CONTRIBUTIONS TO AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY, NO.

21
STUDIES ON THE INSCRIPTIONS OF CHICHEN ITZA
By HERMANN BEYER
Tulane University

PREFACE
The object of this treatise is to submit the general results of the author’s investiga-
tions on the hieroglyphs of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico; the elaboration of all minor
questions requires much time and would unduly retard the publication of this material.
The illustrations are regarded here as the essential contribution, while the brief comments
will be superseded later by more extensive and more thorough special studies.
An intensive investigation of the Chichen Itza hieroglyphs was desirable because
they are of special importance as almost the only consistent material of one epoch of Maya
glyph history. There exist abundant texts for the Second Epoch of Maya writing in the
inscriptions of the so-called Old Empire and also for the Fourth Epoch in the codices, but
outside of Chichen Itza there is only some scattered glyph material available for the Third
Epoch, the period of transition between the old stable forms and the new generally adopt-
ed standard forms.1
The author’s aim has been to make a complete survey of all inscriptions that have
been found in Chichen Itza and its vicinity. The following edifices and monuments bear
hieroglyphic texts, all twenty of which have been fully exploited in this study.

1. Akab Tzib, lintel.

2. High Priest’s Grave, re-used inscription (wall panel?).
3. Casa de las Monjas, East Annex, façade decoration.
4. Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs, doorway jambs.
5. Temple of the Initial Series, lintel.
6. Casa de las Monjas, seven lintels.
7. Halakal, lintel.
8. Casa Colorada (or Chichen Chob), hieroglyphic band.
9. Temple of the Three Lintels, three lintels.
10. Temple of the One Lintel, lintel.
11. Caracol, hieroglyphic band.
12. Caracol, stela.
13. Temple of the Wall Panels, serpent’s tail.
14. High Priest’s Grave, column.
15. Hacienda, water trough (now in Museum of Archaeology and History at Merida).
16. Temple of the Four Lintels, four lintels.
17. Yula, Temple of the Two Lintels, two lintels.
18. Temple of the Owls, capstone.
19. Tomb, capstone.
20. Caracol, stone disc.
1
See Beyer, 1932a.
1
 Photographs of Nos. 4, 7, 9-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are reproduced in plates 1-14.
Nos. 1, 3, 6 (incompletely), and 8 have been published by Maudslay1 either in heliotype
or as lithographic drawings or in both techniques. Seler has No. 5 in a halftone illustra-
tion of a cast in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University.2 A good photograph of No.
14 is reproduced in one of Dr. Gann’s books.3 Finally, No.18 was published by Willard.4
Most of the inscriptions, as noted above, occur on lintels, the front parts of which
generally form a narrow band of two rows of hieroglyphs. The underside of the lintel, con-
taining the bulk of hieroglyphs arranged in the usual two repeating columns, is designat-
ed by a number; the front of the lintel is indicated by the number plus the letter a.
The lintel of the Temple of the Initial Series shows the underside columns arranged
lengthwise, instead of in the usual manner, that of the front. Another exceptional feature
is the use of rows of three glyphs, found on the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs.
In the Monjas the lintels of the northern façade clearly have a third division, the
inner quadrangle, composed of one or two double columns of hieroglyphs. Evidently it is
not the direct continuation of the text, but an independent chapter, so to speak, since in
three cases out of five the inscriptions on the quadrangle commence with the same hiero-
glyph (figs. 519-521). The independent chapter, therefore, is distinguished from the main
part of the inscription by capitalization of the final letters of the alphabet in its columns.
A few of the hieroglyphic texts in the buildings of Chichen Itza are nicely carved
and well preserved (Akab Tzib, Casa Colorada), but others are weather-worn (Monjas,
Hieroglyphic Jambs) or executed in a somewhat careless manner (Four Lintels, Yula); in
some cases clumsy carving and bad preservation are combined (Water Trough, Column of
High Priest’s Grave). For these reasons the recognition and deciphering of the hieroglyphs
found at this site were not easy tasks, and it was only by using various methods of
approach that I succeeded in identifying at least seventy-five percent of the existing char-
acters.
The work began with making reduced drawings of the hieroglyphs of an inscrip-
tion from a good photograph, or using Maudslay’s lithographic reproductions for those
texts which he published in the magnificent Biologia Centrali-Americana. The first draw-
ings were corrected by careful and repeated comparisons with the originals under differ-
ent light conditions during two visits to Chichen Itza, in 1928 and 1932. The inked paper
rubbings which Mr. J. H. Denison, jr., had made, kindly put at my disposal by Dr. Morley,
were also very useful for this project. In these paper rubbings, fine lines, which easily are
overlooked in the originals, came out clearly
These direct measures, indispensable as they are, still leave much uncertainty in
cases of partly destroyed hieroglyphs and hieroglyphic elements. It was with the help of
an indirect method that I succeeded in overcoming many of these difficulties. A great
many hieroglyphs form parts of groups of two or more units; in fact, the great bulk of
hieroglyphic characters is employed in such aggregations. While the traces of an indistinct
sign may not be sufficient to allow its determination, such a mutilated glyph often can be
safely recognized if the neighboring signs are sufficiently preserved to be identified.
Sometimes the mere outline of a glyph, or even a small but very characteristic detail, suf-
1
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol 3.
2
Seler, 1914, pl. 46.
3
Gann, 1924, plate facing p. 214.
4
Willard, 1926. 2
fices for its recognition. Even totally destroyed hieroglyphs can be filled in when they are
determined unequivocably by their position in a series. The application of this method
presupposes, of course, a thorough knowledge of Maya hieroglyphics and special famil-
iarity with the use of specific forms under certain conditions.
Although the collection of hieroglyphs presented here is so large that probably no
important symbol at Chichen Itza is omitted, it is not exhaustive. By a re-examination of
some inscriptions, a few more hieroglyphs may be salvaged. Such possibilities exist espe-
cially for those texts of which I did not possess rubbings, as, for example, the stela found
on the platform of the Caracol. New additions cannot, however, materially change any of
the general deductions which are based on abundant material.
The illustrations in this monograph give the impressions of the trained eye of an
epigrapher, not those of a casual observer. In spite of the many cracks, pores, and other
imperfections in the stone, and notwithstanding the nearly obliterated vestiges of low
relief and incising, the illustrations have been drawn without direct restoration. All weath-
er-worn or rubbed parts and all mutilations are indicated by shading. Where lines in the
shading appear, they can still be distinguished in the original although they may be very
faint in parts. Where every trace of a glyphic element has disappeared or is beyond recog-
nition, only the outlines with blank interiors are given. In such instances the figures can
be classified only by a comparison with better preserved specimens.
Here, for the first time, a complete analysis of all the existing inscriptions of an
ancient Maya city has been worked out systematically.
Generally, I have given a short interpretation of the symbols without entering into
a detailed discussion. This arbitrary procedure is motivated by practical reasons, as a long
and fairly exhaustive elucidation of every glyphic element not only would enlarge this
treatise but too often would divert the attention of the reader from the main issue: the
hieroglyphs of Chichen Itza. The brief interpretations may be accepted provisionally,
receiving their proofs in the future in special papers on the various hieroglyphs that com-
pose the body of Maya writing signs. Until now, I have treated only a few of these hiero-
glyphs in an adequate manner, as this special field of investigation is yet in its incipient
stage.
It must be admitted that many terms will appear obscure or unwarranted, as, for
instance, Owl-Plume, Gouged-Eye, Bundle. In such cases I beg the reader to suspend
judgment and wait for other papers which will be published in the near future. For those
readers who deem the author’s explanations unacceptable, the Chichen Itza hieroglyphs
may be considered as material to which they can apply their own interpretations.
Where the equivalent of Maya dates in our own Christian chronology is given, the
Thompson-Teeple correlation is employed, as it seems to offer the best solution of the
problem. In it the transcribed Maya Long Count date 11.16.0.0.0 corresponds to the Julian
date November 3, 1539.
I frequently have differed with the opinions of Dr. Sylvanus G. Morley. This is eas-
ily explained by the fact that he is one of the few archaeologists who have studied the
hieroglyphs of Chichen Itza. While I agree with his results on the inscriptions of the Old
Empire cities which contain many dates and time periods, I find that his method of deal-
ing solely with calendrical matter fails at Chichen Itza, since there are but few hieroglyphs
of that nature.
I am quite willing to admit that many of my own statements have only scant back- 3
ing, but I fear that for the present they cannot be improved on. I think I have overlooked
no method or line of study that possibly could throw light on any subject, and if the final
results are meager, I must blame the deficient material on the one hand, and the lack of
development of our special science on the other.
I must thank, in the first place, Dr. Sylvanus G. Morley, director of the Chichen Itza
Project of Carnegie Institution of Washington, who permitted me to use the Institution’s
unpublished photographic material and paper rubbings. He also kindly read the first draft
of the manuscript and suggested many changes in details.
Furthermore, I am obliged to Señor D. Luis Rosado Vega, formerly director of the
Museo de Arqueología e Historia of Merida, who, with great liberality, allowed me to
copy all the hieroglyphic material I needed for my purposes.
For help and encouragement I am much indebted to my kind chief, Mr. Frans Blom,
director of the Department of Middle American Research of Tulane University, who
allowed me to elaborate these studies with all the time and the facilities I needed. I grate-
fully mention also my draftsman, Mr. André Duval, who had the difficult task of making
absolutely faithful pen-and-ink copies of most of my pencil drawings. This he did with
great care and patience.
I also wish to thank Dr. A. V. Kidder, Chairman of the Division of Historical
Research of Carnegie Institution of Washington, for many valuable suggestions, and espe-
cially for the new and clear photographs published among the plates of this study, which
were taken by Karl Ruppert and Sr. Raúl Cámara at Dr. Kidder’s request. I am very grate-
ful to the Institution for enabling me to make a second visit to Chichen Itza in order to
investigate in detail the hieroglyphic inscriptions. The time I spent at Chichen Itza in 1932
was marked by the great hospitality of the staff of the Carnegie Institution, and I am now
further indebted to the Institution by the fact that it is publishing these studies.

HERMANN BEYER
JUNE, 1937

4
 CHAPTER I
GLYPH PAIRS AND GLYPH SERIES IN THE
CHICHEN ITZA INSCRIPTIONS
It has been indicated in the preface that the hieroglyphic texts of Chichen Itza (and
other sites as well) must be broken up into series, glyph pairs, and single hieroglyphs.
Groups of two, three, and more hieroglyphs form the most important part of the inscrip-
tions. These groups afford the greatest possibilities of interpretation owing to their fre-
quency. In them we perceive clearly the variations of the component hieroglyphs in all
their details, and notice the occasional substitution of signs at homologous places. The sin-
gle hieroglyphs are less satisfactory material with which to work.
A full exploitation of all these approaches to the interpretation of Maya hieroglyphs
can be made only when the Chichen Itza texts, and all the other inscriptions as well, are
at our disposal in clear and reliable drawings. As only part of these texts is now available
in this form, such studies would be incomplete at present. We must confine ourselves here
to those inferences that may be drawn from our limited subject matter without incurring
the risk of error, leaving more exhaustive studies for the future.

HIEROGLYPH HAND-CORPSE-HEAD IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 1
We begin our review of the groups of hieroglyphs which the Chichen Itza texts con-
tain with figures 1-14; that is, with fourteen versions of a series composed of three main
signs. These three main signs which form the principal parts of three full hieroglyphs are
designated in the illustrations by capital letters. An analysis of all hieroglyphic units is
given in many cases in order to make a clear comparison of all details. These elementary
units are indicated by small letters.
The first sign (glyph A of the series) probably is a fusion of a dead man’s head and
a hand.1 The four fingers are covered by the features of the profile face and only the thumb
is visible to the right. There are represented not only the closed eye with its enormous
lashes, a fleshless nose, and teeth, but often also a peculiar symbol consisting of two dots
between a straight or curved line, which is employed sometimes in the Tzolkin as a sub-
stitute for the hieroglyph Cimi, “death”. In figure 12 the hieroglyph has an additional sign
as prefix, which in other cases signifies “end”.
The second main glyph (indicated by the letter B) is composed of two shells (a
bivalve), and the sign for One of great size. This sign always has crosshatching in the
inscriptions, while in later times, in the codices, this filling is sometimes omitted.
Then follows the One again in the main sign C with two small affixes, one the sign
Eyelash, the other the hieroglyph Ahau, here inverted. In some instances (figs. 6, 7, 13,
14) instead of the flat character of the Eyelash, a peculiar head in the rectangular shape of
a main glyph is given. The head often shows death characteristics (such as bared teeth,
fleshless nose, round eye) and to the right a spot of crossed lines. The hair seems to be
1
See Beyer, 1934, p. 160
5
arranged in upright locks with a nearly circular space in the middle.1 If this sign occurred
as an isolated glyph, it would be impossible to assign any meaning to it. The same must
be said of the simplified variants of Ahau in figures 9 and 14. Without their positional sig-
nificance we would take them rather for small Ik signs. Both of these divergent variants
or substitutes appear in other series also, so that there can be no doubt about their correct
identification. These two new data are a direct result of our comparative method of deal-
ing with glyph groups.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Monjas, Va, B. Three Lintels, I, BI-A2

Fig. 3
Monjas, III, Y3-Y4a. Fig. 5
Fig. 4 Monjas, IV, Y3.
Four Lintels, I, C5.

Fig. 6 Fig. 7
Four Lintels, IV, D4-C5. Four Lintels, IV, E4-F4.
Fig. 8
Monjas, IIa, B.

1
This description refers only to the Chichen Itza variants of the sign. Originally it was the head of a fish as
may be proved by the forms of the Second Epoch (Old Empire). 6
 Fig. 9 Fig.10 Fig. 11
Initial Series, D1-C10. Halakal, Ia, F2-G1. Yula, II, C D1.

Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14

Monjas, III, D4-E1, A. Casa Colorada, 22-23. Yula, I, C4-D4.

Further peculiarities of the hieroglyphs reproduced in figures 1-14 will be dis-

cussed briefly. In the variants of glyph A that occur in the Monjas and the Casa Colorada
(figs. 1, 5, 12, 13) the closed eye with the long eyelashes is recognized easily, while the
variants from the Temple of the Four Lintels and from the Yula lintels (figs. 4, 6, 7, 11)
deviate much more from the normal because they have crosshatching instead of straight
lines.
In figure 1, element e, the sign Ahau, has the size of a main sign while the other
series employ it merely as a secondary character.1 It must have been the arrangement of
the hieroglyphs in the original, where a main sign follows in the same row, which caused
the sculptor to give it that exceptional size. Glyph c, on the contrary, pressed in between
two rows of main signs, is smaller than usual.
Figure 3 is very indistinct in the original; only a few inner details are preserved.
But these details, together with the outlines of the glyphic elements, suffice to identify the
different hieroglyphs that compose the series. The traces for sign e are insufficient to
enable one to decide what form of Ahau must be employed in a hypothetical restoration
of this particular glyph.
In the Halakal lintel, now in the Museum of Archaeology and History at Merida,
the upper row of glyphs on the low front part is destroyed almost completely; but the sub-
fix of glyph C, the two inverted Ahaus which remain (fig. 10), enables us to infer that
probably the signs One and Eyelash once occupied the now obliterated space.
Glyph B of figure 11 shows the upper details of the glyph (the shell halves) pressed
1
Its character of secondary sign, however, is clearly indicated by its reversed position. See Beyer, 1934a,
pp. 101-108. 7
into the crosshatched interior. The inverted Ahau is relatively large but by its flat shape is
characterized as an affix.
Figure 12 is partly destroyed, and the drawing of it published by Maudslay1 does
not give sufficient data to enable one to recognize it as belonging with the series under dis-
cussion. The original, however, supplies us with the details reproduced in figure 12,
which make such a determination possible.
In figure 13 we have very elaborate Ahaus (element e) and the peculiar head for d
is fairly well preserved.
The Ahau variants of figure 14 are transferred to the following glyph block and will
be taken by the casual observer as superfix of a main sign which follows, but with which,
in reality, they have nothing to do.

GROUP 2

Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17

Four Lintels, II, G H8. Four Lintels, I, G H3. Four Lintels, IV, F8-G9.

Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20

Three Lintels, I, E2-FI. Four Lintels, III, E F5. Four Lintels, III, B7-A8

A Moon hieroglyph (A) forms a group with our Hand-Corpse-Head (B) in figures
15-20. Two flames issue from the latter. Although the hieroglyphs are badly defaced in fig-
ure 19 and the Moon sign is partly destroyed in figure 20, they can nevertheless be deter-
mined safely as their outlines are very characteristic and cannot be confused with any
other glyphs of the inscriptions. The Moon sign (A) will be discussed below. A careful
examination of glyph B in figure 18 did not show an indentation in the upper margin.
Probably there was once an incised line which disappeared with the weathering of the sur-
face.

1
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. III, pl. 13.
8
 GROUP 3

Fig. 21 Fig. 22
Four Lintels, IV, G5-H6 Four Lintels, III, C3-D4.

Fig. 23
Four Lintels, I, H5-G7.

The same glyph pair, preceded by an Ahau sign and followed by a different Moon
hieroglyph, form a new combination (figs. 21, 22). The character of the third glyph in fig-
ure 22 can be inferred only from its position in the series, as all finer details are eroded.
Possibly some defect of the stone suggested to the sculptor the distorted version of the
sign. Figure 23 has two of the Hand-Corpse-Heads instead of one with Flames; otherwise,
it is like figures 21 and 22. If this is not simply an error of the sculptor, it shows that the
peculiar head has the same significance as the Flames, or that the double head is equal to
the head with Flames.

GROUP 4

Fig. 24 Fig. 25
Yula, II, D7-C8. Yula, I, F4-E5.

The Hand-Corpse character with two Flames, as we had it in groups 2 and 3, is rep-
resented again in this glyph pair (figs. 24 and 25). It is accompanied by a double hiero-
glyph whose upper sign is too much destroyed in both cases to permit identification. The
lower sign consists of three dotted discs over a tripartite detail.

GROUP 5

Fig. 26 Fig. 27
Four Lintels, I, A B6. Four Lintels, I, E F4.
9
 Figures 26 and 27 are identical except for their prefixes. Both prefixes, however,
have the same significance, “ending”. Possibly glyph B, the Hand with several affixes,
has the same meaning, “ending”. Under the Hand-Corpse-Head we have for the first time
an affix consisting of two straight lines and two loops, which we shall meet frequently in
the following series.
GROUP 6

Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30 Fig. 31

One Lintel, F1 One Lintel, H1. Monjas, III, E1. Three Lintels, III, H1.

Although figures 28-31 occupy the space of only one glyph block each, they are
composed of two independent main signs. The first one, a human head, probably is that
of the deity of the number One. The subfix of our familiar Hand-Corpse-Head, a Down-
Ball, seems to be characteristic; wherefore we should probably regard figure 31 as a defec-
tive variant.

HIEROGLYPH IMIX-VARIANT IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 7

Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 34

Four Lintels, II, E F2. Four Lintels, I, E F3. Four Lintels, I, A B5.

Fig. 35 Fig. 36
Four Lintels, II, B5-A5. Initial Series, C4-C5.

Fig. 37
Monjas, IIIa, A2-3. Fig. 38
Monjas, II, C4. 10
 The figures 32-38 are parallels with slight variations, so that it is easy to recognize
and compare all the elements into which they can be divided. Only the two last versions
of this series (figs. 37 and 38) show remarkable differences. The instance in figure 37 is
the same as that which we had in the first series; that is, the usual small Eyelash sign is
augmented into a great square glyph with the details already mentioned above. In figure
38 a very peculiar head must have been thought to symbolize the same idea generally indi-
cated by the simple affixes in the other members of the series. In figure 36 the series
occupies three glyph blocks, while in figures 32-35 it is placed in only two squares. Some
crowding also is shown by the two versions from the Monjas (figs. 37-38).
Element a has many variants, only those of figures 35 and 36 being identical. A
study of all the different forms used in this and other series will give new insight into the
meaning of these fairly important hieroglyphs. In figures 26 and 27 we had two of them
and it was stated that they most probably signify “end”. This problem will be more fully
discussed in one of the following studies.
Element b is already known to us as number One, and c and its variants have been
mentioned. The hieroglyph d is very similar to the day sign Imix and sometimes is used
as such in the inscriptions of Chichen Itza and Yaxchilan. For the composite character e
I have used the designation Vulture symbol, as it generally appears over the bill of this
bird. The main sign f is given for the letter “i” in Bishop Landa’s alphabet. Finally, g is
an oval with some lines and loops. We see it in figures 26 and 27 as subfix of glyph A.

GROUP 8

Fig. 39
Monjas, IV, BI-E2.

Fig. 40
Monjas, V, B1-E1.

Fig. 41 Fig. 42
Monjas, III, C5-B1. Monjas, VI, E5-C1.

11
 The same two hieroglyphs are repeated as glyphs A and D in figures 39-42, but here
they have incorporated the expression Tun Ahau (glyphs B and C) and are followed by the
Hand sign (glyph E), which we know from group 5. Evidently this series brings a certain
Imix period or Imix phenomenon into relation with the Tun period. Unfortunately, at the
moment we can make only this vague statement, as the value or significance of that Imix
cycle is unknown to us.
The homologous elements can easily be recognized by the reader and the slight
variations noticed. The last group (fig. 42) is interesting for two reasons. One is that the
three glyph blocks into which the four compound hieroglyphs are crowded are not close
together, but are at the end of one band and the beginning of another in the lintel of the
Casa de las Monjas, indicating to us the manner in which the hieroglyphs are to be read
in this inscription. The other reason for comment is the substitution of the head turned to
the right for the Owl-Plume sign in glyph C.
This substitution proves that the Owl-Plume must have the same symbolic value as
the human head. This latter probably is that of the deity for number One, and both are,
then, fire symbols. The uncommon position of the head, looking to the right instead of to
the left, I interpret in the sense of “not to be read the usual way”. The head does not rep-
resent number One here. If the substitution occurred only once, our hypothesis would rest
on a very doubtful basis, furnishing at best only a possible but not very convincing expla-
nation. However, as we shall find several similar cases, the cumulative evidence increas-
es, and I think we have discovered the fact that in our texts a certain human head was used
as a variation or substitution of the common affix Owl-Plume. Our satisfaction about this
discovery, however, diminishes somewhat when we find that this substitution is employed
only at Chichen Itza, or, perhaps, only in northern Yucatan. At least, in the inscriptions of
the South (Old Empire) nothing similar can be found.

GROUP 9

Fig. 43 Fig. 44
Four Lintels, I, D1-C2. Four Lintels, I, E8-F8.

Fig. 45 Fig. 46
Four Lintels, IIIa, D1-C2. Yula, H3-G 4.

The modified Imix is prominent in figures 43-44, where it presents the main sign
of glyph A. The heads in glyph B have a great circular eye in common but otherwise are
too indistinct to allow more precise description. Their suffixes are identical but likewise
are in a bad state of preservation. Possibly the same idea is represented by figure 45, in
which the Hand-Corpse-Head replaces the unknown head. Both members of the series, 12
that is, glyphs A and B, have ending signs as prefixes. On the other hand, no ending signs
are employed in figure 46 which otherwise resembles figures 43 and 44 in outline and
details. The Imix-Variant here has a peculiar form, probably caused by a flake in the lime-
stone.
GROUP 10

Fig. 47 Fig. 48
Four Lintels, I, E5-F5. Initial Series, a, I 1-2.

Fig. 49 Fig. 50
Yula, I, E2-F2. Four Lintels, I, A7-B7.

The Imix-Variant in figures 47-49 is replaced by quite another glyph in figure 50,
though probably of the same or similar significance. In figure 49 the Vulture sign (the
superfix in figs. 47 and 48) is used as main hieroglyph into which Imix is inscribed. All
four variants of glyph A have number Nine as an affix. The Nine can only have symboli-
cal significance here since it is not probable that “Nine Imix” cycles are intended to be
represented, it being hardly possible that the same cycle number can have been used at the
time of the Initial Series lintel and the much later period of the Temple of the Four Lintels
at Chichen Itza and the Temple of the Two Lintels at Yula. The Eyelash element which
occurs in figure 47 between the Imix-Variant and the Vulture sign does not appear in fig-
ures 48 and 49. Possibly the prefix of glyph B in figure 48 is its substitute. Glyph B gives
variants of the hieroglyph Ahau.
I think that our comparative method enables us to refute Morley’s hypothesis that
figure 48 represents the dates 9 Muluc and 2 Ahau.1 The two circlets above the Ahau,
although smaller than usual, are only the somewhat rubbed-off symbols Lamat-Center and
Ben, which in figure 49 fortunately are sufficiently preserved. The Imix-Variant in figure
48 is also much damaged, but some vertical lines in the lower half are still visible and
these cannot form part of the day sign Muluc. Furthermore, if Muluc were employed as
day sign it should have a frame as it has in glyphs B 5 and C 2 of this same monument.
Lastly, the Vulture sign as superfix of the day Muluc would be a novelty.

GROUP 11

Fig. 51 Fig. 52
Four Lintels, II, C1-C2. Four Lintels, IIa, F1-F2. 13
 Although the hieroglyphs that compose group 11 (figs. 51 and 52) are badly worn,
the general concordance among the two series is obvious. Glyph A has in one case num-
ber Nine as prefix, in the other a fire or ending sign. Glyph A itself is the Hand-with-
Crossed-Bands which we know from groups 5 and 8. In glyph B is the peculiar fire sign
(fig. 51) substituting small Flames (fig. 52). The main sign of B probably is a conven-
tionalized shell, a Spondylus. In glyph C we find the Imix-Variant again as main sign.

HIEROGLYPH KAN IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 12

Fig. 53 Fig. 54
Monjas, IIa, A. Monjas, Va, A.

Fig. 55 Fig. 56
Monjas, IVa, A. Initial Series, a, G H1.

Fig. 57 Fig. 58
Four Lintels, IIa, D2-EI. Four Lintels, II, A8-B8.

In this group we have the large disc of crosshatching or its substitutes (glyph A)
combined with the sign Kan (glyph B). Figure 53 corresponds exactly to figure 54, while
in figure 55 the main sign One is replaced by the Ten-Derivate, and the Owl-Plume by a
human head. The Owl-Plume, consisting of two parts, is carved in figure 53 in the usual
form, but in figure 54 a fusion has taken place which has created a figure that no one could
identify outside of the context.
Similar to the situation we had in figure 42, the Owl-Plume of figures 53 and 54 is
replaced in figure 55 by a human head facing in the reverse direction. In this case the head
has no element near the forehead, but it probably is meant as the same.
The prefix in figures 53-56 and superfix in figures 57 and 58 is a Skein, represented
1
Morley, 1920, p. 573.
14
in more or less the same way here and in figures 519-530.
Element b of figure 55 is practically identical with that in figure 57, because this
same simple hieroglyph is always represented with straight lines in the Casa de las
Monjas, while the texts of the Temple of the Four Lintels have it with two curved lines
and two straight ones. The simplest variant of this sign, however, is presented by figure
56. In figure 58 a very different emblem is employed.
The glyphic element c, generally the Owl-Plume, has been discussed. In figure 56
it is replaced by three simple Flames, while in figure 58 the corresponding element is too
weathered to allow identification.
The sign d has several different forms in this series. In figures 53 and 54 one vari-
ant occurs, and there is another in figures 57 and 58, while figures 55 and 56 have distinct
variants. These glyphs are, again, ending signs. There is, indeed, at Chichen Itza and else-
where a Kan cycle or Kan period clearly characterized as such (figs. 59 and 6o).

Fig. 59 Fig. 60
“End of Two Kan-Cycles,” Akab Tzib, a, B2. “0 Kan-Cycle,” Copan, Stela B, A11.

Kan (element e) is modified by dotted lines in figures 53-55, but dots are visible
also in figure 60. Element f is again the Ten-Derivate in some variation.
For the beginner in these studies the extreme variants and the substitutions are
bewildering, but they afford to the more advanced student a means of eventually pene-
trating the meaning of the hitherto completely undecipherable parts of the inscriptions.

GROUP 13
Another glyph pair in which Kan is one of the main elements is reproduced in all
its variations in figures 61-71. The prefix of Kan in all specimens is identical. Its origin
and significance will be discussed when we come to groups 24 and 25, where we shall find
variants that are better suited for explanation. Kan itself here shows only a little variation,
with the exception of figure 67, where it is represented by a human head. The small
Flames or fire elements of the suffix c also have more or less the same shape. In figure
66 however they are somewhat distorted, owing to the fact that the whole group has been
compressed into one glyph block.
The second glyph compound (B) is built up of a Sun-Disc (lying on?), an out-
stretched Hand, the Moon, and one or two small Ahaus, which can be recognized in prac-
tically all the specimens.
In most of these glyph groups at least the outline of the elements can be traced
except in figures 67-70 where they are either partly destroyed or too heavily eroded. In
figure 69 the details are a little disfigured by the peculiar technique of the relief, but the
sun disc and the hand are sufficiently clear to enable one to identify the glyph pair in ques-
tion.
A very significant substitution has been made in figure 71, where a variant of the
Hand-Corpse-Head stands for the Hand-Sun of the usual specimens. This substitution may 15
throw light on the significance of both hieroglyphs.

Fig. 61 Fig. 62 Fig. 63

Monjas, IV, B5-C5. Yula, Ia, A1-2. Four Lintels, III, A B1.

Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66

Initial Series, C D1. Hieroglyphic Jambs, D E1. Monjas, III, A5.

Fig. 67 Fig. 68 Fig. 69

Four Lintels, Ia, A1-B1. Yula, IIa, A1-2. Monjas, Annex.

Fig. 70 Fig. 71
Monjas, I, A1. Monjas, VIII, A B1.

16
 GROUP 14

Fig. 72 Fig. 73
Four Lintels, II, E FI Yula, II, A B3.

Glyph B of the last group is used as glyph A of the new group (figs. 72 and 73).
Both of these glyphs are much worn, but the contours and inner lines which remain are
more than sufficient to establish the identity of this characteristic hieroglyph.
The accompanying glyph B is also nearly destroyed in both cases, but by compar-
ison with other occurrences of this compound it can be identified as having as its main
sign the same shell with three dots or circlets which we encountered in group 11. Above
this element in figure 72 and before this element in figure 73 is an angular double Flame.
The Ten-Derivate is used as postfix or subfix while the prefix is a composite sign with out-
lines of the Vulture emblem but filled with crosshatching.

GROUP 15

Fig. 74 Fig. 75
Four Lintels, I, G H2. Four Lintels, II, G H7.

Fig. 76
Halakal, a, E2. Fig. 77
Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 7.

Kan, with a hatchet as prefix, is the first glyph in the pairs of figures 74-76. In fig-
ure 76 the hatchet seems to be employed as infix in Kan. Two small Ahaus serve as sub-
fixes. The second main glyph is the Imix-Variant which we have seen in former series.
Its subfix is a composite hieroglyph consisting of the Green-stone-Disc and the Teeth ele-
ment.
Figure 77 probably belongs to this group, although the Imix-Variant is unrecogniz-
able. Possibly it is replaced by another hieroglyph which is too greatly mutilated to be
determined.
17
 GROUP 16

Fig. 79
Fig. 78 Monjas, IV, Z2-3.
Akab Tzib, A4-C1.

Fig. 80 Fig. 81
Monjas, IIa, C. Monjas, III, Z3-4.

The same glyph pair, here followed by the hieroglyph Ahau, constitutes the next
series (figs. 78-81). In the worn Kan specimens of figures 80 and 81 the hatchet seems to
be incised on the Kan sign as it was in figure 76. The human head as glyph A in figure 79
unfortunately is clear only in its contours, but by its position it must be equal to Kan with
the hatchet. The two small Ahaus under it support this assumption.
The great Ahau of glyph C in figure 80 has its usual affixes augmented by the Ten-
Derivate, to which in figure 81 Landa’s “i” is added, a combination which is known to us
already from its occurrence in group 8. These additions possibly do not change the sig-
nificance of the series, and may have only a general meaning attached to Ahau. The hiero-
glyphs of the Casa de las Monjas show a certain elaboration which makes such a simple
explanation acceptable.

GROUP 17

Imix with the same affix as in the two preceding groups seems to occur also in fig-
ures 82 and 83 (as glyph B), although it is much defaced. Glyph A of this group is formed
by a jar-shaped object out of which something issues. Since the object, resembling a jar
in outline, is covered with parallel lines in diverging directions, possibly it may represent
a receptacle made of rushes or palm leaves.

Fig. 82
Four Lintels, IV, G H4.
Fig. 83
Yula, I, F5.

18
 GROUP 18

Fig. 84
One Lintel, E2.
Fig. 85
Monjas, III, D1.

A dotted Kan hieroglyph from which two Flames arise, each having a tooth or cir-
clet, is well preserved in figure 84, while the corresponding Kan in figure 85 has suffered
partial defacement. The decorated Flames in figure 85 take the shape of open Serpent-
Jaws.
The human head with the composite affix which we saw in connection with the
Imix variants is in fairly good condition in figure 84, while both these glyphs are much
worn in figure 85.

HIEROGLYPH BIVALVE-SHELL IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 19
In the series in figures 86-89 Kan occupies the last place. It has the Owl-Plume
and Flames as affixes. These small Flames, however, come out clearly only in figure 88,
while they are so closely united with Kan in figure 89 that they seem to form a new hiero-
glyph. The real conditions may be ascertained only by the comparison of these two ele-
ments in figures 88 and 89. In figure 86 the Flames are lacking, while figure 87 is too
worn to show whether or not they originally existed in the lower part of Kan.
The first hieroglyph of the series (A) probably means “end”.1 In figure 88 there is
another ending sign as prefix. The second serial hieroglyph (B) has the prefix we found in
group 13. Its main sign, a curved body with two shells (clearly preserved only in fig. 88),
represents a Bivalve-Shell with its animal, which in figure 89 has Kan, “yellow”, as infix.
Below this curious animal is an oval subfix, in which U-shaped elements are discernible.

Fig. 86 Fig. 87
Three Lintels, I, F2-G2. Four Lintels, III, CI-C2.

Fig. 88 Fig. 89
Monjas, VII, B3-A4. Monjas, Va, D.
1
This sign will be discussed in detail in a special paper, where it will be identified as Gouged-Eye. 19
 GROUP 20

Fig. 90 Fig. 91 Fig. 92

Casa Colorada, 23-25. Casa Colorada, 55. Yula, I, C5-C7.

These series (figs. 90-92) are like those of the preceding group, except that the Kan
glyph is missing. All the other glyphic elements occur with slight variations of position
and minor details. Only figure 92 offers an exception, inasmuch as the hieroglyph Owl-
Plume is replaced by a fantastic head, which, as we shall see later on, is that of a dog with
a symbol to the left. The ending hieroglyph (glyph A) has additional signs in figures 90
and 92. In figure 90 it is so much damaged that only the affix with dots is recognizable.

GROUP 21

Fig. 93 Fig. 94
Four Lintels, I, D2-C3. Four Lintels, IV, D3-C4.
The two glyph pairs shown in figures 93 and 94 can be classified as parallel repre-
sentations notwithstanding the fact that the upper part of glyph B in figure 94 is almost
completely destroyed. They are, furthermore, identical in all elements with those of group
20, except the main sign of glyph B which has a hook-like indentation above. This form
may well be only a variant of the Mollusk. However, as this assumption cannot be proved,
it seems better to separate these two glyph pairs from those of the former group.

GROUP 22

Fig. 95 Fig. 96
Monjas, IVa, C2. Monjas, Ia, B1.

Figures 95 and 96 probably are parallels, although only two of their respective
hieroglyphs, the head of god C and the oval with U’s, are identical. Above the fantastic
head in figure 95 appears the Eyelash to which the indistinct prefix in figure 96 must cor-
respond. The two final signs are entirely different in form, but probably are similar in sig-
nificance.
20
 GROUP 23

Fig. 97 Fig. 98
Monjas, IVa, C2. Akab Tzib, G2.

The Mollusk again is represented in the manner of groups 19 and 20 in figure 97.
In my opinion, figure 98 is a parallel to figure 97, and the upper part of B in figure 98 a
simplified conventional form of the Mollusk. The human head (deity of the number One)
is very similar in both glyph groups, while the remaining details show great differences,
the explanation of which cannot be ventured upon here.

HIEROGLYPH MANDIBLE IN COMBINATIONS

GROUPS 24 AND 25

Fig. 99
Fig.100
Monjas, IVa, B-C.
Monjas, IV, E2-4.

Fig.101
Initial Series, D5-D7.

Fig. 102 FIG. 103

One Lintel, D1-E1. Casa Colorada, 26.

A glyph series, undoubtedly composed of two groups, is represented by figures 99-

102. In figure 103 the second group is given by itself, while in all other instances it is cou-
pled with the first composite sign, whose main glyph is a fleshless lower jaw (a human
mandible or maxilla). Under the Mandible a Long-Bone with longitudinal lines is found
in all cases.
In figure 99 glyphs A1 and B1 probably mean “End of Mandible” cycle.
Homologous to the ending sign there appears in figure 100 another common sign of the
21
same meaning and in figures 101 and 102 a Hand with affixes to which we are entitled to
give the same symbolic value, that is, “end”, “ending”. The Hand as an ending sign is well
known, although not in exactly this composite glyph. Thus, there is some probability that
our inference is justified. In figure 102, the Hand ending sign is put after the Mandible
glyph.
The first sign of the second group (A2) has as main sign a Serpent-Segment with
vertical lines (or a bar) surrounded by a frame with loop-shaped details. The Serpent-
Segment is fairly clear in figure 99, and the small loops appear on the circular band. Above
this combination is the Owl-Plume. It is very large in figure 100, while the details of the
glyph below are too worn to be made out, although by its position in the series it must
have been originally the Serpent-Segment. In figure 103, then, the Plume is replaced by
the Deity-Head as in figures 42 and 55. Probably the turned heads in figures 101 and 102
also have the same role. The details that must correspond to the Serpent-Segment and its
ornament are disfigured, but enough traces remain to recognize in figure 102 the upturned
symbol with one bar and in figure 101 the same with two bars. In figure 101 a glyph (X)
is inserted after A2.
The terminal signs of the series (B2) are identical in figures 100 and 102, and very
similar in figures 99 and 101. In figure 103 a head is employed that appears to be that of
a parrot; however, it is probably that of a tortoise. The difference between the full head of
figure 103 and the narrower affixes in the other cases is caused by the circumstance that
in the latter only the forepart of the tortoise head is used. The main sign of glyph B2 in all
cases is the Greenstone-Disc with five dots or circlets.

GROUP 26

Fig. 104 Fig. 105

Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 11. Halakal, A5-6.

The Human Mandible with the Bone subfix can be recognized in figures 104 and
105 also, notwithstanding the fact that some details are lost, especially in figure 105. In
figure 104 this composite glyph is enriched by an ending sign as prefix and what is prob-
ably the Owl-Plume as postfix.
The second hieroglyph evidently is “1 Moon”. The Moon sign is partly covered by
another hieroglyph in figure l05. Under it is seen a T-shaped detail which also occurs in
figure 104 but in another place.
There is possibly another specimen of this series in glyphs C D2 of the Temple of
the One Lintel; at least the first glyph of the pair seems to be the same. The second glyph,
however, is now too indistinct to allow its identification.

GROUP 27
The outline of the Jawbone can be discerned in glyph B of figure 106, but in fig-
ure 107 it is broadened, probably with the idea of providing space for the inscribed sym-
bol, and thus deviates somewhat from its usual representation. However, the characteris- 22
tic curves and two teeth in front suffice for the determination. The Crossed-Bands as infix
is an interesting and rare variant. Under the Mandible is found a glyph which we shall call
the Bundle. We had it in figure 46 and shall meet it again in other composite hieroglyphs.
In figure 107 appears an indistinct superfix.
Of glyph A only the Tun disc or sign Muluc is clear; the other details are partly or
entirely destroyed.

Fig. 107
Fig. 106 Casa Colorada, 15.
Monjas, V, E3.

GROUP 28

Fig. 108 Fig. 109

Akab Tzib, a, D2-E1. Akab Tzib, A2-A3.

Fig. 110 Fig. 111

Akab Tzib, D4. Casa Colorada, 57.

In this group (figs. 108-111) we have the Moon as main sign in glyph A and the
Mandible in Glyph B. Element a represents fire details, element c the Owl-Plume, ele-
ment d two small Ahaus, and f a peculiar double glyph, evidently of fire symbolism. In
figures 108 and 109 the small Ahaus are employed as prefixes of Mandible, while in fig-
ures 110 and 111 they are affixes of the Moon sign, this being probably the more correct
use.

23
 GROUP 29

Fig. 112 Fig. 113 Fig. 114

Four Lintels, III, B4-B5. Four Lintels, III, F7-F8. Four Lintels, IIIa, D2.

The Mandible in duplicated form is seen in glyph A of the following series (figs.
112-114). In figure 113 it has an indistinct prefix. Glyph B is much damaged in figures
112 and 113, but in figure 114 fortunately is well preserved; it represents the Hand-with-
Crossed-Bands and the Bone as subfix. Glyph C is in all three cases rather worn, and only
with difficulty can the inverted Day-Sky be made out. Its subfix, the Skein, is also large-
ly destroyed.

HIEROGLYPH LONG-BONE IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 30

Fig. 115 Fig. 116

Akab Tzib, a, E2. Casa colorada, 57.

The Long-Bone with longitudinal lines, in double form, is the main sign of glyph
B of group 30, which probably is the most important part of this combination (figs. 115
and 116). In figure 115 its subfix is an Imix with inserted Ahau, while in figure 116 it
seems to be a Down-Ball; but as this detail is small and indistinct in the incomplete orig-
inal sculpture its determination is not safe. Glyph A is the Gouged-Eye with a prefix of
two dotted lines, a compound that seems to mean “end of . . .”

GROUP 31

Fig. 117 Fig. 118

InitiaI Series, E4-F4. Initial Series, D8-C9.

“End of Double Bone” cycle or phenomenon also must be the meaning of glyph A
in figures 117 and 118. The Long-Bones are here in vertical position and the ending sign
is the common small hieroglyph in reduced form, the teeth being suppressed or indistinct.
The subfix seems to be the usual one. 24
 Glyph B again seems to signify “end of” something, this something being a human
head with a peculiar headdress, which possibly is an animal head. The subfix is the com-
mon Fire-Teeth element.

GROUP 32

Fig. 119 Fig. 120

Yula, II, F7-F8. Yula, I, G1-H2.

In this series glyph A is identical in both variants (figs. 119 and 120), a Hand with
Eyelash as prefix and Ahau as superfix.
Glyph B is clearly the Bone with longitudinal lines in figure 119 and equally clear-
ly is not this Bone in figure 120. Most probably a blemish in the stone impeded the sculp-
tor in chiseling out the Long-Bone and he represented some other bone instead. The
inserted glyph X in figure 120 probably explains in some way the irregular bone. It seems
to be a dog with a human arm. Now the Long-Bone often is associated with the dog’s
head in hieroglyphics. The two superfixes of glyph B evidently are identical, although the
second superfix in figure 119 is much defaced.
Finally, we have the typical Chichen Itza Ahau with its superfix and subfix as glyph
C.

GROUP 33

In glyph A of this group the Sun-Disc (element a) and the Sun-Beard (element b)
are always present, while the third element varies. In figures 121, 125, 126, 127, it is the
simple character consisting of two lines and two dots, but in figures 128-130 the body of
the sign has crosshatching with a tiny Ahau of three dots on one side. We have seen these
two signs as equivalent in group 12, but here in figures 128 and 129 they are much better
preserved.
Glyph B has as its main sign a Skull in which we can recognize the great eye, and
the fleshless teeth and nose, while other details do not show clearly. As affixes it has the
Bone with longitudinal lines and Ahau. The latter assumes its variations, already well
known to us. The simple Ahau is seen in figures 124-129, the double normal form in fig-
ures 123 and 130, and the T-like variant in figures 121 and 122.

25
 Fig. 121 Fig. 122 Fig. 123
One Lintel, H2. Initial Series, E6-F6. Three Lintels, Ia, D2-EI.

Fig. 125
Fig. 124 Four Lintels, II, A7-B7.
Four Lintels, III, E2.

Fig. 126 Fig. 127

Four Lintels, I, G1-H1. Three Lintels, III, F2-GI.

Fig. 128 Fig. 129 Fig. 130

Four Lintels, II, E7-F7. Four Lintels, IV, F7-E8. Four Lintels, IVa, D2.

26
 HIEROGLYPHS FLAMES AND YAX IN COMBINATIONS
GROUP 34

Fig. 131 Fig. 132

Four Lintels, IV, A6-A7. Four Lintels, Ia, C1-C2.

Fig. 134
Fig. 133 Four Lintels, I, E6-E7.
Four Lintels, I, A8-C9.

Fig. 136
Fig. 135 Initial Series, a, D1-D2. Fig. 137
Monjas, II, D5-E5. Glyph A of Group 34,
Caracol, Stela, K6-L6.
The three groups, 34-36, which are brought together here, have as their initial
signs, in common, a flame combination and the sign for “green” or “blue”. This combi-
nation may stand for “end of new”, as Yax also means “fresh”, new”. But there is still
another possible meaning, Prof. A. Barrera Vásquez informs me, to be taken into consid-
eration; namely, “strong” or “intense.” Mr. David Amram confirms this view, because the
Lacandon Indians he met used the expression Yaxkin for the very hot sun and its season.
In figure 92 we had the peculiar dog’s head, of which we see seven more variants
in glyph A of figures 131-137. The Etznab sign as postfix, or addition, is fairly clear in fig-
ures 132 and 137. In figures 131 and 136 in its place are incised crossed lines, just as there
are in figure 92. This substitution is interesting, but as it cannot be explained in a few
words, we must leave it for a special paper.
The glyphic radical a is a Flame symbol, composed of three details, which we have
found in several other compound hieroglyphs. Only in figure 136 has it any notable vari-
ation.
27
 The hieroglyph Yax as element b is in most instances sufficiently well preserved to
be deciphered without difficulty. Then comes in d a sign somewhat similar to Skein but
probably representing a Tied Rope.
Element e is the Eyelash in its simple form in figures 131, 132, 134 and 136, and
as a head variant in figures 133 and 135. Also element f appears as the usual flat Teeth
sign in figures 131, 132, and 133, while it assumes main sign size in figures 134-136. It
is regrettable that these interesting variants are not better preserved.
Finally, in C the usual enriched Ahau hieroglyph in different variations is found in
figures 131-135. In figure 136 it does not follow A B, and figure 137 does not allow a sat-
isfactory analysis of its second compound glyph.

GROUP 35

Fig. 138 Fig. 139 Fig. 140

Caracol, Stela, K L5. Glyph A of Group 35, Caracol, Stela, K L1. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10.

This glyph pair (figs. 138-140) resembles the foregoing series in most of its com-
ponent parts. To the details a, b, e, and j of glyph A of group 34 correspond a, b, d, and e
of figures 138 and 139. One is inclined to see in detail c (the Teeth symbol) a substitute
for the dog’s head. In figure 140 element c seems to be missing. On the other hand, this
composite hieroglyph contains the enriched Ahau, while in figure 139 it is replaced by an
entirely different sign.

GROUP 36

The first two elements of this group repeat the corresponding details of groups 34
and 35, that is, the Flame combination and Yax, but absolutely different glyphs follow.
Element c in figures 141 and 142 is a variant of the Muluc sign, a Greenstone-Disc with
teeth. In figure 143 this hieroglyph is replaced by the common Teeth sign, while in fig-
ures 144 and 145 peculiar human heads take its stead. All five figures possess the glyph
Bivalve-Shell-One in d, while the last element (e) is evidently the same sign more or less
varied. The upper head in figure 145, possibly that of a bird, must stand for elements a and
b.

28
 Fig. 141 Fig. 142 Fig. 143
Halakal, a, G2. Casa Colorada, 7. Initial Series, a, E2-FI.

Fig. 145
Monjas, IIIa, E.

Fig. 144
Monjas, VI, C1-D1.

GROUP 37

Fig. 146 Fig. 147

Hierog1yphic Jambs, D8-E8. Casa Colorada, 43.

The glyph pair in figure 146 is well preserved and clear, while the one in figure 147
is imperfect, although by comparison the corresponding parts can be identified. Glyph A
has as main sign the hieroglyph Chuen or Uinal, resting on the hieroglyph Bundle. The
Bundle glyph is also in good condition in figure 147, but the Chuen sign is indistinct. In
figure 147 a simple Fire sign is added as second subfix.
The Bat-Head is well executed in figure 146, glyph B, and in its main traits is rec-
ognizable in figure 147. The prefix in figure 146, two Down-Balls with a central element,
is changed into a subfix without the central part in figure 147.

29
 GROUP 38

Fig. 148 Fig. 149

Hieroglyphic Jambs, C5-A6. Hieroglyphic Jambs, E F3.

The fairly well preserved figure 148 allows us to determine its glyph A again as the
head of a bat and B as that of a vulture. The much damaged figure 149 evidently was once
its exact repetition. The prefix of A is different from that employed in glyph B of figure
146, but will be found in the following series in figure 158. The bird’s head can be
determined as that of a vulture because of the characteristic symbol in front of it. The bird
carries another symbol, a kind of Checkerboard, in a tumpline.

GROUP 39

This group appears in many versions, so that details which in several instances are
destroyed or partly rubbed off can be supplemented by those that are intact.
Glyph A begins with an ending sign which is the simple Teeth character in figures
150-157 and also in figure 162. In figure 158 it is replaced by a tripartite sign, whose cen-
tral part is a perforated disc. This peculiar affix is generally used with the Bat-Head in the
ruins of the Old Empire. A variant of it was also employed in the foregoing group. A famil-
iar ending sign is employed in figure 159, while the remaining two (figs. 160 and 161) are
too badly damaged to allow classification.
The Bat-Head in many cases is clearly represented; in a few examples, however, it
is somewhat arbitrarily treated (figs. 154-156). Under it (figs. 150, 151, 158, 159, 161, and
162), or beside it (figs. 152-157, 160), is the Gouged-Eye glyph. Then follows a variant
of the Teeth glyph (element d) which in figure 152 is employed twice, while it is missing
in figures 158-161. Here, as in some other cases (fig. 135, element f), it is replaced by a
Head-with-Closed-Eyes. The Teeth hieroglyph often signifies “end” and the eyes with
drooped lashes mean “death” in Maya symbolism.
The main sign of glyph B of the series is the Moon. It has the usual form in fig-
ures 152-157, while in figures 150 and 151 it is partly covered by element d, and in fig-
ures 158-161 it is fused with the Human-Head. In figure 162 an incomplete Moon sign
like that in figures 150 and 151 seems to be represented.
The Bundle as an affix (element f) comes out clearly in some cases (figs. 153, 154,
160), while in many others it is weather-worn. In a few instances it is replaced by anoth-
er sign, consisting of two small discs, of which only the contours remain (figs. 157, 158,
and 162). Possibly the details of two Ahaus once were incised upon them.

30
 Fig. 150 Fig. 151 Fig. 152
Initial Series, C D3. Initial Series, E F1. Three Lintels, III, B2-CI.

Fig. 153 Fig. 154 Fig. 155

Four Lintels, IV, B4-A5. Four Lintels, II, B3-A4. Four Lintels, I, A B4.

Fig. 156 Fig. 157

Four Lintels, I E F2. Four Lintels, III, A B2. Fig. 158
Monjas IV, D5-E5.

Fig. 159
Monjas, IIIa, A. Fig. 161
Monjas, V, D E5.
Fig. 160
Monjas, II, B5.

Fig. 162
Monjas, VI, D E5. 31
 HIEROGLYPH TORTOISE-SHELL IN COMBINATIONS
GROUP 40

Fig. 163 Fig. 164

Yula, A7-A8. Four Lintels, I, D3-D4.

Fig. 165
Four Lintels, IV, G7-H8.

In some previous groups we have seen the tortoise head as a hieroglyph; in figures
163-168 we have its shell. It is found as glyph B in group 40, C in group 41, and A in
group 42. The Carapace is surrounded always by simple Flame signs and by the Owl-
Plume symbol. In figure 167 the Owl-Plume is replaced by a head which evidently is like
that in figure 92—a dog’s head.
The series in figure 165 is without glyph A, the Gouged-Eye, while in figure 163
the peculiar Moon sign (glyph D of this group) is missing. That the ending sign Gouged-
Eye was omitted in figure 165 probably was caused by the fact that this character is rep-
resented just one glyph block before this series and the sculptor did not want to repeat it
so soon.
The two different Moon glyphs of group 40 (glyphs C D) have occurred already in
group 3.
The Tortoise Shell with Flames means “shine’’, “brilliancy’’, and figures 163-165,
consequently, signify “End of Shining Moon”.

GROUP 41
In this series (figs. 166-167) the homologous members of the two versions are indi-
cated by small letters once more in order to facilitate comparison. Here the Owl-Plume is
not immediately adjoining the Carapace, but is separated from it by the sign Eyelash. This
characteristic detail makes the identification certain, although element d is defaced in both
instances, and element c is not identical. In figure 166 c is the Eyelash and in figure 167,
the Death-Hair; thus we are dealing here with closely related symbols.
Figures 166 and 167 will have to be interpreted as “End of Shine”.

32
 Fig. 166 Fig. 167
Four Lintcls, II, H5-H6. Four Lintels, III, EI-F2.

GROUP 42

Fig. 168
Four Lintels, IV, D7-C8.

Figure 168 has the Tortoise-Carapace (elements a and d) twice, the Shell-Ornament
in b, Crossed-Bands in c, and Owl-Plume in e. The repetition of the Carapace possibly is
caused only by space conditions, being used just as a filler.

GROUP 43

Fig. 170
Fig. 169
Yu1a II, E F1.
Akab Tzib, a G1.

In figure 169 glyph B probably represents a piece of Tortoise-Shell. Possibly it is

to be considered as the Tun glyph, for it has the Sun-Beard below. The turtle or tortoise
among the Maya was an animal connected with rain, which fact may explain the substi-
tution. On the other hand, Tortoise Shell is undoubtedly a symbol of brilliancy and thus
it may mean again “End of Shine”
With this hieroglyph must be connected the affix having crosshatching, although in
figure 169 it is placed over the Gouged-Eye glyph. In figure 170 the glyph representing
the Tortoise-Shell is obliterated completely, except for its bare contour, and it is only by
the other elements present that it may be classified properly
Glyph A is still the Gouged-Eye with dotted curve. In figure 170 a Muluc Variant
is added.
33
 Fig. 171
Yula, I, B8-D1.

Fig. 172 Fig. 173

Yula, II, B8-D1. YuIa, II, F2-F3.

The first glyph of this series is unfortunately somewhat effaced in all three cases
(figs. 171-173); however, enough details remain to permit its classification as a flint
implement with three dotted elements above it. In figures 171 and 173 the flint has the
shape of a knife or a spearhead, while in figure 172 it may represent a kind of weapon
described by Follett1 as a three-bladed claw knife.
The second hieroglyph (B) is slightly different from the similar sign which we have
called the Vulture emblem. It is different also from the usual Zac sign. We cannot, then,
identify it with either one and must leave it as one of our many unsolved problems. Some
Flames accompany this glyph.
The third hieroglyph (C) is Ahau in its bird head variant. Above and below appear
the usual affixes.

GROUP 45

Fig. 174-Four Lintels, I, H2-H3.

Fig. 175-Four Lintels, IV, G4-H5.

Fig. 176-Four Lintels, II, GI-H2.

Fig. 178-Initial Series, F8-F9.

Fig. 177-Yula, I, G6-H8.

1 34
Follett, 1932, pp. 388, 391.
 In this series the flint object again is badly preserved (glyph C), but on the whole I
think there cannot be any doubt that it corresponds to the knives with wavy lines (the
Etznab sign) in the codices. The three dotted elements on top of the knife are fairly clear
in figures 174 and 175 but are fused in figures 176-178. In figure 174 the curious flint
weapon we saw in figure 172 is again represented; this time it has only two salient details.
Glyph A has the Skein in combination with the hieroglyph Serpent-Segment-
Crossed-Bands. The usual Flame affix is replaced in figure 175 by three Down-Balls.
The upper part of glyph B is the Tortoise-Head in variants. In figures 174, 175, and
178 the whole head is represented, while in figures 176 and 177 the reduced, flat form is
employed. In figures 175 and 178 only the outline, the eye circle, and a curved detail are
preserved, while figure 174 has the complete eye.
The lower part of glyph B is not so surely determinable. In some cases it looks like
the Mandible, but this probably is a misleading similarity; it seems rather to be a different
hieroglyphic character.
Figures 175 and 176 have at the end an additional Ahau, which in figure 177 is
inserted elsewhere.
The glyph E probably was regarded as part of the series, as it is the last hieroglyph
in an inscription on a lintel (fig. 177). Probably E in figure 178 corresponds to it. In this
case it is fairly clearly Imix-with-Skein as subfix. The Imix-Variant also is clear in figure
177, but the prefix remains indistinct.
Inserted hieroglyphs occur in figure 175 (designated as X) and figure 177 (desig-
nated as Y) between A and B.

HIEROGLYPH SPINDLE-SHAPED-OBJECTS IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 46

Fig. 179 Fig. 180 Fig. 181

Monjas, IVa, E. Yula, I, H4-I5. YuIa, III, E6-F6.

Probably the three glyph pairs in figures 179-181 are variants of the same idea,
although they show some dissimilarities. Only figure 179 is well preserved and in it we
have, first, the ending sign Gouged-Eye occupying the left half of the complex. The right
half is composed of three parts, the uppermost being the Double-Spindle. Under it is
clearly a Cauac form resting on a human head which has as its distinguishing characteris-
tic a circle on the cheek.
Ending signs are to be found also in figures 180 and 181, but the two Spindles devi-
ate in form. Cauac is still recognizable in figure 180, while in figure 181 only a few indis-
tinct traces of it are left. The two heads are much defaced; evidently each had a large cir-
cle in the face, which in figure 180 seems to have been filled by the sign Imix.
35
 GROUP 47

Fig. 183
Fig. 182
Yula, I, E F1.
Yula, Ia, CI-DI.

Possibly the three triangular objects with transverse lines (elements c in figs. 182
and 183) are only a variant of the Spindles. Glyph A is too much destroyed to permit any
remark as to its significance. Above it a composite Flame Sign is seen. A head and the
Bundle sign constitute glyph C of this series.

HIEROGLYPH FIRE-WOOD-BUNDLE IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 48

Fig. 185
Fig. 184
Caraco1, Hieroglyphic Band, 8.
Caracol, Stela, N3-M4.

Although partly effaced in glyph B of this series, the essential lines of two bundles
of firewood in figures 184 and 185 can still be distinguished. Its affix is the composite
character Greenstone-and-Teeth sign, this latter part taking extravagant shape in figure
185.
In glyph A we have what I consider a combination meaning “Ending”. Two of the
respective component glyphs are identical; namely: (1) the sign with two circles at the
ends and crosshatching between, and (2) the sign Eyelash. Under it we have in figure 184
the Head-with-Closed-Eyes, this time in front view, and in figure 185 a worn specimen of
the Teeth sign. So again we have these two different symbols as equivalents. Before it in
figure 185 is a curved double line of dots, an element we shall find employed several times
as a mere space filler.

GROUP 49

Fig. 186 Fig. 187

Yula, I, C D2. Yula, II, G H7.
36
 In this group (figs. 186 and 187) the Fire-Wood-Bundle is still more damaged, but
I think enough vestiges remain to enable one to recognize it (glyph B). On top of it is an
extraordinarily large Teeth sign; in fact, I am not sure whether this is not intended as a
symbol of the planet Venus.
In A we perceive the Gouged-Eye glyph with dotted line and an additional element,
the Muluc-Variant on top.

GROUP 50

Fig. 188
Halakal, G7.

This group, represented by only one illustration (fig. 188), is annexed to the
hieroglyph Fire-Wood-Bundle, because in external appearance it is almost identical with
it (glyph B). A careful investigation of all its variants at the different Maya sites, howev-
er, makes it clear that it is really a composite glyph of two specimens of the Eyelash.
Under it is an incompletely preserved Owl-Plume.
Before it in A is the large crosshatched One and above it the Teeth ending sign.

HIEROGLYPH SKY IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 51

Fig. 189 Fig. 190

Monjas, VI, E3. Monjas, II, E3.

The hieroglyphs that compose figure 189 have only slight blemishes and therefore
can be identified easily as two Cauac-Variants in A, followed by the sign for Day-Sky in
inverted position. The same hieroglyph Day-Sky is then repeated in glyph B, but this time
in its normal position.
In figure 190 the same details can be made out in the first four glyphic elements,
although in this case they are somewhat effaced. To these signs are added the Teeth char-
acter and the Ten-Derivate.

GROUP 52
Here we perceive in figures 191 and 192 what are evidently two variants of a com-
bination of hieroglyphs in which Day-Sky has an important place (glyph A). Under it
comes first a variant of the Teeth sign and then an inverted Ahau.
The next column is headed probably by a Greenstone hieroglyph (Muluc), under 37
which in figure 191 comes a human head with vertical lines and again an inverted Ahau.
The corresponding details in figure 192 are almost completely obliterated.

Fig. 191 Fig. 192

Monjas, VI, E2. Monjas, II, B1.

GROUPS 53 AND 54

Fig. 193 Fig. 194

Four Lintels, III, H1-G3. Four Lintels, IV, B7-A8.

The series in figure 193 must be divided into two hieroglyphs. Group 53 consists
of the Day-Sky groups, each consisting of hieroglyph with the Teeth subfix and the num-
ber Nine as prefix (A1). This is followed by an animal head with the Sun symbol in its
eye and the Sun-Beard as subfix.
The second group begins with an indistinct head (glyph A2) which can be identi-
fied by a comparison with the Palenque variants as that for number Sixteen. In fact, the
hatchet in the eye in both specimens (figs. 193 and 194) is fairly well preserved and the
bony underjaw is also discernible in each. Then comes as second glyph of this group (B2
in fig. 193 and B in fig. 194), again an animal’s head with the Kin sign in the eye and Sun-
Beard below.

HIEROGLYPH CROSSED-BANDS IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 55

Fig. 195 Fig. 196

Hieroglyphic Jambs, A B7. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band.

The Crossed-Bands form the upper half of the Sky glyph and sometimes they stand
for it as pars pro toto, as we shall see later on. Thus it is justifiable to treat it immediate-
ly after the Sky series.
Both examples (figs. 195 and 196) are in part mutilated and eroded, but no impor-
tant details are missing. The group begins with an ending sign. In figure 195 this has as
upper part a skull, while in figure 196 it is replaced by Landa’s “i”. Then comes Crossed-
Bands as main sign, having two different Ahau Variants as subfixes. 38
 The second glyph (B) in figure 195 is clearly Crossed-Bands again as main sign.
Under it appears a Flame combination and behind it possibly a Skein symbol. This ele-
ment probably forms the superfix in figure 196. Under it is Crossed-Bands, but in reduced
size. The subfix looks in this case almost like the Teeth sign, but by comparison with fig-
ure 195 it becomes clear that it is only an arbitrary combination of Flame details.

HIEROGLYPH SERPENT-JAW IN COMBINATIONS

GROUP 56

Fig. 199
Fig. 197 Fig. 198 Casa Colorada, 37.
High Priest’s Grave, re-used Stela. Yula, II, A B6.

We have seen in figures 84 and 85 the Double-Flame-with-Teeth resembling open

Serpent-Jaws. This symbol and its substitute occur in a prominent place in figures 197-
199. While figures 197 and 198 can be pronounced parallels, I am not sure about figure
199.
In figure 197 we note in glyph A an unfamiliar sign characterized by three circlets
in the center. What seems to be the usual composite Ahau hieroglyph corresponds to it in
figure 198. Entirely different is the ending sign in figure 199, consisting of a skull with
other details.
As glyph B we have in figure 197 the upturned Flames adorned with Teeth. This
symbol is replaced by two different Flame details in figure 198. But figure 199 has what
surely are the upturned Serpent-Jaws.
Under the symbol in figure 197 is a sign composed of ragged details which proba-
bly is a peculiar representation of the Sun-Beard. In figure 198 this glyphic element is
much worn but corresponds in outline to the Sun-Beard, while in figure 199 it is clearly
this latter sign.
The subfix is clearly the Bundle in figures 197 and 198. In figure 199 it is too much
effaced to allow identification.

PSEUDO GLYPH PAIRS

GROUP 57

Fig. 200 Fig. 201 Fig. 202

Four Lintels, II, A B6. Four Lintels, II, E F3. Yula, II, C D5.

A mere schematic division of the inscriptions will give us the glyph pairs of groups
57 and 58 which, in my opinion, are only apparently groups. In reality, both are composed
39
of two independent glyphs which only accidentally came together a few times. At least, so
far as glyph B of pair 57 is concerned, there can be no doubt that it appears in practically
all other Maya texts as an isolated hieroglyph, and in Chichen Itza, too, it generally occurs
unconnected. It represents the head of God C with a prefix consisting of two parts (figs.
200-202). In figure 200 it has also an ending sign in front and an indistinct subfix below.
Glyph A shows variants of a composite hieroglyph whose main sign is a small bird
head in a kind of animal head with open jaws. All three have the Vulture sign as affix; fig-
ure 202 has besides a peculiar ending sign ( Centipede ) on top.
>> <<

GROUP 58

Fig. 203 Fig. 204

Four Lintels, II, H3-G4. Four Lintels, IV, G H2.

Fig. 205
Yula, I, E F1. Fig. 206
Four Lintels, III, C D5.

Little can be said about glyph A of this group (figs. 203-206), except that it com-
monly occurs isolated and probably has a very vague and general significance. The hiero-
glyph consists of plated strips and probably signifies a roof enforcement. In figure 205 it
seems to have been replaced by Landa’s “i”. On top of it is seen a skull and what proba-
bly is a macaw feather.
Glyph B, also, generally appears isolated or as the first sign of a group (see group
45). It has been analyzed in dealing with that group as Skein, Serpent-Segment-Crossed-
Bands, and Flames.
With this group we have terminated our brief survey of the Chichen Itza hiero-
glyphs that can be classed as pairs and series. What remain in the texts are isolated glyphs.
Single hieroglyphs, pairs, and short series are evidently the fundamental units in the texts.
Often these units are combined with each other in the same sequence and so create the
impression of being long series. A few examples for such compound series are given in
figures 207-212; a few others have been described already in figures 99-102 and figure
193. By a careful perusal of the whole text material, however, it has been possible to
determine those pairs and groups that play a role as such and, on the other hand, to split
up the longer series that are only aggregations of simpler units.
In figures 207 and 208 two glyph pairs are combined, while in figures 209 and 210
a glyph pair is joined to a set of three glyphs. The long series of figures 211 and 212 can
be subdivided into five glyph pairs and one glyph trio. These two combined series are par-
allel except that a single glyph (designated as X) is intercalated in figure 212.
When the units are not arranged in the same sequence, the parallelism of the sev- 40
eral series is not so obvious and the correspondence of the equivalent terms not so clear.
I think, however, that the series shown in figures 213 and 214 deal with the same things
and that the corresponding terms are correctly indicated by the lettering below them.
Under this assumption, glyph I, the Bat-Head with fire symbols, is identical; glyph II
occurs as Tun in figure 213 while in figure 214 it reads Ahau. The sense of the two for-
mally different signs, however, is the same, since Tun in general can very well be rendered
by Ahau in general as every Tun ends on some Ahau. In glyph III the heads probably are
those of the same deity, namely that of number One. The affix probably means “end” in
figure 213, and such a significance for the Eyelash in figure 214 is also quite possible.
Finally glyphs A B have been treated already as equivalents. Although the variations of
their details are great, they can be explained as different symbols for one idea in each case.
Such an explanation, however, requires a great amount of comparative work and must be
reserved for another occasion.

Fig. 207
Combined Series (Groups 15 and 2) Fig. 208
Variant of fig. 207 (Groups 15 and 2)

Fig. 209
Combined Series (Groups 12 and 11)

Fig. 210
Variant of fig. 200 (Groups 12 and 11)

Fig. 211
Combined Series (Groups 39, 7, 5, 10, 34 and 9) 41
 Fig. 212
Variant of fig. 211 (Groups 39, 7, 5, 10, 34, Single Glyph 556, Group 9)

Fig. 213
Combined Series (Group 23, Single Glyphs 378, 750 and 369)

Fig. 214
Probable Variant of fig. 213 (Group 23, Single Glyphs 309, 379 and 368)

42
 CHAPTER II
SINGLE HIEROGLYPHS IN THE CHICHEN ITZA TEXTS

When an isolated hieroglyph is found between two glyph pairs or at the beginning
or end of an inscription, before or after a glyph pair, respectively, we have a clear case of
a sign that is independent and must represent some independent concept. Unfortunately,
not all these hieroglyphs occur in that ideal condition. There are cases in which several
glyphs follow one another before a new series is reached. All hieroglyphs that do not
clearly form part of a group are here treated as single glyphs, although there exists a slight
possibility that some may really be connected and only escape recognition as a group
because no other instance happens to be preserved in our Chichen Itza texts. For most of
the hieroglyphs presented in this paper, however, their isolated position is confirmed by
inscriptions from other ruins.
We begin our brief description and interpretation of this class of hieroglyphs with
the same character as that with which Chapter I began, i.e., the Hand-Corpse-Head.

HIEROGLYPH HAND-CORPSE-HEAD
Although the first three specimens (figs. 215-217) seem to represent two distinct
hieroglyphs or main signs, they are to be considered as the same main sign with two affix-
es. The affix character of element c is indicated by its inverted position.
The main sign (element a) shows the same details we had in its variants in group
1, the erect thumb (in fig. 217 with Greenstone-Disc at the base), the long Eyelash, the
nose opening, and the blank teeth of a skull. In figures 216-218, also, the peculiar Cimi-
Variant is traceable.
Element 6 in the first four specimens is clear and in the remaining two is suffi-
ciently clear to be easily recognized. It consists of wide open Serpent-Jaws with short
teeth.
The Ahau affix has already been mentioned (element c). In figure 216 the outline
of a bird head encloses it instead of an eye. It is, however, even in this case in inverted
position, supplying a fine proof for my hypothesis on this point.1 In figures 219-220 two
small Ahaus are employed.
With one exception (fig. 217), this glyph compound occurs only in the Casa de las
Monjas, where it follows group 1 immediately.
The Corpse-Head in figures 221-231 is a duplex glyph which is preceded in most
instances by one or two ending signs. Although in figures 221 and 222 the ending signs
form a distinct hieroglyph, it is better to consider this as a formal elaboration which does
not affect the One sign character of the compound. For figures 229-231 the missing end-
ing sign must be regarded as having been suppressed.

1
Beyer, 1934a, I:101-108. 1
 COMPOUND 1

Fig. 215 Fig. 216 Fig. 217

Monjas, Va, B-C. Monjas, IV, Y4. Casa Colorada, 8.

Fig. 218 Fig. 219

Monjas, IIa, B Fig. 220
Monjas, VII, E1. Monjas, III, Y4.

We note the usual variation in detail and call attention to the pointed Teeth in fig-
ures 223, 227, 228, and 229.
Figures 225-228 have a composite ending sign the upper part of which is a skull.
It is similar to the main sign but has a different eye and circlets in the upper part (clear
only in fig. 227). In figure 221 the ending signs occupy more space than the main sign.
Two of its parts are employed in figure 222 but are widened in order to fill the whole
glyph block.
COMPOUND 2

Fig. 221 Fig. 222 Fig. 223

Monjas, IV, Z4. Three Lintels, I, B2-CI. Casa Colorada, 31.

Fig. 224 Fig. 225 Fig. 226 Fig. 227

Monjas, Ia, C1. Casa Colorada, 39. Casa Colorada, 6. Casa Colorada, 14.

Fig. 228 Fig. 229 Fig. 230 Fig. 231

Casa Colorada, 45. Casa Colorada, 52. Monjas, IV, Z2. Four Lintels, I, C7.

2
 COMPOUND 3

Fig. 233-Monjas, Ia, B2. Fig. 234

Fig. 232-Casa Colorada, 9. Yula, I, E4.

Fig. 235 Fig. 236

Four Lintels, II, F5. Four Lintels, I, D8.
COMPOUND 4

Fig. 238
Fig. 237 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 8.
Fig. 239
Monjas, VII, F2. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 12.

Fig. 240 Fig. 241 Fig. 242

Casa Colorada, 42. Yula, I, A5. Casa Colorada, 50.

Fig. 243
Monjas, IIIa, A.

Fig. 244 Fig. 245

Fig. 246
Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 9. Four Lintes, II, G3.
Yula, I, E5.

The examples on page 81 (figs. 232-236) resemble figures 225-228 inasmuch as

they commence with an ending sign and have the same upper part of the main sign. The
second half of the main sign, the Imix-Variant, however, is distinct. It is in perfect con-
dition in figure 232, while the other examples are more or less damaged. Figures 232 and
236 have the same postfix or subfix respectively, i.e., two curved dotted lines, but figure
233 evidently has the Ten-Derivate in defaced condition. While the first affix in figures
232 and 233 is the same as in figures 225-228, different ones are employed in figures 234
and 235.
Flames issuing from the Hand-Corpse glyph, as we have seen it in groups 2-4, are
seen in figures 237-246. The Flames are in the position of superfixes (figs. 237-240, 242,
and 244) or postfixes (figs. 241, 245, and 246). In figure 243 they are employed as an
3
infix lying on the right side of the profile face, a very unusual procedure, evidently caused
by lack of space.
Most of the hieroglyphs have ending signs as prefixes or superfixes, only figures
244-246 lacking them.
Figures 247 and 248 represent glyph A of group 5, the latter agreeing even to the
prefixed ending sign.

COMPOUND 5

Fig. 247
Fig. 248
Four Lintels, II, B5.
Yula, II, C6.

In figures 249-251 the Corpse-Head-Thumb has a new detail, the T-shaped eye.
This variant is used in the codices as the hieroglyph of God B, the Maya rain god. Figure
249 has the same subfix as the specimens of the manuscripts, the slight difference in the
design being only a stylistic difference.
Figure 250, however, has a different subfix. The main sign has curious strokes on
the right side. Figure 251 is so much destroyed that it is placed here only tentatively.

COMPOUND WITH IK EYE

Fig. 249 Fig. 250 Fig. 251

Monjas, IIIa, B. Monjas, VIla, D. Monjal, IIa, D.

CONVENTIONAL DAY SIGNS

If we were to include here all hieroglyphs similar to day signs, we would have been
forced to describe all forms that have hands as possible variants for Manik, skulls for
Cimi, dog heads for Oc, Greenstone Discs for Muluc, etc. A more natural classification,
however, will treat them in connection with matters figuratively or logically more ger-
mane. Therefore, only the safely identifiable Maya day signs are brought together here.

IMIX
The Imix compound which forms glyph A of groups 7 and 8 is seen in figures 252-
253, probably as an independent hieroglyph. The prefix of figure 252 is a slight variant
of those employed in figures 35 and 36, while that in figure 253 is rare. Unfortunately only
its contours are preserved. The elementary glyphs One, Eyelash, and Imix compose the
main sign.
The Eyelash and Imix with preceding ending sign occur also in figures 254-257,
but the large crosshatched One is absent. The simple Teeth sign serves as subfix. In fig-
ures 256 and 257 Imix is, by its size, to be characterized as main sign. In figure 255 it is
4
so flattened that it is difficult even to recognize it. The ending signs of figures 254 and
255 are identical, while that of figure 256 evidently is only a partly destroyed variant of
the one seen in figure 252. Figure 257 has the Vulture sign.
Simply “End of Imix” is indicated by figures 258-260. Figure 261 has an interja-
cent element; but as it has the same crosshatched superfix as the other cases, it is includ-
ed in this set. The position of the prefix in figure 260 is strange.
IMIX COMPOUND 1

Fig. 252 Fig. 253

Four Lintels, III, A3. Four Lintels, IV, C2.

IMIX COMPOUND 2

Fig. 254 Fig. 255 Fig. 256 Fig. 257

Casa Colorada, 55. Four Lintels, IV, E3. Initial Series, a, C2. Four Lintels, IV, C2.

IMIX COMPOUND 3

Fig. 258 Fig. 259 Fig. 260 Fig. 261

Halakal, G7. Four Lintels, I, H7. Casa Colorada, 21. Four Lintels, IIIa, E2.

Figures 262 and 263 consist again of the two elements which mean “End of Imix”,
but the Skein is added as subfix.
IMIX COMPOUND 4

Fig. 262 Fig. 263

Akab Tzib, A1. Four Lintels, IIa, B1.

IMIX COMPOUND 5

Fig. 264 Fig. 265

Serpent’s Tail, E2. Four Lintels, III, C8. 5
 IMIX COMPOUND 6

Fig. 266 Fig. 267 Fig. 268

Four Lintela, II, C6. Halakal, G7. Four Lintels, III, C6.

Figures 264 and 265, although both mutilated, are clearly variants of glyph A of
group 9, Imix with a curious elbow sign containing Crossed-Bands. The simple Teeth pre-
fix, as employed in figure 45, can be made out in both our figures.
The three hieroglyphs shown in figures 266-268 are probably variants of the Imix
with three details as superfix; at least for figures 266 and 267 this is certain. Figure 268
possesses an ending sign, which may have been omitted in the other two cases.
Odd Imix compounds are reproduced in figures 269-273. An interesting glyph is
shown in figure 269 which has the number fourteen as prefix. The superfix is not identi-
fiable, while the subfix is clearly Sun-Beard.
Figure 270 has two subfixes, one Crossed-Bands, the other effaced. In figure 27
the Ten-Derivate appears under the main sign.
Both figures 272 and 273 are much weathered or rubbed off, but the Imix and the
Tun-Teeth affix are still identifiable. In figure 273 an Ahau seems to follow.

DIFFERENT IMIX COMPOUNDS

Fig. 269 Fig. 270 Fig. 271

Casa Colorada, 36. Casa Colorada, 50. Monjas, VIIa, E.

Fig. 272-Four Lintels, III, D8. Fig. 273

Four Lintels, I, G8.

DIFFERENT IMIX-AHAU COMPOUNDS

Fig. 274-Four Lintels, II, F4. Fig. 276 Fig. 277

Fig. 275-Monjas, VII, C4. Four Lintels, IV, E7. Monjas, IIIa, D.

Fig. 278-Three Lintels, Fig. 279 Hieroglyphic Fig. 280 Fig. 281
III, H2. Jambs, E9. Hieroglyphic Jambs, F8. Monjas, VIIa, B. 6
 Fig. 282 Fig. 283 Fig. 284
Four Lintels, IV, F3. Yula, I, B7. Four Lintels, IV, D2.

Fig. 285 Fig. 286 Fig. 287

Four Lintels, III, F3. Monjas, VII, B2. Four Lintels, IV, E1.

All composite glyphs having Imix with an inserted Ahau are collected in figures
274-287. The first two are duplex glyphs, figure 274 having the plain Imix, while figure
275 seems to have Imix with Ahau as second main sign. The prefixes are identical. Figure
276 is different, but also has an ending sign as prefix and a glyph (Teeth) under the com-
posite Imix-Ahau. Behind it small Flames are added.
Of the superfixes in figures 277-281, those of figures 277-279 are surely ending
signs, although this cannot be proved for figures 280 and 281. Figures 277 and 278 are
identical hieroglyphs. Figure 279 has Landa’s “i”, figure 280 probably the sign for “red”,
and figure 281 the U-shaped details as superfix.
Figure 282 has Flames, and figure 283 evidently has a small double Ahau as sub-
fix. Figure 284 has Serpent-Segment (with Crossed-Bands) and Down-Balls as affixes.
The subfix of figure 285 is indistinct. In figure 286 Eyelash precedes and Skull follows
our composite glyph. In figure 287 it is combined with Ahau.

IK
Two forms of Ik are seen in figures 288 and 289, the first being like that in the Old
Empire texts. Figure 289 has Ahau as main sign above.

IK VARIANT AND COMPOUND

Fig. 288 Fig. 289

Monjas Annex. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10.

AKBAL
For Akbal one occurrence only is presented (fig. 290). Under it the Sky glyph is
traceable, although partly effaced.

AKBAL COMPOUND

Fig. 290-Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, a. 7

 KAN
Kan with affixes is given in figures 291-295. Figure 291 has Kan with an ending
sign and a numeral indicating, as mentioned before, that it must represent some cyclic
phenomenon. Possibly the same idea is represented by figure 292, but the latter has no
numeral and the subfix is different. The upper superfix in figure 293 is the common
ending sign Teeth. The small Double-Ahau subfix of figure 291 is employed also in fig-
ure 294, while the subfix in figure 295 is too much destroyed to allow identification.
The postfix in figure 294 is a variant of the familiar sign we have seen in figures 32-37,
glyph B, and also in figure 292. A Double-Flame arises from figure 295, which is evi-
dently the Kan-Variant we have in figure 84.
KAN COMPOUNDS

Fig. 291 Fig. 292 Fig. 293

Akab Tzib, a, B2. Yula, II, E6. Akab Tzib, a, F2.

Fig. 294 Fig. 295

Hieroglyphic Jambs, B8. Hieroglyphic Jambs, B9.

CHUEN
The Chuen glyph with Bundle, as we have it in group 35, occurs in figure 296 as
an isolated hieroglyph. A second similar variant of the Chuen or Uinal hieroglyph
appears at Halakal (fig. 297).

CHUEN-VARIANTS CABAN-VARIANT

Fig. 296 Fig. 297 Fig. 298

Hieroglyphic Jambs, D9. Halakal, A6. Hieroglyphic Jambs, A5.
CABAN
In figure 298 we easily recognize Caban in a variant somewhat different from that
of the cities of the South but in agreement with the later forms, that is, those in the codices.
More usual, however, is the form with the line of circlets to the right. As superfix a skull
is noticeable, while the second detail is unintelligible in its present mutilated state.

CAUAC
The sign Cauac in several variants is given in figures 299-303. Cruciform details
are present in most cases. The agglomeration of cells, prominent in figures 301-303, is
omitted in figures 299 and 300. 8
 Figure 299 has two flames in the form of the cursive hieroglyphs of the codices. In
fact, this painted Cauac is almost identical with variants found in the pictorial manu-
scripts.
Figure 300 might consist of two distinct hieroglyphs, the first being Cauac with
subfix Teeth, and the second the Vulture or the Zac sign with a worn ending sign above.
However, as there exists the possibility that they may be affixes to Cauac, the combina-
tion is presented here.
Of figure 301 nothing definite can be said, as its affixes are too much effaced. The
prefix possibly is the Fire-Wood-Bundle.
Finally figures 302 and 303 show two bizarre Cauac forms, both having on top a
simple Cauac with three circlets on each side. In figure 302 the superfix probably is a
macaw feather and a dotted Greenstone-Disc. The upper part of figure 303 is too
destroyed to allow any interpretation. The prefix of this figure, fortunately, is clearly an
ending sign which may also be the case in figure 302.

CAUAC COMPOUNDS

Fig. 299 Fig. 300 Fig. 301

Temple of the Owls. Yula, I, D7. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, b.

Fig. 302 Fig. 303

Hieroglyphic Jambs, A8. Hieroglyphic Jambs, E4.

AHAU
All the isolated Ahaus are brought together in figures 304-324. The usual Ahau
with Ben-Lamat and Owl-Plume as affixes is represented by figures 304-310. The speci-
mens from a stone disc with spur, excavated at the Caracol (figs. 306-310), show the pecu-
liarity of having the Owl-Plume converted into a bilateral double symbol. Curious also is
the Lamat-Center represented by crossed parallel lines (figs. 306-308). All the hieroglyphs
on this stone disc are crudely executed and seem to be decadent in form.
Figures 311-312 are Ahaus with the special headdress, characteristic of a variant of
this sign. In figure 313 Ben-Lamat is replaced by a row of Flame elements.

Fig. 304 Fig. 305 Fig. 306 Fig. 307

Monjas, Ia, D2 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10. Cylindrical Stone, F. Cylindrical Stone, C2.

9
 Fig. 308 Fig. 309 Fig. 310
Cylindrical Stone, X1. Cylindrical Stone, T2. Cylindrical Stone, H

Fig. 311 Fig. 312 Fig. 313

Monjas, IIIa, C. Monjas, II, Z2. Yula, II, A5.

AHAU-VARIANT 1

Ahaus with preceding ending sign are seen in figures 314-319. The Ahaus show the usual
variation of the Chichen Itza forms; only in figure 318 is there a human head in profile as
an unusual variant. In figure 319 two subfixes are added, possibly more as space fillers
than as expressions of some idea. The ending sign in figure 318 is rudimentary, while in
the others they are represented by their usual forms.

Fig. 314 Fig. 316

One Lintel, E1. Fig. 315 Hieroglyphic Jambs, C9.
Cala Colorada, 25.

Fig. 317 Fig. 318 Fig. 319

Monjas, IVa, C. Monjas, IIIa, D. Monjas, VII, F3.

AHAU-VARIANT 2

10
 The human head in figure 320 possibly belongs to the Ahau-with-Bundle, and fig-
ure 321 is the same glyph less the profile head.
Another subfix, the Serpent-Segment-Crossed-Bands, is employed in figure 322.
The two figures 323 and 324 have Ahau with 9Q0 and 1800 turns, respectively. The
former has two Flames issuing from it, while the latter has the Bundle as prefix and Teeth
as subfix.

Fig. 320 Fig. 321

Monjas, VIIa, C. Hieroglyphic Band, 10.

AHAU COMPOUND

Fig. 322 Fig. 323 Fig. 324

Re-used Stela, High Priest’s Re-used Stela, High Capstone, Tomb.
Grave. Priest’s Grave.

DIFFERENT AHAU COMPOUNDS

ASTRONOMICAL HIEROGLYPHS
In this section there are assembled the variants of five principal signs, namely that
for Day-Sky, that for Day, that for Sun, that for Moon, and that for the planet Venus.

DAY-SKY
Although their superficies are much effaced, the three examples in figures 325-327
have sufficient details preserved to warrant their identification. It is the common com-
pound: Sky-and-Teeth sign. In figure 325 the Vulture sign is prefixed.
Figures 328-330 are undoubtedly three variants of the same composite hieroglyph
consisting of Day-Sky, Ahau and the Double-Dotted-Line. While figures 328 and 329
show identical arrangement, figure 330 has the Dotted-Lines as postfix.
The Double-Dotted-Line occurs also in figures 331 and 332 as subfix. Figure 332
has, in addition, the Teeth sign as postfix. The main sign of figure 333 in its present state
looks like the day sign Ben, but was probably once also the Day-Sky. Below it is the con-
tour of the Teeth sign. The Dotted-Lines are added here as prefix.
In figure 334 the Day-Sky is well preserved, while the hand that clasps it is worn
and the postfix is still more damaged.
In figures 335 and 336 the Day-Sky (in inverted position) is combined with a hiero-
glyph which we have called Gouged-Eye. The Sky glyph is quite clear in figure 335,
which serves also to identify the upper half of figure 336. This figure has an ending sign
in front, which is absent in the other specimen.
11
 DAY-SKY COMPOUND 1

Fig. 325 Fig. 326 Fig. 327

Four Lintels, IV, E6. Yula, I, E7. Caracol, Hieroglyphic
Band, c.

DAY-SKY COMPOUND 2

Fig. 328 Fig. 329 Fig. 330

Four Lintels, Ia, D2. Four Lintels, III, G1. Yula, Ia, D2.

DAY-SKY COMPOUND 3

Fig. 331 Fig. 332 Fig. 333

Caracol, Hieroglyphic Four Lintels, IIIa, E1. Caracol, Stela, L4.
Band, b.

DAY-SKY COMPOUND 4 DAY-SKY COMPOUND 5

Fig. 334 Fig. 335 Fig. 336

Monjas, II, E4. Casa Colorada, 36. Four Lintels, II, E6.

DAY
By its occurrence in calendrical passages of the inscriptions of Tikal we are enabled
to determine the meaning of the hieroglyphic compound in figures 337-345 as “day”. Its
upper, tilted part in figure 337 is again our Day-Sky sign; in the following specimens,
however, it is simply Crossed-Bands. Undoubtedly this plainer glyph has to be interpret-
ed as a simplification of the complicated Day-Sky, which in this connection has become
too small to have all its details reproduced in the porous limestone used in most of the
inscriptions at Chichen Itza.
The lower part of the compound is the sign Caban, evidently employed in double
form to fill the available space more adequately. In figure 342 the upper part is also filled
with two Caban scrolls. Between these two larger parts is inserted the small disc with four
strokes and central dot, the sign for “sun.”
12
 In most instances ending signs occupy the prefix position and allow us to interpret
the compound as expressing the idea “Ending Day”. The hieroglyph, however, is gener-
ally not near a date, although it most probably refers to a Calendar Round Date contained
in the respective texts. Rather frequently our compound stands at the beginning of inscrip-
tions or of separate passages (figs. 339, 340, 341, 342 and 344).
There exists also a much destroyed specimen as the first glyph in the Temple of the
One Lintel (consult p1. 4, a). Although the general outline of the compound can still be
made out, its details are beyond recognition, for which reason no drawing has been made
of it.

Fig. 337 Fig. 338 Fig. 339

Re-used Stela, High Priest’s Serpent’s Tail, B2. Caracol, Hieroglyphic
Grave. Band, 8.

Fig. 340 Fig. 341 Fig. 342

Caracol, Hieroglyphic Caracol, Hieroglyphic Three Lintels, I, A1.
Band, 5. Band, 9.

Fig. 343 Fig. 344 Fig. 345

Four Lintels, IV, D6. Four Lintels, IIa, A1. Yula, II, D4.

DAY-SKY-CABAN COMPOUND

The Curved-Dotted-Lines behind figure 341 probably are employed only for
esthetic purposes; namely, to avoid the flattening of the component parts of the hieroglyph
which would have resulted in distorted details.

KIN
The hieroglyph Kin meaning “sun”, and by extension “day”, is reproduced in fig-
ures 346-351. The first three figures can again be transcribed by “Ending Day”. In figure
346 the ending sign is in an abnormal position, similar to the one in figure 260. In fact,
both hieroglyphs are joined and fill one glyph block.
There is some variation in the discs, which in figures 346 and 350 are in accordance
with the forms of the southern cities, while most of the Chichen Itza specimens have their
strokes tilted, the easier method in actual writing. The Beard is in some cases connected
with the disc on the right side (figs. 346, 348), in others on the left (figs. 347, 349-351).
13
 HIEROGLYPH ENDING DAY

Fig. 346 Fig. 347 Fig. 348

Casa Colorada, 21. Four Lintels, II, E5. Yula, I, P7.

KIN-VARIANTS

Fig. 349 Fig. 350 Fig. 351

Serpent’s Tail, E3. Caracol, Circular Stone, W1. Four Lintels, II, C7.

Fig. 352 Fig. 353 Fig. 354

Casa Colorada, 56. Akab Tzib, a, F1. Halakal, G4.

HIEROGLYPH WEST (?)

Fig. 355 Fig. 356 Fig. 357 Fig. 358
Yula, II, D8. Yula, I, D4. Four Lint~s, IV, D5. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 8.

SUN COMPOUND

Fig. 359 Fig. 360 Fig. 361

Akab Tzib, a, H1. Yula, II, C2. Yula, I, E5.

In figures 352-358 we have a combination of Hand and Sun, the older specimens
having the Sun-Disc taking the place generally occupied by a Greenstone-Disc (figs. 352-
354), while the later cases show a hand grasping a small Sun-Disc (figs. 355-358). The
three examples in figures 356-358 are much damaged and were, therefore, not easily
14
determinable. The Hand in this hieroglyph has the shape of the day sign Manik. In the
Dresden Codex occasionally forms like figures 352-354 occur as symbols for the world-
direction “west”. I am inclined to admit the same explanation also for the figures here
under discussion, but the matter needs a more extended special investigation. While the
signs for the cardinal points in the pictorial manuscripts are easily recognized and have
been identified for many years, this has not been attempted for the monuments, where it
is a rather difficult problem.
Above the Kin hieroglyph in figure 359 is a serrated sign, which may be employed
also in figures 360-361, divided in halves and having the Sun-Disc as its central part. The
remaining details in these figures are too indistinct for recognition.

MOON
Figures 362-367 represent the Moon according to the Maya conception and the sig-
nificance of most of the cases might be “Ending Moon”. In figure 364 possibly “Ending
of 1 Moon” is indicated. Figure 363 has a clear Ten-Derivate as subfix and a less clear
Owl-Plume as postfix. A similar hieroglyph seems to occur in the Monjas, IIa, D. From
the former groups 3 and 40 we are familiar with figure 365, which in this case appears iso-
lated. Figure 366 has Tun (or Muluc) above Moon, while the two superfixes in figure 367
defy identification.

Fig. 362 Fig. 363 Fig. 364

Circular Stone, D1. Monjas, VI, E3. Initial Series, a, G2.

Fig. 365 Fig. 366 Fig. 367

Four Lintels, IV, C3. Akah Tzih, a, A2 Yula, I, B4.

MOON COMPOUNDS

PLANET VENUS
There are quite a number of Venus signs on a long row of constellation bands in the
façade of the East Wing of the Casa de las Monjas, but as they are more properly classi-
fied as symbols than as hieroglyphs, they are not reproduced here. The two in figures 368
and 369 occur in the usual hieroglyphic texts. Figure 368 represents the complete form of
the Venus glyph, while figure 369 shows us the reduced form with an undetermined super-
fix.

15
 Fig. 368 Fig. 369
Monjas Annex. Circular Stone, B2.

VENUS VARIANTS

HEADS
HUMAN HEADS
In various glyph series we have found human heads. Those not presented hereto-
fore have been brought together in figures 370-377. Figures 370 and 371 represent pos-
sibly the same idea, as they seem to be homologous in the combined series in figures 215
and 216. In one case the ending sign is below the head, in the other above. In figures 372
and 373 we are dealing with the same deity. In figure 374 we are uncertain although it
has the same headdress (animal head?) as the other two figures, but distinguished from
them by a nose plug. Figure 375 represents possibly the black God L; at least the cross-
hatching stands for this color. Two vertical bars or bands over the face and a peculiar hair-
or headdress is shared by the heads in figures 376 and 377. A similar head occurs in fig-
ure 191. Figure 377 also has a circlet with vertical lines over the eye.

HEAD COMPOUND 1
Fig. 370 Fig. 371
Monjas, IIIa, D. Akab Tzib, a, H2.

HEAD COMPOUND 2
Fig. 373 Fig. 374
Fig. 372
Initial Series, E10. Initial Series, F3.
Initial Series, E7.

HEAD OF DEITY HEAD COMPOUND 3

Fig. 375 Fig. 376 Fig. 377
Monjas Annex. Casa Colorada, 30 Casa Colorada, 40.
16
 ANIMAL HEADS
Four versions of the same composite hieroglyph, whose main Sign is a Vampire-
Head, are reproduced in figures 378-381. In figure 380 the animal has a circlet surround-
ed by dots on the cheek, while in figure 381 it has curved lines. Short strokes are
employed in figure 378. The Flame combination before figures 378 and 379, and on top
of figures 380 and 381, probably is an ending sign. A second affix is well preserved in
figures 378 and 380, but in the other two examples is somewhat worn. There can, howev-
er, be no doubt that the Teeth Sign with contour is represented in all four.
Another Vampire glyph is represented by figures 382 and 383. In figure 382 the
superfix is clear, while only the middle part is preserved in figure 383. The circlet and dot-
ted curve are visible in both figures. Below in figure 382 there is one subfix; in figure
383, two subfixes. What should be the second subfix in figure 382 forms part of the next
glyph block. If it were not for figure 383, we hardly would have ascertained this circum-
stance, because in connection with figure 291 (i.e., the main part of the glyph block) this
sign naturally would be taken for an ending sign belonging to it. Similar transferences of
subfixes to the next glyph block also occur in figures 108 and 109 in this same inscription
in the Akab Tzib, as well as in a few other cases.

BAT COMPOUND 1
Fig. 378 Fig. 379 Fig. 380 Fig. 381
One Lintel, G2. Monjas, III, E4. Akah Tzib, a, H1. Monjas, IIIa, D.

BAT COMPOUND 2

Fig. 382 Fig. 383

Akab Tzib, A2-B2. Akab Tzib, D3.

DIFFERENT BAT COMPOUNDS

Fig. 384 Fig. 385 Fig. 386
Hieroglyphic Jambs, F9. Monjas, IV, Y2. Four Lintels, IVa, A2.

DOG COMPOUND 1 DOG COMPOUND 2

Fig. 387 Fig. 388 Fig. 389 Fig. 390
Three Lintels, I, D1. Cylindrical Stone, S2. Monjas, VI, E4. Monjas, VII, E4. 17
 Like the former examples, figure 384 probably means “Ending Bat phenomenon”.
The ending sign is the peculiar head we have found in several series as substitute for glyph
Eyelash.
Figure 385 is badly worn, but the outlines are those of the Vampire head and an
ending sign as prefix. The postfix remains unidentifiable.
The composite glyph in figure 386, of which we have seen many variants in group
39, is not followed in this instance by a Moon sign.
A Bat hieroglyph probably also occurs in the Temple of the One Lintel, C 1, but is
too much destroyed to be drawn with any degree of certitude as to details (see p1. 4, a).
Figure 387, although its main sign is preserved only in contour and with a few inner
lines, can safely be determined as a dog’s head by the peculiar symbol on the right side,
which is quite clear. This symbol is Kan, “yellow”, and is characteristic of a certain dog
variant. The subfix, the Skein, corroborates this determination, as it often occurs with the
Dog-Head. An ending prefix completes the hieroglyph.
The Dog-Head in figure 388 has a great round eye, but evidently no Kan emblem.
Below it is the Skein in a clear variant.
Figures 389 and 390 are parallels, but the second glyph of figure 390 is com-
prehensible only because of the better-preserved specimen in figure 389. It is probably
the Dog-Head with inserted Kin sign. The Dog-Head is not a particularly good represen-
tation, but it resembles the one in figure 135, which also comes from the Casa de las
Monjas. The human Head-with-Closed-Eyes in figures 389 and 390 is identical with the
one we have seen in several groups as a substitute for the Teeth sign. As the Dog-Head
sometimes signifies “day”,1 the compound might mean “Ending Day”. Although com-
posed of two main signs, the hieroglyph in figures 389 and 390 is essentially one, and
therefore is included in this section.

SNAKE-HEAD TORTOISE-HEAD TOAD-HEAD TOAD-HEAD FISH-HEAD

Fig. 391 Fig. 392 Fig. 393 Fig. 394 Fig. 395
Monjas Annex. Hieroglyphic Jambs, E5. Monjas, VII, A2. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Capstone, Tomb.
Band, 13.

A Serpent-Head adapted to the quadrangular form of the Maya hieroglyphs is seen

in figure 391. We perceive the fang and teeth in the open jaw. Above the nose is a green-
stone plug.
What probably is a Tortoise-Head is represented in figure 392. It is the same head
we have seen in figures 103, 174, 175, and 178, although it is not employed here as affix
but as main sign. The superfix is Landa’s “i” and probably means “Ending”.
The animal head in figure 393, although badly worn, can be identified as that of the
frog or toad on account of the symbol it has in the upper right part, a disc with three dots.
Under the head is the sign Imix, which possibly forms a separate hieroglyph here with the
1
Bowditch, 1910, p1. XIV, Period-Face Signs, Kin; figs. 31-33. 18
ending sign before it. As the case is doubtful, I reproduced the whole glyph block. Before
and above the Toad-Head are ending signs.
Another Toad-Head is reproduced in figure 394. There may be one or two more in
the Chichen Itza texts, but they are even more damaged than figure 394 and therefore
identification becomes too risky.
Figure 395 is a painted variant of the conventional Fish-Head which we en-
countered in several hieroglyphic series as equivalent of the glyph Eyelash. Here it is an
independent hieroglyph with Down-Balls as superfix. This same compound occurs sev-
eral times in inscriptions of the Old Empire cities, but it is not found again at Chichen Itza.
The fantastic head in figures 396-409 is that of God C. It has often been deter-
mined as that of a monkey. I doubt today the validity of this classification but add this
and the following head-like form as an appendix to this chapter.
Figures 396 and 397 are homologous. The sculptor, for lack of space, evidently
reduced the second variant to the first two signs of figure 396. The first sign is a segment
of the celestial serpent with inscribed crossed bars or bands. The head of God C is pre-
ceded by a worn detail in figure 396 which is most probably a Double-Dotted-Line. This
double line in variation is employed as postfix of the Serpent-Segment in figure 397, while
the remaining glyphs simply are dropped. In figure 396 the sculptor had plenty of space
and therefore added another detail behind the head. This compound cannot have been of
very great importance for the understanding of the texts where it occurs, when it could be
treated in such high-handed fashion as in figure 397.
The meaning “Ending God C”, which is a probable interpretation for figure 396,
may be applied also to figures 398-401. The heads are partly effaced, but enough remains
in every instance to permit identification. The curved Double-Dotted-Line seems to be
simple in figure 398, while in the other examples it is combined with another detail. This
new element is, in all Chichen Itza examples so indistinct that no identification on the
basis of this limited material is possible. In better executed forms at the southern cities,
however, it is safely recognizable as a shell. The ending signs in figures 398-400 are
known to us, but that in figure 401 is different. Unfortunately it is so indistinct that one
hardly can say more of it than that it consists of three more or less circular details.

CORRESPONDING COMPOUNDS
Fig. 396 Fig. 397
Monjas, IIa, A. Monjas, Va, A.

HIEROGLYPH ENDING GOD C

Fig. 398 Fig. 399 Fig. 400 Fig. 401

Monjas, II, Z3. Yula, II, C7. Yula, I, D8. YuIa, II, B4. 19
 Fig. 402 Fig. 403 Fig. 404 Fig. 405
Four Lintels, IV, B8. Yula, I, H5. Four Lintels, IIa, A2. Four Lintels, II, D2.

VARIANTS OF HEAD OF GOD C WITH PREFIX

Fig. 406 Fig. 407 Fig. 408 Fig. 409

Four Lintela, III, H7. Four Lintela, III, E7. Four Lintels, III, F4. Initial Series, a, H2.

The same head with composite prefix but without the ending sign is given in eight
more variants in figures 402-409. In figure 404 the prefix seems to be simple. With some
difficulty we can make out in the heads the eye, the flat nose, broad mouth, and ear disc.
Some strokes seem to indicate the hair, but really represent a certain symbol.
In figures 410-419 we have a curious symbol used as a hieroglyph, the forehead of
the Serpent-God K. The best-preserved example from Chichen Itza is figure 410, but even
here the inner details of the main sign are partly effaced. The small double Flame before
the main sign is very characteristic, but I am not sure that the object to which it is attached
is a hatchet, as has been asserted. In most of our cases it looks more like a torch, which
hypothesis, indeed, gives a more natural explanation.
In the representation of the hair the Chichen Itza examples are to be distinguished
from the Old Empire forms, which are plainer. The Double Ahau as subfix, on the other
hand, is common in both regions. Figure 410 has as its postfix a fine specimen of the
Serpent-Jaw. A more crudely sculptured variant is seen in the following figure. In figure
411 the Ahau is destroyed completely; in figures 416 and 417 the peculiar T-shaped vari-
ant is used. If we should entertain any doubt about the correctness of our identification,
figures 417 and 418 will remove it, because they have number Nine as an affix, just as
have some Old Empire variants. The only case I have some doubt about is figure 419. It
is indistinct and the Ahau evidently is lacking. Also, the ending sign above it is rare.
There is an ending sign, however, above figure 417.

Fig. 410 Fig. 411 Fig. 412

Monjas, VI, El. Yu1a, II, D2. Four Lintels, IV, E5

20
 Fig. 413 Fig. 414 Fig. 415
Four Lintels, IV, C6. Four Lintels, I, D5. Initial Series, a, F2.

SYMBOL OF GOD K
Fig. 419
Fig. 416 Fig. 417 Fig. 418 Caracol, Hieroglyphic
Caracol, Stela, D6. Caracol, Stela, N1. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10. Band, 11.

BIRD HEADS
I have separated the bird heads from the other animal heads, because they form a
somewhat numerous set.
Figures 420-423 provide us with four more variants of the composite bird glyph we
know already from pseudo group 57. Unfortunately, they, too, are crudely executed and
not well preserved. The small bird is fairly clear in figure 420.
If figure 424 represents the same bird in an animal’s mouth (which is quite possi-
ble) then we can recognize it too as a bird head, it seems to me. The general outline and
absence of teeth speak for such an identification.
In figure 425 is the small bird with its surrounding detail joined to a large bird head.
This is conceived as the rain bird, having four times the Rain-Cluster as symbol applied
over the profile. Below this great bird head we note a variant of the composite sign
Greenstone-Disc and Teeth.

BIRD COMPOUND
Fig. 420 Fig. 421 Fig. 422 Fig. 423
Four Lintels, IV, B5. Four Lintels, III, A4. Yula, II, A8. Four Lintels, III, H8.

SIMPLIFIED COMPOUND CAUAC BIRD

Fig. 424 Fig. 425
Three Lintels, III, G2. Four Lintels, IIIa, C1.

21
 Fig. 426 Fig. 427 Fig. 428
Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, b. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, c. Three Lintels, II, fragment.

MUAN BIRD (?)

Fig. 429 Fig. 430 Fig. 431 Fig. 432
Yula, Ia, B2. Yula, I, C8. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 17. Four Lintels, III, B3.

VULTURE HEAD QUETZAL HEAD

Fig. 433 Fig. 434 Fig. 435
Hieroglyphic Jambs, A3. Hieroglyphic Jambs, A4. One Lintel, F2.

Figures 426-430 go together. The first two have the Sun-Beard as subfix. The bird
head in figure 426 is rather indistinct, but figure 427 looks similar to the hieroglyph for
the month Muan, which is a bird head with two upstanding feathers and the Sun-Beard.
The only notable difference is the absence of a symbol consisting of three or four details
in the bill of our heads. There occurs, however, one late Muan form without these details
(fig. 638). Figures 428-430 are so simliar to figure 427 that I think we are justified in
identifying them as the same bird, although the Sun-Beard is lacking.
Probably also figures 431 and 432 belong to the same set, although they have an
oval subfix and are slightly different in outline. In figure 431 the two great lateral feath-
ers are discernible.
Figures 433 and 434 can be defined as Vulture-Heads on account of the charac-
teristic emblem they have over the bill. In figure 434 the warts on the bald head of the
animal are indicated.
I think that figure 435 also can be identified. It consists of two heads of Quetzal
birds. This is the usual way of representing the head of this precious bird among the
Maya, with a short thick bill and a crest of feathers.

SKULL AND SKELETON HIEROGLYPHS

The skull as a main sign has been seen as glyph B of group 33 and as affix in a
number of cases. Generally these skull representations are worn or too small to allow all
the details to show clearly; occasionally, however, even these small figures are well pre-
served, for instance, figure 199.
The skull from the East Annex of the Monjas (fig. 436) is simple but well execut-
ed, particularly the curved fang in the angle of the mouth. In the upper part of the skull
are three circlets which have symbolic value and which are found in many of its repre-
sentations. The three circlets or dots are visible in figures 124, 125, 129, 199, 227, 485.
22
 Figure 437 has Landa’s “i” instead of the three dots. On the right side is a Cimi
symbol simplified to a stroke and two dots. The affix over the skull glyph is unfortunate-
ly destroyed in essential parts, so that no identification is possible.
The next hieroglyph (fig. 438) is sufficiently well preserved to allow identification
at all the important details. We notice the large eye, nose-opening, two teeth, and jaw
bone, and on the right side an ear disc. The Bundle glyph serves as subfix.
Figures 439-441 show a composite hieroglyph in three states of preservation from
fairly clear to indistinct. Here the skull is lying on its back side. In figure 440 the sym-
bol Two-Dots-between-a-Stroke is still visible, notwithstanding the worn general aspect
of the skull. To the skull is joined the Moon sign. Below is a Flame combination in fig-
ures 439 and 440, while figure 441 probably had two Ahaus. This hieroglyph appears in
the texts in connection with calendrical matter and means probably “moon ending”.
The skull in figure 442 has a very distinct lower jaw. The little head in front of it,
however, is too much damaged to permit classification. Both rest on the Eyelash glyph.

SKULL SKULL COMPOUNDS

Fig. 436 Fig. 437 Fig. 438
Monjas, Annex. Casa Colorada, 20. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10.

SKULL-MOON COMPOUND
Fig. 439 Fig. 440 Fig. 441
Three Lintels, III, A1. Four Lintels, IIIa, Al. Four Lintels, II, C3.

SKULL COMPOUND SKELETON-THORAX COMPOUND

Fig. 442 Fig. 443 Fig. 444
Cylindrical Stone, C1. Capstone, Tomb. Yula, I, B5.

HIEROGLYPH GOUGED-EYE GOUGED-EYE COMPOUND LONG-BONE COMPOUNDS

Fig. 445 Fig. 446 Fig. 447 Fig. 448
Cylindrical Stone, A2. Yula, II, H5. Monjas, VIIa, B. Monjas, VIIa, D.

Figures 443 and 444 represent skeletal thoraxes, the first one being more natural
with bare ribs and sternum showing clearly. Figure 444 has the curved lines of the Second
Epoch (Old Empire, southern cities). Under it the Cauac sign is seen, above it the numer- 23
al Four.
The familiar hieroglyph Gouged-Eye appears in isolated form in figures 445 and
446. In the latter it has a subfix which seems to be the Bundle.
Two glyph compounds into which Long-Bone enters are reproduced in figures 447
and 448. In the first figure a human head, probably that of the light-goddess, precedes the
Bone. Above it is what is possibly a dotted fire symbol. In figure 448 is Imix with insert-
ed Ahau on top. The subfix is partly destroyed and only the lateral zig-zag lines remain.

HIEROGLYPH HAND
The Hand with inserted Crossed-Bands and two affixes is a puzzling compound. In
some cases it follows constantly at the end of a group (groups 5 and 8), but in others it
seems to be used as an ending sign that precedes other glyphs (fig. 101). In other cases
evidently none of these conditions is adducible and therefore I treat figures 449-457 as
independent hieroglyphs. This compound is quite common at Chichen Itza, but extreme-
ly rare in inscriptions of the southern Maya area.
HAND COMPOUND 1

Fig. 449 Fig. 450 Fig. 451

Four Lintels, IIIa, A2 Four Lintels, II, D3. Four Lintels, IVa, C1.

Fig. 452 Fig. 453 Fig. 454

Yula, I, F6. Four Lintels, Ia, B. Initial Series, E2.

Fig. 455 Fig. 456 Fig. 457

Three Lintels, III, F1. Three Lintels, I, I1. Four Lintels, III G7.

HAND COMPOUND 2

Fig. 458 Fig. 459

Hieroglyphic Band, 13. Caracol Stela, M3.

HAND COMPOUND 3 HAND COMPOUND 4

Fig. 460 Fig. 461 Fig. 462
Monjas, II, D5. Monjas, Annex. Monjas, VIIa, E. 24
 The same Hand-Crossed-Bands furnishes also the main sign for the glyphs in fig-
ures 458 and 459, which are undoubtedly parallels, having Tun (Muluc) as affix. Figure
458 has the peculiarity of showing the right hand, while the general usage is to represent
the left hand.
Possibly also figures 460 and 461 are parallels; at least both have a bird head as
second sign. In figure 461 this head is turned 90°.
In figure 462 the second glyph is Imix with inserted Ahau. The thumb is decorat-
ed in a curious but not unique way (see for example fig. 378) with strokes.
Various other Hand compounds follow in figures 463-469. In figure 463 the Manik
form of Hand has an effaced superfix and a worn postfix, but the latter is still recogniza-
ble as one of the most common affixes. Also figure 464 has the Manik sign with an end-
ing prefix and Flames and three details as superfixes. A somewhat different Hand seems
to be represented in figure 465. Its prefix might be Skein, its superfix Yax, of which only
the contour remains. The subfix is a variant of the Bundle glyph. Fists with different sec-
ondary Signs are presented by figures 466 and 467. The subfix in figure 467 is a common
ending sign; the other hieroglyph, that is, the subfix in figure 466, will be treated later on.
An unusual hand representation is the main sign in figure 468. Above and behind are part-
ly destroyed affixes.
Finally, figure 469 shows a hand holding a Fish as main sign, a fairly common
hieroglyph in the southern cities and also in the codices. For Chichen Itza this figure 469,
however, is unique. Below the main sign are Eyelash and Flames.

Fig. 463 Fig. 464 Fig. 465

Four Lintels, IIIa, Fl. Monjas, VII, B4. Caracol, Stela, L3.

Fig. 466 Fig. 467 Fig. 468 Fig. 469

Yula, II, B5. Four Lintels, II, G5. Casa Colorada, 46. Casa Colorada, 20.

DIFFERENT HAND COMPOUNDS

HIEROGLYPH LEG
Although worn, figure 470 can still be identified as a human leg with an ending
prefix and two postfixes, the lower one having the familiar Teeth sign. Still more defaced
is figure 471, which seems to represent two legs. There is also an ending sign as prefix—
the ubiquitous Teeth glyph. In the composite postfix only Sun-Beard can be identified.
To these latter paragraphs treating with parts of the human body I add figure 472,
a small sitting or crouching person preserved only in its outlines. Even more defaced is a
similar figurine in glyph block B2 of the Caracol stela (see p1. 4, b). Before the human
figure in figure 472 appears a composite sign, consisting of a dotted disc with a plume.
Under the crouching manikin is a partly destroyed sign, possibly once the two vertical 25
lines with circlets in the upper part.

HUMAN LEGS IN COMPOUND HUMAN FIGURE

Fig. 470 Fig. 471-Three Fig. 472
Yula, I, E6. Lintels, I, H1. Four Lintels, II, D8.

HIEROGLYPH GREENSTONE-DISC
A number of composite glyphs are united under this heading, which have in com-
mon that their main element is a disc with a central perforation, undoubtedly the highly
esteemed polished Greenstone (jade, etc.).
Figures 473 and 474 are parallels, but the latter is partly effaced. In both figures
we can recognize the main sign consisting of a Muluc-Variant with a complicated elbow
element surrounding it on two sides. The affixes are only clear in figure 473, where they
represent in the upper two details the ending sign which we have determined as the
forepart of the Turtle-Head. The lower detail is the curved Double-Dotted-Line.
In figure 475 the Muluc-Variant has two superfixes which are not safely identifi-
able. The prefix is evidently the Teeth sign.
Figures 476 and 477, again, represent parallel compounds. The main sign is a disc
with double strokes, inserted three times, and at the base the Muluc-Variant. On top of it
in figure 476, and to the left in figure 477, appears the plain Muluc sign. Figure 476 pos-
sesses, in addition, the numeral Nine, and figure 477 a curious variant of the Teeth sign.
The Muluc-with-Strokes of figures 476 and 477 forms evidently also the lower part
of figure 466.
The variant of the Greenstone-Disc with four dots, seen in glyph B of group 25, is
found in figures 478-482. The first two figures are parallels. In figure 478 the main sign
is accompanied by two secondary signs, Flames, and Teeth, while figure 479 has only the
latter.
Figures 480 and 481 are possibly parallels consisting of the enriched Tun and the
Bundle glyph. In figure 482 the Tun-with-Dots has the function of a superfix to the Hand.
A similar, but distinct, variant of the Tun-Disc is represented by figures 483 and
484. Its symbolic value is known as “yellow” and we have seen it as an infix. In figures
89B and 387. In figure 483 we see the superfix Ben-Lamat-Center. The postfix is a new
sign. Figure 484 has the common Teeth sign, and the Bundle-Variant as subfix.
In figures 485-489 the perforated disc is part of a composite main sign, which we
have called the Vulture emblem, because it generally accompanies heads of this bird (see
figs. 148B, 433 and 434). Figures 485 and 486 clearly are parallels, though they differ in
the position of the main sign. The prefix is the same; the Flame subfix differs somewhat.
Figure 487 has no ending prefix, but the composite Flame subfix is a curious enriched
variant. In figure 488 an ending sign is present, but the Flame symbol is replaced by a
Moon sign. The ending sign is missing in figure 489, but what probably is the outline of
the Moon postfix appears behind the main sign.
The Vulture emblem is often used as affix and in many instances evidently served
as ending sign. In figures 485-489, however, it is employed as main sign and combined
with other ending glyphs in the usual prefix position.
26
 GREENSTONE COMPOUND 1 GREENSTONE COMPOUND 2
Fig. 473 Fig. 474 Fig. 475
Casa Colorada, 16. Monjas, VII, A3. Monjas, Ia, C2.

GREENSTONE COMPOUND 3 DOTTED GREENSTONE COMPOUND 1

Fig. 476 Fig. 477 Fig. 478 Fig. 479
Monjas, IIIa, B. Monjas, Annex. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 10. Yula, I, B6.

DOTTED GREENSTONE DOTTED GREENSTONE KAN (YELLOW) COMPOUNDS

COMPOUND 2 COMPOUND 3
Fig. 480 Fig. 481 Fig. 482 Fig. 483 Fig. 484- One
Four Lintels, II, E4. Casa Colorada, 56. Caracol, Stela, M5. Re-used Stela, High Lintel, G1.
Priest’s Grave.

Fig. 485 Fig. 486

Monjas, IV, A5. Halakal, A7.

Fig. 487 Fig. 488 Fig. 489

Three Lintels, III, I1. Yula, II, F6. High Priest’s Grave, 5.

VULTURE EMBLEM COMPOUND

27
 LANDA’S LETTER “I”
In a similar manner another glyph, which in affix form often means “end”, is used
as main sign in figures 490-505. In a Maya alphabet preserved by Bishop Diego de Landa
it represents the vowel “i”. It occurred in former groups 7 and 8 in combination with the
Vulture sign, which is the same compound as in our figures 490-494. In figure 490 it sure-
ly means the ending of something. The other figures, however, lack the ending sign. In
figure 493 the Vulture sign is not preserved, but enough space remains for it to have been
present originally. Figure 494 is a very interesting variant since it has the main sign incor-
porated into the affix, the lying Vulture emblem.
The three variants in figures 495-497 practically are identical, while figure 498 has
the affix in another position. The two Cimi symbols of the affix are easily recognized, but
the third detail remains unidentified.
Landa’s “i” with an angular double Flame is the short descriptive note we can make
on figures 499-501. Only the first figure is fairly well preserved. This hieroglyph occurs
only in the texts of the Casa de las Monjas lintels.
The four following hieroglyphs (figs. 502-505) are also parallels. For figure 505
this explanation is, of course, hypothetical, as the lower part is effaced completely. Figure
502 is in a good state of preservation, but so simplified that only conjecturally can the
head be identified as that of a certain Maya death god, who has the sign Double-Tun (gen-
erally less exactly named Akbal) in the upper part of the head. In figure 503 the head
looks more like that of an animal, but in figure 505 it is again more skull-like. Figure 506
given here for comparative purposes is a similar compound from an Old Empire inscrip-
tion. The skull with the Double-Tun is, in this case, very well reproduced.

28
 Fig. 490 Fig. 491 Fig. 492
Monjas, II, E2. Akab Tzib, a, C1. Re-used Stela, High Priest’s Grave.

Fig. 493 Fig. 494

Hieroglyphic Jambs, D3. Monjas, IIa, D.

COMPOUND 1 WITH LANDA’S “I”

COMPOUND 2 WITH LANDA’S “I”

Fig. 495 Fig. 496 Fig. 497 Fig. 498

Monjas, IVa, E2 Monjas, VIIa, A. Monjas, II, E4. Hieroglyphic Jambs, E9.

COMPOUND 3 WITH LANDA’S “I”

Fig. 499 Fig. 500 Fig. 501
Monjas, IV, A4. Monjas, V, A4. Monjas, III, A4.

COMPOUND 4 WITH LANDA’S “I”

Fig. 502 Fig. 503 Fig. 504 Fig. 505
Akab Tzib, a, F2. Hieroglyphic Band, 13. Monjas, IIIa, E. Hieroglyphic Jambs, E7.

VARIANT ON COMPOUND 4 (?)

Fig. 506
Copan, Stela I, 17b. 29
 HIEROGLYPH TUN
Similar in outline to the preceding hieroglyph but different in the lower part is the
main sign in figures 507-513. It probably signifies Tun and corresponds closely to a vari-
ant employed in strictly calendrical matter. As used here, however, these figures possibly
have only a vague relation to the time count.
Figures 507-510 evidently are variants of the same hieroglyph. They all have the
same prefix, probably an ending sign. The first two also have the numeral Six in common.
They differ in that the composite affix under figure 507 probably is incorporated in figure
508 in the lower half of the main sign. Their little Ahaus also have different shape, but
this is of no account, as we know from former similar occurrences. Figure 510 lacks the
little Ahaus and is damaged on its left side.
Figure 511 has the same main sign, but different subfixes, which unfortunately are
too worn to permit determination. The three little ovals look like the usual subfix under
the calendrical Tun.
The similar figures 512 and 513 seem to signify, in a general way, “End of Tun”.
The prefix and the main sign are the same, but the other affixes differ. The postfix in fig-
ure 512 is a common sign, and the Flame arrangement in figure 513 is composed of well-
known elements.

TUN COMPOUND 1
Fig. 507 Fig. 508 Fig. 509 Fig. 510
Caracol, Stela, N4. Four Lintels, IV, D1. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 14. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 12.

TUN COMPOUND 2 TUN COMPOUND 3

Fig. 511 Fig. 512 Fig. 513
Four Lintels, II, C8. One Lintel, D1. Water Trough, A3.

HIEROGLYPH SERPENT-SEGMENT
Figures 514-516 come from the same building and possibly indicate the same
thing, although they differ in minor details. The first prefix in figures 514 and 515 is real-
ly the same sign; but as the one in figure 515 is joined to the preceding hieroglyph, it is
turned toward that glyph. What is generally a small Ahau in the upper right side is here
split into three separate details put into the cross-hatched body of the sign. There is a sec-
ond ending sign in figure 514 to which in figure 516 a numeral seems to be attached, while
figure 515 has only the numeral. This number Three or Four, however, might be just
another ending sign which as resembles the numerical circles or ovals in its contours
only. Then comes a head in figure 514 which is lacking in the other two. The main sign
is a segment of the celestial serpent, but with an inserted symbol, Crossed-Bands. There
occur subfixes, but only the Ten-Derivate in figures 514 and 515 is recognizable. 30
 SERPENT-SEGMENT COMPOUND 1
Fig. 514 Fig. 515 Fig. 516
Casa Colorada, 44. Casa Colorada, 48-49. Casa Colorada, 52.

SERPENT-SEGMENT COMPOUND 2

Fig. 517 Fig. 518

Hieroglyphic Jambs, F5. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 8.

Fig. 519 Fig. 520 Fig. 521

Monjas, II, Z1. Monjas, VI, Z1. Monjas, V, Z1.

SERPENT-SEGMENT COMPOUND 3
Fig. 522 Fig. 523 Fig. 524
Halakal, A7. Halakal, a, H2. Halakal, a, F2.

SERPENT-SEGMENT COMPOUND 4

Fig. 525
Initial Series, a, E1.
31
 Figures 517 and 518 are probably two variants of the same hieroglyph, although
as they differ in the subfix. This in figure 517 is evidently a Double-Ahau, while in figure
518 it is the Owl-Plume.
In lintels II, V, and VI of the Casa de las Monjas there begins a definite part of the
inscription with the same hieroglyph (figs. 519-521). It is our Serpent-Segment with
Skein as prefix and three Down-Balls as subfix. Figure 521 is rather vague in its present
state, but its position in the text and the outlines agree with the other two characters.
The three specimens from the Halakal lintel differ from the Monjas variants in the
subfix, which is composed of small Flame signs. This difference, however, must be unim-
portant, since we have met with it already in group 45. In this group variants of the same
composite hieroglyph form its glyph A. It occurs also in group 58 as glyph B.
The same affix combination (i.e., Skein and Little-Flames) is found in two other
composite characters and I believe they represent the same idea. For this reason they are
classified with this set. In figure 525 the Serpent-Segment is replaced by the Ten-
Derivate, a hieroglyph which we have already seen in group 12. The other variant (figs.
526-530) is employed only on the stela found at the Caracol substructure. Its main sign
is what I consider to be a second form of the Bundle glyph. All specimens are much worn,
but there can be no doubt that they are correctly classified.

Fig. 526 Fig. 527 Fig. 528

Caracol, Stela, K2. Caracol, Stela, I3. Caracol, Stela, I1.

Fig. 529 Fig. 530

Caracol, Stela, E4. Caracol, Stela, L4.

BUNDLE-VARIANT COMPOUND

VARIOUS ENDING-SIGN COMPOUNDS

We have already dealt in this study with several hieroglyphs which were used as
main signs, although we had formerly found them employed as affixes meaning “end”.
Other similar cases will be treated now
Figures 531 and 532 are identical hieroglyphs. The prefix is the Centipede glyph,
the superfix, Skein, and the main sign probably is the double glyph with crosshatching.
Evidently it is the simplified sign we sometimes have seen as prefix as for example, in fig-
ure 514 or which will occur in better shape in figure 576.
This same simplified sign, but single, is also the main sign in figure 533. Above is
the Dotted-Curve; the prefix is much worn. In figure 534 there is a character in main sign
position which is used generally as subfix and postfix. It has an ending sign to the left and 32
a Flame combination as subfix. The Centipede is joined to the Double-Curved-Dotted-
Line in figure 535. A combination of three different signs is seen in figure 536: on top a
Ten-Derivate, then the Bundle variant, and below the composite sign Death-Hair. This lat-
ter probably also forms the upper part of figure 537 but is a strange variant. Instead of the
usual two lateral cirdets we perceive only one in the center between two crossed bars. In
another connection this would mean number One with two lateral space fillers. Then fol-
lows Eyelash, and at the bottom, Teeth.

Fig. 531 Fig. 532 Fig. 533

Four Lintels, II, D6. Four Lintels, II, D7. Four Lintels, IV, C1.

Fig. 534 Fig. 535 Fig. 536 Fig. 537

Yula, I, C3. Four Lintels, II, F6. Caracol, Stela, M2. Re-used Stela, High Priest’s
Grave.
DIFFERENT ENDING-SIGN COMPOUNDS

HIEROGLYPH LARGE-ONE
A main sign filled with crosshatching is known to us from groups 1, 7, 8, 12, and
50. Here (figs. 538-539) it has an ending prefix and a common subfix which is much
effaced in both cases. The main sign possibly is the numeral One in large size, serving as
a symbol for sun and related ideas as fire, heat, etc.
In figure 540 the One is in the left lower corner, while a large Centipede lies over
the top. The simplified sign, consisting of crosshatched body with small Ahau and below
it Bundle, are to the right.
Figure 541 is glyph C of group 1, but it occurs isolated. So far as Chichen Itza is
concerned, this is an exception, all other specimens being members of group 1, but in the
cities of the south that group is unknown and the glyph in figure 541 there appears in other
combinations.
If figure 542 is in correct position, it would be an interesting variant of the preced-
ing hieroglyph, the Eyelash being replaced by a fish, instead of the Fish-Head.
Unfortunately the case is uncertain, as this fragmentary text does not allow a sure orien-
tation.
Figure 543 is worn, but represents undoubtedly also the same compound as the two
preceding figures. In figures 542 and 543 it can not be decided whether or not they
formed part of group 7, as the hieroglyph immediately before them is not preserved.

33
 Fig. 538 Fig. 539 Fig. 540
Yula, I, C7. Yula, II, E5. Four Lintels, IV, E1.

Fig. 541 Fig. 542 Fig. 543

Monjas, Ia, A2. Re-used Stela, High Priest’s Grave. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 12.

LARGE-ONE IN COMPOUNDS

HIEROGLYPH ROOF-RIDGE
There is a great number of these signs as independent hieroglyphs in the Chichen
Itza inscriptions (figs. 545-558). Other examples occur in association with another glyph
(group 58). This hieroglyph seems to be characteristic of Chichen Itza, as it does not
occur in the texts of the southern sites nor in the codices. The hieroglyph that resembles
it most is figure 544, a standardized form from various specimens found in the Dresden
Codex, the postfix being dropped so as to make the correspondence clearer. The main sign
is composed of two different designs, the upper one surely representing matting. The
whole most probably represents the roof re-enforcement of a house or temple. This same
composite sign evidently is also reproduced in figures 545-558, although in every case
somewhat worn. In a few specimens (figs. 559-561), however, it might have been
replaced by another sign, which possibly is Landa’s letter “i”.

MATTING COMPOUND
Fig. 544
(Standard Form after
Dresden Codex)

MATTING COMPOUND 1

Fig. 545 Fig. 546

Four Lintels, II, A3. Caracol, Stela, M3.
34
 Fig. 547 Fig. 548 Fig. 549
Yula, I, D6. Three Lintels, I, C2. Three Lintels, I, I2.

Fig. 550 Fig. 551 Fig. 552 Fig. 553

Initial Series, F10. Initial Series, D10. Yula, IIa, C1. Four Lintels, IV, F6.

Fig. 554 Fig. 555 Fig. 556 Fig. 557

Four Lintels, I, H8. Four Lintels, IVa, B2. Yula, I, E3. Four Lintels, III, B8.

Fig. 558 Fig. 559 Fig. 560 Fig. 561

Four Lintels, III, D7. Yula, II, B8. Four Lintels, I, F7. Yula, II, C4.

MATTING COMPOUND 1

On top of this Matting sign in figure 544 is a composite superfix composed of a

dotted disc and a macaw feather. The skulls in figures 545-561, then, would seem to have
been replaced by the shining Greenstone-Disc, a substitution that seems to me possible in
Maya symbolism. The feather is even more clearly depicted in the Chichen Itza figures
than in the conventionalized representation of the codices.
The same sign, Roof-Ridge (Matting), is also employed in figures 562 and 563. It
is combined with what probably is a carrying-device and a Flame or light symbol. Behind
it in figure 562 is possibly a variant of the Vulture sign, which, perhaps, was once at the
bottom of figure 563 as well.

MATTING COMPOUND 2

Fig. 562 Fig. 563

Hieroglyphic Jambs, D5. Hieroglyphic Jambs, A9.

35
 HIEROGLYPH LAMAT-ETZNAB
At Chichen Itza the signs Lamat and Etznab seem to have been confounded; at least
often no distinguishing mark can be discovered.
Figures 564 and 565 most probably represent the same hieroglyph differing only in
that figure 564 has an ending sign as prefix. In figure 566 possibly Etznab, “flint”, is
intended, as we have seen it in groups 44 and 45 (connected with three dotted elements),
but it must be admitted that in all cases the sign is to a great degree effaced. On top of
figure 566 appears an angular sign.
In figure 567, notwithstanding its worn condition, there can still be traced the
crossed lines and a few dots. Thus it probably signifies two crossed silex knives. The form
may be compared to the symbolic designs on a mythical bird, a conventionalized Quetzal,
from the Temple of the Four Lintels (pl. 7, a) and Yula (p1. 11, a), where one of his wings
is decorated with the sun, the other with the moon. The feathers of the sun wing are trans-
formed into flint knives (fig. 568), thus probably symbolizing rays of light. The marks on
figure 569 are indistinct, but the general outline is similar to that of figure 567; it might,
therefore, be the same hieroglyph.
The three following figures, also, have double signs, but of somewhat different
shape, being more like the strict Lamat. In figure 570 the Double-Lamat serves as main
sign with Eyelash as subfix. Figure 571 consists of three glyphs, the topmost being indis-
tinct, the middle one a simplified Imix, and the lower one our double sign. Two Lamats
are found in the top position and a Vulture sign with inserted Crossed-Bands evidently is
the main glyph in figure 572.

LAMAT-ETZNAB COMPOUND 1 LAMAT-ETZNAB COMPOUND 2

Fig. 564 Fig. 565 Fig. 566

Initial Series, a, C1. Three Lintels, III, I2. Four Lintels, IV, E2.

LAMAT-ETZNAB COMPOUND 3 WING OF CELESTIAL BIRD LAMAT-ETZNAB COMPOUND 4

Fig. 567 Fig. 568 Fig. 569

Four Lintels, IVa, B2. Four Lintels, Ia. Monjas, Annex.

DIFFERENT LAMAT-ETZNAB COMPOUNDS

Fig. 570 Fig. 571 Fig. 572

Cylindrical Stone, S1. Cylindrical Stone E. Cylindrical Stone, D2. 36
 HIEROGLYPH TORTOISE-SHELL
We have seen the shell of a sea turtle in groups 40-42, but most of these represen-
tations were crude or worn. In figure 573 we have a well-executed carapace as a main
sign. In its upper part it has the symbol for “yellow” inserted as in many of the codex vari-
ants. Under the Turtle-Shell first comes the Teeth Sign and then the Skein. The prefix is
a Sky-Variant upside-down.
In figure 574 the Tortoise-Shell has an inverted Ahau before it, both glyphs being
eroded. Figure 575 is the variant of the groups surrounded by little Flames. A partly
destroyed subfix is added.
The following figures 576-581 represent only the design of the Tortoise-Shell,
some variants strongly resembling the Lamat-Etznab signs. Indeed, the Dog-Head (fig.
131) has an appendage which is exactly like the Tortoise-Shell design, while the rest has
Etznab signs.
Figures 576-578 are evidently parallels. They consist of an ending sign, the glyph
Zac, Tortoise design as main sign, and Sun-Beard. In figure 577 this detail is replaced by
an Imix. As mentioned before, the polished Tortoise-Shell symbolized “shine” or “bril-
liancy”, and figures 576-578 therefore may be deciphered as “End of White Shine”.
Also figures 579-581 seem to be variants of the same concept, “Ending Tortoise-
Shell”. The distinction from the preceding hieroglyph is the absence of the Zac sign and
the Sun-Beard. Figures 579 and 580 have subfixes of practically the same significance.
The subfix is dropped in figure 581.

CARAPACE COMPOUNDS

Fig. 573 Fig. 574 Fig. 575

Akab Tzib, a, D1. Monjas, VII, C3. Yula, I, A7.

TURTLE-SHELL COMPOUND 1
Fig. 576 Fig. 577 Fig. 578
Monjas, IVa, B. Monjas, IIIa, B. Monjas, IIIa, E.

TURTLE-SHELL COMPOUND 2
Fig. 579 Fig. 580 Fig. 581
Casa Colorada, 22. Hieroglyphic Jambs, C6. Monjas, VIIa, E. 37
 Fig. 582 Fig. 583 Fig. 584
Monjas, IIIa, E. Monjas, III, E1. Monjas, IIIa, B.

SHELL COMPOUND 1
Fig. 585 Fig. 586 Fig. 587
Circular Stone, U. Casa Colorada, 41. Four Lintels, II, E4.

SHELL COMPOUND 2
Fig. 588 Fig. 589 Fig. 590
Monjas, VIIa, A. Monjas, VII, B1. Yula, I, G3.

DIFFERENT SHELL COMPOUNDS

Fig. 591 Fig. 592 Fig. 593 Fig. 594
Four Lintels, I, D6. Casa Colorada, 13. Casa Colorada, 38. Casa Colorada, 32.

HIEROGLYPH SPONDYLUS-SHELL
The main sign of figures 582-591 is some kind of shell, possibly one of the valves
of the red Spondylus. The hinge lies generally to the left, and the opposite side is decorat-
ed by some strokes, while the interior contains three dots or circlets. There exist archae-
ological specimens of this shell in which perforations correspond to the cirdets. We have
already encountered this shell as glyph B of groups 11, 14, and 42.
Figures 582-587 are variants of one and the same hieroglyph. The Shell is com-
bined with the sign Tun (Muluc). In one case (fig. 582) Muluc is employed in its plain
form, in the others adorned with teeth. Figures 582-585 are provided with an ending sign,
but figures ~586 and 587 are without it. In figure 585 an indistinct glyph is added to the
Muluc-Variant.
The hieroglyph in figures 588-590 was found in group 14 in association with
another glyph. We repeat the description given there, that the main sign is the Shell with
angularly stylized Flames and common subfix (in fig. 589 postfix) TenDerivate. The end-
ing signs differ in form; that in figure 588 being rare and therefore correspondingly more
important.
Figure 591 looks almost like Ahau, but probably is also our Shell. It has a curious
38
superfix. The three details below are worn and consequently are indistinct.
In figures 592-594 the Shell probably is not the main sign, or at least is only part
of it. Below it appears a Serpent-Head (?) with Quincunx-Tun for eye, in figure 592. The
principal sign of the combination, however, is the Dog-Head with protruding tongue and
symbols. There are a circlet and several curved lines on the cheek, to the right a Double-
Tun, and on top another, but less well preserved. Under the Dog-Head is a glyph com-
posed of a line of circlets and a Flame, a rather common compound, but here relatively
large.
In figure 593 the head unfortunately is practically destroyed. Under and before it
are again Flame and circlet compounds. On top to the left are two details which may or
may not be Down-Balls. The Shell is in a good state of preservation.
The three component glyphic elements of figure 594 are fairly clear. On top
appears Shell with its symbolic decoration, under it the mollusk we know from groups 19,
20, and 23. Behind is an elongated and inverted Ahau.

HIEROGLYPH CLOTH-BUNDLE
This hieroglyph is rather common as affix and probably it has this function in fig-
ures 595-599. It is true that in figure 597, by its size and position, it is treated as main
sign, but this is a special case where the sculptor had to accommodate the compound to a
given broad space. For the sake of brevity the hieroglyph has been called the Bundle;
more precisely, however, it is a bundle of vestments. All three glyphs in figures 595-597
have in common an ending sign, Cloth-Bundle and Serpent-Segment. Figure 595 has, in
addition, two reduced Ahaus as subfix.
Figures 598 and 599 can be pronounced parallels also, because their differences are
insignificant. The main sign probably is Crossed-Bands. In figure 598 only one band is
given, but that is only a simplification we found used several times in our hieroglyphic
material. The Cloth-Bundle glyph, in both instances, is partly destroyed, but the remain-
ing details are sufficient to allow identification. Figure 598 has an ending sign, while the
second compound is left without it.

BUNDLE COMPOUND 1

Fig. 595 Fig. 596 Fig. 597

Casa Colorada, 53. Monjas, IIIa, C. Monjas, VII, B2.

BUNDLE COMPOUND 2
Fig. 598 Fig. 599
Three Lintels, III, E2. Monjas, Ia, C2.
39
 HIEROGLYPH FIRE-WOOD-BUNDLE
The lower parts of figures 600 and 601 are identical, a Fire-Wood-Bundle with a
Teeth sign in the center. But in figure 600 a Muluc-Variant is on top, while figure 601 evi-
dently has another Fire-Wood-Bundle.
With the aid of group 48, figures 602 and 603 can be identified as bundles of wood
with a composite sign as subfix. The only difference between these two hieroglyphs and
those of group 48 is the ending sign, which in the latter is very elaborate, occupying a
whole glyph block.

WOOD-BUNDLE COMPOUND 1 WOOD-BUNDLE COMPOUND 2 WOOD-BUNDLE COMPOUND 3

Fig. 600 Fig. 601 Fig. 602 Fig. 603
Caracol, Hieroglyphic Casa Colorada, 41. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Caracol, Hieroglyphic
Band, 13. Band, 14. Band, 5.

HIEROGLYPH BIVALVE-SHELL-ONE
This compound occurred in group 1 and several others. It is used in double form
as an isolated hieroglyph (figs. 604 and 605). Figure 606 is evidently only a variant of
figure 607, the Bivalve-Shell-One and Hand (Manik). This character can be identified as
the hieroglyph indicating the Vulture by the context in Codex Troano, 17a and Codex
Dresdensis, 13c.

BIVALVE SHELL COMPOUND 1 BIVALVE SHELL COMPOUND 2

Fig. 604 Fig. 605 Fig. 606 Fig. 607

Monjas, III, D1. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 11. Hieroglyphic Jambs, C8. Codex Tro-Cortesianus, 40a.

HIEROGLYPH HOOK-FLAME
The simple flame in form of a hook is seen in figure 608; the same hook but sur-
rounded by dots is employed in figures 609 and 610.
Figure 608 is a compound of the head of the Sun-God with the Kin sign on the front
of the fillet, the Hook-Flame, and the Gouged-Eye.
Figure 609 clearly has the Dotted-Hook as main sign. A composite Flame subfix
completes it.
Against this simple combination in figure 610 there is a highly complex hiero-
glyph. In fact, I am not sure whether the upper part does not form an independent hiero-
glyph. On the other hand, we have seen the Gouged-Eye used a number of times with the
Muluc-Variant, and the Macaw-Feather with disc is found in the Dresden Codex in com-
bination with a great dotted disc which corresponds to the double Dotted-Hook in figure
610. So the whole might well be one complex. Finally, at the bottom, we notice the
Vulture sign.
40
 HOOK-FLAME COMPOUNDS
Fig. 608 Fig. 609 Fig. 610
Four Lintels, IIIa, B2. Yula, II, E7. Akab Tzib, a, C2.

HIEROGLYPH ZERO
Unfortunately all three hieroglyphs (figs. 611-613) in which this sign may appear
are damaged. The Zero sign is employed also in the southern inscriptions in non-arith-
metic compounds,1 so that no objections for reasons of principle can be raised. The zero
value evidently is only one aspect of the character.
In figure 611 Zero evidently is the main sign, having a common ending sign above
it. Figures 612 and 613 evidently are parallels, although differing in the Band element.
Probably the main sign is Serpent-Segment, since the outlines of the arches are still visi-
ble. On top is a large Vulture emblem.

COMPOUNDS WITH ZERO

Fig. 611 Fig. 612 Fig. 613
Monjas, VIIa, B. Caracol, Stela, B5. Caracol, Stela, B3.

HIEROGLYPH CHECKERBOARD-SHIELD
Figure 614 undoubtedly is a Maya shield with a checkerboard design, as it has the
rim decorated in the typical manner. The other two figures have a simple frame, but most
probably represent the same glyph, as all three agree in the affix Small-Double-Ahau. We
have seen the checkered design in group 38 carried by a vulture. In figure 615 there is an
Imix on top of the shield, while the upper part of figure 616 forms a mass of effaced details
which it is impossible to disentangle.

CHECKERBOARD COMPOUNDS
Fig. 614 Fig. 615 Fig. 616
Four Lintels, IV, F2. Akab Tzib, a, F1. Caracol, Stela, C6.

HIEROGLYPH LITTLE-INVERTED-ARCHES
The two glyphs in figures 617 and 618 are identical in their main signs, the three
or four rows of little U-shaped figures, but it is not possible to give an explanation of the
meaning of the design without a long discussion, so we must leave its determination for
another opportunity. To the right of the main sign in figure 617 is an enriched Teeth glyph.
1
Beyer, 1934, p. 268. 41
The subfix in figure 618 is destroyed beyond recognition.

ARCH-DESIGN COMPOUNDS

Fig. 617 Fig. 618

Temple of the Owls. Hieroglyphic Jambs, D7.

HIEROGLYPH TWO-SPINDLES
The symbols employed in figures 619 and 620 as main signs are certainly identical
with what was used as superfix in figure 179, and is probably identical with the other vari-
ants as to points occurring in groups 46 and 47. Possibly figures 359-361, too, pertain to
this class. As subfix it is furthermore employed at Halakal, lintel a, G1 and possibly on the
Initial Series lintel, F5. I can offer no explanation for this sign, and give it the descriptive
term Two-Spindles only because the form resembles two spindles covered with thread.
>> <<

In figure 619 the Two-Spindles is found in two almost equally sized glyphs,
>> <<

while in figure 620 a superfix (ending sign) and a subfix accompany it.

SPINDLE COMPOUNDS
Fig. 619 Fig. 620
Monjas, IV, Z2. Monjas, IIa, C.

HIEROGLYPH BONE-AWL
In figure 621 there seems to be represented an Ahau-Variant penetrated by a large
pointed bone. This bone-dagger or awl appears also in figure 622, but as part of, or dec-
orated with, another symbol. Whether the indistinct figure below it is an Ahau or not, it
is difficult to tell. We have seen a similar compound in figure 137 with two details some-
what like that in figure 622, but the bone there is indistinct.
Possibly figure 623 is only a variant of these representations. This form occurs also
in the Monjas on lintel II, E1, and lintel III, E2, but in both cases is very indistinct so that
no drawings were prepared.

COMPOUNDS WITH BONE-AWL VARIANT OF FORMER COMPOUND (?)

Fig. 621 Fig. 622 Fig. 623
Four Lintels, I, C6. Yula, II, D3. Halakal, G6.

HIEROGLYPH CARRYING-STRAP
Figures 624 and 625 are probably variants of the hieroglyph that enters into the
compound in figures 562 and 563, and which we have determined as some carrying
device; it is probably the broad part of a leather or bark strap whose smaller part goes over
the forehead. 42
 In figure 624 the Teeth sign is carried in the strap. The subfix is much worn; it may
have been the Muluc-Variant. What is carried in figure 625 I do not even attempt to iden-
tify.

CARRYING-STRAP COMPOUND
Fig. 624 Fig. 625
Hieroglyphic Jambs, B9. Four Lintels, I, C8.

HIEROGLYPH SCROLL
The hieroglyph in figure 626 represents a scroll similar to the day sign Caban, but
I believe it must be kept apart from it. The glyph has a strange contour. From its top issues
the Double-Flame nearly transformed into Serpent-Jaws.
In figure 627 a Double-Scroll is repeated. It has curious outer details, and as super-
fix has the Muluc-Variant, possibly in the function of ending sign.

SCROLL COMPOUNDS
Fig. 626 Fig. 627
Four Lintels, IV, F5. Akab Tzib, a, C1.

VARIOUS SINGULAR HIEROGLYPHS

There remain three figures which exist only once each in the inscriptions of
Chichen Itza. The first (fig. 628) depicts a human head, probably that of the light-god-
dess, and the jar (or whatever receptacle it may be) covered with matting. We know this
curious object from group 17, but the variant in figure 628 is much better preserved.
Figure 629 has as main sign Crossed-Bands. Above it appears first the closed Teeth
sign and then a Flame glyph, probably an ending sign.
The last hieroglyph of this study (fig. 630) evidently is a variant of a compound not
uncommon in Old Empire inscriptions, but rare, as we see, at Chichen Itza.
We have now described all those hieroglyphs that we may call non-calendrical and
in the following papers shall present those that are concerned directly with chronology.

HEAD AND JAR COMPOUND TEETH-CROSSED-BANDS COMPOUND SINGULAR HIEROGLYPH

Fig. 628 Fig. 629 Fig. 630

One Lintel, G1. Hieroglyphic Band, 15. Capstone, Tomb.

43
 CHAPTER III
HIEROGLYPHS FOR KIN IN CONNECTION WITH DAY
SIGNS
Differing from the manner of all the southern Maya cities and also that of the
Dresden Codex in northern Yucatan there prevailed the custom of putting after the day
sign a hieroglyph expressing the idea "day". In the cases where this hieroglyph was iden-
tifiable easily as a symbol for sun or day it has been noted already by epigraphers. The
rarer forms of hieroglyphs for "day", however, have not been recognized and the problem
itself has never been treated adequately. Thus a detailed description of the Chichen Itza
material on this point shall be given here.
In figures 631-650 are brought together all the instances of Kin glyphs between day
and month signs and also a few others where no month hieroglyph follows. The different
Kin-Variants with which we are concerned are underlined in order to be recognized easi-
ly and compared.
The most plausible explanation for these occurrences is, as already stated, very
simple: the day signs are designated as such by the hieroglyph that follows them. About
half of the day signs (Imix, Kan, Cimi, Manik, Muluc, Oc, Chuen, Ben, Caban, Cauac, and
Ahau) are used in the texts not only in dates but also in hieroglyphs that are not dates.
Therefore, a distinction between the two functions or two different uses would be scien-
tifically accurate and would contribute to making the reading easier. Such a distinction,
however, existed already—at least in so far as the monumental inscriptions are concerned.
In these, the day signs always are enclosed in a kind of frame and generally have a tri-
partite subfix also. Very rarely, excepting the sign Ahau, is this frame missing (fig. 633).
This differentiation by the frame-enclosure evidently was thought sufficiently clear in all
the southern cities. As only a very few other hieroglyphs possess a similar frame, it serves
its purpose well indeed. The day signs, furthermore, easily are recognized as such by the
context. Another feature that makes their identification an easy matter is when they have
circlets and bars as prefixes or superfixes. It must be admitted, however, that in cases like
figure 651 the recognition is not so easy, as number nine also is employed as a symbol. In
this particular case the Kin sign serves really as a determinative. Why, at Chichen Itza and
some other places in northern Yucatan, a special emphasis was laid on the day signs is not
easy to tell. Possibly it was only pedantry of the chronologers. We have a similar instance
in the hieroglyph for Tun-Ending accompanying Ahau dates.1
In this paper we are not dealing with the deciphering and elucidation of the day and
month signs, but with the Kin glyph. However, the dates, so far as recognizable, are given
in the explanatory legends under the illustrations. They will be discussed in detail in the
following study.

1
Beyer, 1932, pp 105-135.
1
 8 MANIK, KIN, END 15 UO 8 MANIK, —, END 15 UO
Fig. 631-Monjas, lintel 2. Fig. 632-Monjas, lintel 3.

8 MANIK, —, KIN, END 15 UO 3 MANIK, KIN, END 15 UO

Fig. 633-Monjas, lintel 4. Fig. 634-Monjas, lintel 5.

8 MANIK, KIN, END 15 UO 6 —, KIN, END — —

Fig. 635-Monjas, lintel 6 Fig. 636-Casa Colorada, glyphs 2-4.

9 AKBAL, KIN, END 1 CHEN 3 (?) KAN, KIN, END 7 MUAN

Fig. 637-Casa Colorada, glyphs 27-29. Fig. 638-Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 16.

9 LAMAT, KIN, 11 YAX 9 LAMAT, KIN, II YAX

Fig. 639-Four Lintels, I, AI-A2. Fig. 640-Four Lintels, III, H3-H4.

9 LAMAT, KIN, END 11 YAX 12 KAN, KIN, END 2(?) ZAC

Fig. 641-Four Lintels, IV, A1-B2. Fig. 642-Four Lintels, II, A1-B2.

2
 — IMIX, KIN, END 4 TZEC 3 EB, KIN, END 10 POP
Fig. 643-Yula, south lintel, A1-B2. Fig. 644-Yula, south lintel, G1-H2.

9 BEN, KIN, END (?), —, ZAC

Fig. 645-Hieroglyphic Jambs, A1-C2.

11 KAN, KIN, END 12 CUMKU 7 (?) —, KIN, END 17 CUMKU

Fig. 646-Water Trough, A1-B1. Fig. 647-Water Trough, V1-W1.

We proceed, therefore, to comment upon the different figures used in the Chichen
Itza texts to indicate the concept Kin, “Sun”, “Day” in connection with a day date. The
plain Sun-Disc with the “wing” affix, as it is usually called by archaeologists, is found in
figures 632-635, 643-645, and 651. However, it is not the simplest form of the Kin hiero-
glyph in this matter. This is given in figures 646 and 647, where only the Wing (or, more
properly, the “Sun-Beard”) appears as postfix of the day sign.
The head of the Sun-God is employed in figures 631, 636-640, 642, and 648. He
seems in all instances to have the Sun-Sign in the upper part of the head. Generally he has
the Wing as postfix. Very rare with this deity is the complicated ear ornament shown in
figures 636 and 637. In other inscriptions it is commonly worn by mythical beings relat-
ed to death (figs. 652-655) and by a few fire—deities God of Number Seven (fig. 656) and
God of Number Nine (figs. 657 and 658). The most common ear ornament of the sun-god
is a shell, probably a Spondylus, which comes out fairly clearly in figure 638 and can be
made out in figure 648 also, although it is somewhat indistinct in this case.

END, 13 TUNS, END 1 AHAU, KIN

Fig. 648-Four Lintels, IIa, B2-C2.

In figure 641 a bird’s head is used as Kin symbol, with the Sun-Disc in the eye
region. The Bird-Head as a variant of the Kin glyph already has been known (figs. 659-
661). It seems to be a bird with feather ears (or horns), thus possibly the same as the Tun
bird (figs. 654 and 655). Our head in figure 641 represents most probably the same bird
we had in figures 424-430; the only difference seems to consist in the inserted Sun-Disc. 3
We compared these heads with the Muan bird, which evidently is another variant of the
same type. Possibly the natural basis for these hieroglyphs is the Horned Owl.
Figure 641 has been published by Spinden1 and he speaks of “an interpolated bird’s
head”. In view of all the similar cases, however, there is no doubt that here, too, the day
sign was designated as such by the sun-bird’s head.
Two representations (figs. 649 and 650) have a compound glyph for “day” which
formerly we knew only from Tikal (fig. 662). The Chichen Itza variants are simpler, but
essentially the same. They prove conclusively that Goodman, Seler and Bowditch were
right in giving the sign the significance “day”. Thus Spinden’s interpretation as “Glyph for
Observation of the Sun at the Horizon”2 must be considered as extravagant.

END, 13 TUNS, 1 AHAU, KIN END, 13 TUNS, (1 AHAU), KIN

Fig. 649-Four Lintels, II, C4-D5. Fig. 650-Four Lintels, III, G5-H6.

9 MULUC, KIN HIEROGLYPH FOR ZERO HIEROGLYPH FOR TUN

Fig. 651-Initial Series, C2-D2. Fig. 652-Quirigua, Stela J, A7. Fig. 654-T. F. C., B5.
Fig. 653-Quirigua, An. B, No. 4. Fig. 655-T. S., B5.

HEAD OF HIEROGLYPH FOR SEVEN HIEROGLYPH FOR NINE

Fig. 656-Quirigua, Stela D (e), A13. Fig. 657-Quirigua, An. G (e. l.), C1.
Fig. 658-Quirigua, Stela D (e), A3 a.

HIEROGLYPH KIN HIEROGLYPH 1 KIN

Fig. 659-Quirigua, Stela E (e), A5. Fig. 662-Tikal, Temple 2, Lintel 1, A7.
Fig. 660-Quirigua, Stela A (e), A5.
Fig. 661-T. S., B7.

1
Spinden, 1924, p. 281.
2
Spinden, 1924, p. 146. 4
 CHAPTER IV
CALENDAR ROUND DATES FROM CHICHEN ITZA
The preceding study has supplied us with quite a number of so-called Calendar
Round Dates, that is, dates that are fixed within a period of 52 Maya years, but whose
position in the Long Count is unknown. The strange unit of 52 years is a result of the
Maya (and Aztec) usage of designating every day with a numeral (one of the series from
1 to 13 inclusive) and a name or sign (one of a series of 20 different symbols). Using years
of 365 days, only four of the day names may fall on New-Year days. Thus 13 times 4
equals 52 combinations forming one complete cycle in this system. Besides its numeral
and sign the day had a position in an artificial month of 20 days, the count being from 0-
19 among the Maya. Only after 18,980 days (that is 52 times 365 days) the same day and
month date combination occurred again in the calendar.
To the Calendar Round Dates already represented in figures 631-647 we may add
six others in figures 663-668. All will be described briefly and deciphered as far as it is
possible with the weather-worn and otherwise damaged hieroglyphs.
Five of the seven lintels of the Casa de las Monjas begin their inscriptions on the
underside with what is evidently the same date. The day is surely 8 Manik in figures 631-
633, but for the last two examples (figs. 634 and 635) we may only infer this, as the head
numerals are too indistinct to be identified. Then follows Kin and an ending sign. This
latter refers to the month date and constitutes a peculiarity of the Chichen Itza texts. The
numeral before the month can be declared to be Fifteen for figures 631-634, as it repre-
sents the head of a certain Maya deity, characterized by an old man’s face and the Tun
sign.1 The fleshless lower jaw (which distinguishes Fifteen from Five) is fairly clear in fig-
ures 631 and 633 and in the other two cases at least the fleshless teeth are discernible, but
in figure 635 quite another head evidently is represented. Above it a bar, the numeral Five,
appears. The head, then, might indicate number Ten, although it does not look much like
the usual face numeral for Ten. Finally the month glyph is only tolerably clear in its lower
half. It can be only Uo or Zip. The remaining vestiges in the upper part speak for Uo.
This is the reading J. Eric Thompson suggested to me some time ago. If the lower part of
the hieroglyph belonged as ending sign to the following character, then the upper part
could only be Mol. But I think Thompson’s interpretation is more natural and I adopt it
for that reason.
Morley thinks that besides the 8 Manik “there are no other recognizable calendric
hieroglyphs” and refers it therefore to the month position 0 Pop,2 an expedient accepted
by R. B. Weitzel.3 To me there seems to be no reason for such a forced solution. It is true,
the month glyph is in a bad state of preservation, but it occurs in its proper place and its
numeral is sufficiently distinct to allow a safe identification. Furthermore, the particular
ending sign before the numeral is typical for month hieroglyphs.
The head numeral with which figure 636 from the Casa Colorada begins is
undoubtedly Six as the characteristic tooth and the cross in the eye are sufficient for its
1
Goodman (1897, p. 50) had already clearly recognized the value Fifteen for this hieroglyph, and published
a drawing of one specimen.
2
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 26, p. 236.
3
Weitzel, 1930, pp. 183-184.
1
determination. Of the day sign only the frame remains, and the month and its numeral are
too indistinct to allow identification. This glyph block was so covered with some efflo-
rescence from the limestone that I could not decide whether Maudslay’s drawing was cor-
rect or not; I kept what seemed fairly acceptable.
On the other hand, figure 637 from the same building clearly reads “9 Akbal, Kin,
End of 1 Chen.” The dots on the lower part of the first head are characteristic for the deity
of number Nine. Akbal is known in similar variants and the month can mean Chen only.
The head numeral in figure 638 is not clear; possibly it is Three. Kan, the day sign,
is practically complete. The following glyph, Kin, is known to us. Then comes a prefix
which at first glance seems to have a 7 above it. This, however, is only part of the sign
itself, which we have met in many other composite hieroglyphs. The real numeral Seven
is found above the bird head, which must represent the month Muan. It is distinct from
Old Empire forms in not possessing the details in the bill. The two feathers, one before
and one behind the head, are visible, although the one in front is very small and very near
the prefix. The Sun-Beard below is partly broken away.
Figures 639-641 were deciphered first by Morley as “9 Etznab 11 Yax”,1 which
interpretation Gann2 and Spinden3 accepted. The latter says that the text “shows quite
clearly” that date, and in his drawing the Etznab has undulating crossed lines. In the orig-
inal, however, I cannot detect this trait. In any case, Morley changed his opinion later, and
declared the date to be “9 Lamat 11 Yax.”4 As we have seen previously that Lamat and
Etznab, as non-calendrical glyphs, were confounded in the inscriptions of Chichen Itza, it
is hard to decide which of the two day signs is represented here. As the form of the ques-
tionable glyph is in complete agreement with the Lamat of the Yucatec Codex Tro-
Cortesianus, this value is more likely. Probably Etznab as day sign consisted only of the
undulated lines without the four dots. The “ears” of the Dog-Heads in figures 132 and 137
prove that the proper Etznab form was not completely unknown.
The heads for Nine in figures 639-641 have dots similar to the head numeral in fig-
ure 637, but they differ in minor details. The large ending sign before the month numer-
al in figure 641 occupies, with the numeral, a whole glyph block. It is omitted in the other
two cases. In figure 639 a superfix which looks like a Flame sign appears above the
month glyph, although we would rather expect the Skein here.
As the first glyph in figure 642 has a still recognizable Sky sign over the head, it
must, by analogy with the southern hieroglyphs, indicate the number Twelve. The day sign
to which it belongs is clearly Kan. I do not dare identify the head numeral before the
month. All we can say is that it must have been either Two, Seven, Twelve, or Seventeen.
The month glyph itself evidently represents Zac. It is somewhat rubbed off but not so as
to jeopardize this identification.
The head numeral before the day sign Imix in figure 643 is too indistinct to be iden-
tified. The third glyph consists of an ending sign, the numeral Four and two signs, of
which only the upper one is recognizable. The two details possibly have only the func-
tion of space fillers, as the month sign in the fourth glyph is complete and represents the
Uinal Tzec.
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 17, p. 274.
2
Gann, 1924, p. 227.
3
Spinden, 1924, p. 280.
4
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 24, p. 251.
2
 Morley has deciphered the third glyph in figure 643 as 4 Zac.1 However, the upper
element is not the Zac sign but a common composite character consisting of a perforated
disc and an elongated Teeth sign. We have just seen the real Zac hieroglyph in the pre-
ceding figure 642 and easily notice the great difference. Furthermore, the fourth glyph in
figure 643 would have no object.
In figure 644 the first numeral fortunately is sufficiently clear to be declared Three.
The day sign also is recognizable on account of its punctuated line as Eb. Quite well pre-
served are the two glyphs referring to the month position of the day; they read “Ending on
10 Pop”.
The first glyph of figure 645 has an unusual prefix, but the little knobs near the
mouth make it clear that the number Nine is represented. The day sign possibly is Ben,
but if so it also is unusual. The hieroglyph after the Kin sign should be an ending sign
referring to the month numeral. All we can see is a nearly effaced head with a prefix. The
following head would stand for the numeral. It is too indistinct to be determined. Of the
month glyph, fortunately enough remains to identify it as Zac.
The day sign in figure 646 looks at first glance strikingly like Ben, but the month
numeral would not correspond to it. Assuming one or two more teeth in the destroyed part
between the two preserved ones of the day-sign, this would convert it into Kan. In fact,
the arrangement of the vertical parallel lines in the lower compartment fits better with Kan
than with Ben. Even then the month numeral is not correct, since Fourteen goes with the
days Imix, Cimi, Chuen, and Cib. The day sign Kan occupies month position Twelve.
Thus either the outer or the inner two little ovals for the units should have been distin-
guished from the other two in some way by the sculptor. This has been done for the two
lateral elements of the numeral One before Kan, which are changed into crescents, but it
evidently was overlooked for the month numeral; at least the lower three ovals are exact-
ly alike. The upper one is somewhat worn and it is therefore impossible to say how it orig-
inally looked. There may, after all, have formerly existed an incised curved line on the
fourth oval; faint traces of it seem to appear in the photograph.
The month glyph itself is clearly Cumku. The middle line in the main sign, again
a Kan glyph, is curved, not straight as in the day sign proper. The subfix consisted origi-
nally of two little Ahaus, which now are effaced.
Figure 646, then, represents the date, 11 Kan, Kin, Ending on 12 Cumku. Morley
gives practically the same reading.2
In another Calendar Round Date (fig. 647) from the same monument, a lintel for-
merly used as a water trough in the plantation of Chichen Itza, the numeral of the effaced
day sign seems to be either Six or Seven. The month again is Cumku and its numeral
Seventeen.
We come now to the new material supplied by figures 663-668.
Figure 663 most probably reads, “1 Kan 2 Pop”. The day sign and the month glyph
are very clear. The head variants of the numerals at Chichen Itza lack the precision and
neatness to which we are accustomed from the southern monuments, but I think the pro-
posed values are the most acceptable ones.

1
Morley, 1920, p. 512.
2
Morley, 1920, p. 512. 3
 1 KAN 2 POP 3 IMIX 14 YAX
Fig. 663 Yula, I, A1-A2. Fig. 664 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 18.

12(?) MULUC (?) 7 — 10 —, END 6 MUAN

Fig. 665 Four Lintels, IVa, A B1. Fig. 666 Halakal, B1 and B2.

4 KAN, END 7 POP 2 AHAU 18 —

Fig. 667 Halakal, F1 and G2. Fig. 668 Column, High Priest’s Grave, A B1.

Figure 664 has been published by Morley and deciphered by him as “3 Imix 9
1
Yax”. As there are, however, clearly two bars, I prefer to transcribe “14 Yax”, although
the reading “9” is possible since the bars are somewhat thin. But when Morley connects
this date with the following hieroglyph “1 Tun”, I strongly object. In many other cases
the Tuns refer unmistakably to an Ahau date, so that we cannot make an exception here,
especially since there clearly follows an Ahau date. Therefore the expression “1 Tun, 12
Ahau” as given for figure 693 must be upheld.
Of figure 665 it can safely be said only that it represents a Calendar Round Date
with the month position Seven. The head might represent number Twelve, and the ves-
tiges of the day sign could be interpreted as forming part of either Muluc or Manik.
Because of the corresponding month position only Muluc is feasible. Finally, the month
most probably was either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, so that 12 Muluc 7 Yax (or Chen, Zac,
Ceh) are possible readings.
In figure 666 the day date is practically destroyed. The remains at the bottom speak
for Ten as the numeral originally present. The month date, although partly defaced, is evi-
dently “Ending 6 Muan”. The ending sign is the usual one for months. Number Six, on
the contrary, is put in a strange position, occupying little space. The head of the Muan
bird with feathers under the bill and the Sun-Beard as postfix conforms with other repre-
sentations in Old Empire sites, but is distinct from a later Chichen Itza example (fig. 638).
The day sign in figure 667 is fairly readable as “4 Kan”, the characteristic features
of the Sun-God, the number “4”, being discernible, and Kan still faintly visible. Much
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 24, pp. 249-250.
4
less safe is the reading “Ending 7 Pop” for the month. Unfortunately, the main part of the
month glyph is very indistinct, but the subfix evidently is the sign I have called Owl-
Plume.
Although figure 668 is very indistinct, I publish it here because it is of great scien-
tific interest. Morley uses it in connection with figure 694 to refute the Oxkutzcab corre-
lation by reductio ad absurdum.1 However, some observations must be made.
Spinden says of figure 668: “The 2 Ahau and 18 Xul are both very clear.”2 I judge
this a gratuitous assertion, because the whole brief inscription was poor work in its origi-
nal state and has suffered for centuries from erosion and other destructive agencies. It is
thus only with difficulty that one can determine the different hieroglyphs that compose it,
some being beyond possible recognition. What the conscientious specialist can make out
in figure 668 is “2 Ahau 18 —.” The second main sign must, of course, be a month glyph,
but at least ten explanations are possible, none of them convincing. Morley and Spinden
read it “Xul”. In his drawing Morley uses part of the following glyph block for the Sun-
Beard belonging to Xul, a procedure which seems to me somewhat arbitrary. It is true that
the two glyphs seem to touch each other in one point, but this occurs also in other places
and obviously is only caused by the crude workmanship of the monument. There is some
empty space below the month glyph where a detail might have been lost; but also it can
be simply a blemish of the stone that was not used by the sculptor. The outlines as given
in figure 668 are perhaps somewhat exaggeratedly rugged, and it is not impossible that
originally this main sign was a complete oval. In this case it could have been Mol.
However, on the whole I prefer to abstain from any interpretation and leave the month
glyph undetermined.
Even accepting Morley’s and Spinden’s reading of 2 Ahau 18 Xul, we are by no
means obliged to draw the same conclusions as they. Analogous to all other instances
from the Chichen Itza inscriptions figure 668 should be a Calendar Round Date and fig-
ure 694 an 11 Tun ending related in some way to it. This Tun 11, 2 Ahau, probably was
11.6.11.0.0 in the Long Count. The next date 2 Ahau 18 — back from the Tun date would,
curiously enough, be 2 Ahau 18 Xul.
It is, of course, rare to find an Ahau day in a simple Calendar Round Date, but it is
not impossible as such and must, thus, be taken into consideration. We can expect an
Ahau on the average once among twenty cases. In the method employed in these studies
figure 668 is a member of a class, while in Morley’s and Spinden’s method—or lack of
method—it would form a class by itself. In no other case is an Ahau-Tun date in our texts
repeated and exemplified with its corresponding month position. Thus, reasonable as
Morley’s arguments seem to be, they apply at least to an exceptional case only.
Finally figure 669 represents only the month position of a day. Although much
effaced it can safely be restored as “11 Yax”, a date occurring several times in the same
text. From it also the missing day date can be supplemented as “9 Lamat”.

11 YAX
Fig. 669 Four Lintels, I, E1.
1
Morley, 1920, p. 511.
2
Spinden, 1924, p. 281. 5
 CHAPTER V
HIEROGLYPHIC EXPRESSION “END OF — TUN, ENDING
ON — AHAU”
There are a number of glyph pairs and series which represent the statement that a
certain Tun ending fell on a certain Ahau day. We might transcribe the concept in math-
ematical form by “End of m Tuns, ending on n Ahau” where m indicates one of the num-
bers from 0 to 19 inclusive and n one of the numbers from 1 to 13 inclusive. In the
chronologic system of the Maya the same Tun and Ahau combination recurred after 13
Katuns; for instance, 1 Tun ending on a day 1 Ahau fell on 10.1.1.0.0 and again on
10.14.1.0.0 of the Long Count. Thus what we might term a Tun-Cycle has the same length
as the so-called Katun-Wheel (13 times 20 times 360 days). The Maya put the numerals
before (or above) the Tun sign, but for our understanding it would be clearer to speak of
Tun 1 as Morley does in his well-known Introduction to the Study of the Maya
Hieroglyphs.1
Although we find various numerals used for the number of Tuns and the Ahau coef-
ficients, the Maya evidently preferred certain combinations. These were “End 1 Tun, End
1 Ahau” and “End 13 Tuns, End 1 Ahau”. Possibly also “End 10 Tuns, End 1 Ahau” had
some preponderance, at least it occurs twice in the Chichen Itza texts. However, there is
another combination which also appears twice, namely, “End 11 Tuns, End 1 Ahau”. One
case occurs in the Akab Tzib and the other in the Monjas, because the four specimens on
its lintels all refer to the same date.
The seven variants of “End 1 Tun, ending on 1 Ahau” come from three different
locations, the Akab Tzib (fig. 670), Casa Colorada (figs. 671-673) and Halakal (figs. 674-
676).
The oldest specimen (fig. 670) has the Muluc-Variant as first ending sign (left cor-
ner, top). Under it appears numeral One with two crescents as space fillers and a little
Cauac with a strange superfix. Then follows as main sign Cauac-with-Beard, that is, Tun
(360 day period). The second compound has on top the reduced Centipede glyph as end-
ing sign. Numeral One is represented here by the head of a deity, probably a light-god-
dess. Then comes Ahau with its usual affixes.
The three variants from the Casa Colorada (figs. 671-673) are arranged in series of
three glyph blocks, one more than the preceding example. Thus, probably in order to
occupy the available space, there have been added two more details to those we see in the
first figure. The numeral One and the little Cauac are plainly visible, while the peculiar
superfix has a more regular form in the Casa Colorada variant. A glyph with two teeth is
the counterpart of the small Cauac. Finally, below is another new sign. The initial ending
glyph is different from that in the example from the Akab Tzib.
To the Tun glyph is joined part of the Ahau prefixes to avoid crowding in the lat-
ter. In figure 671 we have the same ending sign as in the corresponding glyph of figure
670, but complete. Then follows “1 Ahau”. The inner lines of the Ahau glyph are effaced,
but there can be no doubt about the meaning of this hieroglyph.
1
Morley, 1915, p. 95 et seq. 1
 END OF 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU END OF 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU
Fig.670 Akab Tzib, a, A B1. Fig. 671 Casa Colorada, 33-35.

END OF 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU END OF 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU

Fig. 672 Casa Colorada, 10-12. Fig. 673 Casa Colorada, 17-19.

END OF 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU 1 TUN, ENDING ON 1 AHAU

Fig. 674 Halakal, FI-GI and G3. Fig. 675 Halakal, A1-A3.

(END OF 1 TUN), ENDING ON 1 AHAU

Fig. 676 Halakal, a, C1 and C2.

In figure 672 an entirely different ending sign is used in the second glyph block, a
segment of the celestial serpent with Crossed-Bands as infix. The head under it is some-
what worn but most probably also means “one”. It evidently has the same hair arrange-
ment as the corresponding head in figure 674. Ahau is represented here by a human head.
Only by analogy can we interpret the second half of figure 673 as “Ending 1 Ahau”
since the ending sign is an unfamiliar head. The Ahau, however, is clear.
Morley reads “Tun 13 ending on a day 1 Ahau” on the lintel from Halakal.1 I find
(figs. 674-676) the date 1 Ahau three times, but in vain have I looked for 13 Tuns in the
inscription. I suppose he reaches his reading by analogy, which, however, in this case is
fallacious. The 13 Tuns 1 Ahau appear, indeed, several times in the Chichen Itza texts but
in later buildings. Here in the Halakal material 1 Tun clearly is represented twice (figs.
674 and 675) and there is no good reason to restore 13 Tuns in the effaced text (fig. 676).
Figures 674 and 676 are interlaced with a Calendar Round Date, which indicates a close
relationship between the two. In the first glyph block of figures 674 and 675, although
somewhat eroded, we perceive the same details as in the Casa Colorada examples. Figure
675 has no ending sign, while figure 674 has a new design consisting of a series of cir-
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 26, p. 235. 2
clets with a small Ahau as subfix. Evidently this same ending sign was once sculptured
in figure 676, as the little Ahau is still discernible. The Tun glyph is clear in figure 674,
still traceable in figure 675, but must be assumed for figure 676. “Ending 1 Ahau” is fair-
ly well preserved in figures 674 and 676, while only the outlines of Ahau can be made out
in figure 675, the ending sign and numeral being indistinct details joined to the Tun glyph.
Figure 676 has a new ending sign (the Vulture emblem) preceding Ahau.

END OF 13 TUNS, 1 AHAU END OF 13 TUNS, 1 AHAU

Fig. 677 Four Lintels, IV, A3-A4. Fig. 678 Four Lintels, I, B2-B3.

END OF 13 (?) TUNS, 1 AHAU 10 TUNS, ENDING ON 1 AHAU 10 TUNS, ENDING ON 1 AHAU
Fig. 679 Yula, IIa, B1-B2. Fig. 680 Initial Series, a, A B1. Fig. 681 Three Lintels, III, BI-A2.

The statement “End of 13 Tuns, ending on 1 Ahau” occurs no less than five times
on the four lintels in the Temple of the Four Lintels that were discovered by E H.
Thompson and Oliver G. Ricketson, jr. Reference has already been made to three of these
(figs. 648-650); the remaining two are shown in figures 677 and 678. In all cases the first
ending sign occupies a whole glyph block, but represents only a broadened form of the
narrow sign in figure 674, to which the Vulture emblem is added. It is followed in anoth-
er block by “13 Tuns”. The ending sign relating to Ahau seems to have fallen almost into
disuse as the sculptor employed it only in figure 648; it is possible, however, that the com-
pletely destroyed Ahau in figure 650 may have once had it, but the three other specimens
have only “1 Ahau”.
When Morley interprets figure 679 as meaning a “Tun 13 ending on a day 1 Ahau”1
I am willing to admit the possibility of such a reading as there once clearly existed a
numeral higher than Ten as superfix of the Tun glyph. But when in another place2 he puts
also the two other Tun-Ahau combinations from Yula in a list of “Tun 13, 1 Ahau” I can-
not follow him, because the other two instances refer to 5 Tuns.
The front part of the famous lintel with the Initial Series begins with the hiero-
glyphs shown in figure 680 which read “10 Tuns ending on 1 Ahau”. This reading is in
conformity with figure 681, and an identical hieroglyph for “ending on 1 Ahau” is found
in figures 648 and 690. Thus there can be no doubt about the correctness of this deci-
phering. Morley, however, connects the last glyph of the lintel-front with the first one and
interprets “Tun 10, ending on the day 2 Ahau”.3 In treating of group 10, I have given the
true explanation of the glyph pair to which it belongs. So I insist on rejecting Morley’s
hypothesis notwithstanding its apparent plausibility. As 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen is a
date very near the Initial Series (10.2.9.1.9), such a reading would indeed fit well, but we
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 26, p. 234.
2
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 24, p. 250.
3
Morley, 1920, p. 573. 3
have to respect the facts and cannot “doctor” them till they suit our needs. The real rela-
tion between the Initial Series date and the next 10 Tun 1 Ahau dates is:

9.16.10.0. 0 1 Ahau 3 Zip (A. D. 761)

5.19.1. 9

10. 2. 9. 1. 9 9 Muluc 7 Zac (A. D. 878)

7.0.16.11

10.9.10. 0. 0 1 Ahau 3 Zac (A. D. 1017)

These conditions are much less satisfactory; in fact, they make interpretation high-
ly hypothetical. We do not know which of these two possibilities is meant in the text,
although for general reasons the latter date is preferable. Nor do we know why the 10 Tun
date is connected with the irregular date of the Initial Series. That the Maya did see a con-
nection, however, is assured by other occurrences, especially the cases of the Casa de las
Monjas and Halakal. So we must leave for future research the elucidation of these prob-
lems.
The second variant of “10 Tuns ending on 1 Ahau” (fig. 681) comes from one of
the sculptured lintels of a building which originally had three. As the two fairly well-pre-
served lintels do not contain another date, this (if it existed) must have been on the much-
destroyed third lintel. The style of the hieroglyphs indicates a later age, wherefore
Morley’s dating 11.2.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Uayeb1 is acceptable.
The chronological statement “End of 11 Tuns, ending on 1 Ahau” is expressed by
figures 682-686, figure 682 coming from the Akab Tzib, while the rest appears on the lin-
tels of the Casa de las Monjas.
Figure 682 begins with an ending sign used several times in this inscription. The
“11 Tuns” is clear, while the ending sign above the human head is small, although its
meaning is guaranteed by its place and the equivalent and better-executed signs in other
similar hieroglyphs. The human head for numeral One also is somewhat indistinct
because of rubbing. On the other hand, Ahau is quite clear. The two dates in this edifice
(figs. 670 and 682) probably are:

End of 1 Tun ending on 1 Ahau corresponding to 10.1.1.0.0 (A. D. 850)

End of 11 Tuns ending on 1 Ahau corresponding to 10.7.11.0.0 (A. D. 978)

The difference between the two dates is 6.10.0.0; that is, just half a Katun-Wheel
(13 Katuns). Morley's dating 11.7.1.0.02 seems much too late to me, as the Akab Tzib
inscription employs old hieroglyphic forms. The three passages shown in figures 683-685
have the same ending sign before 11 Tuns, while figure 686 has an entirely different hiero-
glyph in its place. However, it is similar to ending signs used elsewhere and therefore here
undoubtedly has the same symbolic value. In figure 684 number 11 is represented by a
head, of which, unfortunately, only the outlines are left. The Tun sign is clear in figure
686, but weather-worn in the other cases. Figures 683 and 684, and figures 685 and 686
also have the same ending signs before their respective Ahau. The head for number One
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 26, p. 235. 4
is mostly effaced, but its value is assured by its position. In figure 686 the numeral for the
Ahau is omitted, but can be safely supplemented by One in this context. The remaining
Ahaus are identifiable by their characteristic outlines, only the One in figure 686 being
well preserved.
There remain a few singular dates which will now be briefly mentioned.
Figure 687 is End 3 or 8 Tuns, ending on (1) Ahau. If the curved detail above the
Tun glyph means Five, it is unusual. Numeral One before Ahau seems, again, to have been
omitted.

END OF 11 TUNS, ENDING ON END OF 11 TUNS, ENDING ON END OF 11 TUNS, ENDING ON

1 AHAU 1 AHAU 1 AHAU
Fig. 682 Akab Tzib, D1-D2. Fig. 683 Monjas, II, A4-A5 Fig. 684 Monjas, VI, A4-B5.

END OF 11 TUNS, ENDING ON END OF 11 TUNS, ENDING ON

1 AHAU AHAU
Fig. 685 Monjas, V, A5-C5. Fig. 686 Monjas, IVa, D.

As already mentioned Morley lists the two passages in figures 688 and 689 among
his 13 Tuns 1 Ahau cases, indicating the missing 13 Tuns signs by dots. However, there is
clearly a bar for Five in figure 688, and the head with Tun symbol on top in figure 689 is
well known from Old Empire sites as the sign for Five. As the lower part of the face is
destroyed one cannot decide whether it was not originally Fifteen. In any case, Thirteen
is an excluded possibility. The other details near the numeral evidently are variants of the
similar emblems in figures 670-675. “Ending 1 Ahau” is expressed in the same way in
both figures 688 and 689.
Glyphs BI-B2 on the lintel from the Temple of the One Lintel probably read “End
of 15 Tuns, ending on — Ahau”. The hieroglyphs are so disfigured by mutilation and ero-
sion that I have not attempted to draw them, but the “Ending of 15 Tuns” seems to me fair-
ly legible.1 The numeral pertaining to Ahau, however, I dare not determine. By general
reasons we might suppose it to have been One. How Morley came to determine the date
of this lintel as 11.7.1.0.0 1 Ahau 13 Kankin2 I do not know.
Figure 690 clearly represents “End of 16 Tuns ending on 1 Ahau”. As the individ-
ual signs are familiar to us there is no need for further comment.
The much-damaged two hieroglyphs in figure 691 might be transcribed: “(End of)
16 Tuns (ending on) 1 Ahau”. If so these would then be a simplified variant of the state-
1
Since writing the above, I have at my disposal now the new photograph published in plate 4.
Consequently, I feel not so sure of my former interpretation. The mutilated glyphs might just as well be read: 16-19
Tuns, 11-13 Ahau.
2
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 26, p. 235. 5
ment expressed in complete form in figure 690. Since one or the other of the two ending
signs occasionally was absent in former instances (figs. 680 and 681 in the case of the Tun
and figs. 677-679 in the case of the Ahau), this lack of the two ending signs is simply an
extreme case.

END OF 8 TUNS, ENDING ON AHAU END OF 5 TUNS, ENDING ON 1 AHAU

Fig. 687 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 9. Fig. 688 Yula, II, G3-H4.

END OF 5 TUNS, ENDING ON 1 AHAU END OF 16 TUNS, ENDING ON 1 AHAU

Fig. 689 Yula, I, B2-A4. Fig. 690 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 17.

16 TUNS, 1 AHAU END OF 17 TUNS, ENDING ON 3 AHAU

Fig. 691 Caracol, Stela, A B1. Fig. 692 Water Trough, Hacienda, C DI.

1 TUNS, 12 AHAU 11 TUNS, 2 AHAU

Fig. 693 Caracol, Hieroglyphic Band, 18. Fig. 694 Column, High Priest’s Grave.

All the instances treated up to the present refer to a date “1 Ahau”. In figure 692,
however, for the first time we have “Ending on 3 Ahau”. The number of Tuns is either
Seventeen, Eighteen, or Nineteen. Both ending signs are known to us; the one before the
Ahau sign is peculiar in having its upper part so large. Ahau here is clearly a bird head.
As in figure 691, so also in figure 693 the missing ending signs must be supple-
mented mentally. Figure 693, therefore, means “(End of) 1 Tun (ending on) 12 Ahau”.
The reading “12” for the human head in figure 693 is warranted by the Palenque example
where the head of a deity with the symbol Day-Sky is also used.
Figure 694, coming from the so-called High Priest’s Grave has been mentioned
already in the preceding study. Although much worn, it preserves sufficient details to be
interpreted safely as “11 Tuns 2 Ahau”. No ending signs appear, but they can be tacitly
assumed. Of the upper unit in the numeral Two no vestige is left today, but the position
of the remaining one requires it.
We shall now add a few defective cases. Figures 695-697 clearly represent “End
of a certain Tun”, but no Ahau follows. In figure 695 the reference is to 1, in figure 696
to 2, and in figure 697 to 3 Tuns. The glyphic details have been described before. A much
more reduced form is seen in figure 698, where only the numeral One, the arched detail, 6
and under it a Cauac element and Teeth fused into one sign can be made out. These details
are not so compressed in figure 699, but the numeral is lacking.

END OF 1 TUN END OF 2 TUNS END OF 3 TUNS 1 TUN

Fig. 695 Casa Colorada, Fig. 696 Casa Colorada, Fig. 697 Casa Colorada, Fig. 698 Casa Colorada,
47-48. 51. 54. 56.

COMPOUND END OF 13, — ENDING ON 7 AHAU END OF 14 TUNS, ENDING ON

Fig. 699 Hieroglyphic Jambs, F9. Fig.700 Water Trough, Hacienda, A5. 3 AHAU (?)
Fig. 701 Water Trough, Hacienda,
W2-W3.
The very worn lintel which served as a water trough in the plantation of Chichen
Itza contains two more chronological glyph pairs (figs. 700 and 701). The first begins with
an ending sign, then comes fairly clearly the numeral Thirteen, but the following main
sign can hardly be “Tun”. It looks more or less like a Bat-Head and has an indistinct sub-
fix. Its second glyph can be identified as “Ending (on) 7 Ahau”, although the Ahau is
much effaced. The ending sign is surely Centipede .>> <<

In still worse condition is figure 701 which might mean “Ending of 19 Tuns on a
day 3 Ahau”. In this case the presumable Tun sign, although only left in bare outline,
agrees better with the known form; at least, it seems to possess the Sun-Beard. The end-
ing sign belonging to Ahau is identifiable again as Centipede . Three circlets are above
>> <<

the main sign, but the hypothetical Ahau in its present form looks more like the hieroglyph
for Moon.
We have assumed in this study that the number of Tuns referred to their position in
the Long Count. This is Morley’s and Spinden’s view and possibly is true. But it is by
no means well proved. There occur in Old Empire inscriptions period glyphs which evi-
dently are not related to the Initial or Secondary Series, but which must have some inde-
pendent significance. Our 1 Tun (ending on 1 Ahau), 10 Tuns (ending on 1 Ahau), 13
Tuns (ending on 1 Ahau) etc., very well might refer to some kind of computation in which
they simply mean “The End of 1 Tun ending on a day 1 Ahau” and not “The End of Tun
1 ending on 1 Ahau”. The Initial Series date is 10.2.9.1.9. From it to the next Tun ending
on 1 Ahau are 10 Tuns and 331 days. The relation is:

10.2. 9. 1. 9 9 Muluc 7 Zac

16.11

10.2.10. 0. 0 2 Ahau 13 Chen

10.0. 0
10. 3. 0. 0. 0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin

This may be mere chance, a coincidence that means nothing, but, who knows?

7
 CHAPTER VI
VARIOUS CHRONOLOGICAL HIEROGLYPHS FROM
CHICHEN ITZA
Although the author is primarily interested in the non-calendrical glyphs, or, more
exactly, in those glyphs which have been utterly neglected by epigraphers, the series and
single hieroglyphs representing dates and chronological units have not been slighted in
these studies. In fact, quite a number of them have been presented in Chapters III, IV, and
V. The rest follow so that the whole material may be available to students of Maya
archaeology.
It is a collection of sundry chronological items which is left over after the Calendar
Round Dates and the Tun-Ahau combinations have been disposed of. Let us begin our dis-
cussion of this remainder with the important and still singular Initial Series from Chichen
Itza. It is true that fragments of another Initial Series have been found at the so-called
High Priest’s Grave, but they are so indistinct and so much destroyed that practically noth-
ing can be done with this Initial Series.
The drawing of the Initial Series from “Old Chichen Itza” reproduced in figure 702
agrees in its outlines with the one published by Morley.1 Only a few details have been
changed and it is hardly worth while to dwell on them. We can, then, limit our study of
this passage to a brief descriptive comment.

Fig. 702
INITIAL SERIES
Lintel of the Initial Series.

The large Introductory Sign (glyph A) has the same conformation as the well-
known examples from the southern cities. The Variable Element is quite worn, but the
outlines conform to the symbol for the month Zac, which is the one represented in glyph
H. The Tun sign of glyph A has, in the lower compartment, a circlet and a long horizon-
tal line, which seem to be characteristic for Chichen Itza (compare figs. 507-513 and 704-
707).
The Baktun (glyph B) and Katun (glyph C) hieroglyphs have Head-Variants, clear-
ly bird heads. The Tun in D, contrary to our expectation, has not the same details as glyph
A. Below the Chuen sign for the Uinals (glyph E) I think the Bundle lines still can be
traced. In F the heads for Nine and Kin show less details than in Morley’s drawing. In
“9 Muluc” (glyph G) the Skein glyph evidently is below the day sign proper, which is
1
Morley, 1915, p. 197. 1
quite different from Old Empire usage. Concerning Zac (glyph H), we may remark that
this composite hieroglyph must properly be transcribed by “Ending 7 Zac”. This ending
sign, practically always present in the Chichen Itza inscriptions, is an addition in which
these texts differ from those of the southern cities. Our lintel proves that this difference
already was in vogue at 10.2.9.1.9, that is, at a period when some of the cultural centers
of the south still were inhabited.
In figure 703, the Supplementary Series, which follows figure 702, is reproduced.
The drawing again agrees in its main traits with that of Morley but deviates in details.
Unfortunately the interesting hieroglyphs A and E (that is, G and X in Morley’s notation)
remain as obscure in my rectified drawings as they are in Morley’s version. We can pass
over the other slight differences as being of no importance, only saying that my version of
glyph F is corroborated by many similar signs in other Supplementary Series. In fact,
Morley himself corrected it to that form in a special study on the Supplementary Series.1

Fig. 703
SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES
Lintel of the Initial Series.

In comparison with the great majority of Supplementary Series, figure 703 must be
declared to be deficient, inasmuch as between C and D there should be a certain hiero-
glyph (Morley’s Glyph D) and after E F another (Morley’s Glyph A.)
From the second Initial Series discovered at Chichen Itza I rescued the Introductory
Sign (fig. 704). Its Variable Element evidently represents a human head, but this is too
indistinct to allow its identification with one of the symbols which I pointed out as char-
acteristic for the different months.2 The large Tun oval seems to be of the Chichen Itza
style. In the same manner the superfix agrees with that of the same hieroglyph in figure
702. In both cases they are plainer than the usual Old Empire variants. The Eyelashes at
the sides of the Variable Element have the usual form, and the same can be said about the
subfix.
Figure 705 is a partly destroyed Katun sign, the complete form having once read
“3 Katuns”. Only the upper half of the small central Cauac is still visible, together with
the right Eyelash. Two or three Katuns are indicated in figure 706, in which the central
Cauac sign is recognizable in its essential features. The subfix, however, is unusual.

1
Morley, 1916, p1. I, No. 7.
2
Beyer, 1931, pp. 99-l08. 2
 In this connection I present, in figure 707, a hieroglyph which seems to stand for
Tun as a time period. If so, it means here “End of 9 Tuns”. Besides the large Tun sign as
main glyph we notice a small Cauac before it, and some other affixes. The ending sign at
the left side is composed of three details.

Fig. 704 Fig. 705 Fig. 706 Fig. 707

INTRODUCTORY SIGN 3 KATUNS 3 (?) KATUNS END OF 9 TUNS
Re-used Stela, High Serpent’s Tail, D3. Caracol, Hieroglyphic Akab Tzib, D6.
Priests’ Grave. Band, a.

Fig. 708 Fig. 709 Fig. 710 Fig. 711 Fig. 712
9 TUNS 13 TUNS 16 TUNS 17 TUNS 17 TUNS, END
Four Lintels, IV, D8. Four Lintels, IIIa, B1 Serpent’s Tail, B1. Caracol, Stela, C5. Caracol, Stela, O22.

Fig. 713 Fig. 714 Fig. 715 Fig. 716

ENDING OF TUN TUN 6 KAN 9 TUNS 1 DAY
Hieroglyphic Jambs, D4. Akab Tzib, a, H2. Capstone, Tomb Four Lintels, I, F2.
(after Morley)

Fig. 717 Fig. 718 Fig. 719 Fig. 720

1 DAY 3 DAYS 10 DAY-CYCLES 12 AHAU
Yula, I, F3. Caracol, Stela, M1. Capstone, Tomb. Caracol, Stela, M6.

The significance of the hieroglyph in figure 708 also seems to be “9 Tuns”. The
Sun-Beard is prefixed to Cauac, which is uncommon. We have, then, in figures 707 and
708 the same concept Tun, expressed by two very distinct signs.
The four glyphs in figures 709-712 reproduce isolated Tun periods, the first one
recording 13, the next 16, and the two last 17 Tuns. Figure 709 most probably refers to the
“13 Tuns, 1 Ahau” mentioned so often in the Temple of the Four Lintels. Figure 710
comes from a re-used inscription fashioned anew into a serpent’s tail in the Temple of the
Wall Panels. It is thus partly destroyed, but enough remains to assure the reading. In fig-
ure 711 the upper circlet in the numeral is destroyed but must once have existed. It is indi-
cated, therefore, by a dotted line. Figure 712 might be transcribed “17 Tuns ending”.
Figure 713 might mean “End of a Tun” in general, while figure 714 is simply Tun 3
without any connection or specification.
In figure 715 we read clearly “6 Kan 9 Tuns”, which has been interpreted by
Morley as referring to a Yucatecan year 6 Kan in a Tun 9.1 I accept that explanation and
also the corresponding position suggested for it in the Long Count, 11.12.8.13.4.
However, this does not mean complete agreement, as I do not use Morley’s correlation,
but that of the Oxkutzcab Chronicle. The objection can be made of course that Kan does
not necessarily refer to the year-bearer, since we have seen Kan as indicating some other
kind of cycle in figures 59 and 60. But in these instances Kan has certain affixes which
are not given with it in figure 715. Thus the reading “6 Kan” (first day of a Maya year) is
preferable.
Figures 716 and 717 can mean but one thing, namely, “1 day”, and figure 716 fol-
lows the month date 11 Yax, so that there is a clear indication of its calendrical nature. But
figure 717 is not associated with a date. The same happens with figure 718, which repre-
sents “3 days”.
In figure 719 the numeral Ten is before a Day-Sky with a certain subfix. This com-
bination seems to indicate some sort of period or phenomenon. In the Dresden Codex a
similar hieroglyph possibly is equivalent to the Baktun.
There occurs a 12 Ahau date (fig. 720) on the Caracol stela which does not seem
to be connected with a Tun or a month position. It is true that the neighboring glyphs are
in bad condition and cannot be identified but their outlines do not indicate any strictly cal-
endrical form.

1
Morley, 1920, p. 520. 4
 CHAPTER VII
HIEROGLYPHS FOR ENDING OR COMPLETION IN
CHICHEN ITZA
Critical investigation of the calendrical material from Maya sources has enabled
Bowditch to determine a number of affixes and some glyph compounds as ending signs.1
A few more were identified by Morley2 and by me.3 On the basis of this attested small
group of signs we can attempt to extend our research to hieroglyphs that are not calendri-
cal, at least not at first glance. As long ago as 1897 Goodman published a series of affix-
es as “Signs denoting Beginning”, which we know now are, on the contrary, signs denot-
ing ending. But, as usual, he did not give proofs nor an exposition of his method.4
However, this is not the place to treat of ending signs in general for which reason
I shall limit myself to the few introductory remarks just given and next enter upon a dis-
cussion of the new material. The new variants of hieroglyphs for “Ending” in the Chichen
Itza inscriptions form not only a welcome addition to the set already known, but some of
them are of decisive value in certain doubtful cases.

SIMPLE GLYPHS
The most common hieroglyph for ending or completion in Chichen Itza, as else-
where, is the Teeth sign. It appears in its fullest form in figure 721, somewhat reduced by
the loss of the circlets in figure 722, and still more simplified by the elimination of all
details in figure 723. For the sake of clarity, all variants are reproduced here in standard-
ized form, the actual imperfections of the coarse limestone combined with mediocre
workmanship as well as incomplete preservation being supplanted by ideal conditions. Of
the two former variants, so many examples exist that respective examples may be found
easily. The very reduced form shown in figure 723, however, is rare; it occurs in figures
117A and B, 118A, 151A, 153A, 318, and in a few more cases.

Fig. 722
VARIANTS OF THE TEETH SIGN
(Standard Forms)

Another very common ending sign in the inscriptions of the Maya cities of the
south, the conventional animal head of figure 724 (a variant of the Fish-Head), is not
found at all in Chichen Itza. In this point, then, the Itzas differ from the style of the south-
ern cities and agree with the Codex Tro-Cortesianus, where this glyph also is absent. In
the Dresden Codex, however, it still is employed in its simplified written form.
1
Bowditch, 1910, pl. XIX.
2
Morley, 1915, p. 78; Morley, 1915a, p. 196.
3
Beyer, 1932, pp. 113-123.
4
Goodman, 1897, p. 77. 1
 Of frequent occurrence at Chichen Itza is prefix figure 725, an ending sign com-
posed of a skull and two details which evidently represent the inverted upper parts of the
ending sign figure 733. In the variants like the one in figure 725 the middle part general-
ly is somewhat slanting; like other similar examples, evidently copied from actual writing
where such a position is more convenient than the strict horizontal form. This detail is
doubled a number of times in figures 99, 226, and 275.
With this hieroglyph must not be confounded another one (fig. 726) which also has
a skull as upper part. The lower part contains two teeth and sometimes a curved line of
dots or circlets (figs. 316 and 630). In reality, this sign originally represented the forepart
of a beaked Turtle-Head. The nasal opening of the animal became the eye of the skull and
some of the scales of the upper half of the bill were transformed into teeth.
Notwithstanding these changes, the Itzas still must have known the original significance,
for several times they employ the complete Turtle-Head when space conditions favored
that device (figs. 103B, 174B, 175B, 178B).
Figures 727-731 give us the standard forms of four related signs. Figure 728 is
only a simplification of figure 727, both representing the Death God’s hair. This is inter-
spersed with globular eyes and therefore two of them are at the ends of these and the fol-
lowing three signs. The entangled Death-Hair, with eyes and two bars, is visible in figure
727, while in figure 728 the latter are dropped and the hair is indicated by parallel lines.
Figure 727 is common and is found in figures 167B, 175X, 177Y, 184A, 185A and
191A, etc. Variants of figure 728 occur in figure 35A and partly destroyed in figures 36A
and 43A.
In figures 729-731 only the eye-balls of the former figures are retained and the mid-
dle part is exchanged for Fire symbols. The round eyes in figure 729 are already a trifle
larger and become still larger in figures 730 and 731. The largest ones (fig. 731) accord-
ingly offer opportunity to inscribe another curved line.
Figure 729 with a Flame sign occurs only in the inscription of the Akab Tzib (figs.
262, 682 and 707). The type of figure 730, with Crossed-Bands in the center, is found in
figures 27, 34, 248, 303, 336, etc. In weather-worn examples this sign must not be con-
founded with the numeral Two, where the cross is only a space filler. At Chichen Itza,
however, the cross does not seem to have been employed for that purpose in numerals.
Figure 731 having a line of dots or cirdets as central element is used in figures 37A, 55B,
514, and 596.
The Eyelash, the dead man’s eye, in figure 732 is a symbol related to the preced-
ing figures 727-731, of which the turgid globular eye of the cadaver formed a part. In fig-
ure 732 the lines which represent the lash of the closed eye are presented as slanting and
not horizontal; evidently again because this was the usual and most convenient mode in
writing.

2
 Fig. 724 Fig. 725 Fig. 726
FLATTENED FISH-HEAD SKULL-FIRE ELEMENT SKULL-TEETH ELEMENT
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 727 Fig. 728 Fig. 729

DEATH-HAIR SIGN DEATH-EYES AND HAIR DEATH-EYES AND FLAME
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 730 Fig. 731 Fig. 732

DEATH-EYES AND CROSSED-BANDS DEATH-EYES AND SPARK-LINE EYE-LASH
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 733 Fig. 734 Fig. 735

GREENSTONE-DISC WITH GREENSTONE-DISC-ONE-FIRE- GREENSTONE-DISC-ONE-
FIRE ELEMENTS ELEMENTS AHAU-FIRE-ELEMENTS
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 736
GREENSTONE-DISC- Fig.737 Fig. 735 Fig. 739
CONVENTIONAL ELE- MULUC VARIANT MULUC VARIANT >>
CENTIPEDE SIGN
<<

MENTS (AFFIX) (MAIN SIGN) (Standard Form)

(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form) 3
 As a general affix, figure 732 is not uncommon in our texts; in the rôle of ending
sign, however, it occurs only a few times. Group 32 has it in glyph A. In group 34 it might
be the ending sign of glyph B, but the situation is not clear, and less so in group 35. In
figure 166, element c, the case is much better, as the homologous element in figure 167 is
the ending sign figure 727. In group 48 glyph A possibly represents a combined ending
hieroglyph composed of several ending signs. By its position Eyelash in figure 286 must
function as ending sign. In figure 370, on the contrary, our sign is subfix, but might have
the symbolic value “ending”, since its possible homologon figure 371 has an ending sign
as superperfix. The prefix in figure 606 might be Eyelash, but the glyph is too much worn
to be recognized with certainty.
The three following signs (figs. 733-735) are variations of one theme: the
Greenstone-Disc with a Flame symbol on top. The standard form in figure 733 is taken
from the well-preserved figure 223. The character is quite common as affix and its pre-
fixial forms are mostly, if not all, ending signs. We have it in glyph B of group 7, in D of
group 8, in figures 223, 257, 325, 344, 348, etc.
Figure 734 is the same hieroglyph, but the Greenstone-Disc is covered with cross-
hatching, to which in figure 735 is added a diminutive Ahau, probably in an inverted posi-
tion. There are distinct forms of figure 734 in figures 169, 170, 263 and 387. On the
whole it seems to have been employed less frequently than its more elaborated variant in
figure 735. Of this we have instances in figures 260, 346, 514, 576, 579, 671-673, 689,
695-697. Under exceptional space conditions the signs take awkward positions (figs. 260
and 346), but the odd shape of the sign in figure 515 is so different from the standard form
of figure 735 that only its homology with figure 514 permits the identification.
Figures 736-739 also contain the Greenstone-Disc as an element.
Figure 736 is the ending sign generally accompanying the Bat-Head in the inscrip-
tions of the southern Maya ruins. Here we have it in this connection in clearly recogniz-
able form in figure 158A, while group 26 (glyph A) probably has a variant of it. It is again
well preserved in figure 382 but somewhat rubbed off in figure 383.
The variant of the Muluc hieroglyph in affix-shape (fig. 737) is often found as an
added element to the Gouged-Eye (figs. 92, 163, 170, 186, and 187). There its ending
character is probable but not demonstrable. In the calendrical matter of figure 670 its
employment as ending sign is fairly clear. Its character as ending sign is also warranted
by the parallel cases in figure 584. Unfortunately, the superficies is worn. In figure 588,
however, the sign is clear and its value again unmistakably determined by its parallels. In
these last two cases the ending sign is quite broad and has to be standardized as in figure
738. Its use as ending sign is not so clear in figure 6oo, but is completely acceptable for
figure 627. Thus, I think there exists enough evidence to add figure 737 to the list of end-
ing signs.
Figure 739, which has at the bottom a disc with dots, is fairly frequently employed
as ending sign in common hieroglyphs as well as in strictly calendrical signs. For the for-
mer we can refer to figures 12A, 51B, 52A, 202A, 224, 237, etc.; for the latter to figures
670, 671, 685-689. It has been called Centipede Sign just to give it a brief descriptive
name but by no means must it be taken as a real representation of that arthropod.
The Double-Dotted-Line (fig. 740), connected with the main sign following it, is
fairly common in our texts, but the cases where it clearly means “Ending” are not many.
The best one probably is figure 314, because most of the homologous signs in figures 315- 4
319 are undoubtedly ending glyphs.
Figure 741, with some variation in the middle part, is found as ending sign in glyph
A of group 2, and B of group 3. It is not impossible that in group 8 it is only added to
glyph B for aesthetic reasons, but belongs really to C (Ahau) as prefix. In figure 42 it
actually occupies that position. The sign occurs furthermore in figure 51C, figure 52B and
C, group 26 B, group 28 A, group 34 A, group 35 A, group 36 (prefix), group 44 B, and
group 47 A. It is also found among the Single Hieroglyphs (figs. 235, 240, 277, 278, etc.).
The ending sign in figure 742, Landa’s “i” frequently is employed in the inscrip-
tions of the south but seldom appears at Chichen Itza. We have it in group 55, where fig-
ure 726 is its equivalent. It occurs also in figures 279, 392, and 686.
In calendrical matter (figs. 648, 672, 674, 680-684, and 690) we find figure 743 as
a new ending sign, as the context and the equivalent hieroglyphs demonstrate. Sometimes
it is flattened as superfix, but does not occur in narrow prefix form. We are entitled to
assume the same significance also for this sign in figures 98A and 396.
Only at the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs do we find the glyph in figure 744
employed as ending sign. One of the two instances is presented by figure 302, while the
other one is not reproduced, as its main sign is too indistinct. In figure 324 probably the
other and more common variant of the Bundle sign is used as an ending glyph.
For figure 745, only the probability exists that it had the value “Ending”. It occurs
in group 12 and in figures 519-530 in slight variation but never is replaced by another
sign. This consistency of the hierogrammats is very unfortunate for us, since it deprives
us of the opportunity of knowing equivalent glyphs of figure 745.

Fig. 740 Fig. 741 Fig. 742 Fig. 743

CURVED-DOUBLE- FLAME COMBINATION LANDA’S “I” SERPENT-SEGMENT-WITH-
DOTTED-LINE (Standard Form) (Standard Form) CROSSED- BANDS
(Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 744 Fig. 745

BUNDLE-VARIANT SKEIN
(Standard Form) (Standard Form)

GLYPH COMPOUNDS
Many of the ending signs classified as Simple Glyphs really are composite (figs.
725, 729-731, 733, etc.). Thus they are relatively simple but are not elementary signs.
However, they have the character of graphic or glyphic units, while the hieroglyphs for
“ending” or “close” that shall receive our attention next are clearly combinations of two
or more independent signs.
Figure 746, still in the usual narrow affix form, shows as main part a series of cir-
clets and below an inverted Ahau. By its position this Ahau is designated as subfix. In
the full form of this ending sign (fig. 747) its nature as a compound of various glyphic 5
units is still more obvious. The doubling of the Ahau can be explained as a mere aesthet-
ic device, but the prefix is surely a new addition. The sign is employed in calendrical mat-
ter only, but its equivalence with other known ending glyphs (see figs. 682 and 686) leaves
no doubt as to its symbolic value.
The second of these homologous signs is again a compound and therefore is repro-
duced here in standard form (fig. 748). It is composed of Manik (the hand in a certain ges-
ture) as main sign, Landa’s “i” as superfix and the Double Ahau as subfix.
The Gouged-Eye as ending sign is always in full main form with Dotted-Lines as
prefix (standardized in fig. 749) or superfix. Sometimes other details are added. Thus in
figure 750 the Muluc-Variant on top forms a superfix and the Teeth sign in figure 751 a
prefix. The first two variants (figs. 749 and 750) are quite common in our texts, while fig-
ure 751 is an exceptional case caused by peculiar space conditions. Its actual form is
found in figure 88. Several times another small ending sign follows, as Death-Hair in fig-
ures 221 and 239, and the Reduced-Turtle-Head in groups 19, 20, and 21. In group 21 the
two different ending signs fill one glyph block (fig. 752).
To consider figure 749 as ending sign is a hypothesis which will be fully discussed
in a special paper dealing with all its occurrences in the different sources. The Chichen
Itza texts, however, offer some easily available proofs. In group 46 we probably have fig-
ure 749 as equivalent with figures 725 and 722. The variants of the double (figs. 221-228)
and the single Corpse-Head-Thumb (figs. 237-243) might also be adduced. Furthermore,
the Ahaus with ending sign (figs. 314-319) include our hieroglyph.
It is not impossible that the compound in figures 439-441 serves as ending sign; at
least in two cases (figs. 439 and 440) this would explain its position immediately before
a Tun glyph. For figure 441 this explanation, however, is not so convincing since the Tun
sign has its usual ending glyph. In this case we had to assume that there were three glyph
blocks, each representing an ending sign, belonging to “13 Tuns”.
Besides these few genuine one-block signs we find in the inscriptions of Chichen
Itza quite a number of what we may call artificial or occasional compounds created by
joining two (figs. 753-756), three (figs. 758 and 759) or even four (fig. 760) smaller signs
which in most cases fill but one glyph block. Often naturally small signs are replaced by
larger ones.
How such combinations arose is well exemplified by group 34. Glyph A in figures
133-135 and 137 shows the correct arrangement of the main sign with the affixes pertain-
ing to it, the Skein really belonging to the Dog-Head. However, the fact that this variant
of the Dog-Head has already an added element (an Etznab “ear”) makes it appear unpro-
portionately small in these complex hieroglyphs (see especially figs. 133 and 134). In
order to lessen the crowding the sculptor moved the Skein sign over to the next glyph
block. Being a relatively flat sign, about two-thirds of the second block were left empty
and this space was then filled by two (and not only one) ending signs (figs. 131 and 132).
Where only two smaller signs were to occupy the block one of them had to be exchanged
for a larger one. Thus in figure 133 the Eyelash was replaced by the fantastic head, seen
in standardized form in figure 755, while in figure 134 the elongated Teeth sign had as its
substitute a face with closed eyes (fig. 756). In figure 757, corresponding to figure 135,
both substitutes are employed. In figure 757 they are placed one beside the other as all
groups have been reproduced in that arrangement in our studies. In the original, howev-
er, the first glyph is above the second. 6
 Fig. 746 Fig. 747 Fig. 748 Fig. 749 Fig. 750
CIRCLETS SIGN CIRCLETS SIGN HAND SIGN GOUGED EYE- GOUGED EYE-DOTTED
(AFFIX) (MAIN GLYPH) (Standard Form) DOTTED CURVE CURVE-MULUC
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 751 Fig. 752 Fig. 753 Fig. 754 Fig. 755
TEETH-DOTTED DOTTED CURVE- DOTTED CURVE AND FLAME COMBINA- FISH-HEAD AND
CURVE-GOUGED EYE GOUGED EYE- DEATH-HAIR TION AND DEATH- TEETH SIGN
(Standard Form) TORTOISE SIGN (Standard Form) HAIR (Standard Form)
(Standard Form) (Standard Form)

Fig. 756 Fig. 757 Fig. 758 Fig. 759 Fig. 760
EYELASH AND FISH-HEAD AND EYELASH, TEETH DEATH-HAIR, EYE- DOTTED CURVE,
DEAD-FACE DEAD-HEAD SIGN AND EYELASH LASH AND DEAD- DEATH-HAIR, EYE-
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form) FACE LASH AND TEETH
(Standard Form) SIGN
(Standard Form)

After this necessary general explanation we may take up the brief comment on the
examples not yet mentioned. Figures 753 and 754 are compounds with Death-Hair as one
of the components. The idealized figure 753 fills a whole block and can be found in its
real shape with the hieroglyph to which it belongs as ending sign in figure 222. In figure
754 the two ending signs are used as prefix and superfix of the main glyph. The complex
hieroglyph has been reproduced in figure 393.
Possibly there are a few other compounds which contain two ending signs. Figure
169, for example, has the glyphs in figures 733 and 748, both probably in the function of
ending signs. The same is still more probable for figures 291 and 514.
In figure 758 three signs are combined; two of them are Eyelashes, the other one
being the Teeth glyph. They are, unlike similar cases, arranged in vertical position. The
hieroglyph following this compound ending sign in both occurrences (Initial Series Lintel,
E 3 and E 8) is too indistinct to be identified, for which reason they were not listed among
the glyph pairs. The ending sign combination itself, however, is quite well preserved and
therefore is reproduced in figure 758.
There is also a complex ending sign in glyph X of figure 175, but as its prefix can-
not be recognized, no accurate drawing could be made of it.
Figures 759 and 760 are homologous giyphs appearing in group 48. In figure 759
7
occurs the same full face with closed eyes we have seen in figure 756; and here it also cor-
responds to the Teeth sign. Death-Hair and Eyelash accompany the face in figure 759; to
these elementary glyphs the Double-Dotted-Line is added in figure 760.

PSEUDO COMPOUNDS
On the other hand, not every compound hieroglyph that contains several elemen-
tary signs, which are sometimes used as ending glyphs, can be analyzed as having various
ending signs. The ending function of the sign really must be proved. If, for instance, we
should consider the first two flat signs in figures 254-257 as ending signs, we would prob-
ably be in error. From many other occurrences we must infer that Eyelash belongs to the
Imix-Variant without indicating “ending” (cf. groups 7 and 8, figs. 47, 252, and 253). It
is, then, only the first of the two affixes that carries the significance “ending” in figures
254-257; it is therefore fallacious to adduce the extracted accidental combinations figures
761-764 as pairs of ending signs.

Fig. 761 Fig. 762 Fig. 763 Fig. 764

TEETH SIGN; EYE- TEETH SIGN; EYE- DEATH-HAIR; EYE- GREENSTONE-FIRE
LASH LASH LASH ELEMENTS; EYE-
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) (Standard Form) LASH
(Standard Form)

VAGUE AND DOUBTFUL ENDING SIGNS

While the character as ending signs for the one-block compounds (figs. 747-753
and 755-760) is well established, this is not the case with a few other hieroglyphs which
will be discussed now. These compounds, however, are of such frequent use in the
Chichen Itza inscriptions that some general significance evidently is attached to them.
Figure 765, the Hand with infix and affixes, probably is used as ending sign in fig-
ures 101 and 102: in the one case preceding the glyph to which it is related, in the other
case following it. This position at the end is characteristic in group 8. Here it might indi-
cate the end of the series. In other instances like group 5 interpretation becomes dubious.
However, I would venture to say that there it stands as a kind of vague general symbol
with the main purpose of supplementing another glyph to glyph A, so that both form a pair.
The same, unfortunately, must also be said about figures 766 and 767, namely that
they seem to have no precise meaning, but only a vague general significance as Fire and
end symbols, even becoming at times mere space fillers.
Besides the three signs reproduced in figures 765-767 there might exist a few oth-
ers with the occasional or even constant meaning “Ending”. Such signs are possibly
shown in figures 519-530 and 420-423. The safest scientific attitude in these, as in simi-
lar obscure cases, however, is to say with the Mexicans: “Quien sabe?”
On the other hand, we have no reason for pessimism, as twenty-six different end-
ing signs may be safely accepted as such, since there is hardly any doubt left as to their
symbolic value. They are the signs reproduced in standard form in figures 721-723, 725-
752, 755-757, and 759. In this list figures 721-723; 737-738; 746-747; 749-752; 755 and
8
757 (first glyph); 756, 757 (second glyph) and 759 are treated as variants of one sign,
respectively.

Fig. 765 Fig. 766 Fig. 767

HAND COMPOUND MATTING COMPOUND LANDA’S “I”
(Standard Form) (Standard Form) COMPOUND
(Standard Form)

9
 CHAPTER VIII
STYLISTIC DIFFERENCES AND THE RELATIVE
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHICHEN ITZA INSCRIPTIONS
In a former paper1 I have shown that the outline of the history of Maya writing can
be traced through differences in the form of the hieroglyphs. On this basis the following
divisions may be recognized:

I. Epoch of Glyph Formation (Archaic Epoch): to about 8.5.0.0.0 (A. D. 140).

2. Epoch of Glyph Type A (Great Epoch): 8.5.0.0.0-10.3.0.0.0 (140-889).
3. Epoch of Transitional Forms (Epoch of Nahua Influence): 10.3.0.0.0-
11.12.0.0.0 (889-1460).
4. Epoch of Glyph Type B (Epoch of Maya Nationalism): 11.12.0.0.0-
11.16.0.0.0 (1460-1539).
5. Epoch of Decadent Forms (Colonial Epoch): (1570-1800).

All the inscriptions now known from Chichen Itza clearly pertain to the Third
Epoch, the Epoch of Transitional Forms.
In the paper noted above I have attempted a grouping of the inscriptions then
known to me, arranging them in a sequence. This sketchy method of treatment, utilizing
only the two hieroglyphs Kin and Cauac, has now been rectified as well as elaborated, and
applied to all available texts at Chichen Itza. Furthermore, it has been extended to all
hieroglyphs that show sufficient clearly recognizable variation for this purpose. The
results are represented in tabulated form in Table I.
In the first column, Cauac is represented in its three principal forms. The first type,
with the dotted detail to the right, still is that of the Old Empire. The next form has the
dotted element in both lower corners, while in the third variant the right element is
dropped, preserving only that to the left. This is the form used in the Fourth Epoch. The
order of the three variants, then, is obvious: from the Old Empire type through an inter-
mediate form to the late type preserved in the codices. In the second column, some Cauac
variants are given in their proper places, where two forms are found in the same inscrip-
tion. This second variant is employed for smaller glyphs in the Monjas lintels; it fore-
shadowed the following form inasmuch as in it the right dotted element is omitted.
I consider the changes in the hieroglyph Cauac as the most important of all, since
they imply different concepts of the sign. Old Empire Cauacs often have a “mouth-line”
on the left, that is, the sign is thought of as animated or personified. In this case the dot-
ted element becomes a kind of ear ornament (see I, 1 in Table I). The following form (VI,
1) with two dotted elements has lost this aspect, but returns to it again in the third stage
(IX, 1), except that here the dotted element itself now signifies the mouth. As all other
changes in hieroglyphs are of less consequence, I selected Cauac as the principal glyph for
Table I.
1
Beyer, 1932a, pp.73-102. A brief résumé in Spanish appeared under the title “La Historia de la Escritura
Maya” in Beyer, 1934b, pp. 300-305
1
 The natural division of the list of twenty different inscriptions in three series by the
Cauac variants of column 1 is confirmed and still more refined by the glyph in column 3.
The Monjas-Halakal-Casa Colorada group is further subdivided by this sign, appearing
there in two variants, the central part being inverted in the second type. Again a subdivi-
sion is effected in the latter half of Table I (IX-XIX) by separating IX-XV from XVI-XIX.
The hieroglyph Kin (column 4) has the Old Empire form in Inscriptions I, III (?)
and VI-VIII. Also Inscription XX reverts to it, and it is possibly also found in XIX. The
slanted form appears first in IV, then in V, and is constant from IX to XVII. The variants
with double strokes (XVI and XVII) are the same as those employed in the surviving
codices. The Hand with Kin (column 5) appears in two variants, one having the Kin sym-
bol to the left; the other having it in the center. Its first occurrence in the center (fig. 358)
is not very clear, it must be admitted, but in the inscriptions in XVI and XVII there exist
many well-preserved examples.
The composite glyph Day-Sky (column 6) is present in three variants and in it also
may be recognized the form of the essential detail of the day sign Caban (column 7). This
has its upper circlet to the left in II and XIX, while the other instances have it to the right.
A composite Flame hieroglyph is reproduced separately as prefix (column 8) and
as superfix (column 9). Its Old Empire form is retained in I and VI-VIII. Although as a
superfix (V), it is soon inverted, the prefix preserves the old position much longer and only
in XVI does the reversed variant make its appearance, but still beside the normal form.
The variants employed as prefixes in V and IX (column 8) are closely related.
Imix with an inserted Ahau (column 10) has two principal forms, the one with a
normal Ahau (I, etc.) and the one with an inverted Ahau (VI). The Monjas group clearly
distinguishes itself from the rest of the inscriptions by this criterion.
The sign Ahau on the whole is identical with its Old Empire type, but minor dif-
ferences can be detected, as shown in column 11. Again the Monjas group has its own
peculiar variant with strokes on top. For the Itza examples a full frame is characteristic
(V, IX, XIV, XVI, and XVII), the only exception being X. Peculiar is the variant in XX
with “almond” eyes and a line for the nose.
The hieroglyph of column 12 appears, in its two variants, occasionally in different
inscriptions, but the prevailing forms are distributed as indicated in Table I.
For the prefix represented in column 13 a late variant can be distinguished from the
earlier better executed form.
In column 14 there are probably two different signs brought together, although they
have the same symbolic value. The Monjas group again differs from the other inscrip-
tions.
It does so also for the sign reproduced in column 15, which is a prefix in occur-
rence at the Monjas and Halakal lintels, while it assumes the full form of a complete glyph
in later texts. The only exception to this is in XV.
The various ending signs in column 16 give the Akab Tzib a unique place, but IV
is connected with the later texts. The Monjas group again has its own variant.
Columns 17 and 18 represent the variants of prefix and subfix, respectively, used
commonly with the hieroglyph Ahau. The older texts down to VIII have the arrangement:
Ben-Lamat-Center, while afterward it changes. The subfix (column 18) has the same posi-
tion in most instances, only the examples from I having it inverted. The Monjas group has
its own form (an opening at the bottom of the smaller element). For the texts in IX-XVII 2
only one variant is assumed, although the smaller element occasionally has the hook
reversed. Inscription XX is unique in giving to both parts of the Owl-Plume the same
shape.
The affix in column 19 appears in two different positions, illustrating an older
(down to VIII) and a later (at least from XII down) variant. (Strictly speaking text VIII
itself does not contain the sign, but we may well assume that it would have, had it includ-
ed hieroglyphs with that prefix.)
Similarly, the glyph in column 20 changes its position. Curiously enough, howev-
er, the Yula inscriptions, although having almost the same style as those in the Temple of
the Four Lintels, revert to the old type. The position in Inscription XX is again different.
For most of the inscriptions their position in the sequence of Table I is warranted
by sufficient glyph material, but in some cases the evidence, it must be admitted, is some-
what scanty. Personally, I have doubt only about number III, the Annex, or East Wing of
the Monjas, and number XX, a stone disc from the Caracol. Unfortunately only a few of
the hieroglyphs of Inscription III are signs listed in the table, and on the whole, their style
is individual not to say unique. Even the Kin sign is not clear, since it can be interpreted
as having four double strokes but arranged in ancient fashion. It is only the day sign Ik
(fig. 288) that clearly speaks for great age as it is identical with Old Empire forms.
The building which now forms the East Wing of the Casa de las Monjas seems to
be an ancient construction, possibly anterior to the second story of the Monjas. On the
other hand, its roof construction is the same as that of the near detached one-room build-
ing called the Iglesia.1 This latter, in its outer wall decoration at least, is clearly Nahua,
even having statues of the Conch and Turtle-Men. Probably both buildings have been
restored and redecorated in a later period. The roofs may have been destroyed and new
ones constructed, but I think the lintel of the East Wing already must have formed part of
the ancient building as its dimensions and shape indicate. For this reason as well as
because of the evidence given by the Ik glyph I feel justified in placing this lintel among
the oldest inscriptions.
The old stela that has been divided into quadrangular pieces and re-used in the High
Priest’s Grave (Inscription II) supplies few hieroglyphs that can be identified, but all indi-
cations speak for an early monument. The form of the day variant (column 6) is the same
as that at Old Empire sites, and the Ahau is similar to that of the Akab Tzib in its lack of
a nose.
The Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs has the slanted Kin and other details in
common with later inscriptions, but its Cauac specimens possess the Old Empire charac-
teristic of having the dotted element to the right.
The weather-worn inscription on a quadrangular column in the High Priest’s Grave
(number XIV) occurs in surroundings that clearly indicate a late origin, so the paucity of
text-glyphs does not invalidate our late relative dating of this inscription.
The hieroglyphs on the lintel used in modern times as a water trough at the hacien-
da (number XV) are crude as well as badly preserved. However, the Cauac form is repre-
sented by several specimens and assures at least its general position among late
monuments.
The inscription from the Temple of the Owls has only a late Cauac to be used in
our table, but architectural details of the building corroborate the late position given to it
1
Seler, 1915, V: 218, 238. 3
4
in our list.
The painted inscription on a capstone of a small chamber (number XIX), probably
a tomb as Morley informs me, has practically no serviceable sign; even the Cauac is not
free from suspicion. The only indication for a late date is given by figure 443, which
agrees in its rigid lines with the forms of the codices, while the Old Empire specimens
show much more curving. There is further evidence supplied by the pictorial part of the
slab (pl. 13, a), because it shows clearly a Nahua warrior with the typical descending bird
(Xiuhtototl) on his fillet, the peculiar nose ornament Yacaxihuitl, etc. Maya influence is
revealed in the particular form of the wrist and ankle ornaments.
Our method of stylistic comparison which has proved so powerful fails completely
for the inscription found on the curved part of a cylindrical stone with tenon from the
Caracol. It is, therefore, placed at the end of the list. All we may say is that the forms of
these hieroglyphs differ from all the other Chichen Itza inscriptions and that for this rea-
son the piece must have been produced by a workman from a distant region. Only Kin
shows the typical Old Empire form. At the first glance Gouged-Eye seems to resemble the
Monjas variant but it lacks the lower Ahau, which is the really important point. The upper
Ahau as a distinct part, as shown in XX, 3, is more common than the fused Ahau when
the Maya area as a whole is considered.
From the decoration of the piece we may draw the conclusion that it comes from a
period of Itza dominion. It seems well established now from Ruppert’s detailed descrip-
tion of the Caracol1 that this cylindrical monument dates from the time of Inscriptions XI
and XII. In comparison with these two texts, the hieroglyphs of Inscription XX are rather
crude or decadent, showing that the sculptor was a poor hierogrammate.
Out of the bewildering mass of details in Table I can be drawn a few important con-
clusions. One is that the inscriptions of the Casa de las Monjas and the Casa Colorada at
Chichen Itza, and the lintel from Halakal, form an isolated group, whose peculiar glyph
types are reproduced in figure 768. All the variants of these hieroglyphs taken from these
three sources are so nearly akin that they must be referred to the same people and same
period, or to one school of sculptors. A slight difference is indicated by the two variants
of the Gouged-Eye glyph (column 3 in Table I) and another one by the employment of a
distinct ending sign (see figs. 671-673) in the Casa Colorada, while the Monjas and
Halakal lintels agree (figs. 674 and 683-685). On the whole, Inscriptions VI, VII, and
VIII, agree in using the glyph types of figure 768, and they differ from the preceding as
well as from the following texts.

Fig. 768
CHARACTERISTIC GLYPH-FORMS OF THE MAYA (COCOM?) INSCRIPTIONS
(Standard Forms)

Now, most of the last—that is, Inscriptions IX-XX—can safely be referred to the
Itzas, an originally Mexican (Nahua) tribe which adopted the Maya writing and calendri-
1
Ruppert, 1935, pp. 135-140. 5
cal system, but retained much of its ancient customs, traditions, mythology, and art. The
proofs for the late and consequently Itza character of these inscriptions are so over-
whelming and well known that there is no need of a detailed discussion. As typical glyph
forms for the Itza (Nahua) monuments we can select the standard series given in figure
769. We have, then, in Table I the proofs for an Itza dominion for a period with an unde-
termined beginning, but ending with the exodus of this tribe to Lake Peten Itza after the
fall of Mayapan.

Fig. 769
CHARACTERISTIC GLYPH-FORMS OF THE ITZA INSCRIPTIONS
(Standard Forms)

Before this period Chichen Itza was ruled or occupied by another people who left
examples of their power and art in the assemblage of edifices called today the Casa de las
Monjas Group and the Casa Colorada (Chichan Chob).
But now comes the interesting fact that immediately before them we again have an
Itza text in Inscription V. The style of the famous Initial Series is so unmistakably Itza
and it especially is so closely related to the Temple of the Three Lintels, that there cannot
be the slightest doubt about this connection. Compare, for instance, the two identical cal-
endrical statements 10 Tuns 1 Ahau in figures 680 and 681, and the prefixes in column 8
of Table I. In the light of these formal criteria we can now take the doorway of the Temple
of the Initial Series at its face value, that is, the Atlantean figures and the lintel are con-
temporaneous. There is no more need to explain the lintel as taken from an older structure
and re-used in the temple. The lintel was chiseled by a sculptor whom our tabulation clear-
ly designates as the precursor of the later Itza School of sculptors.
While the Initial Series lintel undoubtedly is a work of the first Itza School, this
cannot be said of the Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs. It is just as clearly not a work
of that school. Probably it belongs to the period of the first or second Itza dominion, if
we accept the traditions, since its glyph forms show many affinities with the Itza hiero-
glyphs. Therefore, it is probably a monument executed by foreign Maya craftsmen at that
time in the service of the Itzas.
I consider Inscriptions I and II as pure Maya monuments and thus preceding the
first (second) Itza occupation. In fact, practically all hieroglyphs of the Akab Tzib are Old
Empire forms. Even the Owl-Plume (column 18) is in the same position as that it occu-
pies in the southern cities.
Now we are in position to construct Table II, giving in nuce the political history of
Chichen Itza based on the style of its hieroglyphs. There are four clearly defined periods,
beginning with the one at the end of the Old Empire, having pure Maya monuments. Then
comes a short Itza occupation, followed by a period of splendor to which at least two great
buildings, the Casa de las Monjas and the Casa Colorada, must be assigned, and which is
completely different from the two former styles. Finally, in the Fourth Period, the Itzas
return and erect in the course of time many great edifices. 6
 TABLE II
PERIODS OF POLITICAL DOMINIOM
OF CHICHEN ITZA BASED ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Periods Inscription Ruling Tribe Remarks

First I and II Maya

Second IV (?) and V Itza (Nahua)
Third VI-VIII ? Itzas absent
(Cocoms rulers?)
Fourth IX-XX Itza (Nahua)

This scheme agrees with the traditions in so far as it clearly shows Chichen Itza
twice occupied by the Itzas (Nahuas) and abandoned during the period in which the build-
ings of the Monjas group were erected. Does this period correspond to the stay of the Itzas
at Chakanputun? Or does it refer to the conquest of Chichen Itza by Hunnac Ceel of
Mayapan?
We may consider the artistic qualities of the inscriptions also, limiting our attention
to the sculptured specimens in order to deal with homogeneous material. This will lead to
the simple arrangement presented in Table III.
The inscription on the lintel in the Akab Tzib is like that of the southern cities not
only in the form of its hieroglyphs, but also in its artistic value. The glyphic characters,
although simplified as to their essential details, are beautiful.
The accompanying human figure, unfortunately much effaced, has the vivid natu-
ral pose of true Maya art.
A little less artistic, but still of good workmanship, are the great hieroglyphs of the
Temple of the Hieroglyphic Jambs and the inscriptions of the Monjas group. For the lat-
ter we have the representation of figures on the Halakal lintel (pl. 2). The three personages
here shown have the stiff hieratic grandeur of deities, but probably are priests imperson-
ating gods.

TABLE III
EVALUATION OF ARTISTIC SKILL IN THE CHICHEN ITZA IHICRIPTIONS

Inscriptions Artistic conception and execution

Akab Tzib Good
Hieroglyphic Jambs
Fairly good
Monjas group

All Itza inscriptions Mediocre

All the hieroglyphs and sculptures of the Itzas proper are artistically inferior to the
former. The sculptor of the Akab Tzib was a Maya artist and so probably were the less
gifted sculptors of the Monjas and Halakal lintels and of the hieroglyphic inscription in
the Casa Colorada. The Itza inscriptions are the work of artisans lacking higher artistic
taste and ability. There is considerable variety in the form of the hieroglyphs of
Inscriptions IX-XX, and even one longer text, the Hieroglyphic Band of the Caracol, is 7
composed of several different parts. The style of these sculptures is somewhat individual,
although the variations do not deviate from the type forms indicated for Inscription XI.
Table III, then, shows that the Itza texts can be separated from the others by this
method of artistic evaluation.
Table IV gives another division of the hieroglyphic material in two groups, name-
ly, one including the earlier inscriptions, the other the later ones. Here the two possible
arrangements of the parts and not the ethnic or aesthetic factor are the basis of classifica-
tion.

There exists, however, one exception, represented by the two Yula lintels. They do
not have all the hieroglyphs exemplified in Table IV, but some others that can be utilized,
and these agree with the upper group. Now, these lintels undoubtedly are clearly related
to the Temple of the Four Lintels of Chichen Itza,1 but in several minor details they differ.
The vertical arrangement of the glyphs is used not only for composite hieroglyphs at Yula,
but also on the fronts of the lintels for the entire glyph blocks (see pls. 11 and 12). The
succession of the glyphs is A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, that is, contrary to the
arrangement in the Temple of the Four Lintels (pls. 7-10).
While the object of Tables I and IV was to bring out the differences and also the
resemblances in the form of the hieroglyphs of all the inscriptions, Tables V and VI are
concerned with the significance of the signs; they will show the distribution of the hiero-
glyphic groups and single glyphs.
Inspection of Tables V and VI gives the impression that the inhabitants of Chichen
Itza at all periods were interested in more or less the same phenomena or problems since
most of the hieroglyphs appear to be distributed at random. The clear cut Monjas-Halakal-
Casa Colorada group of Table I is not so clearly distinguishable here, as it has numerous
connections with the texts both above (before in time) and below (later in time). This
homogeny in ideas of the Chichen Itza inscriptions permits us to infer that the Itzas prob-
ably received their instruction in Maya hieroglyphs in that same region. It also indicates
that the people who dwelt at Chichen Itza during the Monjas group interval must have
been from the same neighborhood, that is, from northern Yucatan.
There are, however, also some differences between periods notable in Tables V and
VI. For the Monjas-Casa Colorada group figure 770 is characteristic, not occurring else-
where. Also glyph number 17 (Table VI) and glyph pair 26 (Table V) appear there only.
As they occur in only one or two specimens at the Casa de las Monjas and Casa Colorada,
1
Carnegie Inst. Wash., Year Book No. 24, p. 250. 8
respectively, while figure 770 is common, they have not so much weight as the latter case.

Fig 770 Fig. 771

CHARACTERISTIC HIEROGLYPH CHARACTERISTIC HIEROGLYPH
FOR THE MONJAS GROUP FOR THE ITZA TEXTS
(Standard Form) (Standard Forms)

For the Nahua-Itza inscriptions two hieroglyphs seem to be characteristic (fig. 771,
first two glyphs), to which we can add the common glyph pair 32 (fig. 771, third part).
Thus, on the whole, the sequence of the inscriptions as given in Table I is corrob-
orated by the considerations of an entirely different character which have been adduced.

9
 Having gained by now some confidence in the sequential arrangement of Table I,
we might next try to work out the absolute chronology as far as such is possible with our
limited and defective material. As a correlation between the Maya time reckoning system
and our Christian Era the Thompson-Teeple hypothesis will be employed as being the
most acceptable solution at this time.1 For the sake of simplicity only the whole years, and
not the exactly corresponding days of these years, will be given.
The first inscription (Table I, Inscription I) contains two dates, “Tun 1, 1 Ahau” and
“Tun 11, 1 Ahau”. We do not know which one is the contemporaneous date, if one of the
two really is intended as such. As a mere conjecture I would say that the expression “Tun
11, 1 Ahau” is more probably the actual date, for the other statement (Tun 1, 1 Ahau)
betrays too clearly its arbitrary character. Granting this reasoning, we must decide now
on a Tun 11 ending on a day 1 Ahau in the Long Count. As the forms of many hieroglyphs
of this inscription are practically still Old Empire, the lintel cannot have been executed
much after 10.3.0.0.0. As the next possible date for Tun 11, 1 Ahau after 10.3.0.0.0 is
10.7.11.0.0, it can probably be accepted as the one on which this lintel was dedicated. We
have, then, the year A. D. 978 as the date of the lintel, and possibly the date when the
whole temple in its present state was finished or inaugurated.
Although the next monument (re-used Stela from the High Priest’s Grave) began
originally with an Initial Series, nothing definite about its date can be said, most of the
chronologic hieroglyphs being lost or the fragments recovered being too indistinct. Its
artistic style is different from the Akab Tzib inscription and other inscriptions, but the
form of some of the glyphs indicates that it belongs to the Old Empire or to the beginning
of the period next following. It well might be older than Inscription I.
Inscription III contains no calendrical hieroglyphs at all, and its position is very
doubtful, as other unfavorable circumstances, mentioned above, make even the relative
date uncertain.
The fourth inscription (Hieroglyphic Jambs) can be referred only in general to the
same first period in which the Old Empire Cauac still was in use. Other forms (Kin,
Caban, Owl-Plume) already show changes, so that the placing of this text after that of the
Akab Tzib is amply substantiated.
Then comes the famous Initial Series lintel. It has already been shown that its final
date is not “Tun 10, 2 Ahau” but “Tun 10, 1 Ahau”. The next Maya date after the Initial
Series day satisfying the conditions of being 1 Ahau as the ending-day of a Tun 10 is
10.9.10.0.0, corresponding to the year A. D. 1017. This date agrees in so far as the tradi-
tions of the Book of the Chilam Balam of Chumayel are concerned, since it falls about
thirty years after the occupation of Chichen Itza by Kukulcan and the Itzas.2
In the Casa de las Monjas the calendrical statement “11 Tuns, 1 Ahau” is repeated
several times. As by now the hieroglyph Cauac has changed its form and tends to become
similar to the latest variant, the date must lie a whole KatunWheel or Round later than that
of the Akab Tzib. Thus we reach 11.0.11.0.0 or A.D. 1235. That is, as it obviously cannot
be the same as the “11 Tuns 1 Ahau” in the Akab Tzib, it can only be the next occurrence
of this same date in the Long Count. Only the Casa de las Monjas has this date, while the
Casa Colorada and the Halakal lintel, merely on the basis of the similarity of their glyph
forms, can be referred to this same period. The traditions of the Books of Chilam Balam
1
Beyer, 1935, pp. 64-72.
2
Roys, 1933, p. 204. 10
11
indicate that at this time Chichen Itza was conquered by Hunnac Ceel and subjected to the
people of Mayapan.
In the inscription of the Temple of the Three Lintels we have an Itza text again,
showing that this tribe had retaken the city. Thus the “10 Tuns 1 Ahau” must mean
11.2.10.0.0, that is, the year A. D. 1273.
There follow next for A.D. 1299 three inscriptions with the date “Tun 16, ending
on 1 Ahau,” namely, a passage in the Hieroglyphic Band of the Caracol, the stela found in
a niche in the upper platform of this building, and a re-used inscription fashioned into a
feathered serpent’s tail. The date 1299, however, is not strictly contemporaneous for the
Caracol Tower, as the Hieroglyphic Band has two other and later dates. Also the stela itself
has some more Tuns indicated, possibly placing the actual date only about two years later.
The much-battered glyph for 15 Tuns in the Temple of the One Lintel possibly may
be interpreted as 11.5.15.0.0 or 1337, but the instance is uncertain.
Another passage in the Hieroglyphic Band seems to represent “8 Tuns 1 Ahau” cor-
responding to 11.6.8.0.0 or 1350.
The statement “11 Tuns 2 Ahau” at the end of the inscription on the pillar in the
High Priest’s Grave is fairly safe. Here there are two structural possibilities:

10.13.11.0.0 2 Ahau (A. D. 1097)

11.16.11.0.0 2 Ahau (A. D. 1353)

of which the latter is preferable.

The next item is again a Tun date from the Hieroglyphic Band of the Caracol. It
reads “1 Tun 12 Ahau” and must refer to 11.8.1.0.0 or 1383.
Then comes the Temple of the Four Lintels with the date, several times clearly stat-
ed, “Tun 13 ending on 1 Ahau”, or, in the Long Count, 11.9.13.0.0, corresponding to our
year A. D. 1414.
One of the dates at Yula may have expressed the same date; however, it is safe to
assume only that a Tun above 10 was represented. The two other Tun dates evidently are
“Tun 5 ending on 1 Ahau” which must be referred to the year 1465.
The capstone of a small chamber to the southeast of the Mercado group (inscrip-
tion XIX) has the painted calendrical hieroglyphs “6 Kan 9 Tuns”, which must refer to the
Maya New Year day 6 Kan 2 Pop (11.12.8.13.4) and the Tun ending 11.12.9.0.0 (A. D.
1469).

12
 The results of our attempt to give definite meanings to the various chrono-
logical expressions “Tun —, ending on — Ahau” are summarized in the following Table
VII.

TABLE VII
HYPOTHETICAL DATINGS FOR SOME INSCRIPTIONS OF CHICHEN ITZA

Akab Tzib Tun 11, 1 Ahau 10.7.11.0.0 AD. 978

Initial Series ” 10, 1 ” 10.9.10.0.0 1017
Monjas ” 11, 1 ” 11.0.11.0.0 1235
Three Lintels ” 10, 1 ” 11.2.10.0.0 1273
Hieroglyphic Band, I ” 16, 1 ” 11.3.16.0.0 1299
Caracol Stela ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
Serpent’s Tail . ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
One Lintel ” 15, 1 ” 11.5.15.0.0 1337
Hieroglyphic Band, II ” 8, 1 ” I1.6.8.0.0 1350
High Priest’s Grave ” 11, 2 ” 11.6.11.0.0 1353
Hieroglyphic Band, III ” 1, 12 ” 11.8.1.0.0 1383
Four Lintels ” 13, 1 ” 11.9.13.0.0 1414
Yula ” 5, 1 ” 11.12.5.0.0 1465
Tomb Capstone ” 9, (11 ”) 11.12.9.0.0 1469

The determination of the Tuns certainly works as a hypothesis inasmuch as the

dates do not contradict the list of the gradual changes in form (Table I) and further since
most of them can be brought into agreement with the traditional history of the Itza tribe.
The two Yula dates and the capstone of the tomb force us, of course, to assume that
after the destruction of Mayapan (c. 1460) some Itzas still remained in the old city, while
the bulk of the population had left for their new home at Lake Peten Itza. The second pos-
sibility, namely to place the painted capstone back to 10.3.9.0.0, or the year A. D. 898, is
much less recommendable.
The Hieroglyphic Band of the Caracol Tower contains three different dates, while
in Table I it forms only one item. The stylistic changes, if there are any, are too small to
be detected for short intervals. On the basis of this tabulation we can infer only that the
inscription as a whole belongs to the upper section of the New Cauac Series (nos. IX-XV),
which is followed by the Four Lintels-Yula group (nos. XVI-XVII). This arrangement
holds good for Table VII also.
The 18 parts of which the Hieroglyphic Band is composed are surely not all the
work of one sculptor. There are, on the contrary, minor differences in the form of the
hieroglyphs which speak for about four different workmen. But these stylistic variations
all cluster about the standard forms for their period. Thus, if carved stones of different
provenience are joined, they must belong to a certain span of time, which would be less
than a century if the dates have been interpreted correctly.
To summarize the results of our investigations as to the age of the Chichen Itza
texts, we can say that the inscriptions fall in the time from the cessation of dated stelae in
the southern cities (10.3.0.0.0 or 889) approximately to the fall of Mayapan (11.12.0.0.0
or 1460). Therefore they afford examples of the changing forms of hieroglyphs for the
Third Epoch of Maya Writing, grouping themselves naturally in at least three well-defined
subdivisions.
In so far as the precise dating of the individual inscriptions is concerned, un-
13
certainty prevails as well in some doubtful cases as in the general validity of the employed
interpretation of the Tun glyphs. As a working hypothesis, our method gives quite accept-
able results, but that may be due to chance. Further painstaking special studies on the one
hand, and a broad general archaeologic investigation of Yucatan on the other, are needed
before we can proclaim our datings as scientifically valid or even as a good hypothesis.
As to future research, which may produce either confirmative evidence or a well-
founded refutation of our working hypothesis, a few words may be said.
It is possible that the various irregular Calendar Round dates like 8 Manik 15 Uo,
9 Akbal 1 Chen, 9 Lamat 11 Yax, 3 Eb 10 Pop, etc., have an astronomic significance. Thus
an astronomical explanation of these dates must be sought.
Another possibility lies in the meticulous investigation of the architectural details
of the buildings to which the inscriptions belong. Construction as well as decoration,
material, and form, should be carefully analyzed.
As a third source for corroborative or contrary evidence, the investigation of other
ruins of northern Yucatan (like Uxmal and Mayapan) should be undertaken. It should be
possible, for instance, on the form of the hieroglyphs of Mayapan to decide the question
whether the Monjas group really represents buildings erected during the domination of the
Cocoms.
The careful collecting and study of the pottery and sherds undertaken by several
members of the staff of Carnegie Institution and briefly reviewed in the Year Books also
should contribute greatly to a clearing of these obscure problems.
Concerning architecture, some important work already has been done by Maudslay,
Holmes, Seler, Morris, Bolles, Lawrence Roys, Ruppert, Pollock, and many others, yet
this avenue of approach is by no means exhausted.
Let us, therefore, hope that these sketchy and in many respects unsatisfactory stud-
ies may stimulate further research so that eventually light may be thrown upon the exact
meaning and the precise age of the inscriptions at Chichen Itza.

14
 APPENDIX
NOTES ON THE INSCRIPTIONS AT THE CARACOL
When this treatise was finished I received a copy of the monograph on the Caracol.
It contains as an appendix a paper by Morley on the inscriptions at the Caracol.1 For var-
ious reasons I decided to add another study to the series, dealing especially with these
inscriptions and discussing the new interpretations propounded by that well-known Maya
scholar.
Morley and I agree on a number of points and it is not necessary to discuss such
cases; they only prove that at least for part of the data two specialists arrive at the same
conclusions. On the other hand, there exist a few questions on which my opinions differ
considerably from those of my colleague. These will be treated in detail.
Our figure 417, according to Morley,1 “may be the head of the North Star God” and
he quotes J. Eric Thompson for the number Nine, associated with this head. In another
paper of Thompson’s,2 however, he could have found the right interpretation for this head.
The similar signs a-g of his figure 23 are explained as “The Long-nosed Rain God”. It is
only a little bit more precise when I refer them to god K.
Morley discusses at length our glyph A of figure 184, with the final result that he
believes it “may record the day 12 Ahau”. Unfortunately, there is neither a numeral
Twelve nor a day sign Ahau. The first superfix in the hieroglyph is the ending sign Death-
Hair, and the head is a variant or substitution of the Teeth sign. The parallel figure 185
and other comparative material leave no doubt about the correctness of this interpretation.
In a similar way the ending sign Death-Hair in our figure 507 is misinterpreted as
“a possible coefficient of 15 or 10”.
I did not reproduce glyph P22 of the Caracol stela, because it was partly destroyed
and I was not sure of the significance of the remaining details. By the photograph pub-
lished in figure 167 of Ruppert’s treatise on the Caracol I see that there existed a fragment
of the monument which contains another detail. This fragment was not near the stela
when I copied the hieroglyphs in the Museum of Archaeology and History at Merida (see
also p1. 5). The more complete hieroglyph has either the meaning “End of 10 Baktuns”
or “End of 11 Baktuns”. The two bars for Ten are clear and I think that the circlet right
above them forms part of the numeral. The case, however, is doubtful as the circlet might
be part of the ending sign.
The three circlets behind the main sign which greatly worry Morley3 can, perhaps,
be satisfactorily explained. In connection with the first two hieroglyphs of the monument
(16 Tuns, 1 Ahau), glyph blocks O P22 can be interpreted as “17 Tuns ending, end of 11
Baktuns, 3 [Katuns]” and referred to 11.3.17.0.0 of the Long Count. This explanation
assumes the Katun glyph to be suppressed; but it is not impossible that the following
glyph block (O23) contains the head of the Katun bird. The complete calendrical state-
ment would then appear as reproduced in figure 772.
I judge this reading so good that I go so far as to value it as a proof for the correct
placing of “16 Tuns 1 Ahau” (fig. 691) in the Long Count, thereby incidentally also con-
1
Ruppert, 1935, p. 279.
2
Thompson, 1932a, p. 388.
3
Ruppert, 1935, p. 280.
15
firming the hypothesis that the Tun-Ahaus refer to that computation.

Fig. 772
17 TUNS ENDING, END 11 BAKTUNS, 3 KATUNS
Caracol, Stela, O22-O23.

Morley reads glyph O2 of the Circular Stone as 8 Ahau. My drawings show clear-
ly only the numeral Eight as superfix, but do not allow me to identify the hieroglyph under
it.
We come now to the many glyph blocks which once formed part of the façade dec-
oration of the Round Tower (p1. 14)1 On the whole, I received the impression from
Ruppert’s and Morley’s data that these quadrangular pieces had been expressly made for
their purpose and therefore hardly include old material. Their stylistic differences, which
puzzled me, must, then, simply be referred to the employment of several sculptors.
Accordingly, the blocks are most probably coetaneous.
The “unknown sign”2 on block 9 can by the context and comparison with analo-
gous cases readily be identified as Tun (see fig. 687).
Morley’s reading of the head numeral in figure 638 as Five is very problematical.
Where he notes a resemblance of the headdress to the normal form of the Tun glyph I
clearly note this difference: the “normal” Tun he has in mind is of bilateral symmetry with
vertical axis and the headdress clearly is not.
For the month position in figure 664 Morley also admits the reading Fourteen. But
again he relates the following 1 Tun to the Calendar Round Date and not to the Ahau, to
which it really belongs. Thus his long computations are entirely out of place.
Although his mind is focused on that subject matter, concerning the hieroglyphs of
blocks a, b, and c, Morley says “not one seems to have been of calendrical nature, at least
none has a coefficient.” Well, there is a Katun sign with a numeral,although not very clear,
on block a (see fig. 706). On the other hand, his only possible exception, a bar for Five,
turns out to be the Sun-Beard (fig. 427), the glyph block being put upside-down! On the
same stone is also found the hieroglyph Day-Sky with the Teeth sign (fig. 327), which
confirms my view as to the orientation of the sculptured stone. If all the hieroglyphs are
studied and not merely the dates, such little blunders will be avoided. It may be added
here that stone No. 11 is also in inverted position (see figs. 605, 104, and 419).
While in the preface I expressed some apprehension whether the results of my
time-consuming studies were worth while, after the perusal of Morley’s last contribution
I feel more assured of their value and necessity. We see clearly that with a general inves-
tigation of all hieroglyphs even mere calendrical matters become much clearer; at least we
may avoid many misleading steps.
1
Blocks 4-19, belonging to certain hieroglyphic serpents, were found in the débris from the tower and upper
platform of the Caracol. The provenance of the three small blocks, a, b, and c, each representing three glyphs, prob-
ably indicates that there had been four of them and that they had been closely connected with the hieroglyphic ser-
pents of blocks 4-19. See Ruppert, 1935, p.276.
2
Ruppert, 1935, p. 290. 16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BEYER, H.
1931. Mayan hieroglyphs: the variable element of the introducing glyphs as month indicator. Anthropos,
XXVI: 99-108. Vienna.
1932. Maya hieroglyphs: some Tun signs. Middle American Research Series, Pub. No. 4, pp. 103-135. New
Orleans.
1932a. The stylistic history of the Maya hieroglyphs. Middle American Research Series, Pub. No. 4, pp.71-
102. New Orleans.
1934. Die Mayahieroglyphe “Hand” (29) Verh. des XXIV. Intern. Amerikanisten-Kongresses, Hamburg
(1930). Hamburg.
1934a. The position of the affixes in Maya writing: II. Maya Research, I: 101-108. New York.
1934b. La Historia de la Escritura Maya. Investigación y Progreso, VIII: 300-305. Madrid.
1935. On the correlation between Maya and Christian chronology. Maya Research, II: 64-72 New York.

BOWDITCH, C. P.
1950. The numeration, calendar systems and astronomical knowledge of the Mayas. Cambridge, Mass.

CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

1918. Year Book No.17. Washington.
1925. Year Book No. 24. Washington.
1927. Year Book No. 26. Washington.

FOLETT, P. H. F.
1932. War and weapons of the Maya. Middle American Research Series, Pub. No. 4, pp. 373-410. New
Orleans.

GANN, T. W. F.
1924. In an unknown land. London.

GOODMAN, J. T.
1897. The archaic Maya inscriptions. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Archaeology, Appendix. London.

MAUDSLAY, A. P.
1889-1902. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Archaeology. London.

MORLEY, S. G.
1915. An introduction to the study of the Maya hieroglyphs. Bureau Of American Ethnology, Smithsonian
Institution, Bul. 57. Washington.
1916. The supplementary series in the Maya inscriptions. Holmes AnniversaryVolume. Washington.
1917. The Hotun as the principal chronological unit of the old Maya empire. Proceedings, 19th
International Congress of Americanists (1915), pp. 195-201. Washington.
1920. The inscriptions at Copan. Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. No. 219. Washington.

ROYS, R. L.
1933. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. No. 438. Washington.

RUPPERT, K.
1935. The Caracol at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. No. 454. Washington.

SELER, E.
1902-23. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen Sprachund Alterthumakunde. Berlin.

SPINDEN, H. J.
1924. The reduction of Mayan dates. Papers Peabody Mus. of Harvard Univ., VI, No. 4. Cambridge.

17
THOMPSON, J. E.
1931. Archaeological investigations in the southern Cayo District, British Honduras. Field Museum of
Natural History, Pub. No. 301, Anthropological Series, XVII, No. 3. Chicago.
1932. A preliminary study of the ruins of Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Carnegie Inst. Wash., Pub. No. 424.
Washington.
1932a. The solar year of the Mayas at Quirigua, Guatemala. Field Museum of Natural History, Pub. No.
315, Anthropological Series, XVII, No. 4. Chicago.

WEITZEL, R. B.
1930. Maya chronological systems. Am. Jour. Arch., 2d series, XXXlV: 182-189. Concord, N. H.

WILLARD, T. A.
1926. The city of the Sacred Well. New York.

18
 PLATE 1

The Hieroglyphic Jambs.

1
 a

Lintel from Halakal. a: Front b: Underside.

PLATE 2

2
 a

The Three Lintels (the two preserved ones).

PLATE 3

3
 a

a: The One Lintel. b: Caracol Stela, front.

PLATE 4

4
 PLATE 5

Caracol Stela, lateral parts.

5
 Water Trough, Hacienda.
Plate 6

6
 PLATE 7

Four Lintels, Lintel I. a: Front. b: Underside.

7
 PLATE 8

Four Lintels, Lintel II. a and b: Front. c: Underside.

8
 PLATE 9

Four Lintels, Lintel III. a and b: Front. c: Underside

9
 PLATE 10

Four Lintels, Lintel IV. a: Front. b: Underside

10
 PLATE 11

Yula, Lintel I. a: Front b: Underside

11
 PLATE 12

Yula, Lintel II. a: Front. b: Underside.

12
 PLATE 13

a b

a: Painted Capstone, Small Chamber. b: Serpent’s Tail, Temple of the Wall Panels. c: Cylindrical Stone, Caracol.

13
 PLATE 14

Sculptured Stones from Hieroglyphic Band, Caracol.

(Blocks 4-19, belonging to certain hieroglyphic serpents, were found in the débris from the tower and upper plat-
form of the Caracol. The provenance of the three small blocks, a, b, and c, each representing three glyphs, probably
indicates that there had been four of them and that they had been closely connected with the hieroglyphic serpents
of blocks 4-19. See Ruppert, 1935, p. 276.)

14