Commentary on the Maya Manuscript in the Royal Public Library of Dresden

by Ernst Wilhelm Förstemann

Now, the question finally arises as to what may, strictly speaking, be considered the significance of these numbers, dates and differences.

In the first place, I would recall the fact that the dates of the monuments of Copan and Quirigua, which doubtless refer to present time, are in the neighborhood of 1,400,000. The high numbers of our Manuscript, so far as they are in question here, form first a group, which extends from about 1,200,000 to 1,280,000, and then there is a blank, and next a large group extending

from about 1,350,000 to 1,480,000, then another blank and lastly a group extending from about 1,520,000 to 1,580,000. If we assume that our Manuscript belonged to about the same date as these inscriptions, then the three numbers discussed here would extend over a past period lying about 160-170 years back, when a new period of importance had begun probably dating from the immigration of the Aztecs into Mexico, which they placed in the first half of the 14th century (see "Weltall," Vol. 5. pp. 374-377). Now, however, the number 1,366,560 contains the statement that 3744 years ago (each year having 365 days) an event must have occurred, which can hardly be anything other (according to the belief of the Mayas) than the creation of mankind. Hence all the historical dates of the Mayas were computed from this starting-point. But how did this event come to have the date IV Ahau 8 Cumhu?

In my opinion this date is to be regarded only as the result of the far more important date I Ahau 18 Kayab, lying 2200 days earlier. Day 17, Ahau, belongs, without doubt, to the chief of the gods, and as the first week day it must have been especially sacred. The prophecies of the Tonalamatl preferably begin with the Ahau and with the I. The series on the page under discussion, constructed with the difference 2920 as a basis, begins with I Ahau, and the three series on pages 46-50 also have the same day as the zero point of departure. I Ahau is therefore the starting-point of the astronomical computations as IV Ahau is of the historical.

Now, however, all the periods of 260 days end each time with I Ahau. Why is precisely this day chosen here, which is the 18th day of the month Kayab, therefore in the year 3 Kan, and lying 2200 days earlier than the historical date?

Day 18 Kayab is our June 18th. In my treatise "Schildkröte und Schnecke in der Mayaliteratur" (1892), I have sought to prove that the tortoise served as symbol of the summer solstice, that the sign of Kayab was the head of a tortoise, and that probably the 18th of June was regarded as the longest day. The middle one of the three series on pages 46-50 begins with exactly this date, I Ahau 18 Kayab.

But whence come the 2200 days? I will offer a suggestion which may serve until a better theory is propounded. Let us assume that each of the five principal planets had in succession regulated its time of revolution by this astronomical starting-point, thus:—sun 365, moon 356, Mercury 115, Venus 584, and Mars 780 days, these numbers added together give exactly 2200. It will scarcely excite surprise that I should set down the lunar year at 356 days (and not at the usual 354 days) for there are 12 × 29⅔ lunations in a year and we thought we had already found this period on this page, while discussing the number 1,364,360; also on pages 51-58, in addition to the half lunar year of 177 days, we shall find one of 178 days. Were the planets therefore created 2200 days before the appearance of mankind? Jupiter and Saturn, of course, with their 397 and 380 days are probably not considered here, because their periods of revolution so nearly correspond to that of the sun, and on pages 51-60 they are also treated as of secondary importance.

I confess I am quite unable to discover what may have happened 11,960 days before the creation of the stars—possibly the birth of one of the principal deities. Perhaps one of my fellow-students may succeed in finding an answer in one of the creation myths.

We come now to the 40 hieroglyphs on the left half of the page. These are intended simply to familiarize the reader with those signs which are of importance in the calendrical-astronomical portions of the Manuscript. Since no phonetic system of writing existed, we cannot, of course, expect that the scribe should have explained these signs.