four years. Contrary to all the
Spanish authorities, Perez declared for twenty-four years, supporting
himself by "the manuscripts." It is true there are three of the "Books
of Chilan Balam"--those of Mani, Kaua and Oxkutzcab,--which are
distinctly in favor of twenty-four years; but, on the other hand, there
are four or five others which are clearly for the period of twenty
years, and of these Don Perez said nothing, although copies of more than
one of them were in his library. So of the epochs, or _katuns_, of Maya
history; there are three or more copies in these books which he does not
seem to have compared with the one he furnished Stephens. His labor will
have to be repeated according to the methods of modern criticism, and
with the additional material obtained since he wrote.

Another valuable feature in these records is the hints they furnish of
the hieroglyphic system of the Mayas. Almost our only authority
heretofore has been the essay of Landa. It has suffered somewhat in
credit because we had no means of verifying his statements and comparing
the characters he gives. Dr. Valentini has even gone so far as to attack
some of his assertions as "fabrications." This is an amount of
skepticism which exceeds both justice and probability.

[Illustration: SIGNS OF THE MONTHS, FROM THE BOOK OF CHILAN BALAM OF
CHUMAYEL.]

The chronological portions of the "Books of Chilan Balam" re[TN-1]
partly written with the ancient signs of the days, months and epochs,
and they furnish us, also, delineations of the "wheels" which the
natives used for computing time. The former are so important to the
student of Maya hieroglyphics, that I have added photographic
reproductions of them to this paper, giving also representations of
those of Landa for comparison. It will be observed that the signs of the
days are distinctly similar in the majority of cases, but that those of
the months are hardly alike.

[Illustration: SIGNS OF THE MONTHS, AS GIVEN BY BISHOP LANDA.]

The hieroglyphs of the days taken from the "_Codex Troano_," an ancient
Maya book written before the Conquest, probably about 1400, are also
added to illustrate the variations which occurred in the hands of
different scribes. Those from the "Books of Chilan Balam" are copied
from a manuscript known to Maya scholars as the "_Codice Perez_," of
undoubted authenticity and antiquity.[14-*]

The result of the comparison I thus institute is a triumphant refutation
of the doubt