Maya and Mexican - Chronology

MAYA AND MEXICAN - CHRONOLOGY For technical terms relating to the calendar, which must be used to explain the chronology, the reader is referred to article CALEN DAR : Maya and Mexican.

Maya: The Long Maya calendar is based upon a year of 365 days, but it seems clear that the Mayas them selves recognized no such period. In their view 365 days was one tun (360-day period) and five days, and they so expressed the distance from a month-day in one year to the same month-day in the following year; e.g., from 9 Imix 19 Zip to 10 Cimi 19 Zip. They never used a year of 365 days in counting the distance in time from one date to another. No glyph for the 365-day year is found, and there is no word with that meaning in the Books of Chilan Balam. It has been stated that haab meant 365-day year, but in fact it means tun (360-day period). All authorities agree, however, as to the method of counting time. The units used are the kin or day, the uinal of 20 days, the tun of 18 uinals, the katun of 20 tuns, and the cycle of 20 katuns. The Maya name for the cycle is unknown, and until proof is available it is undesir able to give it a hypothetical Maya name. In transcribing Maya numerals the numbers are written with a dash between each. Thus 9-10– 6– 5– 9 means 9 cycles, Io katuns, 6 tuns, 5 uinals, and 9 kins. By this method the Maya counted the time elapsed from a certain day, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, which was the starting-point of their era, and thereby fixed dates in the Long Count, as the Maya era is called. What is called an Initial Series shows the position of a date in the Long Count. Thus 8 Muluc 2 Zip will recur every 52 years, but if it is expressed as an Initial Series date, 9-10– 6– 5– 9, 8 Muluc 2 Zip, its position in time is fixed, as its distance from the starting-point of the Long Count is given. In the Inscriptions an Initial Series always begins the inscription (hence the name) and commences with an "introducing glyph" which appears merely to mean "This is an Initial Series." Then follow the Maya numerals written in descending order, that is commencing with the largest period (cycle) and ending with the kin, and then the terminal date (in the above example, 8 Muluc 2 Zip). More often than not, the day number and day name (as 8 Muluc) are separated from the month day (as 2 Zip) by a Supplementary Series. In such cases the month day regularly follows the last glyph of the Supplementary Series. A date which is not fixed in the Long Count is called a "Calendar Round date," as it can recur every 52 years.

Another method of giving dates is by "period-endings." This somewhat resembles the European method of giving the last two figures of the year without the century. Thus '98 may mean 1798 or 1898, etc., recurring every ioo years. But the Maya method differs in that it always denotes a certain day instead of a larger period such as a year, and further it is a day terminating a certain round number. It is as if the European method only denoted Dec. 31, and then only when it ended a decade or century. The most usual period-ending is the katun-ending. This is expressed by (1) a glyph meaning "ending," (2) the number of the katun, (3) the Calendar Round date on which a katun of such a number ended. Example: "Ending Katun 13, 8 Ahau 8 Uo." Such a date cannot occur again in the Long Count for 374,40o years, so it is fixed as effectually as if the Initial Series had been given. The "ending sign" may be omitted. Less common are cycle-ending dates, as "2 Ahau 3 Uayeb ending Cycle 2." These cannot recur for 748,80o years. Very common are the lahuntun-endings, ex pressed by a special glyph meaning "end of Tun 1o" together with the Calendar Round date. This means Tun 1 o from the last katun-ending. These cannot recur for 18,72o years. Also common are the hotun-endings, expressed by a special glyph meaning "end of Tun 5" and the Calendar Round date. This Tun 5 may mean either Tun 5 from the last katun or Tun 5 from the last lahuntun (therefore Tun 15 from the last katun) . These cannot recur for years and are, therefore, practically as much fixed as the others. Example': "4 Ahau 13 Mol, Hotun." This must be 9-11 15– o– 0 4 Ahau 13 Mol, because that date does not end Tun 5 or 15 elsewhere in cycles 8, 9 or 1 o or indeed for 9,36o years before or after. No other satisfactory case of tun-ending occurs in the old empire except the 13– tun ending, expressed by glyphs meaning "ending Tun 13" and the Calendar Round date. These cannot recur for 18,72o years. As all period-endings denote the ends of even periods in the Long Count which itself starts from 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, they must themselves all end on a day Ahau.

Many dates in the inscriptions are connected with other dates by "Secondary Series" numbers. If a date is connected by a Secondary Series with another date which is fixed in the Long Count, then the former date is called a Secondary Series date and is, of course, itself fixed in the Long Count, as it can be calculated by the Secondary Series from the known date. Ex ample : "6 Imix 19 Zotz, connected by Secondary Series of 2-1 13-19 with 4 Ahau 13 Mol." But the latter is fixed by a period ending in same inscription as 9-11-15– o– 0 4 Ahau 13 Mol. so the former is I 6 Imix 19 Zotz. But dates may be connected by a Secondary Series, and neither of them may be fixed in the Long Count, in which case both are merely Calendar Round dates.

All Initial Series in the Dresden Codex, and all except two in the inscriptions, start from 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. But there are two Initial Series in the inscriptions which start from a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz which occurred 13 cycles before the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting-point of all the rest. In the Dresden Codex a "great cycle" is used containing 20 cycles. Dr. Sylvanus G. Morley shows that this was used in the inscriptions, and also a great-great cycle of 40o cycles, and a great-great-great cycle of 8,000 cycles. This has been confirmed by Long's discovery of a new interpre tation of an inscription at Palenque.

It will be noted that all the Maya time periods (except the tun) are each 20 times the next lower one. In the inscriptions these numbers are written with the glyphs for the periods as well as the numbers. Thus 9-10– o– o– o, if an Initial Series, is expressed by glyphs reading 9 cycles, io katuns, o tuns, o uinals, o kins. This is similar to the usual mode of writing measures; e.g., soft. I 1 in. Secondary Series are written in the same manner except that in them the lowest denomination (kin) comes first and the highest last. There are only three or four Secondary Series which do not follow this order, all at Palenque. But in the Dresden Codex the glyphs for the periods are omitted, and the value of the numbers depends upon position alone, as in the Arabic numerals.

Cyrus Thomas remarks that there is nothing to show that the 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu to which the Initial Series count back is the same in actual time in all. This is so, because 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu will recur every 52 years. But Thomas agrees that the assumption that it is the same actual day in all gives the most credible result, as this makes the terminal dates of the inscriptions fall within a reasonable distance of each other, and no doubt the assumption is correct. The earliest dated monument is Stela 9 at Uaxactun, 8-14-1 o-13-15 and the latest in the old empire is Stela 12 at the same site and is so– 3– o– o– o. This gives an extreme range of 1– 8– 9– 4– 5 (about 561 years), quite a probable time for any phase of civilization to last. But since the Maya erected the first dated monument about 3,443 years after the beginning of their era, it is clear that 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu no historical event and must have fallen long before there was any Maya civilization. Like the Julian period used by astronomers, it was a date calculated by skilled chronologists long after the invention of the calendar, doubtless with the object of harmonizing lesser periods.

But in general the range of Maya dates is even shorter. Many of the monuments record only one date, and where there are several the last date, or at least the last period-ending, seems generally to be the contemporaneous one. Now the dated monu ments are very rare in cycle 8, more numerous, but still confined to a few sites, from 9– o– o– o– o to 9– io– o– o o, become very numerous from 9-10– o– o– o– to 9-15– o– o– o, increase much more after 9-15– o– o– o, reach a maximum in 9-18– o o– o, and then suddenly diminish, becoming much fewer after 9-19– o– o– o, and ceasing after so– 3– o– o– o. The style of the monuments likewise shews a steady advance in art up to about 9-18– o– o– o. Change is also observable in the method of dating. In cycle 8 the monuments were erected on casual dates which did not end any tun or other time period, and the dates were usually shewn by Initial Series, but early in cycle 9 the practice was adopted of setting up the monuments to mark each hotun. Unfortunately hotun is used by Maya scholars in this case to mean the end of either a katun, lahuntun, or hotun, that is, it means any number of tuns of the Long Count which is divisible by five. Initial Series were still used, and at about 9– 8-15– o– o the practice began of giving several dates on a monument besides the Initial Series, the last one marking the hotun. After 9-10– o– o o monuments dated by period-endings became fairly frequent, and after 9-15– o– o– o the Initial Series became rarer, and monu ments were dated mostly by period-endings or Calendar Round dates. Geographically we also see change. The old empire area was roughly triangular with Uaxactun and Tikal in the north-east, Copan and Quirigua in the south-east, and Piedras Negras in the west. Uaxactun and its neighbour, Uoluntun, alone show dates in cycle 8. In the first half of cycle 9 the monuments are almost confined to Uaxactun, Tikal, Copan and Piedras Negras, outliers in the area, while after 9–s o– o– o– o they are numerous every where till 9-18– o– o– o, when they cease at Piedras Negras and the west, ceasing at Quirigua and Copan and the south-west after 9-19– o– o– o. Some new cities appear towards the close of cycle 9 in the north-east, and the closing date is at Uaxactun and Xultun near it. It is noteworthy that Uaxactun and Tikal, though at the north-east of the old empire, are almost in the centre of the whole Maya area if we consider the old and new empire territories together, and these sites were probably the original seats of the Maya.

The New Empire.

The Long Count was wanting in the new empire. Instead they used the U Kahlay Katunob, which was a simplification of the older period-ending method. The cycle had entirely dropped out of use, and the only periods were the katun and the tun, the katun being the more important. The katuns were cited by the day Ahau with its day number on which they ended. Thus "Katun 13 Ahau" or simply "13 Ahau." Such a date can recur every 13 katuns (about 256 years) because in that time the 13 day numbers will be exhausted. The order of succession is 13.11. 9 . 7 . 5 . 3 . 12 . I 0 . 8. 6. 4. 2 . Often nothing was mentioned save the katun in which the event occur red, so that not only could the katun recur about every 256 years, but the event might have occurred anywhere within the katun, leaving about 20 years uncertainty. At times an event is described as occurring in tun so-and-so of such a katun, thus fixing it within a period of 36o days within the katun. But if the Calendar Round date is given as well, as e.g., "Katun 13 Ahau, Tun 13, 9 Imix 18 Zip," then (depending upon what date it is) the date can either only occur once in 18,720 years or can occur twice in that time, at intervals of 7,436 years and 11,284 years respectively.

Correlations.

The state of knowledge about the Maya of the old empire has no parallel in archaeology. While on the one hand we do not even know the names of the peoples who erected the monuments, much less their history, nor even if they spoke Maya, seeing that all knowledge of the calendar is based upon Landa's account of the new empire, yet so accurate were their dates that it is possible to date the monuments with regard to each other to the exact day. But widely different views are held by scholars as to the correlation with Christian chronology. The principal elements of the problem are : (I) correlation of the old and new empire chronologies, (2) correlation of the new empire and Christian chronologies, (3) correlation with astronomical discoveries of Teeple. (I) If the month-days on which the katuns of the new empire ended had been stated, there would have been an absolute correlation with the old empire. A tun ends on the same day number every 13 tuns, but will end on the same month day only every 73 tuns, and on the same day number and month day only every 949 tuns. Similarly a katun will only end on the same day number and month-day every 949 katuns (18,72o years). But as the new empire method did not state the month, the Katun 13 Ahau which occurred in the i6th century is identified with various katuns of the Long Count by different writers. The Books of Chilan Balam carry back the new empire chronology to about A.D. 163. Mr. J. Eric Thompson alone shortens this. (2) Opinions differ as to what year in the i6th century a katun 13 Ahau ended in, so the new empire chronology is only loosely cor related with Christian chronology within the limits of about a katun. The Maya year was a shifting one and Landa says that in his time Pop began on July 16 0.S. This was in or near No correlation can stand which does not agree with Landa's state ment, consequently all are ruled out but the three given below. (3) Teeple shows certain lunar and Venus dates agreeing with Thompson, but probably the last word has not yet been said on this subject.

The Bowditch correlation depends on a statement as to the month-day and has considerable historical evidence in its favour. Thompson's correlation depends on another statement as to the month-day and raises some difficulties owing to the shortness of its chronology. Dr. Herbert J. Spinden's correlation is at variance with both of these month-dates and also with Teeple's results. Moreover, the astronomical observations on which he relies have been shown by further measurement to be incorrect. The dates of 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in these correlations are in the Gregorian Calendar (astronomical reckoning) :- Bowditch, Joyce and Long Feb. Io 3641 B.C.

Spinden Oct. 14 3373 B.C.

Thompson Aug. 13 3113 B.C.

As the Maya chronology was the only efficient one in pre Columbian America it would, if fixed, throw much light on that of America as a whole. Excavation of Maya sites has yielded objects obtained in trade from both northwards and southwards, so that if the correlation was established, the period when these neighbouring cultures flourished could be approximated.

Solving Dates.

A word in conclusion on solving dates. Given such a series as 9-10-6–J9 and that its starting-point is a known date such as say 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the day name can at once be determined by counting the kin number (in this case 9) from the starting-point ; thus 9 days from Ahau will reach Muluc. But the finding of the day number and the month-day is a more difficult matter. It is possible to reduce the whole series to single days and then find the day number by dividing by 13 and counting the remainder forward from the day number of the starting point, similarly to find the month-day by dividing the total number of days by 365 and counting forward the remainder from the month-day of the starting-point. But the student is advised not to use this time-wasting method. Many problems can be solved by tables, of which the best are J. T. Goodman's and those of Mr. Thomas A. Joyce, but not all cases can be directly done by tables, and though they are valuable for checking results, it is well to be able to calculate independently of them. By far the best rule is that of Mr. Raymond K. Morley (see Bibliography), by which all series can be quickly calculated without any tables.

Cakchiquel Calendar.

This is the only era found in ancient America except the Maya. It was a pure vigesimal count, the units being the kih or day; the vinak (meaning "twenty") or zo kih, the a or zo vinak, and the may or 20 a. No higher units are known or were required, as the era only started from the day I I Ah, the date of the revolt of the Tukuche tribe, equivalent to May 20 O.S. This era is altogether unique, not only from its purely vigesimal character, but also that it only corn menced in the lifetime of persons who were living at the Spanish conquest. No hint of any other era appears in the Annals, before the revolt, but the use of the special words such as a and may shows that such a mode of counting from some other epoch or epochs had been previously known. The Cakchiquel, living south wards of the old empire, like the Yucatan Maya to the north of it, used a later simplification of the older time counts. Dates were expressed thus: On I Ah was completed I may and 5 a; after the revolt, on 12 Camey (a certain event occurred) . Some times the number of vinak and kih was also given.

Mexican Calendar.

There was no chronological system beyond the calendar round. The codices show no means of giving the numbers of years elapsed from one date to another except the clumsy one of stating the year-bearers of all the intervening years. The calendar round began with the year 2 Acatl, in which year the great festival of the "year-binding," xiuhmolpilli, was held. The codices denote such a year by a special sign along with the year-bearer, but this is merely the same thing as noting the occurrence of such an event in that year. The sign for the year-binding was never used as an arith metical sign to show that 52 years or a multiple thereof had elapsed. To do this they had to set out all the individual years. Naturally, there is much confusion in Mexican history and the same event is placed by different authorities at varying numbers of calendar rounds before the Spanish conquest. Mexico sur rendered to Cortez on the day I Coatl, year 3 Calli, which was Aug. 13 1521 0.S. This was 3 Xocouetzi, as the year-bearers were taken from I Toxcatl instead of from the first month of the year. The explanation is probably that the monthly festivals were displaced in the shifting calendar to agree with the seasons, but this question is very obscure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-C. P. Bowditch, The Numeration, Calendar SysBibliography.-C. P. Bowditch, The Numeration, Calendar Sys- tems, and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas (Cambridge, U.S.A. 191o) ; T. A. Joyce, Mexican Archaeology (London, i914), and Guide to the Maudslay Collections of Maya Sculptures (British Museum, 1923) ; S. G. Morley, An Introduction to the Study of Maya Hiero glyphs (Washington, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1915), and The Inscriptions at Copan (Washington, Carnegie Institution, 192o) ; R. K. Morley, "Computations for the Maya Calendar" in American Anthro pologist (1918) ; R. C. E. Long, "Maya and Christian Chronology," Journal Royal Anthropological Institute (1923), "The Age of the Maya Calendar," Journal Royal Anthropological Institute (1924), "Maya High Numbers," Man. No. 39 (1923) , "The Bowditch and Morley Correlations of Maya Chronology," Man. No. 2 (1925) ; J. E. Teeple, "Maya Inscriptions, Glyphs," C. D. & E. of the Supplementary Series, and "Further Notes on the Supplementary Series," in American Anthropologist (1925) ; also "Maya Inscriptions, The Venus Calendar and another Correlation," in American Anthropologist (1926) ; H. J. Spinden, The Reduction of Mayan Dates (Cambridge, U.S.A., Pea body Museum) ; J. E. Thompson, A Correlation of the Mayan and European Calendars (Chicago, Field Museum of Natural History, 1927).

The student is recommended to read first Joyce's Guide, then his Mexican Archaeology, then Morley's Introduction (with good bibliog raphy), and then Bowditch. The last two are absolutely essential. Morley's Copan, a truly great book, presupposes a knowledge of the subject and contains an extensive bibliography. (R. C. E. L.)