Either reading is dubious. The scribe divided the lower half of page 3 into two parts, and drew in each the outline of five days; but then he saw that, to continue his work, he needed a long surface extending from left to right, and he therefore omitted filling in these two sections.
Pages 4a—10a.
We have here a normal Tonalamatl, which, however, was evidently meant by the author to serve a very special purpose, since he divided the first section of 52 days into no less than 20 parts of 2, 3 or 4 days. I give the following arrangement here, remarking, at the same time, that in one doubtful case (between the third and fourth groups) I deviate from my former plan:—
X 2, XII 4, III 3, VI 2, VIII 4, XII 2, I 2, III 4, VII 2, IX 2, XI 2, XIII 4, IV 2, VI 3, IX 2, XI 3, I 2, III 3, VI 2, VIII 2, X.
Since the five sections on page 4a begin with the days Imix, Ben, Chicchan, Caban, and Muluc, we have resulting from this and from the intervals specified, the following days:—
X Imix, XII Akbal, III Manik, VI Oc, VIII Eb, XII Cib, I Ezanab, III Ahau, VII Kan, IX Cimi, XI Lamat, XIII Oc, IV IX, VI Cib, IX Cauac, XI Imix, I Kan, III Cimi, VI Muluc, VIII Chuen, X Ben.
Now, however, in the "Globus," Vol. LXXIII, in my two articles entitled "Die Tagegötter der Mayas," I have expressed the opinion that there is good reason to believe that the scribe has made a grave mistake here.
I assume that the scribe simply transferred the so-called month days from the year just past to the year in which he was writing, in doing which they were, of course, moved five days on (since 365 = 20 × 18 + 5), but he did not bear in mind, that the pictures and the hieroglyphs could then no longer correspond. Hence the days must be not
Imix, Akbal, Manik, Oc, Eb, Cib, Ezanab, Ahau, Kan, Cimi, Lamat, Oc, Ix, Cib, Cauac, Imix, Kan, Cimi, Muluc, Chuen, Ben,