Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:57:58.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of the Maya Chronological Count

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael P. Closs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most investigators of Maya chronology consider that the Maya measured time intervals by a modified vigesimal count of days or, alternatively, by a tun count in which the uinal and the kin were fractions of the tun. The claim is made that neither of these interpretations is satisfactory and that the Maya perceived their time count to be a composite count comprised of three distinct counts whose respective units are the tun, the uinal and the kin. Support for this contention is found in the early post-Conquest writings as well as in the representations of time counts in the inscriptions and codices. Adoption of this interpretation leads to a clearer understanding of the Maya use of positional notation and also serves to explain some peculiar epigraphic features present in several chronological counts.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 1977 , pp. 18 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coe, Michael D. 1973 The Maya scribe and his world. The Grolier Club, New York.Google Scholar
Graham, Ian 1967 Archaeological explorations in El Peten, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 33.Google Scholar
Landa, Diego de 1941 Reiacion de las cosas de Yucatan. A translation with notes by Alfred M. Tozzer. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Papers 18.Google Scholar
Liman, Florence F., and Marshall|Durbin 1975 Some new glyphs on an unusual Maya stela. American Antiquity 40:314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Richard C. E. 1948 Some remarks on Maya arithmetic. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 88.Google Scholar
Morley, Sylvanus G. 1920 The inscriptions at Copan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 219.Google Scholar
Morley, Sylvanus G. 1956 The ancient Maya. 3rd edition; revised by Brainerd, George W.. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Roys, Ralph L. 1967 The book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. New edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, Linton 1947 Concepts and structures of Maya calendrical arithmetics. The Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Anthropological Society, Joint Publications 3.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, Linton 1961 The mounds and monuments of Xutilha, Peten, Guatemala. .Report No. 9, Tikal Reports: Numbers 5-10. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, Linton 1965 Calendrics of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, edited by Wanchope, Robert and Willey, Gordon R., pp. 603–31. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Spinden, Herbert J. 1924 The reduction of Mayan dates. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Papers 6(4).Google Scholar
Teeple, John E. 1931 Maya astronomy. Contributions to American Anthropology and History, vol. 1, No. 2. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 403.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. Eric S. 1971 Maya hieroglyphic writing: an introduction. 3rd edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar