THOMAS] INITIAL SERIES 8038 
and comments, we soon perceive that the data on which to base a 
decision in regard to his interpretation of these initial series are rather 
meager. In six of them the prefixed numerals are face characters, so 
that the result depends entirely on the correctness of Goodman’s inter- 
pretation, in regard to which the proof is as yet entirely lacking. 
A more thorough examination of all the inscriptions containing face 
numerals, including those of Quirigua, photographs of which are 
not yet at hand, is necessary before this question can be decided. 
There are two, I believe, in which connection can be made between 
the terminal date of the initial series and dates which follow. But 
this is not positive proof of correct rendering’ where the series runs 
into high numbers, as do all the initial series. This will be under- 
stood by the statement that one, two, or more calendar rounds may be 
dropped out of the aggregate and yet the result will be the same if 
the prefixed numerals are changed to accord with this result; in other 
words, the same remainder in days will be left in the one case as in 
the other. This is possible, but it is not possible to change the time 
periods so as to give the same result where the sum is less than a 
calendar round, as one of the higher periods embraces all and more 
than all the given lower periods. However, we may accept his inter- 
pretation where the terminal date of the initial series connects with 
the date which follow. The uncertain and somewhat suspicious ele- 
ment in the investigation is the evidence in some cases and indication 
in others that Mr Goodman has obtained his series not from the 
characters, but from his system. In these cases it is evident that 
connection of the terminal date by the series with the initial date 
proves nothing more than the correctness of his calculation. For this 
reason none of these are considered as evidence of the general use of a 
certain initial, except where there is connection with a following date 
through a following series. The two or three instances in which this 
is the case have been specially referred to. As bearing on this point, 
the following facts are noted: 
The initial series in the Temple of Inscription (4 in the above list) 
is so nearly obliterated, as appears from Maudslay’s photograph, that 
it is impossible to determine the prefixed numerals or the terminal 
date. The 4(katuns) is the only distinct number in the series. Enough 
of the day number, given by Goodman as 13 Ahau, remains to indicate 
that his rendering is wrong. There are (as is also shown in Maudslay’s 
drawing) two short lines denoting 10, but the dots or balls are obliter- 
ated; there is, however, the little loop remaining at one end. Asa 
rule which has no known exception, unless this be one, there are 
never more than two balls between these end loops, usually but one 
(see the quotation on this from Maudslay given above). As there 
would have to be three to give the 13, either Mr Goodman is wrong 
or the inscription is irregular. This series must therefore be excepted 
from those offering evidence in favor of this author’s theory. 
