[Aztlan] "Year bearer"

[Harold H. Green]

Listeros:

Thanks to those who responded to my earlier query regarding "tuun" and
"haab'".

I now find that I am equally troubled (and the research I have done  
only adds to
my confusion) as to whether "haab'" is restricted to the "chronological
unit" of the Long Count (360) and to the 360-day cycle, successive  
completions of
which were recorded on "lakam tuuns" (stelae) as "period endings," or  
whether
it was also actually used by the ancient Maya to refer to the so- 
called "vague year" of 365 days.

As quoted in my earlier post, Thompson states quite clearly that  
"there was no
year of 365 days, but one of 360 days, to the end of which were added  
the five
nameless days" (Thompson 1950:121). Long (1925) took the same position.

The term "year bearer" has become entrenched in the literature as  
referring
to the four days of the 260-day cycle that coincide with what is  
invariably assumed to
be the beginning of a new vague year (365-day cycle)(I believe there  
are three "sets" of "year
bearers," the K'an set,", the "Ak'bal set" and the "Ik' set,"  
depending on the time and
place being considered).

However, these four days of the 260-day cycle could just as easily,  
just as consistently,
refer to the commencement of a new 360-day cycle, if Thompson is  
correct that "there was
no year of 365 days, but one of 360 days, to the end of which were  
added the five unnamed days."

If Thompson is right about 360 vs. 365, and "haab'" means 360 days  
and cannot be shown
to have been used by the ancient Maya to apply also to a period of  
365 days, then the so-called
"year bearer" would more correctly be referred to as as the "bearer  
of the haab'" (haab' meaning
only 360-day cycle). And indeed, the Books of Chilam Balam refer to  
"ahcuch haab" which has been
translated as "year bearer" (referring to 365-day cycle) when it  
could be translated as "haab' bearer"
(referring to 360-day cycle).

There are examples in Classic period hieroglyphic texts, albeit rare,  
of "anniversaries" being separated
by a period of 365 days (e.g. Copan Altar U).  But such an  
"anniversary" ("the annually recurring date
of a past event," as we customarily understand the term) need not  
necessarily refer to the "annual"
(365-day) recurrence of an event, but could refer to recurrence of  
the same haab' day in a 360-day cycle.

Indisputably, 365 days were counted (observing the sun over time, it  
would be rather
difficult to ignore those extra five days).  The question, though, is  
whether the period
that mattered to the ancient Maya was the 360-day period "to the end  
of which were added
the five nameless days" (and it could also be said "uncounted days"),  
or whether it was really,
verifiably, and indisputably a period of 365-days.

As Long stated long ago, the so-called "xma kaba kin" were "days  
without name," "signifying
their unlucky character and their being regarded ... as being outside  
of and as it were supplementary
to the ordinary course of time" (Long 1925).

If these questions are not of general interest, I would be happy to  
receive responses off-list
from anyone else who is troubled by "year bearer."

Hal Green