66 THE ARCHAIC MAYA INSCRIPTIONS. 



proof of tangibility, at least. Naught is not multipliable — hence this sign must have 

 some numerical value ; and, as it commonly occurs where according to the Archaic style 

 of numeration we should expect to find 20, it is reasonable to assume it stands for that 

 number. There is the same difficulty here in the way of such an assumption, however, 

 as in case of the other signs for 20. This glyph is used to designate an initial chuen 

 also — a period whose extreme numerative limit during the Archaic era was 18. But I 

 do not regard this as conclusive against it being a sign for 20. Its use, in this respect, 

 may have descended from a time when the ahau was composed of twenty chueus, the 

 sign being retained through habit notwithstanding a change that made its use 

 inappropriate. This is rendered probable not only by the retention of other obsolete 

 usages, or usages that had lost their original significance, but by the fact that the 

 Cakchiquels till the last reckoned by periods composed of twenty chuens — a survival, 

 very likely, of a cruder form of the calendar antedating the improved ones of the 

 Archaic people. While speaking of this character, I would state that its value is not 

 a discovery of mine. Observing its frequent occurrence in the initial series of the 

 inscriptions in positions where one would expect to encounter numerals, and noticing 

 that the dot-and-bar numbers nowhere went above 19, Maudslay long ago declared it 

 to be his belief that the character in question was a sign for 20 — so that I only 

 substantiate his shrewd conjecture. 



What I have said of this particular character in connection with the chuen symbol 

 is equally applicable to other signs for 20 when used in the same relation— they all 

 indicating but 18 in that position, though elsewhere invariably standing for 20. This 

 fact appears to me to be in the nature of cumulative evidence that originally there was 

 a 20-chuen period, and that through long use the people had become so accustomed to 

 seeing the initial chuen designated similarly to the corresponding ahau and katun, that 

 it was deemed advisable to make no change in this respect when the calendar was 

 reformed. Hence, I do not think the exceptional contradictory use in connection with 

 the chuen period should exclude any of these initial signs from the list of numerals 

 that represent 20, where they properly belong. 



