Chapter III. 

 CALEm)AK OF THE TXSCKIPTIONS. 



One important result of the proof herein presented — i. e., that the cal- 

 endar system of the Dresden codex was based on the year of 3G5 days 

 and the four year-series commencing- with the days Akbal, Lamat, Ben, 

 and Ezanab — is that it enables students to decide i)Ositively that the 

 same system was nsed in the inscriptions of Palenque, Lorillard City, 

 and Tikal. 



As proof of this, reference maybe made first to the following com- 

 binations of day and month synd)ols on the Palenque tablet. The 

 order in which the gly})hs of this inscription are to be read, as first 

 shown in my " Study of the Manuscript Troano" and now generally 

 admitted, is by double columns, from left to right, commencing at the 

 top; thus one reads across the top glyphs of the first two columns, 

 then the next two glyphs, and so on to the bottom. The scheme of 

 numbering the characters for reference is that adopted by Dr. Rau in 

 his "Palenque Tablet.'' 



On the right slab at T8 is the symbol 1 Kan, followed at S9 by 2 

 Kayab. This gives the year G Akbal. At SIO is 11 Lamat, followed 

 at TIO by Xul. As Lamat is the sixth day of the month only in 

 Akbal years, this gives 10 Akbal as the year. Attention is also called 

 to the fact that Kan is the second day of the month only in years com- 

 mencing with Akbal. It is evident, therefore, that the calendar sys- 

 tem of the Dresden codex is followed here. At TJ17, is 5 Kan, followed 

 by IL* Kayab, which refers to the year 12 Ben. But one month symbol 

 can be determined with certainty on the left slab. At D3 is 4 Ahau, 

 followed at C4 by 8 Cumhii, giving the year 8 Ben. There are other com- 

 binations on this tablet by which the year series in which they are found 

 may be ascertained, but the number of the year can not be determined 

 as the month symbols are as yet unknown. For example, at XIO is 7 

 Kan, followed at "Wll by 17 — ( ?) [month unknown]. As Kan is the 

 seventeenth day of the month only in Lamat years (see table 3, page 

 21), it is known to belong to this year series, but the number of the 

 year can not be determined without knowing the month referred to. 

 It is j)ossible that the month names used in this inscription are not the 

 same throughout as those which have come down to us ; or it may be 

 that the symbols of some differ from those found in the Dresden codex. 

 However, the symbols for Kayab, Xul, and Cumhu can be determined 

 with reasonable if not ])ositive certainty, a fact which, together with 

 the other agreements noticed, renders it quite certain that the system 

 followed in the two records is substantially the same. It is also sig- 



