64 ORIGIN OF THE CALENDAR. [ 



BUREAU OF 

 ETHNOLOGY 



Accordiug to Mr. Ousliiug the Zuiiis assigned a special color to each of 

 the cardinal points (a custom by no means unconmiou ), while to the center 

 ov focus was assigned a mixed color, or, as they termed it, "speckled." 

 Now, Crawfurd says : * 



The Javanese cousider the names of the [live] days of their native week to 

 have a mystical relation to colors, and to the divisions of the horizon. Accordiug 

 to this Avhimsical interpretation, the first means white, and the east; the second 

 red, and the south; the third yellow, and the west; the fourth black, 3nd the north; 

 and the fifth, mixed color and focus or center." 



A precisely similar assignment is seen in the Mexican codices, as, for 

 example, on plate 12 of the Borgian codex, where a striped i>ersouage 

 is i^laced In the center. 



Thus it will be seen that the Polynesian calendar, or at least that of 

 Hawaii, possesses almost every essential feature of that in use among 

 the Mexicans and Central Americans. The only important feature of 

 the latter which has no parallel in the former is the division of the 

 year into eighteen months of twenty days each. So far no satisfactory 

 explanation of this peculiarity has been suggested. 1 am strongly 

 inclined to believe that it was not one of gradual growth, but made arbi- 

 trarily, by the priests, at some reformation of the calendar. If, as I 

 have suggested, the chief points of the calendar were obtained from 

 the Polynesians, probably at a comparatively recent date, the lunar 

 month, or month of thirty days, would have been the one received. On 

 the other hand, if it is of native growth, there can be but little doubt 

 that the month was originally based on the moon's revolution. In 

 either case, the change to a " month " of t wenty days is difficult to 

 account for, except on the supposition that it was arbitrarily made to 

 bring into harmony the various divisions and numbers used in the cal- 

 endar. Be the true explanation what it may, the evidence we have 

 presented of its relation to the Polynesian calendar is too strong to be 

 set aside as merely accidental. If my su})position i3roves to be well 

 founded, we nnist suppose the Zapotec to be the American original. 



The fact that the native Mexican and Central American calendar has 

 spread geographically over only the area designated by Dr. Brinton 

 in the above extract from his pajier, but is not confined to one particu- 

 lar stock, indicates that it had its origin in this area, or was intro- 

 duced here after the stocks found in this region had been differentiated 

 and had become located in this area. This, however, is not the jilace 

 to take up the discussion of the question of contact of tlie Avestern 

 coast tribes Avith the Polynesians, except as related to the calendar. 

 It may be observed merely that I expect to show in a jjaper relating to 

 the origin and signification of the symbols and names of the days and 

 months of the Central American calendar that some of the names were 

 probably derived from Polynesian sources. 



Indian Archii)elago, vol. 1, p. 290. 



o 



