N THE BACK WALL OF THE SANCTUARY

STER CAST.

G

H ^I

NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT. PL XLII.

M

N

O

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

TEMPLE OF THt

^{FOLIATEDCROSS. INSCRIBED}

P^"-_on the

BACK WALL OF THE ^SANCTUARY.

PHOTOGRAPH" ^'""*'^^ER^CAST.

TiioMAsJ

TABLET OF THE FOLIATED

CEOSS

765 The

data also spein to favor

Goodmairs

conclusions except in one or

two

cases

where

his statements are palpably erroneous.

He

gives 17 asthe

number

of days in the thirdseries right slab without I'efercnce to the fact that the inscription shows 1^. I think that 17days ai'e to be counted here, but the inscription showsclearly 12.

TAHLET

OK TIIK FOLIATKl) CROSS

Tli(> next inscription to which attention is directed is that on the so-called Tablet of theFoliated Cross.

Here we

are favored with

Mr

]\Iau(lslay"s excellent photograph, of whi<-h a copy ^is given in our plate XLii.

The

numeral seriesand dates in the order in wiiicii they stand in tlie inscription, including the initial series as interpreted by

Goodman

((>xcept as tothe 2Udays), are as follows:

T,rft xfaJ,

nays.

1 54 ^{1 ]S 5 4 1} Ahau ^l:; Mac^(ilLamat) (275,480) 9,760

2 14 19 1Cauac ⁷ Yax (10Benl 299

3 114 14 2Ahaii^:i ITayeb (4Ezaiiai.i 12,520

1 Ahau13Mac(9Lamat)

4 7 7 7 3 It) (nciclate) (1.080,996) 17.096

Miilil/rspair 8 ()c3 Kayal)(11 Laniat)

2Ci)) 14 Mol (5AkV)al) 3Caban? 15 Mol (5Akbal)

1? 6 9 3 (nodate; doubtful.-eriesthoucrhdistinct) 2,343

2 2 9 6 4 8

Ahau3

Uo? (12 F.zanab?! orS

Oc3

Kayab... 17,764

3 6 11 6 (no date) 2,380

4 1 12 4 8 Ahau8UoV(7Ben?) 604

5? 13 ^II (nodate; probablynot acounterI (17,6S0?)

As

in the lists heretofore given, forconvenience the series are

num-

bcivd at the left, the years are added in parentheses, the

mnnber

of days are indicated l>y the numeral ^series placed to the right, and the remainder is

shown

after the calendar rounds have )>een subtracted

when

the total exceeds a calendar round. In place of the 20 days given

by Goodman

I have in each case sulistituted ⁽ⁱ days, as I thus interpret the symt)ol in the inscription.

As

the readernuist ha\'e the inscription before

him

to find the posi- tion of the nimieral series and dates and is

presumed now

to l)e suf- ticiently posted to

hnd them from

the list given abo\e, it is

deemed

unnecessary to give here a list of the glyphs.

Such

reference to special glyphsas is

deemed

necessary will ))e

made

^as

we

proceed.

The

muneralstothetime periodsintheinitialseriesofthis inscripti(jn, as in the two which have been examined, consistof face characters,

766 MAVAN

⁽

ALKNUAR

SV.STEMS ^[kth.an.v19 oxcojit the l;! to tlic inoMtli

Muc For

their dctorniination W(> are

iiulclitt'd ciiiorty to Ml' (ioodniuii. tiic evidence so far as oi)tained beinu; sutKeient to(Miiilile us to identil'v

some

of tiieni.

The

date

from

whiciithis series is eouiited. tiie Ijeiiiiuiiny of

Mr

⁽ioodiiian's so-called tifty-fourth <;freat eycl(\ is. of course. 4

Ahau

^{^s} Cuinhu. in the year 8 Bi'M. ('ouutiiiu' forward from this date '.Mtiu days, the

number

after the calendar loundsare subtracted, brinys us to 1 Aiiau ^[''> ^lac

(!l Lamat). ^{tiie first} i-ecorded date.

As

it is with the latterdate, which

isdesio-nated tiie •"initial date." tiiouyh ^{it is} not strictly so. that

Mr Goodman

lieyins ^iiis i-eci-;oninL;'.

we

^{<;'i\'e liere} his

comment

on the inscription:

Iiiitiiil .late: .S4-1-1S-.5-4X20-1Aliau i;>Mac. Thisilateisjust fourteendayslater thanthe ^initial date(iftheprecediii;:inscription [Talilet ofthe Sun]. Tlie.direi'tive series follows, succeeded byareckonin<rof 14chuensand ^tildays^{to 1} Cauac7 Yax.

Elevi-iiunreadalile^dyphscomenext,and then 1-14-14x20, whic-h, afterfour uncer- tain directive characters, isdeclaredto l)eareckoningtothe lieginningdayscoreof thesecond cycle,2Ahau^-i Uayeh. It iscorrect. Then come tworeckoningsinan unfamiliarstyle, the^first from the beginning of the great cycle,thesecond from1

Ahau ^\'.i Mac. 1

am

positive of this, for the verynext reckoning will showthat there are 40,000days to be accounted for somehow,and they can be represented only by one of the.-^e counts. That reckoning ^{is: 7-7-7-.!/ lt>, t<i 2 C'ib 14} Mol.

Subsequent computationsshow ^tliatdate ^to be theone ^towhich W-ri-lS-SXlH led

upin the preceding inscription; lience the necessity for something to explain the missing 40,000 days. Asfrom thison the reckoning and dates of the twoinscrip- tions are nearly the same, it is not worth while ^{to repeat} them; ^I will, however, givea synopsis sliowing^tlieposition ofthe datesin both:

loCimi ^".!•("eh

1 Ahau IS Mac

1 Cauac ⁷ Yax

2 Ahau^.'5 I'ayeb 12AhauSCeh

2 Cimil 111 Zotz

it Akbal (iXul 13 Ahau ISKankin

8Oc^:i Kayal) 2 C'ib14Mol

SAhau8 Uo

Beo-iiinino- witii tiic firstdate. 1 .Vhaii ^]''<

Mac

(wliich falls in the year 9 Lannt). in reo-ard to which

we

follow .Mr (ioodman"s determina- tion, the]iretixed luimberand the dayalso beino- face olyphs,

we

count forwiird ^lit days and 14 chuens, or ^2!t'.t days. This reckonino- readies

1Cauac ⁷

Vax

^{in the}year in Hen. This^iscorrect, as thisdate is found at HlH.

A14

iinniediately followino-. This result is important, ^{as it} furnishes strong- evidence of tlu> correctness of tin' ruimlicr assio^ned b}^

Mr Goodman

^to the face gl.vph attached to the day .Miau. 'i"ho rcekoninjjf hi're is forward, which ^is presimied ^l<i be the direction followed ))y th(^ other series.

.Vs the next inMuc;;il series(CiJ to 1)4, reverseof usual ord(M") is. as1 (1)

THOMAS]

TABLET OF THE FOLIATED

CROSS 7(i7 countit, 1katuii. 14 ahaus, 14chueii-i.⁽⁾days.or. inall, 1^.520 days, the reckoningis forward this

number

of days, presumably

from

1 Cauac 7

Yax

in the year 10 Ben.

No

connection ^is

made

by this count; but

when

299 days, the

amount

of the previous series are deducted, the remainder

—

^{12,221 days}

—

^{will carry us to 2}

Ahau

3

Uayeb

(orthe third addedday) of the yeari Ezanab. This iscorrect, as

we

tiiid this date following the series atC'8, 1)8.

By

using the whole numeral series

—

12,520 days

—

and counting

from

the ^first date

—

¹

Ahau

¹⁸ INIac (9

Lamat) — ^we

^{reach the latter date}

—

²

Ahau

³

Uayeb —

^{as.of course,}

^we

should.

We

thus have proof notonly that ]Mr

Goodman

has correi'tly interpreted the sj'mbol at

Ds

as that of the Uayeb, or ^.5 added-day period, butalso additional evidence in favor of the

number

assigned by

him

to thefacecharacterof the firstdate. It

may

be said that this tirstdatewas found by counting

backward from

after dates.

Be

it so, this

method

is perfectly legitimateand is the only

means

of determin- ation in such case unless his theoryof counting

from

the })eginning of the great cycle and also his interpretation of the face mmierals be accepted.

The

symbols of the

month

and day of the

month

areclear,

and limit the day to one of four

—

^{Ahau, Chicchan, Oc,}

^Men —

^{none of}

which, save

Ahau,

will connect with the following dates. I therefore

deem

the evidence sufficient foracceptance.

As

1

Ahau

13

Mac

^is reintroduced at D14,C15,^it

would seem

that a

new

reckoningshould begin

from

this point.

The

result of the trial,

using the entire numeral ^series which

comes

immediately after the date is as follows:

Days

7cycles 1,008,000

7katuns oO,400

7ahaus ^2,520

3chuens 60

Days 16

Total 1^,060,996

Deduct55 calendarrounds 1,043,900

Remahider 17,096

As

1

Ahau

¹³

Mac

^falls in the year 9 Lamat,

we

reckon

from

that date, counting forward 17,096 days, and reach 2 Cib 14

Yax

in the year4 Akbal. This iscorrectexceptas tothi> month,wdiich, as

shown

l)yglyph

Ml,

^iscertainly Mol. Itis evident,then-foi'e,that ^Ir

Good- man

^is

wrong

in assuming that the series 7-7-7-3-16 (or 17,096 days aftercasting out the calendar rounds) connects 1

Ahau

13

Mac

of the left slab with 2 Cilj 14 Mol, the first date of the right slab, unless the

month

iscorrectedtoYax.

What

he

means

^l>y "40,000 daystobe accounted for." andthatthey are to be accounted for ))ythereckoning '•'7-7-7-3-16 to 2 Cib 14 Mol," ^is not clear. According to his

"synopsis showing the position of the dates in both [inscriptions]"

768 MAYAN CALKNUAK SYSTEMS

(ktii.ann.19 gfiven above, the lapse of time, aseaii he seen hy subtractiti','' series 2

from

series Id. is r)i;.520 days, thus:

Series 11.. 9 12 18 5 16 Seriei'2... 1 IS 5 4

7 14 ^1:5 1 16

F(111rth seriesleftslab Foliated Cross 7 7 7 3 16

7 5 16 0=52,520days.

He

^{maizes tlie} lapse of time

from

1

Ahau

13

Mac

to 3 Cib 14

Mol

7-l-l:-13-l-lti=l,113,516 days, or 12,676after easting out the calen- dar rounds.

That

this

number

of dayswill connect the

two

dates is certainly true, but

where

is the evidence to justify this radical change of the mnueral series

by

theaddition of 52.o'2<) daj's?

Where

^is the proof ^tliat these

two

dates are to }>e connected 1)V the; fourth rumieral series^

\ mimber

can be found to connect any

two

dates, but there must ])cdemonstration first that thev arc to be connected according to the plan of the aboriginal ai'tist.

The

direct connection l)et\veen the series of the left and right ^{sl:i))s is} thei-eforc not jii'ovcd. tiiougli the r(>ckonings given al)ove

seem

to indicate it.

Passing over the middle space to th(> I'ight sial). th(> tirst date (LI.

Ml), already noticed, ^is 2 Cib 14 Mol; the next, found at

M5,

L6, is 3

Caban

15 Mol.which ^{is tlu^} ne.vt day in the calendarafter 2 Cib 14 Mol. both l)eing in the

same

year

—

^{5 Akbal. Following the latter iit}

LI6,

M16

^is

what

appears to be :i numeral scries_(1). to wit, ^t! ahaus, y chuens. 3 days.

Whether

this is to be recognized as a numeral scries which ^{is to} be counted ^is uncertain, as it is immediately followed at

M17.

^{^'1.} 01. ^I)y tiie scri(>s (2) 4 days, <i chuens, 9 ahaus. 2 katuns (17,764 ^{days). 'I'hc latter is}followed atN5, ()5 bya souunvhat uncer- tain date, S

Oc

³ Kayab. or S Aiiau 13 Uo.

The

day ^is a face syml)ol and the nionth symlidi is unusual, but

more

like that for

Kayab

than any other. It is iuc-ludctl in (ioodman's syno]isis as S C)c ^;> Kayab.

This is followedat N6. Oti by the series ₍₃₎ ^(! days. 11 cluiens. (i alums (2,3S6 days), which, in turn, without any intermediate recognizable date, is followed at ()i3.

NL4

by the series ₍₄₎ 4 days, 12 chuens. 1

ahau (604 days). This^is follow(>d at

N15 by

the date 8

Ahau

^{S I'o.}

Immediately following, at ()i5. is the symbol for l:'> katuns, which is foll()W(>d by no date.

We

tind by trial that neither 2 Cib 14 .Mol nor3

Caban

l."> .Mol will connect by the tirstseries, 6-t)-3 (2.343 days), nor the second. 2-9-6-4 (17,764 days), with eithei- of the dates which follow. 'i"he i-cckoning forward of 17,764 days

from

2 Cib 14 Mol, year ^.'> .Vkbal. reaches 8

Ahau

¹³

Uo,

year2 Lamat. which

might

be acceptedas correct, as the day symbol, which ^is aface character, is

much

like thatfor .Vhau. liut forthreereasons: First, the

month

symbol ^iswholly dilVerentfrom that denoting Uo. though

somewhat

unu>iial. being aiipaiently that for

THOMAS]

TABLET OF THE FOLIATED

CROSS

769