Charles P. Bowditch

“ This is true in all five of the Books of Chilan Balam published by Brinton. But the reason of this is very evident, for it will be seen by a careful perusal that the word “ahaus” is never used when katuns in general are spoken of, and that whenever the word “ahau” is apparently given as a synonym of “katun,” it is [Pg 4] merely the name of a particular katun and it always has a number attached to it and this number is the number of the day ahau with which a given katun ended. Further, this number is never an ordinal number, as translated by Brinton, but a cardinal number. ”

“ It has long been well known that the Mexican numeration is vigesimal, and, as far as I know, there is no proof that it was ever used in the calculation of long reaches of time. The Cakchiquel numeration is also vigesimal, and Brinton states (Maya Chronicles, p. 44) that the Maya numeration is also vigesimal, giving
But this Maya system is never used in connection with days. Wherever a long number of days is referred to, we find invariably the following system in use:
And this system is, as far as we know, used for nothing else but for reckoning days. ”

“ Again in paragraph 9 we read “Bolon Ahau—lay katun yax ulci obispo Fray Fran’co to Ral huli tu uacpiztun ychil ahBolon ahau katun lae,” which Brinton translates “The ninth ahau—in this katun first came the bishop Brother Francisco Toral; he arrived in the sixth year of the ninth ahau katun.” It should be “9 Ahau—in this katun—in Tun 6 of Katun 9 Ahau.” This is the only place in the Maya where the words “ahau katun” appear together. But the context makes it clear that “ahau katun” is not a period of time. ”