96 



THE ARCHAIC MAYA INSCRIPTION'S. 



and 9 days apart in the annual calendar, as shown in the usual way by two of the 

 glyphs. But I suspect — for the matter is not susceptible of satisfactory demonstration 

 — that the dates are here denoted to be much farther apart ; in fact, that they are 

 actually 5 katuns, 18 ahaus, 11 chuens and 9 days removed from each other. The 

 difference is exactly two calendar rounds, and that fact I conceive to be expressed by 

 the upper and lower pair of glyphs, in this way : Reckoning thence (from the preceding 

 date) a calendar round, 13 ahaus, 3 chuens, 9 days, and reckoning thence an additional 

 calendar round. The glyph that should represent the calendar round here is composed 

 of two characters, the prefix denoting 20 and the mask-like symbol 949, according to 

 my theory, which numbers multiplied together make 18,980, the days in a calendar 

 round. It may appear strange that there should be a sign for so odd a number as 949, 

 but that is one of the important numbers in Maya chronological reckonings, and it is 

 likely that there are many signs for it. The repetition of the directive and calendar- 

 round signs, instead of embodying the purport in a single expression, is something for 

 others to explain. I know only that the style of the inscriptions is very redundant, as 

 the next example also will show : 



The reckoning here is from the beginning of a great cycle. A notation of 1 — 6 — 7 X 12 

 (the 12 erroneously appears as 13) precedes the glyphs and is to be incorporated with 

 them. That reckoning shows the difference between the dates in the annual calendar ; 

 but the real difference, I think, includes twenty calendar rounds in addition, the full 

 notation being 2 — 14 — — 15x12. The additional period I suspect to be expressed 

 by the two middle glyphs — that to the right being a sign for the bissextiles, its prefix 

 denoting 20 of them, and the one at the left in some way indicating 13, the number of 



bissextiles in a calendar round, 



making a total of 260. 



That is, instead of directly 



saying twenty calendar rounds or notating the period in the usual way, it is indicated 

 by giving the number of bissextiles that would accrue in it. If my surmise be correct, 

 the reading of this notation should be as follows : 1 — 6 — 7 X 12, reckoning from the 

 beginning of the great cycle, and 13 20-bissextile periods — from the beginning of the 

 great cycle. These interpretations are put forth more as suggestions than assertions. 

 I do not wish them accepted on my authority, as there is more than a possibility of 

 their being wrong, and I desire to avoid misleading any one. For myself, I have 



