of the figure intended. Mr. Bowditch (1910: p. 257) has pointed out in this connection an interesting phonetic coincidence, which can hardly be other than intentional. The Maya word for frog is _uo_, which is a fairly close phonetic approximation of _u_, the Maya word for "moon" or "month." Consequently, the Maya may have selected the figure of the frog on phonetic grounds to represent their 20-day period. If this point could be established it would indicate an unmistakable use of the rebus form of writing employed by the Aztec. That is, the figure of a frog in the uinal-period glyph would not recall the object which it pictures, but the sound of that object's name, _uo_, approximating the sound of _u_, which in turn expressed the intended idea, namely, the 20-day period. Mr. Bowditch has suggested also that the grotesque birds which stand for the cycle, katun, and tun periods in these full-figure forms may also have been chosen because of the phonetic similarity of their names to the names of these periods.

{72}

THE KIN GLYPH

[Illustration: 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 () and the element (+), {73} both of which appear in the normal form, figure 34, a. In some cases, as in figure 34, _f-h_, this variant also has the square irid and the crooked, snag-like teeth projecting from the front of the mouth. Again, any one of these features, or even all, may be lacking. Another and usually more grotesque type of head (fig. 34, _i_, _j_) has as its essential element the banded headdress. A very unusual head variant is that shown in figure 34, _k_, the essential characteristic of which seems to be the crossbones in the eye. Mr. Bowditch has included also in his list of kin signs the form shown in figure 34, _l_, from an inscription at Tikal. While this glyph in fact does stand between two dates which are separated by one day from each other, that is, 6 Eb 0 Pop and 7 Ben 1 Pop, the writer believes, nevertheless, that only the element ()--an essential part of the normal form for the kin--here represents the period one day, and that the larger characters above and below have other meanings. In the full-figure variants of the kin sign the figure portrayed is that of a human being (fig. 35), the head of which is similar to the one in figure 34, _i_, _j_, having the same banded headdress.[47]

[Illustration: 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 {74} 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_).

[Illustration: 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; {75} (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 {76} 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. {77}

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 {78} 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_.

[Illustration: 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 () 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. {79}

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 {80} 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 2 Ahau Katun 8 Ahau Katun 13 Ahau Katun 6 Ahau Katun 11 Ahau Katun 4 Ahau Katun 9 Ahau Katun 2 Ahau Katun 7 Ahau Katun 13 Ahau Katun 5 Ahau Katun 11 Ahau Katun 3 Ahau Katun 9 Ahau Katun 1 Ahau Katun 7 Ahau Katun 12 Ahau Katun 5 Ahau Katun 10 Ahau Katun 3 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 = 553-11/13. In other words, after we have deducted all the 13's possible, that is, {81} 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 {82} 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

##