If I am correct in my supposition, we then have one clue to, if not a full explanation of, the method of obtaining the day columns in the Manuscript Troano.
Not this only, for this table of the Codex Peresianus furnishes us also the explanation of the red numerals found over the day columns in the Manuscript Troano. Take, for example, Plate XIX, first or upper division, given also in my Study of The Manuscript Troano, p. 176, here the number is IV, corresponding with column 4 of the above table ([V]), where the days are the same and the numeral prefixed to each day is 4. Plate XXVI (Study Manuscript Troano, p. 177), lower division, the days are the same and the number over the column is XIII, corresponding with the sixth column of [Table V]. This corroborates the opinion I expressed in my former work, that the number over the column was to be applied to each day of the column.
Why is the order of the numerals in the extract from the Codex Peresianus precisely the same as the numbering of the Ahaues? I answer, because each column, if taken as referring to the four classes of years, will, when the number of the month is given, determine just the years of an Ahau; or a fancy of the artist to follow an order considered sacred.
To illustrate, let us take the next to the right-hand column of the table where the numeral is 1, and let us assume the month to be Pop, or the 1st. Then we have 1 Cib, 1 Ahau, 1 Kan, 1 Lamat, and 1 Eb of the first month, and from this data we are to find the years. As there can be four years found to each of these days, that is a Cauac year with 1 Cib in the first month, a Muluc year with one Cib in the first month, a Kan year with one Cib in the first month, an Ix year with one Cib in the first month, a Kan year with one Ahau in the first month, &c., it is evident that there will be, as the total result, just twenty years.
As I cannot repeat here, without occupying too much space, the method of finding the years, I must refer the reader to Study Manuscript Troano, p. 23, et al. Hunting them out, by using our [Table III], we find them to be as follows:
| 1 | Cib. | 1 | Ahau. | 1. | Kan. | 1. | Lamat. | 1 | Eb. | |
| Years | 10 | Cauac. | 13 | Cauac. | 9 | Cauac. | 5 | Cauac. | 1 | Cauac. |
| Years | 2 | Kan. | 11 | Kan. | 1 | Kan. | 10 | Kan. | 6 | Kan. |
| Years | 7 | Muluc. | 3 | Muluc. | 12 | Muluc. | 8 | Muluc. | 11 | Muluc. |
| Years | 12 | Ix. | 8 | Ix. | 4 | Ix. | 13 | Ix. | 9 | Ix. |
If we turn now to Table XVII (Study Manuscript Troano p. 44), we will find that these are precisely the counted years (those in the space inclosed by the dotted lines) in Ahau number VI.