270 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



ancient scribe intended to write instead 3 Chicchan 18 Zip, the date 

 indicated by the calculations. We probably have here: 



8.16.15.16. 1 (4 Imix 9 Mol) 



1. 4.16 Backward 

 8.16.14.11.5 3 Chicchan 18 ^ Zip 



In these calculations the terminal date of the Initial Series, 4 Imix 

 9 Mol, is suppressed, and the only date given is 3 Chicchan 18 Zip, 

 the terminal date of the Secondary Series. 



Another Initial Series of this same kind, one in which the terminal 

 date is not recorded, is shown just to the right of the preceding in 

 plate 32. The Initial-series number 8.16.14.15.4 there recorded 

 reduces to imits of the first order as follows: 



8X144,000 = 1, 152,000 

 16 X 7,200= 115,200 



14 X 360= 5,040 



15 X 20= 300 

 4X 1= 4 



1,272,544 



Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 67 

 (see Table XVI), it will be reduced to 884, and applying rules 1, 2, 

 and 3 (pp. 139, 140, and 141, respectively) to this remainder, the 

 terminal date reached will be 4 Kan 17 Yaxkin. This date is not 

 recorded. There follows below, however, a Secondary-series number 

 consisting of 6 uinals and 1 kin (6.1). The red circle around the 

 lower term of this (the 1 kin) indicates that the whole number, 6.1, 

 is to be counted hackward from some date, probably, as in the pre- 

 ceding case, from the terminal date of the Initial Series above it. 

 Assuming that this is the case, and counting 6.1 backward from 

 8.16.14.15.4 4 Kan 17 Yaxkin, the terminal date reached will be 13 

 Akbal 16 Pop, again very close to the date recorded immediately 

 above, 13 Akbal 15 Pop. Indeed, the date as recorded, 13 Akbal 

 15 Pop, represents an impossible condition from the Maya point of 

 view, since the day name Akbal could occupy only the first, sixth, 

 eleventh, and sixteenth positions of a month. See Table VII. Con- 

 sequently, through lack of space or carelessness the ancient scribe 

 who painted this book failed to add one dot to the three bars of the 

 month sign's coefficient, thus making it 16 instead of the 15 actually 

 recorded. We arc obliged to make some correction in this coefficient, 

 since, as explained above, it is obviously incorrect as it stands. 

 Since the addition of a single dot brings the whole date into harmony 

 with the date determined by calculation, we are probably justified 



Incorrectly recorded : 



