It was certainly to be hoped that the designations which Dr. Seler gave to these Maya periods of time in his “Die Monumente von Copan, etc.,”[1] would have been accepted by Americanists, especially since very good reasons were given by Seler for their adoption. But this view does not meet the approval of Dr. Förstemann or Dr. Thomas. The latter in his “Maya Calendar, Part II.,” published in the “Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,” still calls the period of 20 days a chuen and that of 360 days an ahau, while the former in his article on “Die Lage der Ahaus bei den Mayas,” published in Part I. of the 1904 issue of the “Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,” makes the following statement: “The katun has also been supposed to be 24 × 365 = 8760 days long (and I held this view for a long time), indeed the long period of 52 × 365 = 18,980 days is also occasionally designated with the word, while the sixth multiple of this member or 113,800 is called an ahaukatun.” He uses the terms “day,” “uinal,” and “ahau” for the periods of 1, 20, and 7200 days respectively.
[1] See Seler, “Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde,” Vol. I. p. 722.
Such statements from such learned scholars must attract attention, especially as it is not the first time that they have made similar statements. If they give a correct statement of facts, it shows that the system of the Maya numeration or calendar was in a woful condition, as far as its nomenclature was concerned. It will be well, therefore, to take up this question of nomenclature anew. In all matters of this kind it is wise, while giving due value to the views of later writers, to place the most dependence for the solution of such questions upon contemporary or nearly contemporary evidence.
And where is such evidence to be found? Though there are several Spanish writers who lived in the sixteenth century who have written on the Nahuas, Bishop Landa is the earliest Spanish authority who has dealt with Maya customs and history. And the only Maya authorities of an early date that the student has access to are the papers contained in Brinton’s Maya Chronicles, the principal of which are the Books of Chilan Balam, which Dr. Brinton declares “to constitute about all that remains to us ... of the ancient history of the peninsula” as far as he knows. Yet, in making objection to certain views of Dr. Seler, Dr. Förstemann says, “It is based on certain statements in the Books of Chilan Balam, a very dubious source according to Seler’s own assertion.” I am at a loss to know why such sweeping condemnation should be made of these books, for though the copies from which Dr. Brinton quotes may not be very old, these copies hand down to us records which must be of very great age. Dr. Förstemann himself quotes from them with approval, and it is certain that whatever may be their historical value, the evidence which they give incidentally cannot fail to be of great value. This evidence will, I think, prove—
First, that the period of 20 times 360 days was called a katun and not an ahau.
Second, that each of the constituent parts of a katun was called a tun.
Third, that no such period of time as an ahaukatun is mentioned in the Books of Chilan Balam.
The first assertion may seem difficult to prove when in far the larger number of cases where a separate katun is mentioned in the Books of Chilan Balam the word “ahau” seems to be substituted for “katun.” This is true in all five of the Books of Chilan Balam published by Brinton. But the reason of this is very evident, for it will be seen by a careful perusal that the word “ahaus” is never used when katuns in general are spoken of, and that whenever the word “ahau” is apparently given as a synonym of “katun,” it is merely the name of a particular katun and it always has a number attached to it and this number is the number of the day ahau with which a given katun ended. Further, this number is never an ordinal number, as translated by Brinton, but a cardinal number. Therefore 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. should be substituted in Brinton’s translation for 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc., and in the quotations from Brinton this substitution is made.
It may be here stated that the inscriptions all show that where an even uinal is given (and therefore where an even tun, katun, or cycle is given) the day is Ahau. If then it was desirable to distinguish the katuns from each other, two methods could be used: either count them numerically, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., or name them from the day Ahau with which the preceding katun had ended. The former method is found in the inscriptions and the Dresden Codex, the latter in the Books of Chilan Balam. The second method would not be possible if each katun ended with the same numbered ahau. But 7200 is not divisible by 13 without a remainder, but equals 13 × 553 + 11. If then a particular katun ended with 13 Ahau, the next would end with Ahau, but the number attached to Ahau would be 13 + 11, or, deducting thirteens, 11. The next katun would end with 9, the next with 7, and so on. The katuns then would be known as katuns, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, 7 Ahau, 5 Ahau, 3 Ahau, 1 Ahau, 12 Ahau, 10 Ahau, 8 Ahau, 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau, etc.
Taking up, therefore, No. I. of the Books of Chilan Balam, published by Brinton—that of Mani—we find in the paragraph numbered 1 by Brinton “This is the arrangement of the katuns” not “of the ahaus,” and in paragraph numbered 2 “Four katuns had passed, etc.” not “four ahaus.” This is followed by the statement “When they set out for this country, it was Ahau 8,” not “the 8th Ahau.” And then follows “6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, fourscore years and one year, for it was Tun 1, 13 Ahau when, etc.” That 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau refer to the katuns is very clear, and that 4 katuns with the names 8 Ahau, 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, and 2 Ahau are called fourscore years is equally clear. In paragraph 4 we have “4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau—threescore years they ruled Ziyan caan, etc.” Here three katuns are called threescore years.