172 BUREAU OF AMERlCAlSr ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



the coefficient is partially effaced, enough remains to show that it 

 was above 5, having had originally more than the one bar which 

 remains, and less than 11, there being space for only one more bar or 

 row of dots. In all the previous Initial Series the cycle coefficient 

 was 9, consequently it is reasonable to assume that 4 dots originally 

 occupied the effaced part of this glyph. If the use of 9 cycles in this 

 number gives a terminal date which agrees with the terminal date 

 recorded, the above assiunption becomes a certainty. In B3 six 

 katuns are recorded. Note the ornamental dotted ovals on each 

 side of the dot in the numeral 6. Although the head for the tun in 

 A4 is partially effaced, we are warranted in assuming that this was 

 the period originally recorded here. The coefficient 10 appears 

 clearly. The uinal head in B4 is totally unfamiliar and seems to 

 have the fieshless lower jaw properly belonging to the tun head; 

 from its position, however, the 4th in the number, we are justified 

 in calling this glyph the uinal sign. Its coefficient denotes that umals 

 are recorded here. Although the period glyph in A5 is also entirely 

 effaced, the coefficient appears clearly as 0, and from position again, 

 5th in the number, we are justified once more in assuming that kins 

 were originally recorded here. It seems at first glance that the 

 above reading of the number A3-A5 rests on several assumptions : 



1. That the cycle coefficient was originally 9. 



2. That the effaced glyph in A4 was a tim head. 



3. That the irregular head m B4 is a uinal head. 



4. That the effaced glyph in A5 was a kin sign. 



The last three are really certainties, since the Maya practice in record- 

 ing Initial Series demanded that the five period glyphs requisite — 

 the cycle, katun, tim, uinal, and kin — should follow each other in 

 this order, and in no other. Hence, although the 3d, 4th, and 

 5th glyphs are either irregular or effaced, they must have been the 

 tun, umal, and km signs, respectively. Indeed, the only important 

 assumption consisted in arbitrarily designating the cycle coefficient 

 9, when, so far as the appearance of A3 is concerned, it might have 

 been either 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. The reason for choosing 9 rests on the 

 overwhelming evidence of antecedent probability. Moreover, as 

 stated above, if the terminal date recorded agrees ^\'ith the terminal 

 date determined by calculation, using the cycle coefficient as 9, our 

 assumption becomes a certainty. Designating the above number as 

 9.6.10.0.0 then and reducing this by means of Table XIII, we obtain: 



A3= 9X144,000 = 1,296,000 



B3= 6X 7,200= 43,200 



A4 = 10X 360= 3,600 



B4= OX 30= 



A5= OX 1= 



1.342,800 



