S64 NUMERAL SYSTEMS (ETH. ANN. 19 
Quiche—As Brasseur’s orthography (Gram. Lang. Quiche, p. 141) 
differs considerably from Stoll’s, we give his list here: 
1 hun. 4 cah, or cahib. 7 vukub. 10 Jahuh. 
2 cab, or caib. 5 00, or oob. 8 vahxakib. 20 huvyinak. 
3 ox, or oxib. 6 yakakib. 9  beleh, or beleheb. 
Charencey follows this list, except in 8, which he writes varah. 
Quekchi (KCak’chi, or Cakgi)—Pinart (Vocabulario Castellano- 
Wak’chi, page 7) gives for 2, hab; for 4, kaaib; for 5, joob; for 6, 
gquakib; for 7, gukub; and for 8, guajxakib. Charencey (Melanges, 
page 64) gives for 1, hoon, for 2, cad; for 3, oi; for 4, cagi; for 5, 
joob; for 6, wakki; for 7, wuku; tor 8, wakshaki; for 9, belojem; 
and for 10, /ajegem. 
Mam—As Stoll gives another list (Sprache der Ixil-Indianer, p. 146) 
which differs somewhat from that given above, and as both vary from 
that given in Salmeron’s Arte y Vocabulario, page 156, this and Stoll’s 
second list are given here (7 being changed to /): 







Salmeron Stoll | | Salmeron Stoll 
| 
] hum hun if vuk vuuk 
2 k’ abe caabe | 8 vuahxak vuahxak 
3 oxe ox 9 belhuh belhoh 
4 k’iahe chyah | 10 | Jahuh lahoh 
5 hoe hue | 20 | vuink’im yuinqui 
| 6 | vuak’ak kak | | 
| 

When the names in these lists are examined, the following points 
appear worthy of attention in attempting to trace their origin and 
determine their signification. It requires but a cursory examination 
to see the very close agreement, morphologically, throughout; a fact 
which may reasonably be assumed as indicating that they had come 
into use while the ethnic group was still homogeneous, and before the 
tribal distinctions had become marked. This conclusion agrees with 
the inference drawn in our paper on calendar systems from a study 
of the hieroglyphics. As the names of the days in all the Mayan 
dialects are believed by Dr Brinton to belong ‘‘to an archaic form of 
speech, indicating that they were derived from some common ancient 
stock and not one from the other,” the close agreement in the numeral 
terms may perhaps justify the same conclusion in regard to them, espe- 
cially as it is generally true that the origin of the names of the lower 
numbers lies back of history. This similarity also agrees with the 
uniformity, in the different sections oceupied by the Mayan tribes, in 
the method of writing the numerals up to 20. 
The Chontal, Chattabal, Quekehi (or Kak’chi) and Txil names, and 
those in some of the other dialects, appear to be furnished with 
