THOMAS] SERIES ON PLATE 9 OP THE DRESDEN CODEX. 289 



Doubling the difference and adding we obtain the numbers over 

 the first column: 



1 4 15 



What adds to the difficulty is the fact that if the columns are taken 

 in reverse order the interval between the corresponding days is i 

 months and 11 days; that is to say, counting from 13 Ix, first day 

 of the fourth column, to 13 Chicchan, first day of the third column, 

 we find the interval to be exactly 4 months and 11 days; and the 

 same rule holds good throughout, so that reading across the upper 

 line of days, from right to left, and following with the second line 

 in the same way, ending with Akbal, the interval will be 4 months 

 and 11 days between the consecutive days. Another significant fact 

 is that by counting 4 months and 11 days from the first day of the year 

 1 Kan we reach 13 Ix; counting 9 months and 2 days from the same 

 date brings us to 13 Chicchan; 13 months and 13 days, to 13 Cib; and 

 1 year and 4 days, to 13 Manik, which corresponds with the regular 

 interval; it is therefore probable that there is an error in the numerals 

 over the first or left hand cohimn. 



It is apparent from the illustrations given that in numeral series of 

 the preceding type restorations can be made where not more than 

 two numbers in succession are wanting. Even three can generally be 

 restored if the niimbers preceding and those following the break are 

 distinct, but such restorations should be cautiously made. 



In the middle division of Plate 9 is a short series where the number 

 over the day column is wanting; moreover, there is uncertainty as 

 to the number of days in the column and as to the signification of 

 the red numerals, which are in pairs in Kingsborough's work instead 

 of single as iisual. Is it possible to explain these uncertainties and 

 to reduce them t« the usual simple form ? Let us make the trial. 



The days in the column are apparently the following: Ahau, 

 Muluc. Ix, Cauac, Kan. The symbols, except that for Cauac, are 

 too plain to admit of doubt, and there is no difficulty in reference to 

 Cauac, the question of doubt being with regard to the Ahau, which 

 is partially surrounded by other characters and may, apparently, be 

 as correctly considered a part of the hieroglyphic inscription as of 

 the day column. 



Counting on the list of days in the calendar (Table II), as, for ex- 

 ample, the Muluc column, we find the interval from Muluc to Ix is 

 r> days, from Ix to Cauac is 5 days, and from Cauac to Kan 5 days; 

 but the interval from Ahau to Muluc is 9 days. From this fact we 

 may reasonably infer that Ahau does not belong to the column. 

 Moreover, the other 4 days are the four year bearers, and when they 

 occur together the column usually consists of but 4 days, as, for ex- 

 ample, in the lowest division of Plate 39 of this codex and Plate 

 6 ETH 19 



