English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In my doctoral thesis (in prep.) I discuss in an appendix (title: Mistakes and "Mistakes": To the ambivalence of mistakes methodological problems at the example Codex Madrid 75-76 (orig. in German) whether a correction of mistakes can uncritically be done. This is done as an examplarian study of methods analysing mistakes at the example of the cartouche of day-signs (named thus by me) that is arranged around the central picture. (The correction itself isn't affected or doubted). Taken a casual distribution of the mistakes there as decisive criterion, one finds facts that can't be decided or are contradictory in tendency to the aim. At last, as result of case studies, it had to be concluded that the mistakes are intentional, set in directedly and can be interpreted without any contradiction in Codex Madrid (short: CM) as a reflex of the shift of yearbearers, and, second place, taken the numerical equivalents of the day-signs in the long-count, as a system grouping sidereal months. While there especially interested in the consequences in respect of the grades of complexity of texts and systems in Mesoamerican codices and Maya-inscriptions, a possible objection against result and election of CM 75-76 as object of study will be prooved on the soundness of its foundation. This objection might be formulated like this: The source CM 75-76 is because of faultyness and hasty of its drawing-style unreliable and therefore unfit for such an examination.

Mistakes and "Mistakes": to the Ambivalence of Mistakes. A Proof of Theses