HOLMES ANNIVERSARY VOLUME 



GLYPH A 



The first glyph of the Supplementary Series (see Glyph A, plates 

 I-x) is probably also the most important, since it declares within itself 

 that we are dealing with a lunar reckoning of some kind. It has two 



common forms, : a normal form pk=gj and a head variant LM . Both 



however have the same essential elements: a large central "eye" in 

 an oval socket, and two or three discs attached to the rim of the latter. 

 These discs are usually surrounded by an outer line, and the inclosure 

 thus made often shows cross-hatching. 



In two examples, both from Copan, the central "eye" element 

 becomes the head of a deity (see Nos. 68 and 69) which has been 

 identified by Dr Spinden as God D of the manuscripts. 2 Dr Schellhas, 

 in his definitive work on the Maya deities in the manuscripts, had 

 already associated this god with the moon, and had pointed out that 



the principal element of his name-glyph ■■S^y is the moon-sign it- 



self. 3 The association appears sufficiently clear, and it may be accepted 

 that in addition to his other and larger functions as a beneficent sky 

 deity, Lord of Day and Night, God D was also definitely associated 

 with the moon. 4 



There is a third and highly unusual variant (^TirS}\ which shows 



none of the distinguishing characteristics of the other two. So far as 

 the writer knows, however, this aberrant type occurs only in two or 

 possibly in three texts: Stelse A and N at Copan, and on the Hiero- 

 glyphic Stairway at Naranjo(?). These three variants are regular 

 only in that they occur at the beginning of the Supplementary Series 

 in each case, and each has a coefficient of 9 or 10. They are probably 

 a substantive for the more usual form. (See Glyph A, Nos. 77 and 80.) 

 The principal element of Glyph A was undoubtedly the character 

 used by the ancient Maya to represent the moon; but in addition to 



1 Practically all Maya glyphs, period, day, and month signs occur in two distinct guises: one 

 a normal form and the other a head variant. Frequently, however, both have the same essential 

 characteristic, as for example in the present case. In other glyphs, however, there appears to be 

 no resemblance whatever between the two forms. This is particularly true of the period glyphs, 

 the two forms of which are for the greater part entirely dissimilar. See Morley, 1915, pp. 24-25, 

 for a discussion of this point. 



2 Spinden, 1913, pp. 69-76, 92. 



3 Schellhas, 1904, p. 22. 



4 Spinden, op. cit. 



[370] 



