While the nature of the event which took place on this date[37] is unknown,
its selection as the point from which time was subsequently reckoned alone
indicates that it must have been of exceedingly great importance to the
native mind. In attempting to approximate its real character, however, we
are not without some assistance from the codices and the inscriptions. For
instance, it is clear that all Maya dates which it is possible to regard as
contemporaneous[38] refer to a time fully 3,000 years later than the
starting point (4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) from which each is reckoned. In other
words, Maya history is a blank for more than 3,000 years after the initial
date of the Maya chronological system, during which time no events were
recorded.
This interesting condition strongly suggests that the starting point of
Maya chronology was not an actual historical event, as the founding of
Rome, the death of Alexander, the birth of Christ, or the flight of
Mohammed from Mecca, but that on the contrary it was a purely hypothetical
occurrence, as the Creation of the World or the birth of the gods; and
further, that the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu was not chosen as the starting point
until long after the time it designates. This, or some similar assumption,
is necessary to account satisfactorily for the observed facts:
1. That, as stated, after the starting point of Maya chronology there is a
silence of more than 3,000 years, unbroken by a single contemporaneous
record, and {62}
2. That after this long period had elapsed all the dated monuments[39] had
their origin in the comparatively short period of four centuries.
Consequently, it is safe to conclude that no matter what the Maya may have
believed took place on this date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, in reality when this day
was present time they had not developed their distinctive civilization or
even achieved a social organization.
It is clear from the foregoing that in addition to the Calendar Round, the
Maya made use of a fixed starting point in describing their dates. The next
question is, Did they record the lapse of more than 3,000 years simply by
using so unwieldy a unit as the 52-year period or its multiples? A
numerical system based on 52 as its primary unit immediately gives rise to
exceedingly awkward numbers for its higher terms; that is, 52, 104, 156,
208, 260, 312, etc. Indeed, the expression of really large numbers in terms
of 52 involves the use of comparatively large multipliers and hence of more
or less intricate multiplications, since the unit of progression is not
decimal or even a multiple thereof. The Maya were far too clever
mathematicians to have been satisfied with a numerical system which
employed units so inconvenient as 52 or its multiples, and which involved
processes so clumsy, and we may therefore dismiss the possibility of its
use without further consideration.
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