The existence of the word tun-kul, which is either “stone-bowl” or “sound-bowl,” seems likewise to indicate that hollow stone vessels were used at one time as gongs. At the present day the Mayas name the small wooden drum of the Mexicans a “tunkul,” whereas its Nahuatl name is “te-ponaxtli,” the prefix of which, curiously enough, seems also to be connected with tetl=stone. A curious light is shed upon the possible use of some of the many stone vessels found in Mexico and Yucatan by the above linguistic evidence. In conclusion I quote Mr. Maler’s authority for two points concerning Chichen-Itza which are not generally known. First, that its name should be pronounced “Tsitsen-itsa,” and, second, that he saw there no less than five recumbent statues, holding circular vessels. Each of these figures exhibits the same form of breast-plate as the Le Plongeon example now at the National Museum of Mexico (pl. IV, fig. 1). Mr. Maler states that it seems to have been the tribal mark of the Cocomes, the whilom rulers at Chichen-Itza; but it is interesting to note the general resemblance of this ornament to the blue plaque worn by the Mexican “Blue Lord,” the Lord of the Year and of Fire, “Xiuhtecuhtli,” who is also usually represented with a Xiuh-tototl or “blue-bird” on the front of his head-dress. These facts seem to indicate that the characteristic breast-plate, instead of being a mark of the Cocomes, may have been that of the Tutul-Xius, and that this title has some connection with that of Xiuh-tecuhtli, the Mexican “Lord of Fire.” It has been already set forth in the preceding pages that the sacred fire was kindled in the stone vase held by the recumbent figures, a fact indicating that the identical form of cult was practised in Mexico and at Chichen-Itza. This identity is satisfactorily accounted for and explained if we accept the simple native records of the invitation extended to Mexican warriors by a Maya chieftain and their subsequent permanent residence in Yucatan.