Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T23:08:07.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chichen Itza Inscriptions and the Maya Correlation Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

R. B. Weitzel
R. B. Weitzel*
Affiliation:
Washington, D. C.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Numerous calendric hieroglyphs of inscriptions at Chichen Itza have been deciphered, with the result that a large body of new material is available for a fresh approach to a solution of the Maya correlation problem. Furthermore, there has appeared a new method of interpreting native time counts which will necessitate revised ideas concerning the chronology of inscriptions, of architecture, of cultural changes, and of historical events at Chichen Itza.

Formerly it was thought that the Maya date 9 Lamat 11 Yax, 13 Tun 1 Ahau meant that the calendar round date 9 Lamat 11 Yax, with a positional determinant 13 Tun 1 Ahau, fell n 13 Tun ending on a day 1 Ahau. This Tun-Ahau method of interpreting a date rested on a fallacy and produced a result irreconcilable with the data. According to the new Katun-Ahau method, the given date, 9 Lamat 11 Yax, fell in a current 13 Tun of a current Katun ending on a day 1 Ahau; this is thoroughly consistent.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , July 1945, pp. 27 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1945

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Beyer, H. 1932. An Ahau Date with a Katun Ending Sign. Middle American Research Series, Publication No. 4.Google Scholar
Beyer, H. 1937. Studies on the Inscriptions of Chichen Itza. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Contribution No. 21.Google Scholar
Marden, L. 1936. “Today in the Feathered Serpent's City.” National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 70, No. 5.Google Scholar
Morley, S. G. 1917. “The Hotun as the Principal Chronological Unit of the Old Maya Empire.” Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Americanists.Google Scholar
Morley, S. G. 1920. The Inscriptions at Copan. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 219.Google Scholar
Morley, S. G. 1927. “Archaeology.” Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book, No. 26.Google Scholar
Spinden, H. J. 1924. The Reduction of Mayan Dates. Papers of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 6, No. 4.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. E. 1935. Maya Chronology. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Contribution No. 14.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. E. 1937. A New Method of Deciphering Yucatecan Dates. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Contribution No. 22.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. E. 1941. “A Coordination of the History of Chichen Itza.” Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos. Vol. 5, Nos. 2-3.Google Scholar
Vaillant, G. C. 1935. “Chronology and Stratigraphy in the Maya Area.” Maya Research, Vol. 2, No. 2.Google Scholar
Weitzel, R. B. 1930. “Maya Chronological Systems.” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 2.Google Scholar
Weitzel, R. B. 1931a. “The Books of Chilan Balam as Tradition.” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. 3.Google Scholar
Weitzel, R. B. 1931b. “Uxmal Inscriptions.” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. 1.Google Scholar