S08 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [BTH. ANN. 19 
The names in italics are the supposed dominical days. Some of the 
names in these lists are but equivalents in the different tribal dialects, 
but this does not apply to all, as is evident from the efforts of Dr 
Brinton and Dr Seler to bring them into harmony. 
Although uniformity in the form of the day symbols does not prove 
identity in the names in the different tribal dialects, it tends in this 
direction, if allowance be made for the variation necessary to express 
the same idea, and undoubtedly indicates unity of origin. Take, for 
example, the day Votan in the Tzental calendar, which stands in the 
place of Akbal in the other calendars. The symbol of this day is 
remarkably uniform in all the inscriptions where it appears. The 
same is true in regard to Kan, Lamat, and Ezanab, which never 
appear as face characters. As it is admitted that Votan or Uotan is 
not equivalent to Akbal, Kat to Kan, nor Canel to Lamat, how are we 
to account for the uniformity of the symbols in the several regions 
that these tribes are known to have inhabited ¢ 
However, the widest variation between the historic evidence and 
that of the inscriptions is in reference to the names of the months. 
In regard to these, as given historically, it may be stated that those of 
the Maya (proper) and the Tzental-Zotzil and Quiche-Cakchiquel 
groups differed throughout, morphologically and in signification, so 
far as the latter has been determined, no name in one being the same, 
save in a single instance, as that in another. As compared with those 
in the Maya calendar, which have already been given, those of the 
Tzental were 1, Tzun, 2, Batzul, 3, Sisac, etc.; those of the Quiche, 
1, Tequexepual, 2, Tziba pop, 3, Zac, 4, Ch’ab, ete., differing in like 
manner throughout. So widely different, in fact, are they, that Dr 
Brinton and Dr Seler made no attempt to bring them into harmony. 
Now, in contrast with this, the symbols are not only comparatively 
uniform in the inscriptions, as is shown by the figures given in Mr 
Goodman’s work, but, with very few exceptions, correspond with 
those in the Dresden codex. There are also indications that the names 
were the same as those found in the Maya calendar. For example, 
the symbol of the month Pop is characterized by an interlacing figure 
apparently intended to denote matting; in Maya, Pop signifies ** mat.” 
The name of the fourth month, Zotz, signifies ‘ta bat,” and the sym- 
bol, which is always a face form, has an extension upward from the 
tip of the nose, presumably to indicate the leaf-nosed bat. But as 
conclusive evidence on this point, if Mr Goodman is correct in his 
interpretation, the month is designated on one of the Stelae at Copan 
by the full form of a leaf-nosed bat. So general is the uniformity of 
the month glyphs, both in the Dresden codex and in the inscriptions 
that Mr Goodman has not hesitated to apply to all the names of the 
Maya calendar, and to place side by side those of the inscriptions 
and those of the codex. ‘‘ There is not,” he says, ‘‘an instance of 
