In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 N o t e s o n M i d d l e A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y a n d E t h n o l o g y Carnegie Institution of Washington Division of Historical Research No. 24 November 10, 1943 notes on Glyph C of the lunar Series at Palenque Heinrich Berlin According to Teeple’s lunar formula for Palenque , 81 moons = 6-11-12, 6 moons equal 177.185d . Now 11518d :1770185 = 65 groups of 6 moons + 0.975d . If we subtract from 5C 19 days of Stela 1 the remainder of 0.975d , we reach 5C 18 but not 6C as the inscription records. In 1942, when cleaning the basement of the Temple of the Sun, Miguel Angel Fernandez found some fragments of an incomplete inscription (Fig. 24.1). It reads: 9.12.6.5.8 5C 19 days –9.10.14.5.10 1.11.17.18 = 11518d In the drawing, made also by Sr. Fernandez, the numerical bar of the Kayab does not come out very clearly, but it is my recollection that the small piece which remains is the beginning of a bar and not of a dot. The space between the glyph and the border is narrow and is such as would hold a numerical bar, but not numerical dots which in this inscription have a. greater diameter. As the date 9.12.19.11.12 5 Eb 5 Kayab is very frequent at Palenque, it is highly probable that the present inscription originally occupied that position in the Long Count. On the other hand, the Glyph G seems to be of the G3 form, not G4 as here required. Comparing this date with Stela 19 we see that, if it were to fit Teeple’s theory, it should read 2C 11, instead of 3C 11 as it actually does. Since the value for D of the inscription is in perfect harmony with the computed one, this can be adduced as evidence for the correct placement of the date. Since J. E. Teeple (1931) established, according to four cases where he studied Glyph C, that the Maya of Palenque used exactly 6 moons to a group, nobody, so far as I can see, ever tried to prove or refute this theory; on the contrary it was generally accepted. Nevertheless, during the excavations made in 1940 and 1941 under the Mexican government two inscriptions containing Glyph C were found which do not at all harmonize with Teeple’s ideas. Let us examine the problem as it was set by Teeple. He compared the Initial Series of the Inscriptions of the Temple of the Cross, of the Temple of the Sun, and of the Temple of the Foliated Cross with the Initial Series of Stela 1 and found that the corresponding Glyphs C of each inscription are separated from each other as if they were arranged in lunar half-years of 6 months. Thence he concluded, although with some reserve, that periods of exactly 6 moons were always used at Palenque. Now, in an inscription in stucco discovered in May 1941 the Initial Series 9.10.14.5.10 3 Oc 3 Pop was accompanied byGlyph6C.If Teeple’stheoryiscorrect, there should be a remnant of precisely 6C when one divides by groups of 6 moons, the difference which lies between any of the lunar bases from which his given points are reckoned and 9.10.14.5.10. The nearest of these points is 9.12.6.5.8, 5C 19 days, the date of Stela 1. The distance between these two dates is 9.12.6.5.8 5 C 19 days 9.10.14.5.10 1.11.17.18 = 11518d Notes on Glyph C of the Lunar Series at Palenque  In view of the new data presented, one cannot any longer maintain the theory that the Maya of Palenque uniformly grouped their moons in sixes. It isnoteworthy,however,thatboththelasttwoinscriptions are in complete agreement with Teeple’s Period of Uniformity. This fact is not so extraordinary especially , in the case of the last date, 9.12.19.1.12, for that falls with in the Period of Uniformity, provided that it really started at 9.12.15.0.0 as Teeple states. This conclusion involves another one: that the supposed differences between Palenque and Copan are not so 24.1. Inscription on tablet at Palenque (from a...

Share