_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 inscriptions; hence, if we find in the latter anything belonging to or found in the former it will indicate that they are borrowed and that the Mexican are the older. In addition to the close resemblance of these two plates, the following facts bearing upon this question are worthy of notice. In the lower part of Plate 52 of the Dresden Codex we see precisely the same figure as that used by the Mexicans as the symbol of _Cipactli_.