An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs

by Sylvanus Griswold Morley

Fig. 38. "Snake" or "knot" element as used with day sign Ahau, possibly indicating presence of the u kahlay katunob in the inscriptions.

It may be objected that one katun ending day in each inscription is far different from a sequence of katun ending days as shown in Table [IX], and that one katun ending day by itself can not be construed as an u kahlay katunob, or sequence of katuns. The difference here, however, is apparent rather than real, and results from the different character of the monuments and the native chronicles. The u kahlay katunob in Table [IX] is but a part of a much longer sequence of katuns, which is shown in a number of native chronicles written shortly after the Spanish Conquest, and which record the events of Maya history for more than 1,100 years. They are in fact chronological synopses of Maya history, and from their very nature they have to do with long periods. This is not true of the monuments,[^[55]] which, as we have seen, were probably set up to mark the passage of certain periods, not exceeding a katun in length in any case. Consequently, each monument would have inscribed upon it only one or two

katun ending days and the events which were connected more or less closely with it. In other words, the monuments were erected at short intervals[^[56]] and probably recorded events contemporaneous with their erection, while the u kahlay katunob, on the other hand, were historical summaries reaching back to a remote time. The former were the periodicals of current events, the latter histories of the past. The former in the great majority of cases had no concern with the lapse of more than one or two katuns, while the latter measured centuries by the repetition of the same unit. The writer believes that from the very nature of the monuments—markers of current time—no u kahlay katunob will be found on them, but that the presence of the katun ending days above described indicates that the u kahlay katunob had been developed while the other system was still in use. If the foregoing be true, the signs in figure [38], a-h, would have this meaning: "On this day came to an end the katun in which fall the accompanying dates," or some similar significance.

If we exclude the foregoing as indicating the u kahlay katunob, we have but one aboriginal source, that is one antedating the Spanish Conquest, which probably records a count of this kind. It has been stated (p. [33]) that the Codex Peresianus probably treats in part at least of historical matter. The basis for this assertion is that in this particular manuscript an u kahlay katunob is seemingly recorded; at least there is a sequence of the ending days of katuns shown, exactly like the one in Table [IX], that is, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, etc.

At the time of the Spanish Conquest the Long Count seems to have been recorded entirely by the ending days of its katuns, that is, by the u kahlay katunob, and the use of Initial-series dating seems to have been discontinued, and perhaps even forgotten. Native as well as Spanish authorities state that at the time of the Conquest the Maya measured time by the passage of the katuns, and no mention is made of any system of dating which resembles in the least the Initial Series so prevalent in the southern and older cities. While the Spanish authorities do not mention the u kahlay katunob as do the native writers, they state very clearly that this was the system used in counting time. Says Bishop Landa (1864: p. 312) in this connection: "The Indians not only had a count by years and days ... but they had a certain method of counting time and their affairs by ages, which they made from twenty to twenty years ... these they call katunes." Cogolludo (1688: lib. iv, cap. v, p. 186) makes a similar statement: "They count their eras and ages, which they put in their books from twenty to twenty years ... [these] they call katun." Indeed, there can be but little doubt that the u kahlay katunob had entirely replaced the Initial Series in recording the Long Count centuries before the Spanish Conquest; and if the latter method of dating were known

at all, the knowledge of it came only from half-forgotten records the understanding of which was gradually passing from the minds of men.

It is clear from the foregoing that an important change in recording the passage of time took place sometime between the epoch of the great southern cities and the much later period when the northern cities flourished. In the former, time was reckoned and dates were recorded by Initial Series; in the latter, in so far as we can judge from post-Conquest sources, the u kahlay katunob and Calendar-round dating were the only systems used. As to when this change took place, we are not entirely in the dark. It is certain that the use of the Initial Series extended to Yucatan, since monuments presenting this method of dating have been found at a few of the northern cities, namely, at Chichen Itza, Holactun, and Tuluum. On the other hand, it is equally certain that Initial Series could not have been used very extensively in the north, since they have been discovered in only these three cities in Yucatan up to the present time. Moreover, the latest, that is, the most recent of these three, was probably contemporaneous with the rise of the Triple Alliance, a fairly early event of Northern Maya history. Taking these two points into consideration, the limited use of Initial Series in the north and the early dates recorded in the few Initial Series known, it seems likely that Initial-series dating did not long survive the transplanting of the Maya civilization in Yucatan.

Why this change came about is uncertain. It could hardly have been due to the desire for greater accuracy, since the u kahlay katunob was far less exact than Initial-series dating; not only could dates satisfying all given conditions recur much more frequently in the u kahlay katunob, but, as generally used, this method fixed a date merely as occurring somewhere within a period of about 20 years.