I.

CONCLUSIONS.

The conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing discussion may be briefly
stated as follows:

First. That the codex in its present form is composite, being made up
from two or more different original manuscripts, as Dr. Foerstemann has
suggested.

Second. That a number of minor changes and additions have been made by a
subsequent hand, possibly after it had assumed its present form.

Third. That the year referred to in the larger series is one of 360 days;
also, that in instances of this kind the count is continuous, and hence
not consistent with the generally received idea of the Maya calendar, in
which, the four year series forms a necessary part of the system, unless
some other method of accounting for the five supplemental days can be
discovered than that which has hitherto been accepted.

Fourth. On the other hand, indications of the four year series are
certainly found in all of the Maya manuscripts; for example, in Plates
25-28 of the Dresden Codex and Plates XX-XXIII of the Manuscript
Troano,[339-1] which seem to be based on this series; in fact, the
numbers attached to the days in the latter can be accounted for in no
other way. Plates 3-6 of the Cortesian Codex are apparently based upon
the same system. The numbers in the loops on Plates 71, 72, and 73,
Dresden Codex, heretofore alluded to and represented in Fig. 371,
apparently defy explanation on any supposition except that they refer to
the numbers of the ahaues, which are based upon the four year
series.[339-2] The frequent occurrence in connection and in proper order
of both the first and the terminal days of the year apparently refers to
the same system. Many of the quadruple series no doubt relate to the four
cardinal points and the four seasons; yet there are some which cannot be
explained on this theory alone.

It is impossible, therefore, to exclude this system from consideration in
studying the chronology of the codices, although there are a number of
the numerical series of the Dresden manuscript which cannot be made to
fit into it on any hypothesis so far suggested. The same thing is also
found to be true in regard to some, in fact most, of the series found in
the Mexican manuscripts. This confusion probably arises in part from the
apparently well established fact that two methods of counting time
prevailed among both Mexicans and Mayas: one, the solar year in ordinary
use among the people, which may be termed the vulgar