m
for a doubt, it not only confirms Mr. Holmes's suggestions, but also
indicates that the mound builders followed the same custom in this
respect as the Nahua nations, and renders it quite probable that there
was more or less intercourse between the two peoples, which will enable
us to account for the presence in the mounds of certain articles, which
otherwise appear as anomalies.

_Fourth._ Another and more important result is the proof it furnishes of
an intimate relation of the Maya with the Nahua nations. That all the
Central American nations had calendars substantially the same in
principle as the Mexican, is well known. This of itself would indicate a
common origin not so very remote; but when we see two contiguous or
neighboring peoples making use of the same conventional signs of a
complicated nature, down even to the most minute details, and those of a
character not comprehensible by the commonalty, we have proof at least
of a very intimate relation. I cannot attempt in this place to discuss
the question of the identity or non-identity of the Maya, Toltec and
Aztec nations, nor the relations of one to the other, but follow the
usual method, and speak of the three as distinct.

[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Engraved shells from mounds.]

If Leon y Gama is correct in is statement,[51] "No todos comenzaban a
contar el circlo por un mismo ano; los Toltecos lo empezaban desde
_Tecpatl_; los de Teotihuacan desde _Calli_; los Mexicanos desde
_Tochtli_; y los Tezcocanos desde _Acatl_," and the years began with
_Cipactli_, we are probably justified in concluding that the Fejervary
Codex is a Tezcucan manuscript.

Be this as it may, we have in these two plates the evidence of an
intimate relation between the Maya and Nahua nations, as that of the
Cortesian Codex certainly appertains to the former and the Fejervary as
certainly to the latter.

Which was the original and which the copy is a question of still greater
importance, as its proper determination may have the effect to overturn
certain opinions which have been long entertained and generally conceded
as correct. If an examination should prove that the Mayas have borrowed
from the Nahuas it would result in proving the calendar and sculptures
of the former to be much more recent than has been generally supposed.

It must be admitted that the Mexican or Nahua manuscripts have little or
nothing in them that could have been borrowed from the Maya manuscripts
or inscri