Está en la página 1de 18

ERRORS IN THE DATES ON DYNASTIC

CODEX VASES

J. Graham Atkinson, D.Phil.

13 January 2017

J. Graham Atkinson, 800 25th Street NW, Washington DC 20037 (GrahamAtk@gmail.com)

1
Background

The vases to be discussed in this paper are painted with purely glyphic designs, and list a series of rulers

of the Kan dynasty. There are 11 known Dynasty codex-style vases documented in Justin Kerr’s Maya

Vase Database (Kerr 2016) and discussed by Simon Martin (1997), and an additional one discussed by

Robicsek and Hale (1981) in the Maya Book of the Dead. We will simply refer to them as Dynasty vases

hereafter. The discussion in this paper is restricted to the 11 vases included in the Maya Vase Database,

because the painting on the other one is in poor condition, and the photograph included in the Book of

the Dead is a relatively poor quality composite. The vases include different numbers of rulers, but

always starting with the same ruler, and with the rulers always in the same order. The format of the text

for each ruler is quite standardized, starting with a calendar round date, followed by an accession verb,

the name of the ruler, the Kan emblem glyph and sometimes an additional title, although sometimes

some elements are omitted, particularly towards the end of the inscription when the painter seems to

have realized that space was going to be a problem. Unfortunately, this list of rulers is not known from

any other source, and does not match with the rulers of the Kan dynasty listed on stone monuments.

The vases will be referred to by their Kerr number. This is the number assigned by Justin Kerr in his Maya

vase data base of rollout photographs (Kerr 2016). The longest of the inscriptions is on K6751 and

consists of 19 rulers. This vase was discussed in detail by Simon Martin (1997) in a paper in the Maya

Vase Book, volume 5. The inscriptions sometimes break off in the middle of the “sentence”, and on a

couple of vases ends with a portion of the standard dedicatory formula that often appears around the

top of vases. The dates provided are all calendar round dates, which means that any particular date

recurs after 18,980 days, or about 52 years, making it impossible to place the dates in absolute time

2
absent additional information. For the reader who is not familiar with the Maya calendar round dates a

brief description is provided in Appendix A.

Because both 260 (the length of the Tzolk’in “year”) and 365 (the length of the Haab “year”) are both

divisible by five, but by no other factor, each day sign is associated with a set of four possible Haab

coefficients that can follow it. For example, the Ajaw day sign can only be followed by a Haab coefficient

of 3, 8, 13 or 18. The implication of this is that if you randomly write down day signs and numbers from

0 to 19, 80 percent of these pairs would be impossible as the day sign and the Haab coefficient of a

legitimate calendar round date. This is important because a few of the dates found on inscriptions and

vases are impossible dates. It is natural to ask why these occur and what can be deduced from them. In

this paper we will discuss possible sources of these and other inconsistencies in the dates.

3
The Accession Dates on the Dynasty Vases

There are many inconsistencies among the calendar round dates on the Dynasty vases. Table 1 shows

the dates on the 11 vases for rulers 1 through 11. In order to make comparisons across vases easier this

table first lists all the Tzolk’in dates and then all the Haab dates. For example, looking at the Tzolk’in

dates for Ruler 1 we read the coefficient as seven, nine and 12 on different vases. Possible explanations

for these inconsistencies will be discussed below, but it should be kept in mind that this list of potential

explanations may not be comprehensive, and that the various potential sources of inconsistencies

discussed are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it may well be the case that several of these sources of

inconsistency are operating simultaneously.

Table 1: Calendar Round dates for Rulers 1 – 11.

4
Possible Sources of Errors

There are a variety of ways in which errors could creep into designs. The following list includes some

that have been previously suggested or that we think are possible, but the list should not be considered

comprehensive.

Error by the scribe(s) who prepared the template(s) used by the painters (or a Day sign drawn so it was

consistently misread)

The lists on the various Dynasty vases are so similar, being consistent in the order of the rulers and fairly

consistent in the dates (at least the day and month signs and some of the coefficients), that it seems

likely that the painters of these vases were working from one or two templates. For two of the rulers all

the calendar round dates that are legible are impossible given the structure of the Maya calendar. This

suggests the problem rose with the template(s) being used by the painters, rather than in the copying by

the painters. For both these rulers the Day sign is Imix, so it is possible that the original design had a sign

that was poorly drawn and then consistently misread as Imix. If the Haab coefficient is 7 or 12, the most

commonly occurring ones for these Rulers, then the Day sign would have had to be one of: Kawak, K’an,

Muluk, or Ix. Of these only Muluk appears on the vases so we do not have an opportunity to see how

the vase painters would have written the other three signs.

The hypothesis of an error in the template(s) is reinforced by the fact that for ruler 3 the Haab

coefficients are all 12 or 7, and for ruler 6 12 is the most frequent coefficient. The difference of 5 in the

coefficients (12 – 7 = 5) appears to be a common error on these vases, and an explanation for why it

might be expected to be common will be provided later.

5
Copying error by the artist painting the vase

This could include a copying error in an intermediate version of the text between the original and the

vase. It should be mentioned at this point that several painters were involved in painting these vases,

and the various hands have been identified and discussed in papers by Kerr and Kerr (1988), Cohodas

(1989) and Martin (1997).

The obvious errors or inconsistencies between vases are confined to the numbers and in contrast the

Day and month signs are consistent across the vases.

There are several rulers for which some of the vases have possible dates, but other vases have

impossible ones, and it seems clear that the error was in the Haab coefficient and not in the Day sign, as

the Day signs are entirely consistent between the vases. This is the situation with rulers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,

10 and 11. In the case of ruler 2, the legitimate coefficient 14 occurs four times, 12 occurs five times

and 10 once. The reading of 12 where 14 was meant could simply be the misreading of two dots as

spacer(s). Many of the inconsistencies in numerical coefficients are readily understandable once one

tries to read the numbers. The bars representing five are written in various ways: Thin vertical lines,

outlines of wider bars, filled-in wider bars outlined with a black line. It is often difficult to determine

whether it is one or two bars that are meant, and this manifests itself in differences of five between the

coefficients. For several of the rulers the painters read the coefficient sometimes as 7 and sometimes as

12.

There are other situations where the misreading is in the units (dots), where spacers could have been

read as units or vice versa. For example, for ruler 2 both 12 and 14 occur, which would be two bars with

two dots and spacer(s) versus two bars with four dots.

6
Date in mythological time

It has been suggested by numerous scholars that impossible dates may have been used to indicate that

an event took place in mythological time rather than being a real historical event. This certainly appears

to be a plausible explanation for some of the impossible dates for clearly mythological texts relating to

the births of gods and the start of the long count in 3114 BCE. However, we would suggest that this is

unlikely to be the explanation for impossible dates on these vases. The first ruler has 11 legitimate dates

and only one invalid date, so the sequence of rulers is starting with a legitimate calendar round. The first

ruler would be the most likely to be mythological. In addition, the majority of the dates on the vases are

legitimate. If they were being generated without concern for whether they were legitimate dates or not

once would expect 80% to be invalid and only 20% valid. Also, some of the rulers’ names occur as the

names of rulers found on stone monuments associated with the Kan dynasty. The reuse of ancestral

names is a common occurrence among Maya rulers.

In summary, it is unlikely that the invalid dates are intended to be in mythological time when the rulers

with these invalid dates are bracketed by other rulers in the list with legitimate dates, and particularly

given the arguments provided above.

Repainting in modern times

Some of the vases have been retouched or repainted, either by restorers or in preparation for the

antiquities market to make them appear more valuable. The repainting could have introduced errors if

the design being repainted was eroded and the repainting did not replicate the original design.

However, the pattern of inconsistencies would suggest that repainting is not a major source of

7
introduced errors and that the other explanations provided above are more likely to be the source of

most of the errors or inconsistencies.

Additional Evidence

Various possibilities for the sources of the discrepancies in dates were presented in the previous section

so it is natural to ask whether there exists any other evidence that might allow for a refinement of the

discussion. Several researchers have attempted to distinguish the various painters involved in the

decoration of these vases based on stylistic considerations. Simon Martin (1997) summarizes the

assignment of painters to vases in Table 1 of his paper “The Painted King List”, labeling the painters A

through E.

These painters segregate into two groups based on the coefficients they use in the calendar round

dates, and the differences between the coefficients used by the two groups provide some clues as to

how the inconsistencies may have arisen. The following Table 2 summarizes selected coefficients for the

first four kings in the list (these are the kings that appear on all of the vases, albeit not legibly on some

of them, and so for which the most dates are available). The coefficients not listed for these kings (e.g.,

the Haab coefficient for Ruler 1) show little or no variation, so would just add complexity to the table.

Table 2: Calendar Round Coefficients used by the two groups of painters

8
The remarkable consistency illustrated in this table would suggest that the two groups of painters were

working from different copies of the design, and that mistakes were made by one or both of the

copyists. The nature of the different “mis-readings” fits with the discussion of possible errors above.

Ruler 1, Tzolk’in coefficient:

Group 1 read this coefficient mostly as seven, a bar and two dots, with one nine, a bar with four dots.

The four dots could be the mis-reading of one long spacer as two dots, or a repainting. Group 2 read 12,

which is two bars with two dots, so the difference between the two groups is simply whether a

particular design should be read as one or two bars, an easy source of ambiguity.

Ruler 2, Tzolk’in coefficient:

Group 1 read this consistently as 10, two bars, while Group 2 read it consistently as 12, two bars and

two dots. This difference is more difficult to rationalize.

Ruler 2, Haab coefficient:

Group 1 read this as 14, and in one instance 10, while group 2 read it as 12. Here we see a switch from

two bars with two dots and a spacer to two bars with 4 dots.

Ruler 3, Haab coefficient:

Group 1 writes this consistently as seven, a bar with two dots, and group 2 consistently as 12, two bars

with two dots. This is the situation discussed above for Ruler 1, where a design is being interpreted by

one group as a single bar and by the other group as two bars.

Ruler 4, Haab coefficient:

Group 1 writes this consistently as a single dot, while group 2 writes it as seven or nine. This difference,

one versus seven or nine, is difficult to explain.

9
Discussion

The artists who painted these vases have been differentiated based on their styles, particularly the way

in which they drew hands. It transpires that these artists fall neatly into two groups based on the

numbers they use in the dates, and some of the differences between the two groups are readily

understandable as being due to ways in which numbers could easily be misread given the Maya system

of writing numbers. A possible explanation for the two groups is that two different copies were made of

an original design, and the mis-readings were due to the different ways in which the copyists read the

numbers in the original. We suggest the possibility that there was also a misreading of two of the day

signs by both of the copyists, and that this would explain the consistently impossible calendar rounds

that appear for two of the rulers (rulers 3 and 6), however this suggestion is more conjectural.

10
Data Availability

All the data used for this analysis was extracted from published works cited so are publicly available.

11
Appendixes

Appendix A: The Maya Calendar Round – a very brief description

The calendar round consists of a date in the 260 day Tzolk’in calendar and a date in the 365 day Haab

calendar. Because the least common multiple of 260 and 365 is 18,980 any given combination of dates

recurs after that many days. The Tzolk’in date is a number from 1 to 13 followed by one of 20 Maya day

signs, and to move from one day to the next one increments the numerical coefficient by one (modulo

13, i.e., after 13 you go back to 1) and move one around the list of day signs. The second component of

the calendar round is Haab date, with a numerical coefficient from 0 to 19, and one of 18 month signs.

This year consists of 18 months of 20 days and a 5-day month, the Wayeb, to make up the year length of

365. To move from one day to the next you increment the coefficient by 1 until reaching 19 (or 5 in the

Wayeb) then go back to 0 and move to the next month. A reader desiring more information on the

calendar round, or the Maya calendar more generally, should consult the discussion by Michael Coe and

Mark Van Stone (Coe and Stone 2005).

12
References Cited

Coe, Michael D., and Van Stone, Mark

2005. Reading the Maya Glyphs, Second Edition. Thames and Hudson, New York, New York.

Cohodas, Marvin

1989. Transformations: Relationship Between Image and Text in the Ceramic Paintings of the

Metropolitan Master. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and

Representation, edited by William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, 198-231. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

City, Utah.

Kerr, Barbara, and Kerr, Justin

1988. Some Observations on Maya Vase Painters. In Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth

Benson and Gillett Griffin, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Kerr, Justin.

2016. The Maya Vase Data Base. Electronic document. Research.mayavase.com/kerrmaya.html

Martin, Simon

1997. The Painted King List: A Commentary on Codex-Style Dynastic Vases. The Maya Vase Book,

Volume 5. Pp. 847-215. Kerr Associates, 14 West 17th Street, New York, New York.

13
Robicsek, Francis and Hale, Donald M.

1981. The Maya Book of the Dead: The Ceramic Codex. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

14
Tables

Table 1: Calendar Round dates for Rulers 1 – 11.

Ruler 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Kerr No. Tzolkin
955 12 chuwen12 imix 3 imix 3 etznab 12 ahaw
999 12 chuwen12 imix ? imix 3 etznab 13? Ahaw
1005 12 chuwen12 imix 3 imix 3 etznab ? 1 imix ? 12 lamat 3 muluk 12 chuwen
1302 7 chuwen 10 imix 3 imix 3 etznab 13 ahaw ?
1334 7 chuwen 10 ? ? 3 etznab 13 ahaw 1 imix
1344 7 chuwen 10 imix ? imix 3? 13 ahaw 1 imix 13? Kib
1371 7 chuwen 10 imix 3 imix 3 etznab 7 ahaw 1 imix 13 kib 11 lamat ? Muluk 7 chuwen
1372 7 chuwen 10 imix 3 imix 3 etznab 13 ahaw? 1 imix 13 kib 8 lamat 1 muluk 11 chuwen 11? kaban
2094 12 chuwen12 imix 3? 3 etznab 7 ahaw 1 imix 12 kib 12 lamat 2? muluk 12 chuwen
5863 12 chuwen12 imix ? 3 etznab 12 ahaw 1 imix 12 kib 12 lamat 2 muluk 12 chuwen 12 kaban
6751 9 chuwen 10 imix 3 imix 4 etznab 13 ahaw 1 imix 13 kib 8 lamat 1 muluk 12 chuwen 11 kaban?
HAAB
955 19 pop 12 yaxkin 12 yax 9 muwan 9 sotz
999 19 pop 12 yaxkin 12 yax 7 muwan 4 ?
1005 19 pop 12 yaxkin 12 yax 7 muwan 4 ? 12 mol ? 7 yaxkin 2 kankin 14? sip
1302 19 pop 14 yaxkin 7 yax 1 muwan ? ?
1334 19 pop ? 7? 1 muwan 8 sots 11 mol
1344 19 pop 14 yaxkin ? 1? Muwan? 11 mol ?
1371 19 pop 14 yaxkin 7 yax 1 muwan 7 sots 10 mol 19 chen 12 yaxkin 2 kankin 8 sip
1372 19 pop 14 yaxkin 7 yax 1 muwan 8 sotz 11 mol 19 chen 11 yaxkin 2 kankin ?5+ sip 12 yax
2094 19 pop 12 yaxkin 12 yax 7 muwan 4 sots 12 mol 19 chen 12 yaxkin 2? kankin ?
5863 19 pop 12 yaxkin 12 yax 7 muwan ? 12 mol 12 chen 12 mol 2 kankin 12 yaxkin 14 chen
6751 19 pop 10 yaxkin 7 yax 1 muwan 8 sotz 12 mol 19 chen 11 yaxkin 2 kankin 8 sip 10 yax

Dates in bold/red are Haab dates that are impossible given the Tzolk’in day sign. Rulers 14 – 19 only
appear on K6751, and Rulers 12 and 13 appear only on K1372 and K6751, and all the calendar round
dates for these Rulers are valid, so are omitted to keep the table to a manageable size. A question mark
indicates an unreadable or only partially readable text.

15
Table 2: Calendar Round Coefficients used by the two groups of painters

Ruler Tzolk’in or Haab Group 1: A & B Group 2: C, D & E


1 Tzolk’in 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 9 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
2 Tzolk’in 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
2 Haab 14, 14, 14, 14, 10 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
3 Haab 7, 7, 7, 7, 7 12, 12, 12, 12, 12
4 Haab 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 9, 7, 7, 7, 7

16
Abstract

The 11 dynastic codex vases included in the Kerr Maya Vase database and discussed by Simon Martin

(1997) list the accession dates of a sequence of rulers of the Kan dynasty, but there are inconsistencies

in these accession dates – some of them are impossible in the Maya calendar system. Possible sources

of these inconsistencies are listed and discussed. Prior work by other scholars has differentiated the

painters of these vases based on stylistic factors and this classification of the painters is used to explain

some of the inconsistencies in the accession dates. It is demonstrated that the painters fall into two

groups and that within each group there is a remarkable consistency in the dates, and that some of the

inconsistencies between the groups could be explained if the groups of painters were working from

different copies of an original design that involved mis-readings of numbers that are easy to make given

the Maya system of writing numbers, and the different styles used for writing the numbers.

Abstracto

Unas vasijas Codex dinásticos que aparecen en la base de datos Kerr de vasijas Mayas catalogan las

fechas de ascenso al trono de soberanos de la dinastía Kan. Estas 11 vasijas fueron investigadas por

Simon Martin (1997). Sin embargo, falta coherencia en estas fechas de ascenso. El artículo siguiente

enumera, analiza y propone explicaciones a estas inconsistencias. Estudios previos basados en factores

estilísticos conducidos por otros expertos han encontrado diferencias entre los pintores de estas vasijas.

El artículo utiliza esta clasificación de los pintores para explicar algunas de las inconsistencias en las

fechas de ascenso. Demostrando que los pintores se pueden dividir en dos grupos y que dentro de cada

grupo las fechas concuerdan, propone una possible explicaciόn a las inconsistencias entre los dos

17
grupos. Suponiendo que los pintores utilizaron diferentes copias de un diseño original, se puede asumir

que malinterpretaron los números de las fechas. Esto es fácil de hacer dado el sistema Maya de escribir

números, y a los diferentes estilos utilizados para escribir tales números.

18

También podría gustarte