

300 



MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS 



i-:Tir. ANN. 



assumed. If tliis suniiise be correct, it is a type different from any 

 hitherto found in a ^layan inscription. If a Mayan day symbol, it 

 must, beyond any reasonable doubt, represent Chiechan, whicli istlie 

 onlydaj' in the calendar that has received the interpretation " Serjjent," 

 and is that whicli corresponds in position witli Cohuatl in the Mexican 

 calendiir. If this conclusion be correct, it confirms Brinton's inter- 

 X^retation of the name "Chiechan" (Native Calendar, page -5). 



The important glyxjhs of this inscription are the two at the bottom, 

 A6 and B6. These I think may safely be read "8 Caban 4 Zotz," 

 and in this I am glad to say that Savillo agrees with me. "Whether 

 the determination of the month symbol be correct or not, the four 

 dots over it are clear and distinct, showing the day to be the 4th of 

 the nio7ith. There can scarcely be any doubt that the day syml)ol is 

 that of Cabai^ which can only be the -ith day of the month in years 



l)eginning with Ix. This conforms to the 

 calendar of the Troano and Cortesian codices 

 and that used l)y Landa, in which the domin- 

 ical daj's are Kan, Muluc, Ix, Cauac. 



This is a very important fact, which, if 

 corroboi-ated by other discoveries, will carry 

 back the use of the Yucatec calendar to an 

 early date. I was inclined to the opinion 

 that this calendar was of comparatively 

 recent date, but this evidence, if accepted, 

 must carry it back to the era of the inscrii)- 

 tions, and place it, in time, parallel witli that 

 of the otlier sections. 



A single date, it is true, is slender evi- 

 dence on whicli to base a conclusion of so 

 much importance as this. However, as 

 it is the only evidence as yet obtained bearing on the ciuestion, it 

 must be accepted until other data ai*e obtained. It is possible tliat 

 one other date is given by Maudslay in plate xix, part 5, in an 

 inscription found at Chichen-Itza and shown in our figure 1G8. Pos- 

 sibly' tliis maj' be intended for ? Ahau 2 Cuniliu, and if so would be 

 the second day of the month in Cauac yeaj-s, and in accordance with 

 the Yucatec calendar. It must be admitted, however, that this is 

 very doubtful. It will be noticed that in the inscription from Xca- 

 lumkin the glyph B3, to the right of the supiDOsed Chiechan sym- 

 bol, consists of two faces, hence is presumably double, and over each 

 are two large dots. If the fti'st or left one be intended for a month 

 symbol, there is still correspondence with the Yucatec calendar, as 

 Chiechan is tlie second day of the month in Kaii years. However, it 

 must be admitted that as yet we are unalile to solve tlie pi-oblem. 



In regard to the types of the gl.yphs their nearest approach is to 

 tliose on Stela P, Coi)an (see Maudslay, plate LXXXVili, part 4). 





Fig. 1^^- Two syml)ols from a 

 Chiclien-Itza inscription. 



