202 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



therefore 10.2.10.0.0. Reducing tliis to units of the first order by- 

 means of Table XIII, we have: 



A3 = 10 X 144, 000 = 1, 440, 000 

 B3= 2X 7,200= 14,400 

 A4 = 10X 360= 3,600 

 B4= Ox 20= 



A5= OX 1= 



1,458,000 



Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds 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 

 2 Ahau 13 Chen. Although the day sign in B5 is effaced, the coeffi- 

 cient 2 appears quite clearly. The month glyph is recorded in A6. 

 The student will have httle difficulty in restoring the coefficient as 

 13, and the month glyph is certainly either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh 

 (compare fig. 19, o and j), <[ and r, s and t, and u and v, respectively). 

 Moreover, since the month coefficient is 13, the day sign in B5 can 

 have been only Chicchan, Oc, Men, or Ahau (see Table VII) ; since the 

 kin coefficient in A5 is 0, the effaced day sign must have been Ahau. 

 Therefore the Initial Series on Stela 2 at Quen Santo reads 10.2.10.0.0 

 2 Ahau 13 Chen and marked the hotim immediately following the 

 hotun commemorated by Stela 1 at the same site. 



The student ^^all note also that the date on Stela 2 at Quen Santo 

 is less than a year later than the date recorded by the Initial Series 

 on the Temple lintel from Cliichen Itza (see fig. 75, B). And a glance 

 at the map in plate 1 will show, further, that Cliichen Itza and Quen 

 Santo are separated from each other by almost the entire length 

 (north and south) of the Maya territory, the former being in the 

 extreme northern part of Yucatan and the latter considerably to the 

 south of the central Maya cities. The presence of t^\'o monuments 

 so close together chronologically and yet so far apart geographically 

 is difficult to explain. Moreover, the problem is further complicated 

 by the fact that not one of the many cities lyuig between has yielded 

 thus far a date as late as either of these. ^ The most logical 

 explanation of this interesting phenomenon seems to be that while 

 the main body of the Maya moved northward into Yucatan after 

 the collapse of the southern cities others retreated southward into 

 the highlands of Guatemala; that while the northern emigrants 



1 At Seibal a Period-endiiig date 10.1.0.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Kayab is clearly recorded, but this is some 30 years 

 earlier than either of the Initial Series here under discussion, a significant period just at this particular 

 epoch of Maya history, which we have every reason to believe was filled with stirring events and quickly 

 shifting scenes. Tikal, with Ihe Initial Series 10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Ceh, and Seibal with the same date 

 (not as an Initial Series, however) are the nearest, though even these fall 10 years short of the Quen 

 Santo and Chichen Itza Initial Series. 



