THOMAS] TABLET OF THE CROSS COS 
Neither of the two dates preceding the first series of the right slab, 
as determined by inspection of the inscription, makes a satisfactory 
connection with any preceding or following date; the proper day, but 
not the proper number, and even the day of the month, is reached, but 
there is no complete agreement, nor can the result be followed up 
with proof of its correctness. If we deduct 8 days from 8,034, the 
first numeral series of the right slab, and count back from 5 Cimi 14 
Kayab 10 Ben, we reach 13 Ahau 18 Kayab 1 Akbal, which may pos- 
sibly be the correct date following the first series in the middle space. 
But this will not connect with 9 Akbal 6 Xul by the intermediate 537 
days, but with 9 Akbal 6 Chen, year 13 Ezanab. However, if we 
deduct 8 days from 8,034, leaving 8,026, and count forward from 13 
Ahau 18 Kankin, year 9 Akbal, the second date of the middle space, as 
found by calculation from 9 Akbal 6 Xul 8 Ezanab, this will bring 
us to 5 Cimi 14 Kankin, year 5 Ben, which may be the second date 
of the right slab, though the month symbol appears to be that of 
Kayab, and is so interpreted in Maudslay’s drawing. This will change 
the days of the glyph T+ from 14 to 6, but these are exactly in the 
line of the break in the slab and haye been restored by Dr Rau. 
Nevertheless, as 5 Cimi 14 Kankin will not connect with any following 
date by the numeral series as they stand, the result is not satisfactory. 
The first date, 11 —? 20 Pop, if construed to be 11 Manik 20 Pop 5 
Lamat, will, by counting forward with 15,217, the seventh series, bring 
us to 5 Kan 12 Kankin, year 7 Ben, the date of the sixth series, except 
that the month is Kankin instead of Kayab as in the inscription. Can 
it be that these supposed Kayab symbols should be interpreted Kankin ? 
That some of them differ materially from the others is apparent. If, 
however, the date is construed to be 11 Ik 20 Pop, year 5 Akbal, and 
series 2 and 3 (4,749 and 123) be subtracted from the first ‘series 
(8034), the remainder, 3,162, will, by counting forward, reach 1 Kan 
2 Kankin, year 13 Akbal, the date following the first series except as 
to the month, which in the inscription appears to be Kayab, though 
uncertain. The day symbol of the first date, 11 —? 20 Pop, does not 
appear to be Ik, though too nearly obliterated to be determined by 
inspection. But it appears, on the other hand, as has been stated, 
that if we assume this tirst date to be 11 Manik 20 Pop, year 5 Lamat 
and count forward 15,217 (the seventh series), we reach 5 Kan 12 
Kankin, year 7 Ben, date of the sixth series except the month, 
which is Kayab in the inscription, or what has usually been taken as 
Kayab, and is of the form given in the Dresden codex to this month 
symbol. And lastly, it may be stated that Maudslay’s drawing is 
evidently intended to indicate Caban. As neither of these results can 
be followed up with other satisfactory connections they must be con- 
sidered as merely accidental coincidences. The same remark applies 
also to the next date, 5 Cimi (or Cib?) 14 Kayab. Nor can any satis- 
factory connection be made with the next date—1l Kan 2 Kayab. By 

