CHAPTER II. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



The conclusions to be drawn tYom the foregoing discussion may 1)8 

 briefly stated as follows: 



First. That the codex in its i^resent form is comjiDsite, being made 

 lip from two or more different original manuscri])ts, as Dr. Forste- 

 mann has suggested. 



Second. That a number of minor changes and additions have been 

 made by a subsequent hand, possibly after it had assumed its present 

 form. 



Third. That the year referred to in the larger series is one of 300 

 days; also, that in instances of this kind the count is continuous, 

 and hence not consistent with the generally received idea of the 

 Maya calendar, in which the fmir year si/i-ics fnnns a necessary ])art 

 of the system, unless some (itlnT mrtlmil ,.t' arcountin^- tor tlic live 

 supplemental days can be disci ivt-n-il than that which has liithcrto 

 been accepted. 



Fourth. On the other hand, indications of the four year series are 

 certainly found in all of the Maya manuscripts; for example, in Plates 

 25-2S of the Dresden Codex and Plates XX-XXIII of the Manu- 

 script Troano,' which seem to be based on this series; in fact, the 

 numbers attached to the days in the latter can be accounted for in no 

 other way. Plates 3-G of the Cortesian Codex are apparently based 

 upon the same system. The numbers in the loops on Plates 71, 73. 

 and 73, Dresden Codex, heretofore alluded to and represented in Fig. 

 371. apparently defy explanation on any supposition except that they 

 refer to the numbers of the ahaues, which are based upon the four 

 year series." The frequent occurrence in connection and in proper 

 order of both the first and the terminal days of the year apparently 

 refers to the same system. Many of the quadruple series no doubt 

 relate to the four cardinal points and the fotir seasons; yet there are 

 some which cannot be explained on this theory alone. 



It is impossible, therefore, to exclude this system from consideration 

 in studying the chronology of the codices, although there are a num- 

 ber of the numerical series of the Dresden manuscript which cannot 

 be made to fit into it on any hypothesis so far suggested. The same 

 tiling is also found to be true in regard to some, in fact most, of the 

 series found in the Mexican manuscripts. This confusion jjrobably 

 arises in part from the apparently well established fact that two 



' See Study of the Manuscript Ti-oano, by Cyrus Thomas. 

 ^See note on page 337. 



