The days below the second group, with the white and red striped individual, are 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, indicating the north, and those below the third, with the green individual, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, denoting the west.

So far the agreement with our theory of the other plate is perfect, but in this case we have taken the figures from the left to the right, this being, as we have seen in the Tonalamatl, or table of days, copied from this Codex, the direction in which they are to be read when in a line.

We notice also that the bird over the first tree, although differing in some respects from it, is the same as that in the top or red loop of the other plate, and that over the third tree the same as that in the blue or bottom loop, agreeing also in this respect.

From these facts we understand that the black figure is sometimes at least assigned to the south.

I am fully aware of the difficulties to be met with in attempting to carry out this assignment of colors, in explanation of other plates of this and other Codices, nor do I believe colors can be relied upon. They form some aid in the few plates of general application to the calendar, and where there are reasons, as in the cases given, to suppose the cardinal points will be indicated in some regular order. The same thing is true also in regard to the Manuscript Troano. For example, if we suppose character a of Fig. 7 to denote the east, b north, c west, and d south, we shall find them arranged in the following different ways:

Combine with these colors and other distinctive marks, then vary them in proportion, and we should have an endless variety, just as we see in the Mexican Codices. We can only hope to solve the problem, therefore, by selecting, after careful study, those plates which appear to have the symbols arranged in their normal order.

Turning to plate 43 of the Borgian Codex, we find it impossible to make it agree, either with the plate of the Fejervary Codex or the Vatican Codex. Here we find the days 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 associated with the green figure in the lower left-hand square; 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 with the yellow figure in the lower right-hand square; 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 with the black figure in the upper right-hand square, and 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 with the red figure in the upper left-hand square. What adds to the difficulty is the fact that the symbol of the Cane accompanies the black figure, thus apparently indicating that this denotes the year Acatl. That these groups are to be taken in the same order as those of Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex, that is around to the left, opposite the sun’s course, is evident from the days and also from Plate 9 of this (Borgian) Codex, where the twenty days of the month are placed in a circle.

In this latter the order of the four years is indicated by the first days of the years, viz, Cipactli, Miquiztli, Ozomatli, and Cozcaquauhtli placed in blue circles at the corners in the following order:

In the lower right-hand corner of Plate 4, same Codex, is a square with the four quadrants very distinctly colored and arranged thus:

and a large red circle in the center, on the body of what is evidently intended as a symbol of Cipactli. As this appears to be a figure of general application, we presume that it commences with Cipactli, the day on which the cycles began. As the four names of the days with which the years began probably show, as arranged in the above square, their respective positions in the calendar wheel, I infer that, in their normal arrangement, Cipactli corresponded with the red, Miquiztli with the green, Ozomatli with the yellow, and Cozcaquauhtli with the blue. This brings the colors in precise accordance with those on the cross in the lower right-hand square of Plate 43; and if we suppose the black figure to correspond with the blue it brings the colors in the same order, but the day groups are shifted around one point to the left. It is probable therefore that this plate, like a number of others in the same Codex, is intended to denote the relation of colors and day groups to each other in some other than the first or normal year, or possibly to the seasons or the four Indications of the cycle.

But be this as it may, I do not think the difficulty in reconciling the arrangement of the colors and days in this Codex will warrant the rejection of our explanation of the plates of the other codices. That Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex is one of general application must be admitted, as is also the “Table of the Bacabs” from the Cortesian Codex; and if the true assignment to the cardinal points is made anywhere it will certainly be in these. Turning now to the latter, as shown in our Plate II, where the erased characters are restored, we note the following facts, and then with some general remarks conclude our paper, as we have no intention of entering upon a general discussion of the Mexican Calendar, which would be necessary if we undertook to explain fully even the plates of the codices we have referred to.

As before remarked, the Cortesian plate is arranged upon the same plan as that of the Fejervary Codex, evidently based upon the same theory and intended for the same purpose. In the latter the four year symbols are placed in the outer looped line at the four corners, and so distinguished as to justify us in believing they mark their respective quadrants. In the former we find the four Maya year-bearers, Cauac, Kan, Muluc, Ix, in corresponding positions, each distinguished by the numeral character for 1 (see 31, 1, 11, and 21 in our scheme, Fig. 2), the first, or the right, corresponding with the green loop and the year Tochtli; the second, at the top, corresponding with the red loop and the year Acatl; the third, at the left, corresponding with the yellow loop and the year Tecpatl, and the fourth, at the bottom, corresponding with the blue loop and the year Calli. This brings Cauac to the south, Kan to the east, Muluc to the north, and Ix to the west, and the correspondence is complete, except as to the colors, which, as we have seen, cannot possibly be brought into harmony. This view is further sustained by the fact that the god of death is found on the right of each plate, not for the purpose of indicating the supposed abode of the dead, but to mark the point at which the cycles close, which is more fully expressed in the Cortesian plate by piercing or dividing the body of a victim with a flint knife49 marked with the symbol of Ezanab (the last day of the Ix years) and the symbol of Ymix, with which, in some way not yet understood, the counting of the cycles began.

In the quotation already made from Sahagun we find the following statement: “Tecpatl, which is the figure of a flint, was dedicated to Mictlampa, nearly towards hell, because they believed that the dead went towards the north. For which reason, in the superstition which represented the dead as covered with mantas (cloths) and their bodies bound, they made them sit with their faces turned toward the north or Mictlampa.”

Although he is referring to Mexican customs, yet it is worthy of note that in this Cortesian plate there is a sitting mummied figure, bound with cords, in the left space, which, according to my interpretation, is at the north side.

Since the foregoing was written I have received from Dr. D. G. Brinton a photo lithograph of the “wheel of the Ah-cuch-haab” found in the book of Chilan Balam, which he has kindly allowed me to use. This is shown in Fig. 9.

In this (smaller circle) we see that Kan is placed at the top of the cross, denominated Lakin, or east; Cauac at the right, Nohol, or south; Muluc at the left, Xaman, or north; and Hiix at the bottom, Chikin, or west.

Although this shows the marks of Spanish or foreign influence, yet it affords corroborative evidence of the correctness of the view advanced. The upper and larger circle is retained only to show that the reading was around to the left, as in the Cortesian plate.

This result of our investigations, I repeat, forces us to the conclusion that a, Fig. 7, is the symbol for east, as stated in my former work, b of north, c of west, and d of south.

Among the important results growing out of, and deductions to be drawn from, my discovery in regard to these two plates, I may mention the following:

First. That the order in which the groups and characters are to be taken is around to the left, opposite the course of the sun, which tallies with most of the authorities, and in reference to the Maya calendar confirms Perez’s statement, heretofore mentioned.

Second. That the cross, as has been generally supposed, was used among these nations as a symbol of the cardinal points.

Third. It tends to confirm the belief that the bird figures were used to denote the winds. This fact also enables us to give a signification to the birds’ heads on the engraved shells found in the mounds of the United States, a full and interesting account of which is given by Mr. Holmes in a paper published in the Second Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.50 Take for example the three shells figured on Plate LIX—reproduced in our Fig. 10—Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Here is in each case the four-looped circle corresponding with the four loops of the Cortesian and Fejervary plates, also with the looped serpent of the Mexican calendar stone, and the four serpents of Plate 43 of the Borgian Codex. The four bird heads on each shell are pointed toward the left, just as on Plate 44 of the Fejervary Codex, and Plates 65 and 66 of the Vatican Codex B, and doubtless have the same signification in the former as in the latter—the four winds, or winds of the four cardinal points. If this supposition be correct, of which there is scarcely room for a doubt, it not only confirms Mr. Holmes’s suggestions, but also indicates that the mound builders followed the same custom in this respect as the Nahua nations, and renders it quite probable that there was more or less intercourse between the two peoples, which will enable us to account for the presence in the mounds of certain articles, which otherwise appear as anomalies.

Fourth. Another and more important result is the proof it furnishes of an intimate relation of the Maya with the Nahua nations. That all the Central American nations had calendars substantially the same in principle as the Mexican, is well known. This of itself would indicate a common origin not so very remote; but when we see two contiguous or neighboring peoples making use of the same conventional signs of a complicated nature, down even to the most minute details, and those of a character not comprehensible by the commonalty, we have proof at least of a very intimate relation. I cannot attempt in this place to discuss the question of the identity or non-identity of the Maya, Toltec and Aztec nations, nor the relations of one to the other, but follow the usual method, and speak of the three as distinct.

If Leon y Gama is correct in is statement,51 “No todos comenzaban á contar el circlo por un mismo año; los Toltecos lo empezaban desde Tecpatl; los de Teotihuacan desde Calli; los Mexicanos desde Tochtli; y los Tezcocanos desde Acatl,” and the years began with Cipactli, we are probably justified in concluding that the Fejervary Codex is a Tezcucan manuscript.

Be this as it may, we have in these two plates the evidence of an intimate relation between the Maya and Nahua nations, as that of the Cortesian Codex certainly appertains to the former and the Fejervary as certainly to the latter.

Which was the original and which the copy is a question of still greater importance, as its proper determination may have the effect to overturn certain opinions which have been long entertained and generally conceded as correct. If an examination should prove that the Mayas have borrowed from the Nahuas it would result in proving the calendar and sculptures of the former to be much more recent than has been generally supposed.

It must be admitted that the Mexican or Nahua manuscripts have little or nothing in them that could have been borrowed from the Maya manuscripts or inscriptions; hence, if we find in the latter anything belonging to or found in the former it will indicate that they are borrowed and that the Mexican are the older.

In addition to the close resemblance of these two plates, the following facts bearing upon this question are worthy of notice. In the lower part of Plate 52 of the Dresden Codex we see precisely the same figure as that used by the Mexicans as the symbol of Cipactli.

The chief character of the hieroglyphic, 15 R. (Rau’s scheme), of the Palenque Tablet is a serpent’s head (shown correctly only on the stone in the Smithsonian Museum and in Dr. Rau’s photograph), and nearly the same as the symbol for the same Mexican day. The method of representing a house in the Maya manuscripts is substantially the same as the Mexican symbol for Calli (House). The cross on the Palenque Tablet has so many features in common with those in the blue and red loops of the Fejervary Codex as to induce the belief that they were derived from the same type. We see in that of the Tablet the reptile head as at the base of the cross in the blue loop, the nodes, and probably the bird of that in the red loop, and the two human figures.

What is perhaps still more significant, is the fact that in this plate of the Fejervery Codex, and elsewhere in the same Codex, we see evidences of a transition from pictorial symbols to conventional characters; for example, the yellow heart-shaped symbol in the lower left-hand corner of the Fejervary plate which is there used to denote the day Ocelotl (Tiger). On the other hand we find in the manuscript Troano for example, on plate III, one of the symbols used in the Tonalamatl of the Vatican Codex B and in other Mexican codices to signify water. On Plate XXV* of the same manuscript, under the four symbols of the cardinal points, we see four figures, one a sitting figure similar to the middle one with black head, on the left side of the Cortesian plate; one a spotted dog sitting on what is apparently part of the carapace of a tortoise; one a monkey, and the other a bird with a hooked bill. Is it not possible that we have here an indication of the four days—Dragon, Death, Monkey, Vulture, with which the Mexican years began?

In all the Maya manuscripts we find the custom of using heads as symbols, almost, if not quite, as often as in the Mexican codices. Not only so, but in the former, even in the purely conventional characters, we see evidences of a desire to turn every one possible into the figure of a head, a fact still more apparent in the monumental inscriptions.

Turning to the ruins of Copan as represented by Stephens and others, we find on the altars and elsewhere the same death’s-head with huge incisors so common in Mexico, and on the statues the snake-skin so often repeated on those of Mexico. Here we find the Cipactli as a huge crocodile head,52 also the monkey’s head used as a hieroglyphic.53

The pendant lip or lolling tongue, which ever it be, of the central figure of the Mexican calendar stone is found also in the central figure of the sun tablet of Palenque54 and a dozen times over in the inscriptions.

The long, elephantine, Tlaloc nose, so often repeated in the Mexican codices, is even more common and more elaborate in the Maya manuscripts and sculptures, and, as we learn from a MS. paper by Mr. Gustav Eisen, lately received by the Smithsonian Institution, has also been found at Copan.

Many more points or items of agreement might be pointed out, but these will suffice to show that one must have borrowed from the other, for it is impossible that isolated civilizations should have produced such identical results in details even down to conventional figures. Again we ask the question, Which was the borrower? We hesitate to accept what seems to be the legitimate conclusion to be drawn from these facts, as it compels us to take issue with the view almost universally held. One thing is apparent, viz, that the Mexican symbols could never have grown out of the Maya hieroglyphics. That the latter might have grown out of the former is not impossible.

If we accept the theory that there was a Toltec nation preceding the advent of the Aztec, which, when broken up and driven out of Mexico, proceeded southward, where probably colonies from the main stock had already been planted, we may be able to solve the enigma.

If this people were, as is generally supposed, the leaders in Mexican and Central American civilization, it is possible that the Aztecs, a more savage and barbarous people, borrowed their civilization from the former, and, having less tendency toward development, retained the original symbols and figures of the former, adding only ornamentation and details, but not advancing to any great extent toward a written language.

Some such supposition as this, I believe, is absolutely necessary to explain the facts mentioned. But even this will compel us to admit that the monuments of Yucatan and Copan are of much more recent date than has generally been supposed, and such I am inclined to believe is the fact. At any rate, I think I may fairly claim, without rendering myself chargeable with egotism, that my discovery in regard to the two plates so frequently mentioned will throw some additional light on this vexed question.