Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices / Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372

Commencing in the sixth column of Plate 71a and running through 72a to the second column of 73a, is a numeral series which presents some peculiarities that baffle all attempts at explanation. Contrary to the rule which prevails in these pages it ascends from left to right and has no day symbols connected with it. In addition to this, the numbers of its lowest line are inclosed in loops of the form here shown (Fig. 371) and have no apparent connection with the other lines of the series, but, on the contrary, if taken from right to left, they present in the order usually given the numbers of the ahaues or katunes.337-1 It is as follows:

The last (thirteenth) column of this series is not in a line with the others, but is found in the lower part of the right hand column of Plate 73, and in connection with it we find the red numerals II and XIV, denoting the difference between the columns, as is apparent from the additions here given:

CHAPTER II.

Fourth. On the other hand, indications of the four year series are certainly found in all of the Maya manuscripts; for example, in Plates 25-28 of the Dresden Codex and Plates XX-XXIII of the Manuscript Troano,339-1 which seem to be based on this series; in fact, the numbers attached to the days in the latter can be accounted for in no other way. Plates 3-6 of the Cortesian Codex are apparently based upon the same system. The numbers in the loops on Plates 71, 72, and 73, Dresden Codex, heretofore alluded to and represented in Fig. 371, apparently defy explanation on any supposition except that they refer to the numbers of the ahaues, which are based upon the four year series.339-2 The frequent occurrence in connection and in proper order of both the first and the terminal days of the year apparently refers to the same system. Many of the quadruple series no doubt relate to the four cardinal points and the four seasons; yet there are some which cannot be explained on this theory alone.

It is impossible, therefore, to exclude this system from consideration in studying the chronology of the codices, although there are a number of the numerical series of the Dresden manuscript which cannot be made to fit into it on any hypothesis so far suggested. The same thing is also found to be true in regard to some, in fact most, of the series found in the Mexican manuscripts. This confusion probably arises in part from the apparently well established fact that two methods of counting time prevailed among both Mexicans and Mayas: one, the solar year in ordinary use among the people, which may be termed the vulgar or common calendar; the other, the religious calendar used by the priests alone in arranging their feasts and ceremonies, in which the cycle of 260 days was taken as the basis. But this supposition will not suffice as an explanation of some of the long series of the Dresden Codex, in which the year of 360 days appears to have been taken as a unit of measure, unless we assume—as Förstemann seems to have done—that what have been taken as years are simply high units and counting the whole as so many days, refer the sum to the cycle of 260 days, which will in almost every case measure them evenly as a whole, or by its leading factor, 13. That the smaller series attached to day columns are all multiples of 13 and referable to the cycle of 260 days has been shown by Förstemann as well as in the preceding part of this paper. But it is worthy of note that the difficulty mentioned occurs only in reference to series found in that portion of the Dresden manuscript which Förstemann has designated Codex B (page 24 being considered as belonging thereto).

The red unit number symbol, with a circle of dots around it, seen occasionally in the Manuscript Troano, seems to have some connection with the four year series. Take, for example, the one in the lowest division of Plate VII.

The series commences in the lower right hand corner of Plate VIII, where the day column with which it is connected is found. The days of this column, reading downward, are as follows: Ahau, Eb, Kan, Cib, Lamat, and the number over them is I, but without any dots around it, while the terminal I of the series is inclosed in the circle of dots. What is the meaning of this marked distinction? It is evident that it is something which does not apply equally to all the days of the columns; yet, as it is the terminal number, it must relate to some one of them. If we examine the series carefully I think the reason for the distinction will be explained; Written out in full, it is as follows:

The last black number is 10 in Brasseur’s fac simile, but should be 12. Making this correction, the series is regular and of the usual form. The sum of the black numbers is 52, which is the interval between the days, and the number over the column is the same as the final red number.

If we turn now to the calendar (Table II) and select Ahau of the Kan column, and 1, the seventeenth number of the eighth figure column, and count 52 days, we reach 1 Eb, the second day of our column as given above; 52 days more bring us to 1 Kan, the first day of the first month in the calendar and third day of our column. If the theory of the four year series be correct, then 1 Kan of the Kan series must be the first day of the first year of an Indication or week of years. This fact was probably considered by the aboriginal artist of sufficient importance to give this day a mark of distinction. As it is not possible for any of the other days of the column to be thus distinguished, it is fair to presume this peculiar marking of the final number refers to Kan. Moreover, this distinction would not occur if any other than the Kan series were used.

In the upper division of Plate IX of the same manuscript is the following series:

In this, I, the second red number of the series, has the circle of dots around it. The number over the column is partially obliterated, but is readily restored, and should be XIII.

If we select, on our calendar, the Cauac column, or series, a reason for this distinction will appear. The sum of the black numbers is 53, which is also the interval between the days. As has heretofore been shown, the red numbers of the series refer to certain days selected by the priests, for special reasons unknown to us, which occur between the days of the column.

In this case the intermediate days are as follows:

Between 13 Cauac and 13 Chuen: 7 Cauac, 1 Cauac, 2 Ahau, and 6 Kan.

Here we find the explanation for which we are seeking, as in the interval between 13 Cauac and 13 Chuen is 1 Cauac, which, if the Cauac column of the calendar be selected, is the first day of the year 1 Cauac, the first year of an Indication. As this occurs only when a year commencing with Cauac is selected, we infer that the series is based upon the system with the four year series.

The best illustration of this peculiarity and the strongest evidence of its signification is probably found in the series contained in the middle division, Plate XI, same manuscript. This, when written out and the numbers properly arranged, is as follows:

The last black number of the series is 9, but should be 10 to render the series complete. Making this correction, the series is of the usual type; the sum of the black numerals is 26, the interval between the days of the columns is 26, and the final red numeral is the same as that over the columns.

As the circle of dots is around the final red number and also around each of those over the columns, the distinction indicated must refer to one or more days of each column.

As the last days only of the columns are year bearers, the mark of distinction probably applies to them. Selecting for the left hand column the Ix series of years and commencing with 1 Oc, the seventeenth day of the eighth month, we count 26 days. This brings us to 1 Cib, the third day of the tenth month, or tenth figure column of our calendar and second day of the first day column of the series; 26 days more to 1 Ik; 26 more to 1 Lamat, and 26 more to 1 Ix, the first day of the year 1 Ix, which, according to the four year series, will be the first year of an Indication. Selecting the Kan series for the second column and counting in the same way from 1 Ahau, the seventeenth day of the eighth month, or eighth figure column of the calendar, the last day is found to be 1 Kan, the first day of the year 1 Kan, which must also be the first year of an Indication.

Unit numerals marked in this manner are found in two or three places in the Cortesian Codex, but there is none in the Dresden Codex. The series with which they are connected in the former, except that in the middle division of Plate 24, are too much obliterated to be traced throughout. This, by making two slight and apparently authorized corrections, is as follows:

The first red numeral of the line is X in the original and the next to the last black number is 6. By changing the former to XII and the latter to 7 the sum of the series will be 52, which is the interval between the days of the column.

Using the Ix column in the calendar and commencing with 1 Cimi, counting as heretofore, the last day of the column of the series is found to be 1 Ix, the first day of the year 1 Ix and the first year of an Indication, according to the four year system.

A somewhat remarkable confirmation of the theory here advanced is presented in a series found in the middle division of Plate II of the Manuscript Troano.

The series, when written out with the substitutes heretofore used, is as follows:

In Brasseur’s fac simile the second symbol of the left hand column is clearly that for Men. If this be accepted as correct, then no year bearer (Kan, Muluc, Ix, Cauac) would be found in either column and the theory we have advanced regarding the signification of the dots around the red unit over the column would fall to the ground. Nor is this the only difficulty we meet with in attempting to apply the theory to this series. The sum of the black numbers is 26, which should also be the interval between the days of the columns. Counting 26 days from 1 Manik brings us to 1 Been instead of 1 Men; 26 more to 1 Cauac, a day not found in either column as given in the original. Taking the second column and counting 26 days from 1 Ymix, we reach 1 Manik, instead of 1 Been. This gives us the key to the series and solves the riddle. We must commence with 1 Ymix, then take 1 Manik, then 1 Been, and so on, going alternately from column to column.

Adopting this method and using the Cauac column of our calendar, Table II, the result is as follows: Commencing with 1 Ymix, the third day of the tenth figure column, and counting 26 days, we reach 1 Manik; 26 days more bring us to 1 Been, and 26 more to 1 Cauac, the first day of the first year of an Indication. The 1 Men of the left hand column should therefore be 1 Cauac, which is also proved by counting the intervals, without regard to the week numbers. For example, from Ymix to Been is 12 days, from Been to Chicchan 12 days, from Manik to Cauac 12 days, and so on through each column. Or, if we take the columns alternately, the interval is six days, thus: From Ymix to Manik, 6 days; from Manik to Been, 6 days; from Been to Cauac, 6 days; from Cauac to Chuen, 6 days, and so on to the end.

Although the proof is not absolutely conclusive that these red unit numerals have this mark of distinction for the reason given, it nevertheless furnishes what would seem to be a satisfactory explanation, and, if so, affords proof that the calendar system, based upon the four year series, was in vogue when the Manuscript Troano and the Codex Cortesianus were written.

This mark of distinction is found in a strange and unusual relation in the lower division of Plate XV, Manuscript Troano. The first red numeral of the series is given thus:

Judging by these and the few numbers remaining, the entire series was as follows:

The only doubt in reference to the restoration is whether the second and third pairs of numerals should be as given, or 2, II, and 22, XI. If we select the Kan column of our Table II and count from 3 Ix of the eleventh figure column, we reach 13 Kan. If the four year series was the system used 13 Kan might be the first day of a year, but not the first day of an Indication. As this is the only day referred to by the XIII which could have been the first of a year we must seek an explanation in something else. Counting ten days from 3 Ezanab will bring us to 13 Lamat, which is the last day (counting the five added days) of an Indication, commencing with the year 1 Kan and ending with the year 13 Kan.

According to my theory of the ahaues,344-1 the year 13 Kan would have corresponded with the Gregorian years 1376, 1438, 1480, and 1532. According to the theory advanced by Perez,344-2 it would have corresponded with 1385, 1437, 1489, and 1541.

It is therefore possible that this mark of distinction may be of some value in determining the relation of the Maya to the Gregorian calendar.

CHAPTER III

The direction in which it is to be read must of course be determined before any progress can be made in deciphering it. This was, until recently, a matter of speculation, but now may be considered settled. As this has been explained345-1 it is unnecessary to repeat that explanation here.

A certain parallelism in the sentences or groups of characters has also been discovered. Attention was first called to this by me in the work referred to, but is more fully explained by Dr. P. Schellhas in his paper entitled “Die Mayahandschrift der königlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden.” It will readily be understood from a single illustration. Take for example the lower division of Plate XV of the Manuscript Troano (see Study Ms. Troano). Omitting from consideration the numerals and the day column at the left, there are here two short columns on the left and two on the right over the animal figures, and three longer columns between. As explained in the work referred to, the short columns are to be read as lines from left to right and the longer columns separately, from the top downward. There are, in all, five groups or sentences, each containing four compound characters. Representing these by letters, repeating those which indicate similar characters, and arranging as in the plate, the result is as follows:

In this case the characters represented by a and r are repeated in each group and in the same relation to the other characters. It is apparent, therefore, that each group is to be read separately, and, as each repeats in part what is given in the others, it is more than probable that they are simply short formulas to be repeated in certain religious ceremonies. This parallelism, though not always so apparent as in the case presented, is nevertheless found running through all the codices. The advantage to the attempts at decipherment which results from this fact is evident, as it will often justify the restoration of blurred or obliterated characters, and, what is of still more importance, will enable the investigator to test his conclusions by comparing the different characters and pictures with which they are associated.

Although it appears to be well settled that, as a rule, the writing, when in lines, is to be read from left to right—the lines following each other downward and the columns to be read from the top downward, but the groups, as before explained, to be read separately—it does not follow that the groups succeed one another from left to right. This has generally been taken for granted, but there are some reasons to doubt the correctness of this conclusion as regards a number of plates and possibly one entire codex.

The facts that the lines of numerals attached to the day columns extend to the right and that the written characters, when in lines, follow one another in the same direction lead us to infer that the groups and pictures follow one another in the same order, but the apparent movement of the latter towards the left would seem to indicate that they follow one another in this direction. This inference appears to be confirmed by the following evidence: As is well known, the plates of the Manuscript Troano are to be taken in reverse order to the paging. Turning to Plate II, we observe in the middle department of the middle division a bound captive or victim, on whose neck a machete is descending to sever the head from the trunk. Turning to Plate III, which properly stands to the left of Plate II, we see a headless trunk covered with blood and the fatal machete near the neck. It is fair to presume that this is the same individual that is figured in the preceding plate, and, if so, that the pictures follow one another toward the left.

Placing Plates XV* and XVI* of the same manuscript in the proper relation to each other and carefully examining the figures in the second division, we notice that the idol heads which the artisans are carving approach completion as we move toward the left, those in Plate XV* and the right hand one in XVI* being simply blocked out, while the middle one in the latter plate is completely rounded and is receiving the second ornamental line and the one at the left hand is receiving the third and final line.

The female figures in the second division of Plate XIX* indicate the same order, as shown by the increasing girth as we proceed toward the left.

The same order appears to be indicated in numerous places by the symbols of the cardinal points inserted in the text, as they (supposing the conclusion as to their assignment in my “Notes on certain Maya and Mexican manuscripts,” accepted by Drs. Förstemann and Schellhas, to be correct) follow one another in the proper order if read towards the left, to wit, south, east, north, west.

As the writing over each figure, consisting usually of four compound characters, appears to refer to that over which it is placed, it follows that these character groups must be taken in the same order as the pictures. The suggestions on this point are presented here more as proper subjects of investigation by students of American paleography than as fixed conclusions of the writer. If found to be justified by the facts, they will furnish some additional aid in the work of deciphering these manuscripts.

SIGNIFICATION OF THE CHARACTERS.

The question of phoneticism will not be considered in connection with the list, as the subject will be briefly discussed at the close, the only object in view in giving the list being to indicate the signification of the characters alluded to. The Maya names appended are therefore to be understood simply as the supposed names applied to them or the objects they denote.

SYMBOLS OF ANIMALS &C.