Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372 — John Shaqi
Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372Thomas, Cyrus
History
Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372
Thomas, Cyrus
Codex Dresdensis Maya; Maya language
Attached to the day column in Plate 29_c_ and running into 30_c_ is a
series which presents a difficulty I am unable to explain. The days and
numerals in this case are as follows:
III
Ix
Cauac } 16, VI; 16, IX; 16, XII; 16, (?)
Kan }
Muluc
The red numeral over the day column is very distinctly III in
Kingsborough's work, but is II, though somewhat blurred, in Förstemann's
photograph. As III + 16 - 13 = VI, and the remaining numerals agree with
this result, III must be correct. Adding together the pairs and casting
out the thirteens, thus, III + 16 - 13 = VI; VI + 16 - 13 = IX; IX + 16 -
13 = XII; XII + 16 - 13 - 13 = II, we find the last red number, which is
wanting in both copies of the codex, to be II, whereas, according to the
theory advanced, it should be III. The sum of the black numerals (four
16's) is 64, while the interval between the days is 65. The only way of
correcting the mistake, if one has been made, is by arbitrarily changing
the last 16 to 17; but uniformity in the black numerals apparently
forbids this change and and[TN-3] indicates that the variation from the
usual rule must be accounted for in some other way.
In reference to this series, Dr. Förstemann[292-1] remarks:
The column of the days has the difference 5; the fifth sign (in this
case really superfluous), that of the thirteenth day, appears in a
remarkable form, apparently as an inscription on a vessel. The black
figures ought to give the sum 65, but we get only 4 × 16, or 64. But
this appears to be merely an oversight by the copyist, for although
in the Codex Troano, also, we find 64 several times instead of 65,
still this has always appeared to me merely as a sign of the great
negligence of the copyist of that manuscript.
Turning to the Manuscript Troano, Plate XXVIII*_b_, we find a column
consisting of the four terminal days of the year, Been, Ezanab, Akbal,
and Lamat, which of course have the same relation to one another as the
first days. It is evident from the space that only four were intended to
be given. The numerals in Brasseur's fac simile are XI; 20, 12, IV; 9,
XIII; 10, X; 13, XI.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account