MAYA INSCRIPTIONS: T H E VENUS CALENDAR AND

ANOTHER CORRELATION
BY JOHN E. TEEPLE

P AGES 46-50 of the Dresden Codex are generally recognized

as a Venus calendar, 65 Venus years of 584 days each being
equal to 104 of our 365 day years.
If a Venus year was thought by the Maya to equal exactly
584 days, then the Venus year could end a t only 5 places in the
haab on account of the common factor 73, and we find, in fact, the
top line of month dates showing only 5 places in the haab for the
end of Venus years, i.e., 7 Xul, 6 Kayab, 0 Yax, 14 Uo and 13
Mac. I n the bottom line of month dates, however, we find an
entirely different set of positions, i.e., 2 Kayab, 16 Chen, 10 Uo,
9 Mac and 3 Xul. These latter dates are uniformly four days
earlier in the year than the former ones, and a plausible explana-
tion is that when the accumulated error of the calendar amounted
to about four days a corresponding change was made to a new
calendar. This error was supposed to accumulate in about 61
Venus years. Now, using the first set of month positions in the
calendar where every fifth year ended with Ahau 13 Mac, we
find that the 61st Venus year ended by the calendar on 5 Kan
7 Xul. Deducting the four-day error, it actually ended on 1 Ahau
3 Xul, so we change to the bottom row of month positions and
our calendar is good for another 61 Venus years, when a new
four-day change must be made from 5 Kan 2 Kayab to 1 Ahau
18 Pop, etc. Having the system, we can easily recover the lists
used by the Maya during the period in question. Each date in
the following table is obtained by adding 61 Venus years less four
days to the preceding date. Seventy-three such dates in succes-
sion would make the complete circuit of the haab and return to
the starting zero date.
1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin 1 Ahau 18 Uo
1 Ahau 18 Kayab 1 Ahau 13 Mac
1 Ahau 8 Yax 1 Ahau 3 Xu1
402
TEEPLE] M A Y A INSCRIPTIONS 403

By inserting these six dates in this order a t the end of the fifth
year on page 50, and filling in the other month dates, we should
have a calendar good for 366 Venus revolutions, or nearly 600
years. It will be noticed that the second, fifth, and sixth dates
above are used below on Dresden calendar, and the fourth one is
inserted on page 24 with no series accompanying it and no ap-
parent purpose except to worry Maya scholars as it has done in
the past.
We know from the above that a t some time 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin
was a Venus calendar zero date, but this is only a calendar round
date whose position in the long count is unknown, and so we must
now turn from the Codex to the inscriptions, and, fortunately,
two of these are very clear.
Altar K at Copan, instead of an introducing Glyph, has a
Venustun sign which can likely only mean the end of a Venus
year. There is probably another Venus sign immediately after
the date in Glyph 7, (Maudslays drawing), though this may only
beanending sign. Thedate, asdeciphered, byMorley,is9.12.16.7.8
3 Lamat 16 Yax. Being Lamat this is probably a Venus calendar
date (only Ahau, Kan, Lamat, E b and Cib can end Venus years
in the calendar) and the actual Venus date may be 3 Lamat, or
may be 1, 2, 3, or even 4 days earlier depending on how long the
calendar has been in use.
Turning now to the calendar on pages 46-50 of the Dresden
Codex we find that 3 Lamat ends the 37th Venus year of whatever
calendar is in use at the time. Deducting 37 Venus years (3.0.0.8)
from 9.12.16.7.8 3 Lamat 16 Yax leaves 9.9.16.7.0 1 Ahau 3
Yaxkin as the zero date in use a t that time. We can now place
our other zero dates in the long count as follows: 4.18.17.0 apart:
9.4.17.8.0 1 Ahau 13 Kankin
9.9.16.7.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin
9.14.15.6.0 1 Ahau 18 Kayab
Probably omitted 1 Ahau 8 Yax
9.19.7.14.0 1 Ahau 18 Uo
10.4.6.13.0 1 Ahau 13 Mac
10.9.5.12.0 1 Ahau 3 Xul, etc.
In passing from 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin to the next zero date we can
either add 61 x 584-four days to 9.9.16.7.0 thus reaching 1 Ahau
404 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N.s., 28, 1926

18 Kayab a t 9.14.15.6.0, or we can subtract fourX584+four

days, giving again 1 Ahau 18 Kayab, then add two calendar rounds
to reach the beginning of the next calendar a t 9.14.15.6.0. The
latter was evidently the method used on page 24 of Dresden
Codex. Starting from 9.9.16.7.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin the scribe has
to subtract four Venus years and four days, i.e., 2340 days.
One hundred forty days takes him to 9.9.16.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu,
an important date to notice, and 2200 days more comes to 1 Ahau
18 Kayab. Adding two calendar rounds gives 9.14.15.6.0 1 Ahau
18 Kayab, the next zero date.
Instead of passing from one zero date to the next, one may
desire to pass immediately from one to the second or third ahead,
in which case the correction must be eight or twelve days, respect-
ively. For a four-day correction take the 61st year, for an eight-
day one, the 57th year, for a twelve-day one, the 53rd year, etc.
This gives the calendar round date, and the position in the long
count can easily be obtained by adding the proper multiple of
4.18.17.0 to the zero date used.
The correction of four days in 61 Venus years is not enough; it
should really be nearer five days, but the artificial nature of the
calendar demands a correction of four or a multiple of four. About
once in 300 Venus years it would be necessary to make an eight-
day correction instead of a four-day one to keep the calendar
and planet in accord. Suppose such a condition arose near the
end of the 1 Ahau 18 Kayab calendar, then, instead of changing
a t the 61st year to 1 Ahau 8 Yax, they would change at the 57th
year to 1 Ahau 18 Uo as the zero date, thus making an eight-day
correction. This would bring the 1 Ahau 18 Uo date and all
following ones back two calendar rounds, and would entirely
omit 1 Ahau 8 Yax as a zero date. Such a computation is indicated
by the numbers on page 24 of Dresden Codex, second row of
figures from the top. The number 4.8.12.0 recorded there is 57
Venus years with an eight-day correction, just what would be
needed to pass from 1 Ahau 18 Kayab direct to 1 Ahau 18 Uo,
if 1 Ahau 8 Yax were to be omitted entirely as a zero date. The
hext dumber 9.11.7.0 is the same 57 Venus years with an eight
day correction plus the regular 61 Venus years with a four-day
TEEPLE] M A Y A INSCRIPTIONS 405

correction. Again, it is just the amount needed to pass from 1

Ahau 18 Kayab, through 1 Ahau 18 Uo to 1 Ahau 13 Mac as
zero date, omitting 1 Ahau 8 Yax as before. The next number,
1.5.14.4.0, is the same as the first, 4.8.12.0, plus four complete
rounds of the Venus calendar or eight calendar rounds besides,
and I do not see its exact connection. It would reach to a 1
Ahau 18 Uo far later than the time when the latter was a zero
date for the Venus calendar. I t may be meant for the distance
between zero dates when one should be dropped i.e., using 5, then
dropping the sixth, but it is just twenty-six tuns too long for
this distance.
It seems a fair guess that these pages of Dresden Codex were
originally computed about the time that the calendar changed
from 3 Yaxkin to 18 Kayab about 9.14.15.6.0, and were copied
at a much later date, a t about the time they were needed, with
interpolation of 18 Uo on page 24 and of the 13 Mac and 3 Xu1
dates on pages 46-50, and possibly of the second row of figures
on page 24. Notice the gap of nearly two hundred years between
the time when the 18 Kayab calendar ended and the 13 Mac
calendar began, with nothing in the manuscript between except
the one interpolation of 18 Uo.
Turning again to the inscriptions, we have one other piece of
evidence for the position in the long count. The wooden lintel of
Temple C a t Tikal (Maudslay drawing volume 111, No.78) gives
a date 11 Ik 15 Chen which is usually and apparently safely
considered to be 9.15.12.2.2,ll Ik 15 Chen, andin the immediately
following Glyphs is a statement that the Venus year ended in
Kayab 24 days from a new moon day. Now the 10th year of our
1 qhau 18 Kayab Venus calendar would have ended on 9.15.1 1.10.0
1 Ahau 18 Kayab, and the actual appearance of Venus might have
been a day or two before a t 16 or 17 Kayab. There was a new
moon about 9.15.11.1 1.3, just twenty-four days after 17 Kayab, all
of which a t least is in agreement with our long count dates.
These are the only positive statements regarding Venus so far
found in the inscriptions. There are other references more or less
vague, such as the lintel of Temple 1 a t Tikal (Maudslay 3, 74)
where the Venus sign is near a Glyph which may mean 6 Caban
406 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. S . , 28, 1926

and may refer to 9.15.12.14.17 6 Caban 5 Zotz, which would be

about 122 days before inferior conjunction. Again, on Altar R
Copan is a Venus sign, but whether it refers to 9.16.12.5.17 6
Caban 10 Mol, which would be 109 days before inferior con-
junction, or whether to some other date is not clear. Stela J
a t Quirigua and Stela P a t Copan are no better. Stela K at
Quirigua displays the Venus sign prominently in the introducing
Glyph, but these late Quirigua stelae disagree with all other Mayan
monuments regarding the position of new moon, and so we should
suspect their statements on other astronomical data also. The
date which might be meant for the end of a Venus year is 1 Oc
18 Kayab 10.10 before 9.18.15.0.0, while the Venus calendar
calls for an ending exactly 2 years (2.0.10) later a t 3 Ahau 18
Kayab.
I feel reasonably sure that the above interpretation of the
Venus calendar in the Codex is correct. The position of the zero
dates in the long count is not so sure, but the only two direct
statements in the inscriptions agree with our dating, and in any
case a shifting of the zero dates through two calendar rounds,
which would be about the only change possible, would not affect
the Venus dates more than four days.
I n the matter of correlation of Mayan and Christian dates,
it was shown in previous articles that an eclipse of the sun occurred
on 9.16.4.10.8 or possibly 9.16.4.10.7, and that the sun passed
the moon's nodes on 9.16.4.10.6or possibly 9.16.4.10.7. Now we
may add that in the 1 Ahau 18 Kayab calendar the 18th Venus
year should end on 9.16.4.9.12 9 Eb 5 Kankin or somewhere
within the preceding four days to 9.16.4.9.8, and consequently
Venus at inferior conjunction should be between 9.16.4.9.4 and
9.16.4.9.8. Our problem then is to find an eclipse of the sun which
occurred between 0 and two days after the sun passed the moon's
node and between nineteen and twenty-four days after an inferior
conjunction of Venus. I am not an astronomer, but it seems likely
that not more than five or ten dates in a thousand years would
meet these conditions. At any rate, an examination of all eclipse
da'te5 between 462 and 517 A.D., (the date commonly assumed for
9.16.dl0.8 is from 480 to SOO), showed only a single one that even
TEEPLE] M A Y A INSCRIPTIONS 407

remotely met the conditions imposed; this was the eclipse of

November 2 2 , 504 Julian calendar. This eclipse occurred a little
less than two days after the sun passed the moons nodes and
twenty-three days after Venus inferior conjunction, thus answer-
ing perfectly. Until further evidence is brought forward I think
we may say that in the time of the Maya Empire 9.16.4.10.8
was November 22, 504. Brought forward to Spanish times this
would make 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin occur on February 22,
1545, O.S., or March 4,1545, Gregorian. According to this reckon-
ing the discrepancy that had arisen in the calendar by Spanish
times amounted to three tuns with some writers, six tuns with
others, and nine tuns with most, and this is why it has seemed to
me that for the calendar as used in Maya Empire times we must
depend primarily on the astronomical evidence in the inscriptions
and Codices.
If we assume that the Maya dropped out about every sixth
zero date, as I think they did in the case of 1 Ahau 8 Yax, (which,
of course, is an assumption) then we should a t present be using a
Venus calendar whose zero date was 13.8.0.0.0 1Ahau 13 Yax, and
the third year of the calendar would have ended on 13.8.4.15.12
11 Eb 0 Yaxkin, and the Venus conjunction would have been on
13.8.4.15.8 which was July 3, 1924, in our calendar. The actual
Venus conjunction occurred July 1, 1924, which is not bad agree-
ment for a calendar that was in use over 1500 years ago. This,
of course, shows the accuracy of the calendar and not the correct-
ness of the correlation.
Another possible date for 9.16.4.10.8 is June 6, 327, and this
satisfies our present conditions just as well as November 22, 504.
A casual survey shows no other entirely satisfactory dates between
the time of Christ and 1000 A.D. September 20,461, and August 8,
370, fall just outside our limits, but exact computation might show
them possible. I believe a competent astronomer could now study
the subject and give us a final decision on some one exact date.
This would be very desirable.
SUMMARY
1. The system and use of the Venus calendar in Dresden Codex
pages 24 and 46-50 is explained and the succession of calendar
round zero dates of the Venus calendar is determined.
408 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N.S., 28, 1926

2. By statements in the inscriptions these calendar round

dates are placed in the long count.
3. Knowing now in Maya dates the new moons, eclipses, days
of conjunction between the sun and the moons nodes, and the
conjunctions of Venus, we are able to specify a set of astronomical
conditions for a date like 9.16.4.10.8 12 Lamat 1 Muan, which
could recur only a t very long intervals.
4. These conditions lead to November 22,504, Julian calendar,
as the only possibility for 9.16.4.10.8 a t least between the limits
of 462 and 5 17 A.D.
5. According to this correlation a Maya New Years day
occurred on 13.8.5.9.17 9 Caban 0 Pop, which was March 9,
1925, in our calendar.
NEW YORKCITY.