554 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 28 



68X1<^,980=15,4T8, but this equals 59X260+i;}S=42X3(;5-f 148. 

 From VIII 17 to III 15 is 138; from 13, l'2th month to 1(3, 1st month 

 is 148. 



In another case, where I combine the fourth iincl fifth dates with the 

 fourth period, I must hazard two conjectures. First, it seems to me 

 that in D 11 the actual starting point of Maya chronology, the eighth 

 day of the eighteenth month, is not designated by the same sign as in 

 C 4, but instead by the old god (Izamna), the lord of the day 17 

 standing beside it ; and, second, I believe that the indistinct prefix of 

 D 13 is to be read as 2. I^'hese postulates being accepted, we have the 

 following result : 



C 11 D 11 : X 17 ; 8, 18tb month. (2 Ix.) 



D 13, C 14 D 14: 2+12x20+3x360+18X7.200=130,922, 



E 1 F 1 : IX 19; 15, 12th month. (10 Mnhic.) 



If the number 113,880=6X18,980 is subtracted from 130,922, there 

 are left 17,042 days=65X200+142=46X365+252, and 142 is the 

 interval between X 17 and IX 19, while 252 is the interval between 

 8, 18th month and 15, 12th month. 



Perhaps it is also worthy of notice here that, if 20 years (20X365) 

 are subtrac;ted from 17,042, 9,742 days remain, which we recognized 

 as a recurrent and very remarkable number in the last part of the 

 Dresden codex (see Zur Entzifferung der Mayahandschriften, II, 

 pages 16 and 18). 



This number, 9,742, results still more directly if the second date is 

 combined with the fifth date just now inider discussion: 



D 3 C 4: IV 17; 8, ISth month. (9 Ix.) 



E 1 F 1 : IX 19; If), 12th month. (10 Muluc.) 



The two dates are indeed separated by 9,742=27X365 — 113 days, 

 for 9,742 equals 37X260+122=26X3654-252; but there are in fact 

 122 days between IV 17 and IX 19, and 252 days between 8, 18th 

 month and 15, 12th month. It is remarkable that this period of 9,742 

 days does not seem to be expressed anywhere on the inscription ; per- 

 haps it is denoted by a character still unknown. 



These examples will suffice to point out the way along wdiich fur- 

 ther investigation, not merely of this but of other Maya inscriptions, 

 must be pursued. And I have reasons for desiring an early successor 

 in this work. 



We have seen that as a rule each date is connected with the one 

 immediately preceding it, for I could proceed from the dates 1, 2, 4, 

 11, 12, 13, and 17 directly to 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 18. But I have 

 made a jump only from 1 and 2 to 6 and 5, though I will mention also 

 that I have jiunped from 1 to 7 for my own satisfaction, apparently 

 not incorrectly. 



It appears, therefore, that a more or less direct reference to the 

 starting points of the whole computation occurs in the three dates of 



