[82] As will be explained presently, the kin sign is frequently omitted and its coefficient attached to the uinal glyph. See p. [127].
[83] Glyph A9 is missing but undoubtedly was the kin sign and coefficient.
[84] The lowest period, the kin, is missing. See A9, fig. [60].
[85] The use of the word "generally" seems reasonable here; these three texts come from widely separated centers—Copan in the extreme southeast, Palenque in the extreme west, and Tikal in the central part of the area.
[86] A few exceptions to this have been noted on pp. [127], [128].
[87] The Books of Chilan Balam have been included here as they are also expressions of the native Maya mind.
[88] This excludes, of course, the use of the numerals 1 to 13, inclusive, in the day names, and in the numeration of the cycles; also the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, when used to denote the positions of the days in the divisions of the year, and the position of any period in the division next higher.
[89] Various methods and tables have been devised to avoid the necessity of reducing the higher terms of Maya numbers to units of the first order. Of the former, that suggested by Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 302-309) is probably the most serviceable. Of the tables Mr. Goodman's Archæic Annual Calendar and Archæic Chronological Calendar (1897) are by far the best. By using either of the above the necessity of reducing the higher terms to units of the first order is obviated. On the other hand, the processes by means of which this is achieved in each case are far more complicated and less easy of comprehension than those of the method followed in this book, a method which from its simplicity might be termed perhaps the logical way, since it reduces all quantities to a primary unit, which is the same as the primary unit of the Maya calendar. This method was first devised by Prof. Ernst Förstemann, and has the advantage of being the most readily understood by the beginner, sufficient reason for its use in this book.
[90] This number is formed on the basis of 20 cycles to a great cycle (20×144,000=2,880,000). The writer assumes that he has established the fact that 20 cycles were required to make 1 great cycle, in the inscriptions as well as in the codices.
[91] This is true in spite of the fact that in the codices the starting points frequently appear to follow—that is, they stand below—the numbers which are counted from them. In reality such cases are perfectly regular and conform to this rule, because there the order is not from top to bottom but from bottom to top, and, therefore, when read in this direction the dates come first.