The Aztec 260-day Count:
An augury table, not a calendar

Terry Stocker

ABSTRACT: building upon the author’s previous work, this presentation illustrates that the 260-day Aztec count has a lunar basis. It is demonstrated that the count is an augury table, not a calendar. Although by being synchronized with the solar calendar, it did have calendarical significance. Additional evidence demonstrates that Sahagun never interviewed a soothsayer. Also, the record presented in The Soothsayers is highly superficial, and heavily overcast with Christian influence, which probably accounts for its contradictions and mistakes.

Introduction

The primary intent of Stocker and Dodge (1993) was to demonstrate that two scribes were responsible for the rendition of the 260-day count in Sahagun’s The Soothsayers. A pivotal point in their presentation was the sign 12-Rain in the position of 12-Water, a blatant mistake that should not have been made, since 2-Rain is on the same line. This article reassesses the mistake and amplifies certain critical aspects for understanding the 260-day count. First, the 260-day count is an augury table, not a calendar.1 It is clearly stated in the beginning of Sahagun’s The Soothsayers,

Fourth book, which telleth of the book of days… This was order that the readers of the day signs might study the good and evil days. In it were set forth day signs here recounted, and how those would fare were on them (Sahagun 1979:1).

This message is repeated many times.

For it is no calendar but a soothsaying device in which are contained a great deal of idolatry, many superstitions, and many invocations to the demons… (Sahagun 1979: 141).

In fact, the book was titled by Sahagun De la Arte Adviniatoria (The Art of Divining). The reason modern editors Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson chose the title The Soothsayers has never been explained. Indeed, the book has nothing to do with soothsayers.

Second, I suggest that the number of days, 260, is derived by multiplying the Aztec’s mathematical base of 20 with the highest possible number of full moons in a solar year, 13.
Third, a general analysis will be presented as to how the days should be read and interpreted, thus elucidating why certain contradictions exist. The detailed underlying basis for the readings is presented elsewhere (Stocker n.d.). In this presentation, day names are presented with Arabic numbers hyphenated with the name. If a cycle is referred to, not just the day, the hyphen is eliminated and highlighted to making reading easier, for example 1 Rabbit. When citing Sahagun, the numbers are written out to comply with his format.