Bnnton.] J JU [Oct. 6, 



Tzental, where both disagree with all the other dialects. But 

 these instances do not justify any conclusion. The possibility 

 remains that all five of the lists are derivatives from some older 

 and now lost series of day-names, such as we know existed 

 among the Mixtecas and among the Totonacos, tribes of ancient 

 culture, who made use of this Calendar at a remote date. 



In all five instances there is evidence that at the time of the 

 Conquest there was considerable uncertainty among the natives 

 themselves as to the derivation and literal meaning of many of 

 these names. Either they belonged to a much older and for- 

 gotten stratum of the tongue, or to a priestly and esoteric form 

 of speech, such as has been found among many native tribes on 

 the continent. But this esoteric speech is nearly always largely 

 archaic. 



§ 12. Analysis of the Month-Names. 



While the names of the twenty days of each month are prac- 

 tically identical in all the five languages under consideration, 

 the reverse is the case with the names of the eighteen months 

 which made iip the vague solar year. These differ widely in 

 tribes very closely related, as the Quiches and Cakchiquels ; and 

 even in the same dialectic area, as among the Nahuas. The 

 month-names of the last-mentioned have been carefully analyzed 

 by various writers, notably Dr. Seler, and I have not found the 

 names of the Zapotec months ; so I shall confine myself to an 

 examination of them in the Maya, Tzental, Cakchiquel and 

 Quiche dialects, and in the language of the Chapanecs. in which 

 he month-names, but not the day-names, have been preserved. 



THE MAYA MONTHS. 



The earliest authority for the names of the Maya months is 

 the Bishop Diego de Landa in his well-known description of 

 Yucatan, composed about the middle of the sixteenth century.* 

 Another list, not differing materially, was published b^' the Yu- 



* Landa, Relaclon de las Cosas de Yucatan. An edition with a French translation by 

 the Abb6 Brasseur (de Bourbourg) was published at Paris in 1S64. One more correct and 

 complete, in Spanish only, appeared under the editorship of Juan de Dios de la Rada y 

 Delgado at Madrid, in 1884. For a comparison of these, see my "Critical Remarks on 

 the Editions of Diego de Landa's Writings,"' in the Proceedings ot the American Philo- 

 sophical Society, 1887. 



