THOMAS] TABLET OF THE FOLIATED CROSS 769 
Kayab; second, 8 Ahau 13 Uo will not connect with the following date; 
third, 8 Oc 3 Kayab will answer more requirements of the position than 
will 8 Ahau 13 Uo. Assuming 8 Ahau 13 Uo to be correct, the only 
connection is backward by the second numeral series, 17,764, with 2 
Cib 14 Mol, first date of the right slab. Assuming the date to be 8 Oc 
3 Kayab and counting forward 2,386 days, the third numeral series 
followed by no date, we reach 2 Cib 14 Mol, year 5 Akbal, which is 
presumed to fill the place of the missing date. Counting forward 
from this 604 days, the fourth numeral series, we reach 8 Ahau 8 Uo, 
year 7 Ben, the date which follows. I am inclined, though with con- 
siderable doubt, to accept this as the correct solution, as Goodman 
seems to have done, but it leaves us without any connection backward 
from 8 Oc 3 Kayab. Similar duplication of dates is found in the 
inscription of the Tablet of the Sun. 
In this case, as well as in the preceding inscription, if we count 
2,386 days (the number in the second series of the middle space in the 
Tablet of the Cross) from 8 Oc 3 Kayab in the middle space, we con- 
nect with 2 Cib 14 Mol, first date on the right slab. 
Let us examine now Goodman’s synopsis (page 766). By compar- 
ing it with the lists of the series of the Tablet of the Sun and the Tablet 
of the Foliated Cross (pages 761, 765), it will be seen that he begins 
with the first series on the left slab of the Tablet of the Sun (date 13 
Cimi 19 Ceh). His next series is the first of the left slab of the Tablet 
of the Foliated Cross (date 1 Ahau 13 Mac) the lapse between the 
two being 14 days. His next (3) is the second series, left slab of the 
Tablet of the Foliated Cross (date 1 Cauac 7 Yax); his next (4) is the 
third, left slab of the Tablet of the Foliated Cross. This skips over 
the second series of the left slab of the Tablet of the Sun (date 2 Caban 
10 Tzec). Moreover, the fourth series (4), which he gives here as 
2-20)—-20-18-20 (the 20s and 18 each being in fact counted by him as 
0, as can readily be shown by his own figures, 2-0—-0-0-0 making the 
connection he designates), is made not by adding the third series of 
the left slab of the Tablet of the Foliated Cross (1-14-14-0) to his 
series 3, but to series 2, the second series of the tablet (14-19) being 
included, as I have shown, in the third (1-14-14-0). In other words, 
the count from 1 Cauac 7 Yax to 2 Ahau 3 Uayeb is to be obtained by 
subtracting series 2 (14-19) from the third series (1-14-14-0), left 
slab of the Tablet of the Foliated Cross. The next three dates, 12 
Ahau 8 Ceh, 2 Cimi 19 Zotz, and 9 Akbal 6 Xul, appear to have been 
located by his theoretic scheme and not by the data obtained from 
the inscriptions. This may be shown as follows: 
From 2 Ahau 3 Uayeb, third series of the left slab of the Tablet 
of the Foliated Cross, he skips to 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, first series on the 
right slab of the Tablet of the Sun, making a jump from the begin- 
ning of the second cycle (2-0-0-0-0) of his fifty-fourth great cycle to 
