NUMERAL VALUE OF THE DAY SYMBOLS. 



The likeness of certain numerative characters to some of the day symbols led me to 

 believe that all the day signs were composed of parts representing numbers and that 

 each day symbol had a specific numerical value. Further study of the subject has 

 confirmed that belief. I have not succeeded in discovering the value of the constituent 

 parts of all the signs ; but so many of them are in accord with the ascertained value of 

 the same characters in other connections that their occurrence in the day symbols is 

 placed beyond the pale of accident, and the numerative quality of the day signs 

 themselves is thereby raised from a mere conjecture to an established fact. 



Tbe first resemblance that attracted my attention was that between the sign, or 

 signs, for Cimi and those which in so many instances demonstrably stand for 10. 

 Next, the character for Ik, in its use apart from a day symbol, appeared to me to have 

 a numeric significance, the exact value of which always centered upon 6. Now, starting 

 with Caban, Ik would be the sixth day and Cimi the tenth. This coincidence was too 

 remarkable to be passed by without further investigation, and so I arranged the day 

 signs in order, beginning with Caban, and sought to ascertain if there were any 

 recognizable features in the others. 



Several interesting things became apparent directly in this survey of the characters 

 in the light of possible numerals. The first was that the name of the third day, Cauac, 

 evidently implied half of six — ca, two ; uac, six. That three should be half of six was 

 not the astonishing part of it, for it did not require a Maya revelation to tell me that, 

 but the fact that a certain number of days should be halved was pretty strong evidence 

 that they constituted a period of some kind. If, beginning with Caban, Cauac was 

 mid-week, then Ik must be the end of the week. This was contrary to the teaching 

 of all the assumed authorities, for, without exception, they assert that the Maya week 

 was a period of five days, running from dominical to dominical. But I had learned 

 not to revere these authorities overmuch, and so I proceeded to ascertain to what 

 conclusions a week of six days would lead. It was apparent from the start that the 

 sixth, or extra day, would break the monotony of the count from dominical to dominical 

 — just as the year count is varied by an excess of five in the order of the days and of 

 one in their numeration — so that it would require twenty counts to make a complete 

 round of weeks, that is, before the week would begin again with the same day ; hence, 

 120 days, or the week-round, should be a notable period in their reckonings — a 

 conjecture I subsequently found to be true. It is just one-third of an ahau, and 

 therefore falls readily in with that style of reckoning, but it does not accord with the 



