30 A STUDY OF THE MANUwSCRIPT TROANO. 



Ahaues as there given: the first commences with the year 1 Cauac, the 

 second with 12 Cauac, the third with 10 Cauac, and so on. As tlie great . 

 cycle contains thirteen of these periods, it follows that we sl\all find all these 

 numbers in it by thus dividing it. It is true this does not prove that the 

 first pei'iod was numbered 13; moreover it is possible (though I do not 

 think probable) that the number was not taken from that of the first day of 

 the year, but from the second, as suggested by Perez. According to the 

 theory advanced by this author these periods were numbered from the sec- 

 ond day of the Cauac years, which would necessarily be Ahau, -because, 

 as he supposes, some notable event in their history occurred on that day. 

 Even on this supposition the series could not commence with the first period 

 of the grand cycle, as this would be Ahau No 2, but would begin with the 

 second, which would be Ahau No. 13. 



It may not be improper to call attention at this point to a remark made 

 by Dr. Valentini in his article on the Perez manuscript (Proc. Am. Ant. Soc. 

 No. 74): "Nor do we understand the reason why, just here, the topic of 

 the succession of the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 1-', 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, was 

 introduced. Could it have been with the intention of showing that this 

 singular enumeration oi alternating Ahaues, which we shall hereafter speak 

 of, occurred only in cycles of twenty-four years, and that therefrom a proof 

 might be derived for establishing the pretended cycle of twenty-four and 

 three hundred and twelve years? Evidence of this should have been given 

 by a table showing the series, and by still another table in which should 

 be shown that such an alternating succession did not occur in cycles com- 

 posed of twenty years. Not one single fact can be detected in Senor Perez's 

 text by which the long established assumption of a twenty years' cycle has 

 been disproved." 



The object Senor Perez had in vicAv in introducing this series at this 

 point was for the very purpose of showing that this "singular enumeration" 

 could be obtained only by dividing the series into periods of twenty-four 

 years. As he was not fortunate enough to hit upon the plan of a table that 

 would bring this clearly before the eye, I call attention to Table XVII, 

 which nieets precisely the requirements of Dr. Valentini. Dividing it into 

 periods of twenty-four years will give this singular enumeration, while 

 dividing it into periods of twenty years will not. 



