fOrstemann] the large NUMBERS 413 



IV 1. 1.272,544=4,894X260+104=12,230X104=13,984X91. 104 is the 

 distance from IV 17 to IV 1. Tbe number is 94,016 (=904x104) less 

 than 12 ahau katuns. 



IV 18. 1,272,921=4.895x260+221. 221 is the distance from IV 17 to 

 IV 18. It is also equal to 32,639x39 ; and 39 is the distance from IV 18 to 

 IV 17. The number is 93,639 (2,401X39) less than 12 ahau katuns 



VII 1. 1,535.004=5,903X260+224. 224 is the distance from IV 17 to 

 VII 1. It is also equal to 42.6.39X36; and 36 is the distance from Vll 1 

 to IV 17. The number is 168,444 (4,679X36) greater than 12 ahau 

 katuns. 



IV 19. 1,538,-342=5,916x260+ 182. 182 is the distance from IV 17 to 

 IV 19. It is also equal to 118,.334xl3. The distance from I\" 19 to IV 17 

 is 78=6X13. The number is 171,782 (1.3,214X13) greater than 12 ahau 

 katuns. 



Hei'e, indeed, remarkable results begin to be apparent through the 

 veil which still shrouds the secret of the construction of these num- 

 bers; but a relation which seems remarkable is not alwaj^s really so, 

 for it may often be only the mathematical result of some other rela- 

 tion already known. I have often been greatly pleased with some 

 result, until I perceived that it could not possibly have been other- 

 wise. 



Under four of the six large numbers there are calendar dates, which 

 I read correctly, it is true, in my former paper, but regarding the exact 

 significance of which I have only now obtained a clear insight. They 

 do not relate to the numbers actually written down in the manuscript, 

 but to their diminution by the encircled numbers, that is, to the days 

 III 2 and XIII 20. These diminished numbers are the following : 



III 2: 1,372,921-456=1,372,465 



XIII 30: 1,373,544-131 = 1,373,423 



III 3: 1,334,320-335=1,333,985 



XIII 30: 1,368,540-537=1,368,003 



Below these are the four dates: 



III 2 XIII 30 III 2 XIII 30 



13, 3d month 11, 1st month 13, 14th month 6, 18th month 



In my former paper I proved that my correction from 15 to 11 

 in the second date is justifiable. The second number is 42 less 

 than the first, and, in fact, the second date precedes the first by 42 

 days, both being in the year 4 Ix. The fourth number is 34,018 

 larger than the third, or, if we deduct a katun, 18,980 days, during 

 which time ever}' date is repeated, it is 15,038 larger; the fourth date 

 (in the year 7 Cauac), however, is distant from the third (in the year 

 5 Ix) 41 years and 73 days, that is, again 15,038 days. This justifies 

 my conjecture above, according to Avhich I read 17+ (2X2(50) ^537, 

 instead of the encircled numl<er 17, especially as obliteration is evi- 

 dent in the manuscript. 



