subject. Glancing
back over the ground, we see there is nothing implying astronomical
knowledge, more than we would expect to find among a rude people. We
find there are several particulars of the Mexican system which we could
not understand, except by reference to the Maya system. It would bother
us to explain why they should choose the days Tochli, Acatl, Tecpatl,
and Calli, to be the names of their years, if we did not know how the
Mayas proceeded. We would be at a loss to explain why they choose the
number of fifty-two years for the cycle, and arranged their years in it
as they did, if we had not learned the secret from the construction
of the Mayas' almanac. From this comparison, we should say the Mexican
calendar was the simpler of the two. As the Mayas had twenty days in
the month, and, for priestly use, weeks of thirteen days, so they took
twenty years, which, as they imagined, were supported by four other
years, as a pedestal for their next longer period, the ahau; and for
apparently no other reason than that they had weeks of thirteen days,
they took thirteen of these ahuas for their longest period of time. They
did not use the cycle of fifty-two years, but they numbered their years
in such a way that, in effect, they were possessed of it. The Mexican
did away with all but the cycle of fifty-two years.

Illustration of Calendar Stone.---------------

No account of the calendar system of the Mexicans would be complete
without reference to the so-called calendar stone. The stone, the face
of which is sculptured as represented in this cut, was dug up from the
square in front of the cathedral of the City of Mexico, where it had
been buried in 1557. When the temple was destroyed, this stone still
remained entire. Finally the authorities, fearing it attracted too much
attention from the natives, ordered it buried. It was brought to light
again in 1790, but its early history was completely forgotten. The
astronomer Gama pronounced it a calendar stone, and his interpretation
of the characters engraved on it have been the foundation for the idea
that the Mexicans had considerable knowledge of astronomy.<79>
Prof. Valentine and others have, however, shown that it was simply a
sacrificial stone, which the artist had decorated in a peculiar manner.
This stone is considered by some to be so important that we will
condense Prof. Valentine's description of it as being the best at hand.
Not all of out scholars accept it,