Introduction
combined with the thirteen numerals, coincided with the solar year only once in 104 years. The observation of Venus-periods, which seems to be of earlier date than that of solar periods, afforded a check upon sun-time, and may have provided the Americans with a means of correcting their calendar at long intervals. Certainly they appear to have had no system of intercalary days such as suggested by Prescott. The word "Americans" has been used above advisedly, since the dating systems mentioned were all practised by the Maya long before the Toltec entered Mexico. A full discussion of the calendar as we now know it is impossible in an introduction such as this. I have dealt with the subject at length in my Mexican Archæology, and I would refer those interested in the subject to that book. Three points only need be mentioned here. Prescott refers to two series of gods associated with the count of days; nine "Lords of the night," and thirteen "Lords of the day." In addition it may be stated that the Tonalmatl was usually arranged in five columns of fifty-two days each. To each of the longitudinal and transverse columns a presiding god was assigned. The name of Huitzilopochtli, the tutelary god of the Aztec, is almost entirely absent, and when it does appear, it displaces the name of an earlier deity. This fact affords cogent evidence that this god was a late addition to the Mexican pantheon. The second point is this. Prescott states that the four signs used in denominating the years represented the four elements. The statement is definitely incorrect; the signs in question were associated with the four "world-directions," north, east, south, and west, which (often appearing as five, with the addition of the centre) constituted so important an element in Mexican, as it had in Maya, ceremonial. Finally it is worth pointing out that the occurrence of the number thirteen as a basic element in the American calendar, for which no satisfactory explanation is yet forthcoming, differentiates it from any other system of time-reckoning at present known.
As regards his treatment in general of Mexican religion, almost the only criticism which can in fairness be levelled at Prescott is that he might perhaps have made more extended use of Sahagun. But the principal weakness of this section of his work is due to the fact that the modes of thought and belief characteristic of primitive peoples had not been sympathetically and systematically studied. Prescott did not understand that the victim in the great festival to Tezcatlipoca was regarded as the actual incarnation of the god himself; and
xxix
