the following days: Kan, Oc, Cib, Ahaii, and Ik. From Kan to Oc is an interval of six days; from Oc to Cib six; from Cib to Ahau four; from Ahau to Ik two
Here we may be allowed to digress for a moment from the direct line of our argument in order to show how the discovery of this fact may enable us to determine an uncertain or obliterated character.[1] The right-hand column of the middle division of this plate (XIII) contains an unusual character bearing little if any resemblance to any of Landa's day characters. The days of this column, in the order they stand, are as follows: Oc, Ik, Ix, 
, and Ezanab. From Oc to Ik is an interval of twelve days; from Ik to Ix twelve days; from Ix to?(Cimi) twelve days, and from Cimi to Ezanab twelve days. We may therefore feel pretty well assured that this unusual character is a variant of Cimi[2] and not of Ahau, as Brasseur supposed.[3]
The right-hand column of the lower division of the same plate contains the same unusual character which, if counted as Cimi, gives an interval of six days between each two.
This regularity in the order of the days is sufficient to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they were not used on account of the signification of the words. In some cases the combination, if interpreted according to the usual meaning of the words, may, by a somewhat strained interpretation, be formed into a sentence, but such cases are exceedingly rare, only one having, so far. been observed, and here it is purely accidental.
The agreement between the characters found in the Manuscript and the order of the days as found in the Maya-calendar is also a strong proof that Landa was correct in the characters assigned and in the order of the days as he has given them. It would be impossible to find such a large number of agreements—more than 200 columns and over 1,000 days—if Landa were wrong in either respect, or if we were wrong in our interpre-
- ↑ This was written before I had seen Charency's papers on this subject.
- ↑ In a plate of the "Book of Chilan Balam of Káua," copied by Dr. Brinton in his article on the Books of Chilan Balam, presented to the Numis, and Antiq. Soc. of Phila., Jan., 1882, p. 16 one character for Lamat differs from this only in the middle stroke sloping to the left instead of to the right as this does. Leon de Rosny (Essay Dechiff. Ecrit. Hierat., 1st Livr., 17) interprets it as I do.
- ↑ Nor of Caban as interpreted by Charency (Dechif. des Ecrit. Calcul, Mayas, &c., 1879, p. 26).
