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

476 N o t e s o f 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. 112 October 20, 1952 The Survival of the maya Tun Count in Colonial Times Tatiana Proskouriakoff codex by Dr. Ermilo Solis Alcala, differs in important particulars from a photographic copy of the original obtained for the Carnegie Institution of Washington by Sylvanus G. Morley in 1936. The following is transcribed from the photographic facsimile (tz’ is substituted for the inverted c of the original): On pages 124 and 125 of the Codex Perez, now in the possession of the Escalante family of Merida, Yucatan, there is a table which consists of a list of 17 Christian years beginning with 1758, correlated with data of the Maya calendar. This table, as it is reproduced on pages 246 and 247 of the translation of the 1758 Bolon muluc 1 pop 9–3 9 hiix 16 Zec 1759 Lahun hiix 1 pop 10–4 10 men 11 Zec 1760 Buluc cauac 1 pop 11–5 11 cib 6 Zec 1761 Lahca kan 1 pop 12–6 12 Caban 2 Zec 1762 Oxlahun muluc 1 pop 13–7 13 Etz’nab 16 Zootz’ 1763 Hunil hiix 1 pop 1–8 2 ahau 6 Zootz’ 1764 Cabil cauac 1 pop 2–9 3 imix 2 Zootz’ 1765 Oxil kan 1 pop 3–10 4 Yk (16) Zip 1766 Canil muluc 1 pop 4–11 5 Akbal (11 Zip) 1767 Hoil hiix 1 pop 5–12 6 kan 6 Zip 1768 Uacil cauac 1 pop 6–13 7 Chicchan (1) Zip 1769 Uucil kan 1 pop 7–1 8 Cimii 16 Uoo 1770 Uaxac muluc 1 pop 8–2 9 Manik 10 Uoo 1771 Bolon hiiz 1 pop 9–3 10 lamat 6 Uoo 1772 Lahun cauac 1 pop 10–4 11 Muluc 7 Uoo 1773 Buluc kan 1 pop 11–5 12 Oc (16) pop 1774 Lahca muluc 1 pop 12–6 13 Chuen (11) pop (1775 Oxlahun hiix 1 pop 13–7 1 Eb 6 pop) (1776 Hunil cauac 1 pop 1–8 2 Ben 1 pop) The Survival of the Maya Tun Count in Colonial Times 477 The entries in parentheses have been added by the author. In the Solis Alcala transcription, the table begins with 179, nine years earlier, and in the last two columns, 1 Cauac and 11 Zootz’ are interpolated opposite the year 1763, moving the remainder of the entries one year down in the table. The last entries, 13 Chuen and (11) pop, are omitted. Apparently this is an attempt on the part of the translator to correct errors and omissions which he attributes to the copyist. Here, however, we follow the copy made by Perez, since there may be significance in the fact that his table does not extend over a complete katun, and since even its internal discrepancies may be useful in furnishing clues as to the manger of its construction. The first two columns of the table give a correlation between Maya and Christian years. Such correlations occur in various native sources, but do not all agree. Nor do separate dates given for events always give the same correlation. This particular one, however , occurs repeatedly in independent parts of the Perez codex and in the Tizimin, and is one which many scholars accept as correct. It is perfectly regular , arid if we extend it back into the sixteenth century , the year 1553 will be correlative with the year 12 Kan, Landa’s “typical year,” which he shows beginning on July 16. On page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, which forms the basis of Thompson’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology, is given a similar year table, which, if extended, places the year 12 Kan opposite 1554. Thompson considers this displacement , however, as due to a difference in notation, and explains that in this chronicle the Maya year is placed next to the year in which it ended (Thompson 1927). If this is true, the discrepancy between the two tables involves no discontinuity in the actual count of years. After the year bearers in the Perez table, we are given the coefficients of the days that begin Pop and Uo in each year. The sign Ahau, which follows, is repeated without...

Share