Page:A Study of the Manuscript Troano.djvu/60

16 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. 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 and not of Ahau, as Brasseur supposed.

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