“Similar transfers were made at the commencement of the other years; at that of Muluc, first to the east, then to the house, and then to its final resting place on the north side; of Ix, first to the north, then to the west; of Cauac, first to the west, then to the south.

“This movement agrees precisely with the order given by Perez; the final resting places of their idols for the year being the cardinal points of the dominical days where he fixes them; that is, Kan at the east, Muluc at the north, Ix at the west, and Cauac at the south. There is, therefore, no real disagreement between these authorities on this point.”

Most of the modern authors who have touched upon this topic, although in some cases apparently at sea, without any fixed opinion on the subject, are disposed to follow Landa’s statement, without comparing it with his account of the supplemental days, and appear to rely upon it rather than upon the statements of Cogulludo and Perez; and hence they refer Kan to the south, Muluc to the east, Ix to the north, and Cauac to the west.

Brasseur, in his Histoire des Nations civilisées du Mexique et de l’Amérique Centrale,[18] assigns Kan to the east, Muluc to the north, Hix to the west, and Cauac to the south. But in his supplement to Études sur le Manuscrit Troano,[19] and in his note to Landa’s Relacion,[20] refers Kan to the south, Muluc to the east, Ix to the north, and Cauac to the west, although afterwards, in the same work, in a note to Perez’ Cronologia, he quotes Cogulludo’s statement without explanation or objection.

Dr. Brinton, in his Myths of the New World,[21] places these dominical days at the same points to which I have assigned them—Kan at the east, &c.—although referring in a note at the same place to the very page of Landa’s Relacion, where they are assigned as given by Rosny. In a subsequent work, Hero Myths, referring to the same passage in Landa, and with Cogulludo’s work before him, he assigns them to the same points as Rosny—Kan to the south, &c.—yet without any reference whatever to his former expressed opinion.

Schultz-Sellack, in an article entitled Die Amerikanischen Gotter der vier Weltrichtungen und ihre Tempel in Palanque, in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie for 1879,[22] comes to the same conclusion as Rosny.

Rosny’s opinion on this subject has already been quoted.[23]

From these facts it is evident that the assignment of the dominical days to their respective cardinal points has not as yet been satisfactorily determined, but that the tendency at the present day is to follow Landa’s simple statement rather than Cogulludo and Perez. This is caused, I presume, in part, by the fact that certain colors—yellow, red, white, and black—were also referred to the cardinal points, and because it is supposed that among the Maya nations yellow was appropriated to Kan, red to Muluc, white to Ix, and black to Cauac; and as the first appears to be more appropriate to the south, red to the east or sunrise, white to the north or region of snow, and black to the west or sunset, therefore this is the correct assignment.

But there is nothing given to show that this was the reason for the selection or reference of these colors by the inhabitants of Central America.

This brings another factor into the discussion and widens the field of our investigation; and as but little, save the terms applied to or connected with the dominical days, is to be found in regard to the Maya custom in this respect, we are forced to refer to the Mexican custom as the next best evidence. But it is proper to state first that the chief, and, so far as I am aware, the only, authority for the reference of the colors named to the four Maya days, is found in the names applied to them by Landa.[24]