man). 



44 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



namel}-, 4X65, 5X52, 10X26, 13x20, and 2x130. Tonalamatls 

 divided into 4, 5, and 10 equal parts of 65, 52, and 26 days, respec- 

 tively, occur repeatedly throughout the codices. 



It is all the more curious, therefore, that this period is rarely 

 represented in the inscriptions. The writer recalls but one city (Copan) 

 in which this period is recorded to any considerable extent. 

 It might almost be inferred from this fact alone that the 

 inscriptions do not treat of prophecy, divinations, or ritu- 

 ahstic and ceremonial matters, since these subjects in the 

 codices are always found in connection with tonalamatls. 

 If true this considerably restricts the field of which the 

 inscriptions may treat. 

 Fig. is. Sign Mr. Goodmau has identified the glyph shown in figure 

 mati ^(acTOrd- 18 as the sigu for the 260-day period, but on wholly insuffi- 

 to Good- cient evidence the writer believes. On the other hand, so 

 important a period as the tonalamatl undoubtedly had 

 its own particular glyph, but up to the present time all efforts to 

 identify this sign have proved unsuccessful. 



The Haab, or Year of 365 Days 



Having explained the composition and nature of the tonalamatl, 

 or so-called Sacred Year, let us turn to the consideration of the Solar 

 Year, which was known as Tiaah in the Maya language. 



The Maya used in their calendar system a 365-day year, though 

 they doubtless knew that the true length of the year exceeds this 

 by 6 hours. Indeed, Bishop Landa very explicitly states that such 

 knowledge was current among them. ''They had," he says, ''their 

 perfect year, like ours, of 365 days and 6 hours;" and again, "The 

 entire year had 18 of these [20-day periods] and besides 5 days and 

 6 hours." In spite of Landa's statements, however, it is equally 

 clear that had the Maya attempted to take note of these 6 additional 

 hours by inserting an extra day in their calendar every fourth year, 

 their day sequence would have been disturbed at once. An examina- 

 tion of the tonalamatl, or round of days (see pi. 5), shows also that 

 the interpolation of a single day at any point would have thrown 

 into confusion the whole Maya calendar, not only interfering with 

 the sequence but also destroying its power of reentering itself at the 

 end of 260 days. The explanation of this statement is found in the 

 fact that the Maya calendar had no clastic period corresponding to 

 our month of February, which is increased in length whenever the 

 accumulation of fractional days necessitates the adtlition of an extra 

 day, in order to keep the calendar year from gainuig on the true year. 



If the student can be made to realize that all Maya periods, from 

 the lowest to the highest known, are always in a continuous sequence. 



