MOELET] INTRODUCTION TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS 247 



have shown, we are justified in assuming that the month coefficient 

 which should have been used in glyph 4 was 12, instead of 13. In 

 other words, the craftsman to whom the sculpturing of this inscrip- 

 tion was intrusted engraved here 3 dots instead of 2 dots, and 1 orna- 

 mental crescent, which, together with the 2 bars present, would have 

 given the month coefficient determined by calculation, 12. An error 

 of this kind might occur very easily and indeed in many cases may 

 be apparent rather than real, being due to weathering rather than to 

 a mistake in the original text. 



Some errors in the inscriptions, however, can not be detected by 

 inspection, and develop only after the calculations indicated have 

 been performed, and the results are f oimd to disagree wdth the glyphs 

 recorded. Errors of this kind constitute the second class mentioned 

 above. A case in point is the Initial Series on the west side of Stela 

 E at Quirigua, figured m plate 24, A. In this text the Initial-series 

 number recorded in A4-A6 is very clearly 9.14.12.4.17, and the ter- 

 minal date in B6-B8b is equally clearly 12 Caban 5 Kayab. Now, if 

 this number 9.14.12.4.17 is reduced to miits of the first order and is 

 counted forward from the same starting point as practically all other 

 Initial Series, the terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Kayab, 

 not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, as recorded. Moreover, if the same number 

 is counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which may have 

 been another starting point for Initial Series, as we have seen, the 

 terminal date reached will be 3 Caban 10 Zip, not 12 Caban 5 Kayab, 

 as recorded. The inference is obvious, therefore, that there is some 

 error intliis text, since the number recorded can not be made to 

 reach the date recorded. An error of tliis kind is difficult to detect, 

 because there is no indication in the text as to which glyph is the one 

 at fault. The first assumption the writer makes in such cases is 

 that the date is correct and that the error is in one of the period- 

 glyph coefficients. Referring to Goodman's Table, it will be found 

 that the date 12 Caban 5 Kayab occurred at the following positions 

 in Cycle 9 of the Long Comit : 



9. 1. 9.11.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9. 4. 2. 6.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9. 6.15. 1.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9. 9. 7.14.17 12 Caban 6 Kayab 



9.12. 0. 9.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9.14.13. 4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9.17. 5.17.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 



9.19.18.12.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 

 An examination of these values will show that the sixth in the list, 

 9.14.13.4.17, is very close to the number recorded in our text, 

 9.14.12.4.17. Indeed, the only difference between the two is that 

 the former has 13 tuns while the latter has only 12. The similarity 

 between these two numbers is otherwise so close and the error in this 



