MOHLEY] INTEODUCTION TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS 213 



We have recorded here four different dates, of which the last, 

 9.13.14.13.1 5 Imix 19 Zac, probably represents the actual date, or 

 very near thereto, of this monument.^ The period covered between 

 the first and last of these dates is about 32 years, within the range 

 of a single lifetime or, indeed, of the tenure of some important office 

 by a single individual. The unknown glyphs again probably set forth 

 the nature of the events which occiu-red on the dates recorded. 



In the two preceding texts the Secondary Series given are regular 

 in every way. Not only was the count forward each time, but it also 

 started in every case from the date immediately precedmg the num- 

 ber counted. This regularity, however, is far from universal in Sec- 

 ondary-series texts, and the following examples comprise some of 

 the more common departures from the usual practice. 



In plate 18 is figured the Initial Series from Stela K at Quirigua.^ 

 The text opens on the north side of this monument (see pi. 18, J.) 

 with the introducing glyph in A1-B2. This is followed by the Initial- 

 series number 9. 18. 15. 0.0 in A3-B4, which leads to the terminal date 

 3 Ahau 3 Yax. The day part of this date the student will find 

 recorded in its regular position, A5a. Passing over A5b and B5, the 

 meanings of which are unlaiown, we reach in A6 a Secondary-series 

 number composed very clearly of 10 uinals and 10 kins (10.10), which 

 reduces to the following number of units of the first order: 



A6 = 10X20 = 200 

 A6 = 10X 1= 10 



210 



The first assumption is that this number is counted forward from the 

 terminal date of the Initial Series, 3 Ahau 3 Yax, and performing the 

 operations indicated in rules 1,2, and 3 (pp. 139, 140, and 141, respec- 

 tively) the terminal date reached will be 6 Oc 8 Uo. Now, although 

 the day sign in B6b is clearly Oc (see fig. 16, o~q), its coefficient is 

 very clearly 1, not 5, and, moreover, the month in A7a is unmistak- 

 ably 18 Kayab (see fig. 19, d'~f). Here then instead of findmg the 

 date determined by calculation, 5 Oc 8 Uo, the date recorded is 1 Oc 

 18 Kayab, and consequently there is some departure from the prac- 

 tices heretofore encoimtered. 



Since the association of the number 10.10 is so close with (1) the 

 terminal date of the Initial Series, 3 Ahau 3 Yax, and (2) the date 

 1 Oc 18 Kayab almost immediately following it, it would almost seem 

 as though these two dates must be the starting point and terminal 

 date, respectively, of this number. If the count is forward, we have 

 just proved that this can not be the case; so let us next count the 



1 The writer has recently established the date of this monument as 9. 13. 15. 0. 13 Ahau 18 Pax, or 99 

 days later than the above date. 



2 For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902: n, pis. 47-49. 



