THE HOTUN. BOF 
sometimes I0, and sometimes I5, 7. ¢., one, two, or three bars.! It is true that this 
element erodes down, so that frequently it resembles one or other of these three 
numbers (see figure 82, a, h, 0, and t), but when perfect it practically always has 
interior decorations, which show that it is not Io or 15 and probably not 5 (see 
figure 82, b-g, i-n, p-r). The best explanation for this element would seem to be 
that it cuts the zero-element in half, as it always does, and cutting any whole period in 
half, 1. ¢., one whose coeficient was zero, in the Maya vigesimal system gave 10 units 
of the next lower order in all places save periods of the third order, where it gave 9. 
As if in support of this morphology for the lahuntun-sign, we find it applied 
only once to a katun-sign (see figure 82, 0), where it accompanies the date 9.10.0.0.0 
in the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. But Katun 10 is precisely the only 
katun to which it could be applied and still retain the essence of the meaning sug- 
gested for it here, 1. ¢., as indicating half of the period next higher, since Katun Io is 
exactly half of a cycle. However, no matter how this sign acquired its meaning, 
Goodman correctly identified it, as the writer was able to prove in 1915, and Bow- 
ditch’s objection may doubtless be disregarded. 
Field work subsequent to the publication of the above paper on the hotun, 
moreover, has further corroborated the writer’s earlier conclusions. Former pre- 
valence of this custom was established at Uaxactun in 1916,’ at Los Higos in 1917,° 
and even in the New Empire at Tuluum and Chichen Itza in 1918.4 In{short, since 
the hotun-glyph was first identified in 1910, it has become increasingly evident that 
this period, or its second or fourth multiple (7. ¢., the lahuntun and katun), was the 
controlling factor in determining upon what dates the Maya erected their monu- 
ments throughout both the Old and the New Empire. 
In outlining the history of this practice let us seek its origin first, then trace 
its development during the Old Empire, and finally follow it north into Yucatan, 
and down to the period of the Spanish Conquest. For the Old Empire, our sources 
are exclusively archzologic, but when we come to the New Empire we will find 
documentary evidence bearing directly upon this custom in both the Spanish and 
native sources. 
It has been stated in Chapter V that the three earliest dated objects known, the 
Tuxtla Statuette, the Leyden Plate, and Stela 9 at Uaxactun, and possibly even 
Stela 5 at the same site, 8.6.2.4.17, 8.14.3.1.12, 8.14.10.13.15, and 8.15.10.3.12 (?) 
respectively, show no traces of this custom. From which it appears probable that 
the first monuments were not erected at the hotun-endings, but that some other 
factor, possibly an actual historic event or astronomic phenomenon, gave rise to 
their manufacture and determined the dates recorded upon them. In this con- 
nection also it should be noted that none of these four texts have Supplementary 
Series accompanying their respective Initial Series, at least in a recognizable form. 
That is, it appears probable that the 29 or 30 day lunar month and the eclipse 
features were not added to this type of Maya record until some time after their 
magnificent chronological system had been devised. 
The earliest possible occurrence of a period-ending date is on Stela 8 at Tikal, 
where the writer believes he may have found the lahuntun-ending 9.0.10.0.0, and 
the earliest certain example is on Stela 24 at Copan, 9.2.10.0.0, 40 years later. The 
earliest possible occurrence of a katun-ending 1s on Stela 9 at ‘Tikal, where the writer 
believes he may have found the katun-ending 9.2.0.0.0, and the earliest certain 
occurrence is on Stela 7 at Copan, 9.9.0.0.0, 140 years later. Finally, the earliest 
possible occurrence of a first or third hotun-ending 1s on Stela 16 at Copan, 9.4.15.0.0 
(very doubtful), and the earliest certain occurrence Is on Stela 25 at Piedras Negras, 
9.8.15.0.0, 80 years later. Even eliminating these doubtful earlier examples, it is 


1Bowditch, 1910, p. 247. 2Morley, 19164, pp. 339-341. 8Tbid., 1917¢, pp.288, 289. ‘Tbid., 1918a, p. 274. 
