MORLEY] INTRODUCTIOISr TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEEOGLYPHS 



83 



what seem to be traces of another method of dating. This consists of 

 some day Ahau modified by one of the two elements shown in figure 

 38 {a-d and e-Ti, respectively) , In such cases the month part is some- 

 times recorded, though as frequently the day Ahau stands by itself. 

 It is to be noted that in the great majority of these cases the days 

 Ahau thus modified are the ending days of katmis, which are either 

 expressed or at least mdicated in adjacent glyphs. In other words, 

 the day Ahau thus modified is usually the ending day of the next 

 even katun after the last date recorded. The writer believes that 

 this modification of certain days Ahau by either of the two ele- 

 ments shown in figure 38 may indicate that such days were the 

 katun ending days nearest to the time when the inscriptions present- 

 ing them were engraved. The snake variants shown in figure 38, 



^3 



e f 9 



Fig. 38. "Snake" or "knot" element as used with day sign Ahau, possibly indicating presence of the 

 u kahlay katunob in the inscriptions. 



a-d, are all from Palenquc; the knot variants (e-Ji of the same figure) 

 are found at both Copan and Quirigua. 



It may be objected that one katun ending day in each inscription 

 is far different from a sequence of katun ending days as shown in 

 Table IX, and that one katun ending day by itself can not be con- 

 strued as an u kahlay katunob, or sequence of katuns. The differ- 

 ence here, however, is apparent rather than real, and results from the 

 different character of the monuments and the native chronicles. The 

 u kahlay katunob in Table IX is but a part of a much longer sequence 

 of katuns, which is shown in a number of native chronicles written' 

 shortly after the Spanish Conquest, and which record the events of 

 Maya history for more than 1,100 years. They are in fact chrono- 

 logical synopses of Maya history, and from their very nature they 

 have to do with long periods. This is not true of the monuments,* 

 which, as we have seen, were probably set up to mark the passage of 

 certain periods, not exceeding a katun in length in any case. Conse- 

 quently, each monument would have inscribed upon it only one or two 



I There are, of course, a few exceptions to this rule— that is, there are some monuments which indicate 

 an interval of more than 3,000 years between the extreme dates. In such cases, however, this interval is 

 not divided into katuns, nor in fact into any regularly recurring smaller unit, with the single exception 

 mentioned in footnote 1, p. 84. 



