MAYA CHRONOLOGY'' 



By E. Forstemann 



All previous studies of the Maya calendar present some unexplained 

 or baffling points for which an explanation or correction must l)e 

 sought. I will here state these points in numbered paragraphs in 

 order that I may afterwards refer to them. 



1. The series of 20 days is said to begin either with Imix, which 

 view is supported by the Aztec arrangement, as well as by various 

 passages in Codex Troano-Cortesianus, or with Kan, which view is 

 based on the express testimony of Diego de Landa, as well as on the 

 Dresden eodex,^ 



2. All computation of long periods of time should, according to my 

 own hyi^othesis, which I advanced in the year 1887, begin with the 

 eighth day of the eighteenth month. What is the reason for the 

 prominent jDosition of this day? 



3. The periods of 24 years, the ahaus, are said to begin with the 

 second day of the Cauac year. Why should this day be chosen ? 



4. The day XIII 20 is decidedly of great importance in the Dres 

 den codex in cases in which a period of 2()0 days is not in ques- 

 tion, but a solar year divided into four ecjual parts of 91 days each. 

 How is the prominence of this day in such cases to be exjilained? 



5. Pages 25 to 28 of the Dresden codex, which relate beyond a 

 doubt to the change to the new year, are said actually to treat only 

 of the last two unlucky intercalary days at the end of the year. AVhy 

 of these only ? 



G. Calendar dates have a formula like this: III, 2; 18, 3d month. 

 This I explained in 1887 as the second week day Chicchan that is 

 followed by the tliirteenth day of the third month. Although I have 

 tried to establish this view, it still seems somewhat forced. IIow is 

 this difficulty to be obviated ? 



I have recently reached the conclusion that at the end of the fif- 

 teenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century the confusion was 

 observed which arose from the fact that the year was computed only 



" Znr Maya-Chronologie, ZeUsrhrift fiir Ethnologic, Dresden, 1801. 



" This rule, as has been subsequently shown, does not apply to the Dresden codex. C. T. 



475 



