SELER] THE MEXICAN CHRONOLOGY 19 



And ill another place: Otra tie.sta hacian dc cuatro en ciiatro anos a 

 honra del fueoo, on la qual aliujeraban las orejas a todos los nines, v 

 la llaniaban pillauanaliztli, y en esta tiesta es verosimil 3- im^ conjeturas 

 que hacian ,su l)isiesto, contando seis dias de nemontemi ("They cele- 

 brated another festival every four years in honor of lire, in which 

 they pierce the ears of all the children, and they called it pillauanaliztli, 

 and in this festival it is probable and there are conjectures that they 

 made their leap year, counting six days as nemontemi''). 01)serve 

 the Father says: Es verosimil y ha}^ conjeturas ("It is probable 

 and it is conjectured"). He does not sa}^ that he has heard it, and, 

 indeed, there is not a word about it in the passag-es in question of the 

 Aztec text. Father Sahagun's conjecture is repeated as an actual fact 

 by later authors. The learned Dominican Father Burgoa gives it as 

 such in regard to the Mixteca and the inhabitants of Tehuantepec 

 (Geogratica Descripcion, quoted by Orozco y Berra, volume '2, page 

 13(i), without furnishing an}^ evidence for his assertion. On the 

 other hand, other ancient authors directly contradict this supposition. 

 Father Motolinia, who was one of the first missionaries to the country, 

 says: Los indios naturales de esta Nueva Espaiia, al ticMiipo que esta 

 tierra se gano y entraron en ella los Es])anoles, comenzaban su ano en 

 principios de Marzo; mas por no alcanzar bisiesto, van variando su 

 ano por todos los meses ("The native Indians of this New Spain, 

 at the time when this land was gained and the Spaniards entered into 

 it, connnenced their ^^ear at the beginning of March; but not under- 

 standing leap year they keep changing their year through all the 

 months"). Father Torquemada is of the same opinion. And the 

 author of the Chronica de la S. Provincia del Santissimo Nombre 

 de Jesus de Guatemala of the year 1683 remarks: Porque como ni 

 los Mexicanos ni estos (los Guatemaltecas) alcanzaron el bisiesto . . . 

 se apartabau y diferenciaban de nuestro calendario, 3' asi ni estos ni 

 los Mexicanos comenzaban siempre su ano a primero de nuestro 

 Febrero sino que cada cuatro anos se atrasaban un dia . . . ("Because 

 since neither the Mexicans nor these (the Guatemalans) understood leap 

 year . . . the}^ differed from our calendar, and so neither the}' nor 

 the Mexicans connnenced their vear alwavs at the tirst of our Febru- 

 ary, ])ut every four years the}' were behind one day . . . "'). Indeed, 

 had such an intercalation actually occurred, the period of 52 years and 

 the consequent further designation of the days in it would be an 

 al)surdity; or, at least, this intercalation must have been noted as an 

 important factor in every enumeration extending ovei- the pcM'iod of 

 four years. But I have not hitherto been able to lind any trace of if 

 either in the Aztec or the Maya manuscripts. 



Knowing the difhculty of establishing any agreement in tins way 

 between the old Indian chronology and the more correct European 

 computation of time, later writers have suggested that an entire week 



