F)C) CALENDAR Ol' THE IXSCKIPTIONS. [k^SIoov 



uificjuit that i I" tlu' four years above deteriiiiucd arc placed in [)roper 

 order, they will all fall in tlie same decade; tlius: 



a Akhal 7 (Lamat) S Ben I) (Ezanab) 



10 Alhal 11 (Lamat) 12 Ben 13 (Ezaiiab) 



Those in italics are the years determined by the symbols; the others 



are introdnced to show the order in which they must follow one another. 



On one of the casts made at Lorillard City by Charney, we find 8 

 Ymix followed by 14 — ( ?) [month not determined]. By turning to table 

 3, the reader will observe that Ynnx can be the fourteenth day of the 

 month only in Lamat years. As the »ame of the month is unknown, 

 the number of the year can not be given. 



It may be observed in passing that there appear, from Oharuey's 

 casts, to be two classes of inscriptions at this locality, one of which is 

 much older than the other, the former allied to but apparently older 

 than those at Palenque, and the other allied to those of Tikal. These 

 differences on the one hand and similarities on the other are quite 

 marked. 



On one of the Bernoulli inscriptions of Tikal, 3 Ahau is followed by 

 3 Mol (*?). Although the identification of the month symbol is not 

 beyond question, it is known that Ahau can be the tliird day of the 

 month only in Ezanab years. In the same inscription 13 Akbal is fol- 

 lowed by 1 — ('<)'[month unknown]. By reference to table 3, it will be 

 seen that this must be the first daj^ of the first or fourteenth month of 

 the year 13 Akbal. On the same inscription also 11 Ik is followed by 

 15 — (?) [month unknown]. As Ik can be the fifteenth day of the 

 month only in Lamat years, three out of the four year-series are thus 

 ascertained. The i^roof is therefore positive that the same calendar 

 system was used in the inscriptions at the three places named as in the 

 Dresden codex. 



It may of course be claimed that it does not necessarily follow from 

 the identity in form of the day symbols that the names were the same. 

 However, the evidence appears to be sufticient to prove that the calen- 

 dar system was the same, and to render it highly probable if not certain 

 that the significations of the day names, so far as determined, are sub- 

 stantially the same as those of the Maya calendar. It is true, though, 

 that several symbols are found in these inscriptions which have 

 numerals attached and apparently stand for days and months, yet are 

 wholly different from any found in the Maya codices; and this fact 

 indicates that the day and month names are not the same throughout, 

 and hence pertain to other but closely allied calendars. 



According to Dr. Brinton,* the dominical days or year-bearers of the 

 Tzental calendar were Lambat (= Lamat), Ben, C'hinax (= Ezanab), 

 and Votan (= Akbal). This is in precise agreement with the calendar 

 system of the Dresden codex and the inscriptions. 



*"The Native Calendar of Central America and Mexico," p. 12. 



