Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 76 (see Table
XVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp. 139, 140, and 141, respectively)
to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be 2 Ahau 13 Chen.
Although the day sign in B5 is effaced, the coefficient 2 appears quite
clearly. The month glyph is recorded in A6. The student will have little
difficulty in restoring the coefficient as 13, and the month glyph is
certainly either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh (compare fig. 19, _o_ and _p_, _q_
and _r_, _s_ and _t_, and _u_ and _v_, respectively). Moreover, since the
month coefficient is 13, the day sign in B5 can have been only Chicchan,
Oc, Men, or Ahau (see Table VII); since the kin coefficient in A5 is 0, the
effaced day sign must have been Ahau. Therefore the Initial Series on Stela
2 at Quen Santo reads 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen and marked the hotun
immediately following the hotun commemorated by Stela 1 at the same site.
The student will note also that the date on Stela 2 at Quen Santo is less
than a year later than the date recorded by the Initial Series on the
Temple lintel from Chichen Itza (see fig. 75, _B_). And a glance at the map
in plate 1 will show, further, that Chichen Itza and Quen Santo are
separated from each other by almost the entire length (north and south) of
the Maya territory, the former being in the extreme northern part of
Yucatan and the latter considerably to the south of the central Maya
cities. The presence of two monuments so close together chronologically and
yet so far apart geographically is difficult to explain. Moreover, the
problem is further complicated by the fact that not one of the many cities
lying between has yielded thus far a date as late as either of these.[173]
The most logical explanation of this interesting phenomenon seems to be
that while the main body of the Maya moved northward into Yucatan after the
collapse of the southern cities others retreated southward into the
highlands of Guatemala; that while the northern emigrants {203} were
colonizing Yucatan the southern branch was laying the foundation of the
civilization which was to flourish later under the name of the Quiche and
other allied peoples; and finally, that as Chichen Itza was a later
northern city, so Quen Santo was a later southern site, the two being at
one period of their existence at least approximately contemporaneous, as
these two Initial Series show.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account