154 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



(liHerent date — 2 Ahau 3 Cumhu, 2 Ahau 3 Zotz, and 2 Ahau 13 Yax. 

 In these pages the month signs, with a few exceptions, do not follow 

 immediately the chiys to which they belong, but on the contrary they 

 are separated from them by several intervening glyphs. This abbre- 

 viation in the record of these dates was doubtless prompted by the 

 desire or necessity for economizing space. In the above example, 

 instead of repeating the 2 Ahau with each of the two lower month 

 signs, 3 Zotz and 13 Yax, by writing it once above the upper month 

 sign, 3 Cumhu, the scribe intended that it should be used in turn 

 with each one of the three month signs standing below it, to form three 

 different dates, saving by tliis abbreviation the space of two glyphs, 

 that is, double the space occupied by 2 Ahau. 



With the exception of the Initial-series dates in the inscriptions 

 and the Venus-Solar dates on pages 46-50 of the Dresden Codex, we 

 may say that the regular position of the month glyphs in Maya writing 

 was immediately f oUowdng the day glyphs whose positions in the year 

 they severally designated. 



In closing the presentation of this last step in the process of deci- 

 phering numbers in the texts, the great value of the terminal date 

 as a final check for all the calculations involved under steps 1-4 

 (pp. 134-151) should be pointed out. If after having worked out 

 the terminal date of a given number according to these rules the ter- 

 minal date thus found should differ from that actually recorded under 

 step 5, we must accept one of the following alternatives: 



1. There is an error in our own calculations; or 



2. There is an error in the original text; or 



3. The case in point lies without the operation of our rules. 

 It is always safe for the beginner to proceed on the assumption that 

 the first of the above alternatives is the cause of the error; in other 

 words, that his own calculations are at fault. If the terminal date as 

 calculated does not agree with the terminal date as recorded, the 

 student should repeat liis calculations several times, checking up each 

 operation in order to eliminate the possibility of a purely arithmetical 

 error, as a mistake in multiplication. After all attempts to reach 

 the recorded terminal date by counting the given number from the 

 starting point have failed, the process should be reversed and the 

 attempt made to reach the starting point by counting backward the 

 given number from its recorded terminal date. Sometimes this 

 reverse process will work out correctly, showing that there must be 

 some arithmetical error in our original calculations wliich we have 

 failed to detect. However, when both processes have failed several 

 times to connect the starting point with the recorded terminal date 

 by use of the given number, there remains the possibility that either 

 the starting point or the terminal date, or perhaps both, do not 

 belong to the given number. The rules for determining this fact 



