morley] introduction TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS 201 



this reason it seems probable that the glyph which stood in Ao 

 recorded kins. 



Reducing this number to units of the first order by means of Table 

 XIII, we obtain: 



Deducting from this number all the Calendar Roimds possible, 76 

 (see Table XVI), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp. 139, 140, and 141, 

 respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be 

 9 Ahau 18 Yax, and the whole Initial Series originally recorded on 

 tliis monument was probably 10.2.5.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Yax. 



In figure 76, B, is shown Stela 2 from Quen Santo. The workman- 

 ship on this monument is somewhat better than on Stela 1 and, more- 

 over, its Initial Series is complete. The introducing glyph appears 

 in A1-B2 and is followed by the Initial-series number in A3-A5. 

 Again, 10 cycles are very clearly recorded in A3, the clasped hand 

 of the cycle head still appearing in spite of the weathering of this 

 glyph. The katun sign in B3 is almost entirely effaced, though 

 sufficient traces of its coefficient remain to enable us to identify it 

 as 2. Note the position of the uneffaced dot with reference to the 

 horizontal axis of the glyph. Another dot the same distance above 

 the axis would come as near the upper left-hand corner of the glyph- 

 block as the uneffaced dot does to the lower left-hand corner. More- 

 over, if 3 had been recorded here the uneffaced dot would have been 

 nearer the bottom. It is clear that 1 and 4 are quite out of the 

 question and that 2 remains the only possible value of the numeral 

 here. We are justified in assuming that the effaced period glyph 

 was the katun sign. In A4 10 tims are very clearly recorded; note 

 the fleshless lower jaw of the tun head. The uinal head with its 

 characteristic mouth curl appears in B4. The coefficient of this latter 

 glyph is identical with the uinal coefficient in the preceding text 

 (see fig. 76, A) in B4, which w^e there identified as a form for 0. 

 Therefore we must make the same identification here, and B4 then 

 becomes umals. From its position, if not from its appearance, we 

 are justified in designating the glyph in A5 the head for the kin 

 period; since the coefficient attached to this head is the same as the 

 one in the precedmg glyph (B4), we may therefore conclude that 

 kins are recorded here. The whole number expressed in A3-A5 is 



