Although it is apparent that the variations from the intervals of the black numeral and day series above them are too numerous and too uniform to be considered mistakes, yet there is little reason to doubt that these month numbers are connected with and depend upon the day series given in the columns above.
That there are some errors is quite clear; for instance, the variation at a arises from the fact that Dr. Förstemann gives the date here as 10 months, 10 days, whereas the codex has it 10 months, 13 days. Making this correction the interval will be 4 months, 10 days. The correction will make the interval at d 9, 11, instead of 9, 8. Still there is a variation of two months from the usual interval, which, if corrected on the supposition that Dr. Förstemann has mistaken the month, would necessitate a change of the remainder of the series given in this line. The interval at c, according to the figure given by Dr. Förstemann, would be retrograde, that is, minus 12. This arises from the fact that he gives the last date in the middle line on Plate 47 as 2 months, 6 days, whereas the symbol is very distinctly that of the third month, and the eight day series is unbroken if this correction is made.
When these evident errors are corrected the series of intervals show very clearly a system and periodicity depending on the day column series in the upper part of the pages. In the first column ([Table V]) the interval is usually 4 months, 10 days, precisely the same as between the first and second day columns, but occasionally it is 4 months, 5 days, which will still bring it to one of the four day series, including the day indicated by the date—4 months, 10 days. This will be understood by examining our calendar ([Table II]). The corresponding days in the four year columns were, by the Maya system, necessarily brought together in the calendar; for example, they are arranged in the series pictured on Plates 13-18 of the Cortesian Codex precisely as given in our [Table II]. This skip of five days is also apparent in the second and fourth columns of differences ([Table V]). Whether Dr. Förstemann is correct in all his identifications of months among the symbols on the five plates now under consideration is a question I feel unqualified to answer without a much more careful comparison and study of these characters than I have given them.
Running through the upper division of Plates 53 to 58 and continued through the lower division of Plates 51 to 58—that is to say, commencing in the upper division of 53 and running into 58, then back to the lower division of 51 and ending in 58—is a remarkable compound series. It consists, first, of a three line series of black numerals standing above; second, a middle series of short, three day columns, or columns each of three day symbols, with red numerals attached; and, third, below, a two line series of numerals, those of the upper line red and of the lower black numbers.
As this series is a very important one in the study of the relations of the numerals to one another and to the days indicated, an exact copy of it is given in Figs. [363-370], each figure representing a page and the whole standing in the same order as in the original. The red numerals and red symbols are, as usual, given in outline as an indication of their color.
