THOMAS] TABLET OF THE CROSS (Sil 
suggestion, therefore, that the reckoning is to be from 1 Ahau 18 Zotz 
appears to be correct; at least it connects this date with that follow- 
ing the series, when allowance for the correction mentioned is made. 
Although this irregularity, of taking the series step by step from a 
given date for a time and then skipping back to another date as the 
starting point, arouses suspicion of something wrong in the proceed- 
ing, yet it occurs more than once both in the inscriptions and codices, 
and hence is not necessarily an evidence of error. The two dates 
which precede the first series indicate two points from which the count 
in some of the following series is to begin. Did we fully understand 
the intermediate glyphs, we should probably find this explained; at 
any rate we must follow at present what seems to be the most proba- 
ble rule, trusting that future investigation may correct any errors 
into which we have fallen. Mr Goodman, who has sought to learn 
the meaning of what he calls directive signs, says in regard to those 
connected with this series, ‘*‘ Two directive signs are identical with 
two of those used after 1 Ahau 18 Zotz to show the reckoning is 
from that date.” There is, however, but one that is similar, and it is 
an oft-repeated glyph. At any rate the proper result appears to be 
9 Ik 20 Chen in the year 12 Akbal, as in no possible way can 9 Ik 20 
Zac, which falls in the year 11 Akbal, be reached; and the day 20 Zac 
in the year 12 Akbal is 3 Ik, whereas the plan of the series appears to 
require 9 Ik. That the count should be from 1 Ahau 18 Zotz—that is, 
1 month back of 8 Ahau 18 Zotz—or that the 11 chuens in the numeral 
series should be 10, is shown in another way, thus: To obtain the lapse 
of time from the last preceding date, 9 Ik 15 Ceh, we deduct 9,200 days 
(third series) from 13,242 (fourth series), and from this deduct 2,982 
(first series), over which, as we have seen, the count skipped; this 
leaves 1,060 days. Counted forward from 9 Ik T5 Ceh (year 9 La- 
mat), this number of days brings us to 3 Ik 20 Yax in the year 12 
Akbal, just 1 month later than 20 Chen. This calculation is based on 
8 Ahau 18 Tzee as the starting point; hence we must count from 1 
Ahau 18 Zotz, or assume that the 11 chuens in the numeral series 
should be 10. That the 20 Zac is wrong seems to be evident. Basing 
the count on 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu and 8 Ahau 18 Tzee will bring the same 
result, as will be seen by subtracting 2,440 from 13,242 and counting 
forward from the former. 
The series (5 of the left slab) following the last date—9 Ik 20 Chen— 
as corrected, is described by Mr. Goodman as follows: *‘ The reckon- 
ing which follows, 3-6-10-12 x 2, from the beginning of the great cycle 
is correct. It is here the 5 Mol should have gone, that being the 
month date.” These number symbols, 3 cycles, 6 katuns, 10 ahaus, 12 
chuens, 2 days, which amount to 479,042 days, are followed at F12 by 
9 Ik without any accompanying month symbol. The cycle and ahau 
symbols in this instance are face forms. By assuming as the month 

