182 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [buli.. 57 



uinals. The kin coefficient in A7 is very clearly 6. Note the ' ' hatchet 

 eye," which, as explained on page 99, is the essential element of 

 this head numeral, and also compare it with figm-e 51, t-v. The 

 number recorded in A3-B7 therefore is 1.18.5.3.6. Reducing tins to 

 imits of the first order by means of Table XIII, we obtaiu: 



A3B3 = 1 X 144, 000 = 144, 000 

 A4B4 = 18X 7,200 = 129,600 

 A5B5= 5X 360= 1,800 



A6B6= 3x 20= 60 



A7B7= 6x 1= 6 



275, 466 



Deducting from tliis number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 14 

 (see Table XVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp. 139, 140, and 

 141), respectively, to the remainder, the terminal date reached wHU 

 be 13 Cimi 19 Ceh. If this inscription is regular, the day part of the 

 above date should follow in A8 B8, the former expressing the coeffi- 

 cient and the latter the day sign. Comparing A8 with the head 

 numerals in figures 51-53, it will be fomid to be like the second 

 variant for 13 in figm^e 52, x-h' , the essential element of which seems 

 to be the pendulous nose surmounted by a curl, the protruding 

 mouth fang, and the large bulging eye. Comparing the glyph in B8 

 with the day signs in figure 16, it \vill be seen that the form here 

 recorded is the day sign Cimi (fig. 16, li, i). Therefore A8 B8 

 expresses the day 13 Cimi. The month glyph is recorded very 

 irregularly in this text, since it occurs neither immediately after the 

 Supplementary Series or the day sign, but the second glyph after the 

 day sign, in B9. A comparison of this form with figure 19, u-v, 

 sho^\'B that the month Ceh is recorded here. The coefficient is 19. 

 Why the gl3T)h in A9 should stand between the day and its month 

 glyph is unknown; this case constitutes one of the many unsolved 

 problems in the study of the Maya glyphs. This whole Initial Series 

 reads 1.18.5.3.6 13 Cimi 19 Ceh. 



The student will note that this Initial Series records a date 14 days 

 earlier than the preceding Initial Series (pi. 12, A). That two dates 

 should be recorded which were within 14 days of each other, and yet 

 were more than 3,000 years earlier than practically all other Maya 

 dates, is a puzzling problem. These two Initial Scries from the 

 Temple of the Sun and that of the Foliated Cross at Palenque, together 

 with a Secondary-series date from the Temple of the Cross in the 

 same city, have been thoroughly reviewed by Mr. Bowditch (1906). 

 The conclusions he reaches and the explanation he offers to account 

 for the occurrence of three dates so remote as these are very reason- 

 able, and, the writer believes, will be generally accepted by Maya 

 students. 



