954 NUMERAL SYSTEMS [ETH. ANN.19 
of the Mayan tongues, is the same as that for moon. This is also true 
of the Zapotec language, and Cordova (Arte Idioma Zapoteco) says 
that the people of this tribe even count by moons; however, the latter 
statement may apply to post-Columbian times. The names for month 
and moon are the same in Cahita, Othomi, and Zoque. This fact, 
and the further fact that substantially the same term has passed oyer, 
in some instances, from one linguistic family to another, as the Zapo- 
tec, peo or beo; Loque, poya; Kakchi (Mayan), po or poo, would seem to 
indicate an original lunar month. It is also true that the oldest 
inscriptions and the Dresden codex refer to a year of 365 days. How- 
ever, against this evidence must be placed the fact.that all the inserip- 
tions and codices base the time count on the twenty-day month, and 
the day numbering on 13, the latter also being a factor in other counts 
of the inscriptions and codices. The oldest evidence, therefore, to 
which we can appeal where numbers are used, agrees with the time 
system of the ‘‘native calendar.” 
That a change from a lunar count to a twenty-day period could have 
been made otherwise than arbitrarily seems impossible; we can not con- 
ceive how the one could have grown out of the other. This must have 
been true or the system must have developed with the growth of the 
number system; at least no other supposition seems possible unless we 
assume that two time systems, a secular and a sacred one, were in use 
at the same time, and that the latter finally obscured the former. This 
seems to have been the case with some tribes. If the supposition that 
the time system developed with the number system be correct, then 
the lunar period could never have been a factor. It is somewhat 
strangely in accordance with this supposition that the moon, so far as 
the aboriginal records and early authorities show, is almost wholly 
absent from the codices, and does not appear, so far as is known, in 
the inscriptions. 
Notwithstanding this negative evidence, I can not believe that a 
time system without reference to the lunar periods could have devel- 
oped among the tribes of the region of which we are treating. My 
conclusion is, therefore, that the priests at an early date adopted a 
method of counting time for their ceremonial and divinatory purposes 
which would fit most easily into their numeral system, and that this 
system, in consequence of the overwhelming influence of the priest- 
hood, caused the lunar count to drop into disuse. Moreover, the only 
native records which are available are those made by the priests for 
their purposes. This will probably account for the introduction of 
the twenty-day period, but does not account for the introduction of 
the 13. 
Dr Forstemann suggests that at one time the Mayas arranged the 
days of the solar year in four groups of seven weeks each, the week 
consisting of 13 days, the year being then counted as 364 days (4x 13 
