;}4() AIDS TO THE STUDY OF THE MAYA CODICES. 



,„ir, llir s,,lar v.-ar'hi m-, I i na ry nsr .-niiMi,- 1 1,,, p,.,,,,!,.. wliic-li may !..• 

 tcniK-atlif vulgar or (•(iiiiinniwali'iHlar; til. Mitlicr. til.' ivligimis calen- 

 dar used by the priests alone in arranging their leasts and ceremonies, 

 in which the cycle of 360 days was taken as the basis. But this sup- 

 ])()sitinn will not suffice as an pxj.lanation of somo of the long series of 

 tjic Dresden Codex, in which tlie yrarof :;i;i) days a]i|icars tohavebeen 

 taken as a unit of measure, unless we assunii — as Fiirstemann seems 

 to have done — that what have been taken as years are simply high 

 units and. counting the whole as so many days, refer the sum to the 

 cycle of 260 days, which will in almost every case measure them evenly 

 as a whole, or by its leading factor, 13. That the smaller series at- 

 tached to day columns are all multiples of 13 and referable to the 

 cycle of 360 days has been shown by Forstemann as well as in the 

 preceding part of this paper. But it is worthy of note that the diffi- 

 culty mentioned occurs only in reference to series found in that por- 

 tion of the Dresden manuscript which Forstemann has designated 

 Codex B (page 24 being considered as belonging thereto). 



The red unit number symbol, with a circle of dots around it, seen 

 occasionally in the Manuscript Troano, seems to have some connec- 

 tion with the four year series. Take, for example, the one in the 

 lowest division of Plate VII. 



The series commences in the lower right hand corner of Plate VlII, 

 where the day column with which it is connected is found. The 

 days of this column, reading downward, are as follows : Ahau, Eb, 

 Kan, Cib, Lamat. and the number over them is I, but without any 

 dots around it, while the terminal I of the series is inclosed in the cir- 

 cle of dots. What is the meaning of this marked distinction ? It is 

 evident that it is somethiiii;- which does not ai)ply equally to all the 

 daysof the columns; yet. as it is the teniiiiial immber, it must relate 

 to some one of them. If we examine the series carefully I think the 

 reason for the distinction will be explained. Written out in full, it is 

 as follows: 



I. 



Ahau 



Eb 



Kan \ 



10, XI: 10, VIII: 10, V: 10, II; ia[?], 



Cib 

 Lamat 



The last black number is 10 in Brasseur's fac simile, but shcmld be 

 12. Making this correction, the series is regular and of the iisual 

 form. The sum of the black numbers is 52, which is the interval be- 

 tween the days, and the number over the column is tlie same as the 

 final red niimber. 



If we turn now to the calendar (Table II) and select Ahau of the 

 Kan column, and 1, tlie seventeenth number of the eighth figure 

 column, and count 52 days, we reach 1 Eb, the second day of our 

 column as given above; 52 days more bring us to 1 Kan, the first 



