[886] 16th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am. Eth. 1894, p. xcvi. In "The Maya Year" (1894) Cyrus Thomas shows that "the year recorded in the Dresden codex consisted of 18 months of 20 days each, with 5 supplemental days, or of 365 days" (ib.). S. G. Morley points out (Bur. Am. Eth. Bull. 57, pp. 44-5) that though the Maya doubtless knew that the true length of the year exceeded 365 days by 6 hours, yet no interpolation of intercalary days was actually made, as this would have thrown the whole calendar into confusion. The priests apparently corrected the calendar by additional calculations to show how far the recorded year was ahead of the true year. Those who have persistently appealed to these Maya-Aztec calendric systems as convincing proofs of Asiatic influences in the evolution of American cultures will now have to show where these influences come in. As a matter of fact the systems are fundamentally distinct, the American showing the clearest indications of local development, as seen in the mere fact that the day characters of the Maya codices were phonetic, i.e. largely rebuses explicable only in the Maya language, which has no affinities out of America. A careful study of the Maya calendric system based both on the codices and the inscriptions has been made by C. P. Bowditch, The Numeration, Calendar Systems and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas, Cambridge, Mass. 1910. The Aztec month of 20 days is also clearly indicated by the 20 corresponding signs on the great Calendar Stone now fixed in the wall of the Cathedral tower of Mexico. This basalt stone, which weighs 25 tons and has a diameter of 11 feet, is briefly described and figured by T. A. Joyce, Mexican Archaeology, 1914, pp. 73, 74; cf. Pl. VIII. fig. 1. See also the account by Alfredo Chavero in the Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico, and an excellent reproduction of the Calendar Stone in T. U. Brocklehurst's Mexico To-day, 1883, p. 186; also Zelia Nuttall's study of the "Mexican Calendar System," Tenth Internat. Congress of Americanists, Stockholm, 1894. "The regular rotation of market-days and the day of enforced rest every 20 days were the prominent and permanent features of the civil solar year" (ib.).
[887] Spuren der Aztek. Sprache, 1859, passim.
[888] Linguistic and mythological affinities also exist according to Spence between the Nahuan people and the Tsimshian-Nootka group of Columbia. Cf. The Civilization of Ancient Mexico, 1912, p. 6.
[889] "Chiefly of the Nahuatl race" (De Nadaillac, p. 279). It should, however be noted that this general name of Chichimec (meaning little more than "nomadic hunters") comprised a large number of barbarous tribes—Pames, Pintos, etc.—who are described as wandering about naked or wearing only the skins of beasts, living in caves or rock-shelters, armed with bows, slings, and clubs, constantly at war amongst themselves or with the surrounding peoples, eating raw flesh, drinking the blood of their captives or treating them with unheard-of cruelty, altogether a horror and terror to all the more civilised communities. "Chichimec Empire" may therefore be taken merely as a euphemistic expression for the reign of barbarism raised up on the ruins of the early Toltec civilisation. Yet it had its dynasties and dates and legendary sequence of events, according to the native historian, Ixtlilxochitl, himself of royal lineage, and he states that Xolotl, founder of the empire, had under orders 3,202,000 men and women, that his decisive victory over the Toltecs took place in 1015, that he assumed the title of "Chichimecatl Tecuhti," Great Chief of the Chichimecs, and that after a succession of revolts, wars, conspiracies, and revolutions, Maxtla, last of the dynasty, was overthrown in 1431 by the Aztecs and their allies.
[890] H. Beuchat, Manuel d'Archéologie américaine, pp. 262-6.
[891] Named from the shadowy land of Aztlan away to the north, where they long dwelt in the seven legendary caves of Chicomoztoc, whence they migrated at some unknown period to the lacustrine region, where they founded Tenochtitlan, seat of their empire.
[892] "The gods of the Mayas appear to have been less sanguinary than those of the Nahuas. The immolation of a dog was with them enough for an occasion that would have been celebrated by the Nahuas with hecatombs of victims. Human sacrifices did however take place" (De Nadaillac, p. 266), though they were as nothing compared with the countless victims demanded by the Aztec gods. "The dedication by Ahuizotl of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in 1487 is alleged to have been celebrated by the butchery of 72,344 victims," and "under Montezuma II. 12,000 captives are said to have perished" on one occasion (ib. p. 297); all no doubt gross exaggerations, but leaving a large margin for perhaps the most terrible chapter of horrors in the records of natural religions. Cf. T. A. Joyce, Mexican Archaeology, pp. 261-2.
[893] A popular and well-illustrated account of Huichols and Tarascos, as also of the Tarahumare farther north, is given by Carl Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, 2 vols. New York, 1902.
[894] Cf. Hans Gadow, Through Southern Mexico, 1908, map p. 296, also p. 314.
[895] Quoted by De Nadaillac, p. 365.