736 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS LETH. ANN. 19 
the cycle symbol (see figure 11a); A+, B4, a face character and the 
katun symbol (see figure 107); A5, B5, a face character and the ahau 
symbol (see figure 94); A6, B6, a face character and the chuen symbol 
(see figure 87); AT, BT, an unknown character (dise with hand across 
it) and the symbol for day (kin) in the abstract sense, same as the lower 
portion of the symbol for the month Yaxkin. At AS, BS, a face char- 
acter and the symbol for the day Ahau; A9, B9, a face character and 
the symbol for the month Tzec. These are interpreted by Mr Good- 
man as follows: ‘*53-12-19-13-4+x 20—8 Ahau 18 Tzec”; that is to 
say, the fifty-third great cycle, 12 cycles, 19 katuns, 13 ahaus, +4 
chuens, 20 days, to 8 Ahau 18 Tzec. From this it is seen that be 
interprets the prefixed face characters as numerals, assigning to each 
a particular number determined by the minor details or otherwise. 
Omitting, for the present, consideration of the number given to the 
great cycle, let us see if there is any reason for believing that he is cor- 

rect in assigning numeral values to the face characters attached to the 
time-period symbols, or, as we term them, symbols of the orders of units. 
Taking the known time-period symbols in this series, observing the 
recular descending order in which they stand, and being aware of the 
fact that in several other similar initial series the face characters are 
replaced by the ordinary numeral symbols (balls or dots and short 
lines), the evidence seems to justify Mr Goodman’s belief. Another 
strong point in favor of this belief is that at AS, BS, and AY, BY, which 
contain the symbols for the day Ahau and the month Tzec, we most 
certainly find a date which could not be complete without attached 
numerals. As the places of the numerals are filled by face characters, 
the most reasonable conclusion is that they represent these numerals. 
The evidence therefore in favor of Mr Goodman’s theory seems to 
justify its acceptance. But here the question arises, what evidence 
have we that the numbers assigned to these face glyphs are correct 
Admitting that they are numeral symbols, it is certain that they do 
not indicate numbers higher than 20, almost certainly not exceeding 
19, as there are other symbols for full count or 20. It is also certain 
that the one attached to the symbol for the day Ahau does not exceed 
13. and that the one attached to the chuen symbol does not exceed 18. 
We are thus enabled to limit very materially the field of inquiry, but 
to be entirely satisfactory there must be actual demonstration. If 8 
Ahau 18 Tzee could be connected by intervening numbers with a 
following date this would be demonstration that the numbers given to 
the date symbols are correct. As will be seen farther on, Mr Goodman 
connects it by means of series 4 (left slab), given below, with 9 Ik 
(glyph E9); but the month date reached is 20 Chen instead of 20 Zac, 
as given in the inscription. While we may accept this as possibly or 
eyen probably a correct result, yet it is not demonstration; moreover, 
(what appears to be an equally probable and more acceptable explana- 
