Chapter V: The Inscriptions (5)

It was explained (see p. 76) that, when a Secondary-series date could not be referred ultimately to either an Initial-series date or a Period-ending date, its position in the Long Count could not be determined with certainty, and furthermore that such a date became merely one of the 18,980 dates of the Calendar Round and could be fixed only within a period of 52 years. A few examples of Calendar-round dating are given in figure 83 and plate 25. In figure 83, A, is shown a part of the inscription on Altar M at Quirigua.[233] In A1 B1 appears a number consisting of 0 kins, 2 uinals, and 3 tuns, that is, 3.2.0, and following this in A2b B2, the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax, and in A3b B3 the date 6 Ahau 18 Zac. Compare the month glyphs in B2 and B3 with _q_ and _r_, and _s_ and _t_, respectively, of figure 19. This has every appearance of being a Secondary Series, one of the two dates being the starting point of the number 3.2.0, and the other its terminal date. Reducing 3.2.0 to units of the first order, we have:

B1 = 3 × 360 = 1,080
A1 = 2 × 20 = 40
A1 = 0 × 1 = 0
-----
1,120

{241}

Counting this number forward from 4 Ahau 13 Yax, the nearest date to it in the text, the terminal date reached will be found to be 6 Ahau 18 Zac, the date which, we have seen, was recorded in A3b B3. It is clear, therefore, that this text records the fact that 3.2.0 has been counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax and the date 6 Ahau 18 Zac has been reached, but there is nothing given by means of which the position of either of these dates in the Long Count can be determined; consequently either of these dates will be found recurring like any other Calendar-round date, at intervals of every 52 years. In such cases the first assumption to be made is that one of the dates recorded the close of a hotun, or at least of a tun, in Cycle 9 of the Long Count. The reasons for this assumption are quite obvious.

The overwhelming majority of Maya dates fall in Cycle 9, and nearly all inscriptions have at least one date which closed some hotun or tun of that cycle. Referring to Goodman's Tables, in which the tun endings of Cycle 9 are given, the student will find that the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax occurred as a tun ending in Cycle 9, at 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, in which position it closed not only a hotun but also a katun. Hence, it is probable, although the fact is not actually recorded, that the Initial-series value of the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax in this text is 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, and if this is so the Initial-series value of the date 6 Ahau 18 Zac will be:

9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax
3.2.0
9.15.3.2.0 6 Ahau 18 Zac

{242} In the case of this particular text the Initial-series value 9.15.0.0.0 might have been assigned to the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax on the ground that this Initial-series value appears on two other monuments at Quirigua, namely, Stelæ E and F, with this same date.

In figure 83, _B_, is shown a part of the inscription from Altar Z at Copan.[234] In A1 B1 appears a number consisting of 1 kin, 8 uinals, and 1 tun, that is, 1.8.1, and following this in B2-A3 is the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, but no record of its position in the Long Count. If 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu is the terminal date of the number 1.8.1, the starting point can be calculated by counting this number backward, giving the date 12 Cauac 2 Zac. On the other hand, if 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu is the starting point, the terminal date reached by counting 1.8.1 forward will be 1 Imix 9 Mol. However, since an ending prefix appears just before the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu in A2 (compare fig. 37, _a-h_), and since another, though it must be admitted a very unusual ending sign, appears just after this date in A3 (compare the prefix of B3 with the prefix of fig. 37, _o_, and the subfix with the subfixes of _l-n_ and _q_ of the same figure), it seems probable that 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu is the terminal date and also a Period-ending date. Referring to Goodman's Tables, it will be found that the only tun in Cycle 9 which ended with the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu was 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, which not only ended a hotun but a katun as well.[235] If this is true, the unrecorded starting point 12 Cauac 2 Zac can be shown to have the following Initial-series value:

9.17. 0.0. 0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu
1.8. 1 Backward
9.16.18.9.19 12 Cauac 2 Zac

In each of the above examples, as we have seen, there was a date which ended one of the katuns of Cycle 9, although this fact was not recorded in connection with either. Because of this fact, however, we were able to date both of these monuments with a degree of probability amounting almost to certainty. In some texts the student will find that the dates recorded did not end any katun, hotun, or even tun, in Cycle 9, or in any other cycle, and consequently such dates can not be assigned to their proper positions in the Long Count by the above method.

The inscription from Altar 5 at Tikal figured in plate 25 is a case in point. This text opens with the date 1 Muluc 2 Muan in glyphs 1 and 2 (the first glyph or starting point is indicated by the star). {243} Compare glyph 1 with figure 16, _m_, _n_, and glyph 2 with figure 19, _a', b'_. In glyphs 8 and 9 appears a Secondary-series number consisting of 18 kins, 11 uinals, and 11 tuns (11.11.18). Reducing this number to units of the first order and counting it forward from the date next preceding it in the text, 1 Muluc 2 Muan in glyphs 1 and 2, the terminal date reached will be 13 Manik 0 Xul, which the student will find recorded in glyphs 10 and 11. Compare glyph 10 with figure 16, _j_, and glyph 11 with figure 19, _i, j_. The next Secondary-series number appears in glyphs 22 and 23, and consists of 19 kins, 9 uinals, and 8 tuns (8.9.19). Reducing this to units of the first order and counting forward from the date next preceding it in the text, 13 Manik 0 Xul in glyphs 10 and 11, the terminal date reached will be 11 Cimi 19 Mac, which the student will find recorded in glyphs 24 and 25. Compare glyph 24 with figure 16, _h, i_, and glyph 25 with figure 19, _w_, _x_. Although no number appears in glyph 26, there follows in glyphs 27 and 28 the date 1 Muluc 2 Kankin, which the student will find is just three days later than 11 Cimi 19 Mac, that is, one day 12 Manik 0 Kankin, two days 13 Lamat 1 Kankin, and three days 1 Muluc 2 Kankin.

In spite of the fact that all these numbers are counted regularly from the dates next preceding them to reach the dates next following them, there is apparently no glyph in this text which will fix the position of any one of the above dates in the Long Count. Moreover, since none of the day parts show the day sign Ahau, it is evident that none of these dates can end any uinal, tun, katun, or cycle in the Long Count, hence their positions can not be determined by the method used in fixing the dates in figure 83, _A_ and _B_.

There is, however, another method by means of which Calendar-round dates may sometimes be referred to their proper positions in the Long Count. A monument which shows only Calendar-round dates may be associated with another monument or a building, the dates of which are fixed in the Long Count. In such cases the fixed dates usually will show the positions to which the Calendar-round dates are to be referred.

Taking any one of the dates given on Altar 5 in plate 25, as the last, 1 Muluc 2 Kankin, for example, the positions at which this date occurred in Cycle 9 may be determined from Goodman's Tables to be as follows:

9. 0.16. 5.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9. 3. 9. 0.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9. 6. 1.13.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9. 8.14. 8.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9.11. 7. 3.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9.13.19.16.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9.16.12.11.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin
9.19. 5. 6.9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin

{244} Next let us ascertain whether or not Altar 5 was associated with any other monument or building at Tikal, the date of which is fixed unmistakably in the Long Count. Says Mr. Teobert Maler, the discoverer of this monument:[236] "A little to the north, fronting the north side of this second temple and very near it, is a masonry quadrangle once, no doubt, containing small chambers and having an entrance to the south. In the middle of this quadrangle stands Stela 16 in all its glory, still unharmed, _and in front of it, deeply buried in the earth, we found Circular Altar 5_, which was destined to become so widely renowned." It is evident from the foregoing that the altar we are considering here, called by Mr. Maler "Circular Altar 5," was found in connection with another monument at Tikal, namely, Stela 16. But the date on this latter monument has already been deciphered as "6 Ahau 13 Muan ending Katun 14" (see pl. 21, _D_; also p. 224), and this date, as we have seen, corresponded to the Initial Series 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan.

Our next step is to ascertain whether or not any of the Initial-series values determined above as belonging to the date 1 Muluc 2 Kankin on Altar 5 are near the Initial Series 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan, which is the Initial-series date corresponding to the Period-ending date on Stela 16. By comparing 9.14.0.0.0 with the Initial-series values of 1 Muluc 2 Kankin given above the student will find that the fifth value, 9.13.19.16.9, corresponds with a date 1 Muluc 2 Kankin, which was only 31 days (1 uinal and 11 kins) earlier than 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan. Consequently it may be concluded that 9.13.19.16.9 was the particular day 1 Muluc 2 Kankin which the ancient scribes had in mind when they engraved this text. From this known Initial-series value the Initial-series values of the other dates on Altar 5 may be obtained by calculation. The texts on Altar 5 and Stela 16 are given below to show their close connection:

_Altar 5_

9.12.19.12. 9 1 Muluc 2 Muan glyphs 1 and 2
11.11.18 glyphs 8 and 9
9.13.11. 6. 7 13 Manik 0 Xul glyphs 10 and 11
8. 9.19 glyphs 22 and 23
9.13.19.16. 6 11 Cimi 19 Mac glyphs 24 and 25
(3) undeclared
9.13.19.16. 9 1 Muluc 2 Kankin glyphs 27 and 28
(1.11) (Time between the two monuments, 31 days.)

_Stela 16_

9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan A1-A4

Sometimes, however, monuments showing Calendar-round dates stand {245} alone, and in such cases it is almost impossible to fix their dates in the Long Count. At Yaxchilan in particular Calendar-round dating seems to have been extensively employed, and for this reason less progress has been made there than elsewhere in deciphering the inscriptions.

ERRORS IN THE ORIGINALS

Before closing the presentation of the subject of the Maya inscriptions the writer has thought it best to insert a few texts which show actual errors in the originals, mistakes due to the carelessness or oversight of the ancient scribes.

Errors in the original texts may be divided into two general classes: (1) Those which are revealed by inspection, and (2) those which do not appear until after the indicated calculations have been made and the results fail to agree with the glyphs recorded.

An example of the first class is illustrated in figure 84, _A_. A very cursory inspection of this text--an Initial Series from a lintel at Yaxchilan--will show that the uinal coefficient in C1 represents an impossible condition from the Maya point of view. This glyph as it stands {246} unmistakably records 19 uinals, a number which had no existence in the Maya system of numeration, since 19 uinals are always recorded as 1 tun and 1 uinal.[237] Therefore the coefficient in C1 is incorrect on its face, a fact we have been able to determine before proceeding with the calculation indicated. If not 19, what then was the coefficient the ancient scribe should have engraved in its place? Fortunately the rest of this text is unusually clear, the Initial-series number 9.15.6.?.1 appearing in B1-D1, and the terminal date which it reaches, 7 Imix 19 Zip, appearing in C2 D2. Compare C2 with figure 16, _a, b_, and D2 with figure 19, d. We know to begin with that the uinal coefficient must be one of the eighteen numerals 0 to 17, inclusive. Trying 0 first, the number will be 9.15.6.0.1, which the student will find leads to the date 7 Imix 4 Chen. Our first trial, therefore, has proved unsuccessful, since the date recorded is 7 Imix 19 Zip. The day parts agree, but the month parts are not the same. This month part 4 Chen is useful, however, for one thing, it shows us how far distant we are from the month part 19 Zip, which is recorded. It appears from Table XV that in counting forward from position 4 Chen just 260 days are required to reach position 19 Zip. Consequently, our first trial number 9.15.6.0.1 falls short of the number necessary by just 260 days. But 260 days are equal to 13 uinals; therefore we must increase 9.15.6.0.1 by 13 uinals. This gives us the number 9.15.6.13.1. Reducing this to units of the first order and solving for the terminal date, the date reached will be 7 Imix 19 Zip, which agrees with the date recorded, in C2 D2. We may conclude, therefore, that the uinal coefficient in C1 should have been 13, instead of 19 as recorded.

Another error of the same kind--that is, one which may be detected by inspection--is shown in figure 84, _B_. Passing over glyphs 1, 2, and 3, we reach in glyph 4 the date 5 Kan 13 Uo. Compare the upper half of 4 with figure 16, _f_, and the lower half with figure 19, _b, c_. The coefficient of the month sign is very clearly 13, which represents an impossible condition when used to indicate the position of a day whose name is Kan; for, according to Table VII, the only positions which the day Kan can ever occupy in any division of the year are 2, 7, 12, and 17. Hence, it is evident that we have detected an error in this text before proceeding with the calculations indicated. Let us endeavor to ascertain the coefficient which should have been used with the month sign in glyph 4 instead of the 13 actually recorded. These glyphs present seemingly a regular Secondary Series, the starting point being given in 1 and 2, the number in 3, and the terminal date in 4. Counting this number 3.4 forward from the starting point, 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, the terminal date reached will be 5 Kan 12 Uo. Comparing this with the terminal date actually recorded, we find that the two agree except for the month coefficient. But since the date recorded represents an impossible condition, as we {247} have shown, we are justified in assuming that the month coefficient which should have been used in glyph 4 was 12, instead of 13. In other words, the craftsman to whom the sculpturing of this inscription was intrusted engraved here 3 dots instead of 2 dots, and 1 ornamental crescent, which, together with the 2 bars present, would have given the month coefficient determined by calculation, 12. An error of this kind might occur very easily and indeed in many cases may be apparent rather than real, being due to weathering rather than to a mistake in the original text.

Some errors in the inscriptions, however, can not be detected by inspection, and develop only after the calculations indicated have been performed, and the results are found to disagree with the glyphs recorded. Errors of this kind constitute the second class mentioned above. A case in point is the Initial Series on the west side of Stela E at Quirigua, figured in plate 24, _A_. In this text the Initial-series number recorded in A4-A6 is very clearly 9.14.12.4.17, and the terminal date in B6-B8b is equally clearly 12 Caban 5 Kayab. Now, if this number 9.14.12.4.17 is reduced to units of the first order and is counted forward from the same starting point as practically all other Initial Series, the terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Kayab, not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as recorded. Moreover, if the same number is counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which may have been another starting point for Initial Series, as we have seen, the terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Zip, not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as recorded. The inference is obvious, therefore, that there is some error in this text, since the number recorded can not be made to reach the date recorded. An error of this kind is difficult to detect, because there is no indication in the text as to which glyph is the one at fault. The first assumption the writer makes in such cases is that the date is correct and that the error is in one of the period-glyph coefficients. Referring to Goodman's Table, it will be found that the date 12 Caban 5 Kayab occurred at the following positions in Cycle 9 of the Long Count:

9. 1. 9.11.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 4. 2. 6.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 6.15. 1.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9. 9. 7.14.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.12. 0. 9.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.14.13. 4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.17. 5.17.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab
9.19.18.12.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab

An examination of these values will show that the sixth in the list, 9.14.13.4.17, is very close to the number recorded in our text, 9.14.12.4.17. Indeed, the only difference between the two is that the former has 13 tuns while the latter has only 12. The similarity between these two numbers is otherwise so close and the error in this {248} event would be so slight--the record of 2 dots and 1 ornamental crescent instead of 3 dots--that the conclusion is almost inevitable that the error here is in the tun coefficient, 12 having been recorded instead of 13. In this particular case the Secondary Series and the Period-ending date, which follow the Initial-series number 9.14.12.4.17, prove that the above reading of 13 tuns for the 12 actually recorded is the one correction needed to rectify the error in this text.

Another example indicating an error which can not be detected by inspection is shown in figure 84, _C_. In glyphs 1 and 2 appears the date 8 Eznab 16 Uo (compare glyph 1 with fig. 16, _c'_, and glyph 2 with fig. 19, _b, c_). In glyph 3 follows a number consisting of 17 kins and 4 uinals (4.17). Finally, in glyphs 4 and 5 is recorded the date 2 Men 13 Yaxkin (compare glyph 4 with fig. 16, _y_, and glyph 5 with fig. 19, _k, l_). This has every appearance of being a Secondary Series, of which 8 Eznab 16 Uo is the starting point, 4.17, the number to be counted, and 2 Men 13 Yaxkin the terminal date. Reducing 4.17 to units of the first order and counting it forward from the starting point indicated, the terminal date reached will be 1 Men 13 Yaxkin. This differs from the terminal date recorded in glyphs 4 and 5 in having a day coefficient of 1 instead of 2. Since this involves but a very slight change in the original text, we are probably justified in assuming; that the day coefficient in glyph 4 should have been 1 instead of 2 as recorded.

One more example will suffice to show the kind of errors usually encountered in the inscriptions. In plate 26 is figured the Initial Series from Stela N at Copan. The introducing glyph appears in A1 and is followed by the Initial-series number 9.16.10.0.0 in A2-A6, all the coefficients of which are unusually clear. Reducing this to units of the first order and solving for the terminal date, the date reached will be 1 Ahau 3 Zip. This agrees with the terminal date recorded in A7-A15 except for the month coefficient, which is 8 in the text instead of 3, as determined by calculation. Assuming that the date recorded is correct and that the error is in the coefficient of the period glyphs the next step is to find the positions in Cycle 9 at which the date 1 Ahau 8 Zip occurred. Referring to Goodman's Tables, these will be found to be:

9. 0. 8.11.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 3. 1. 6.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 5.14. 1.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9. 8. 6.14.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.10.19. 9.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.13.12. 4.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.16. 4.17.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip
9.18.17.12.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip

{249} The number in the above list coming nearest to the number recorded in this text (9.16.10.0.0) is the next to the last, 9.16.4.17.0. But in order to reach this value of the date 1 Ahau 8 Zip (9.16.4.17.0) with the number actually recorded, two considerable changes in it are first necessary, (1) replacing the 10 tuns in A4 by 4 tuns, that is, changing 2 bars to 4 dots, and (2) replacing 0 uinals in A5 by 17 uinals, that is, changing the 0 sign to 3 bars and 2 dots. But these changes involve a very considerable alteration of the original, and it seems highly improbable, therefore, that the date here _intended_ was 9.16.4.17.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip. Moreover, as any other number in the above list involves at least three changes of the number recorded in order to reach 1 Ahau 8 Zip, we are forced to the conclusion that the error must be in the terminal date, not in one of the coefficients of the period glyphs. Let us therefore assume in our next trial that the Initial-series number is correct as it stands, and that the error lies somewhere in the terminal date. But the terminal date reached in counting 9.16.10.0.0 forward in the Long Count will be 1 Ahau 3 Zip, as we have seen on the preceding page, and this date differs from the terminal date recorded by 5--1 bar in the month coefficient. It would seem probable, therefore, that the bar to the left of the month sign in A15 should have been omitted, in which case the text would correctly record the date 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip.

The student will note that in all the examples above given the errors have been in the numerical coefficients, and not in the signs to which they are attached; in other words, that although the numerals are sometimes incorrectly recorded, the period, day, and month glyphs never are.

Throughout the inscriptions, the exceptions to this rule are so very rare that the beginner is strongly advised to disregard them altogether, and to assume when he finds an incorrect text that the error is in one of the numerical coefficients. It should be remembered also in this connection that errors in the inscriptions are exceedingly rare, and a glyph must not be condemned as incorrect until every effort has been made to explain it in some other way.

This concludes the presentation of texts from the inscriptions. The student will have noted in the foregoing examples, as was stated in Chapter II, that practically the only advances made looking toward the decipherment of the glyphs have been on the chronological side. It is now generally admitted that the relative ages[238] of most Maya monuments can be determined from the dates recorded upon them, and that the final date in almost every inscription indicates the time at or near which the monument bearing it was erected, or at least formally dedicated. The writer has endeavored to show, moreover, {250} that many, if indeed not most, of the monuments, were "time markers" or "period stones," in every way similar to the "period stones" which the northern Maya are known to[239] have erected at regularly recurring periods. That the period which was used as this chronological unit may have varied in different localities and at different epochs is not at all improbable. The northern Maya at the time of the Spanish Conquest erected a "period stone" every katun, while the evidence presented in the foregoing texts, particularly those from Quirigua and Copan, indicates that the chronological unit in these two cities at least was the hotun, or quarter-katun period. Whatever may have been the chronological unit used, the writer believes that the best explanation for the monuments found so abundantly in the Maya area is that they were "period stones," erected to commemorate or mark the close of successive periods.

That we have succeeded in deciphering, up to the present time, only the calendric parts of the inscriptions, the chronological skeleton of Maya history as it were, stripped of the events which would vitalize it, should not discourage the student nor lead him to minimize the importance of that which is already gained. Thirty years ago the Maya inscriptions were a sealed book, yet to-day we read in the glyphic writing the rise and fall of the several cities in relation to one another, and follow the course of Maya development even though we can not yet fill in the accompanying background. Future researches, we may hope, will reconstruct this background from the undeciphered glyphs, and will reveal the events of Maya history which alone can give the corresponding chronology a human interest. {251}