130 THE AECHAIC MAYA JNSCKIPTIONS. 



Stela B. 



Initial date : 54 — 9 — ]5 — 20 — 18x20 — 4 Ahau-13 Yax. This is the all-important 

 date. There are no reckonings at all in the inscription, the initial directive series 

 even bein" absent. The glyphs undoubtedly are a mere list of periods beginning at 

 this point. Among them the bissextile sign occurs three times, qualified each time by 

 different numeral characters, which I think denote respectively 260, 360 and 234. 



Stela C. 



Nearly everything about this inscription appears to be wrong. The principal 

 reckoning does not accord with the dates given. The initial date to the left is 6 Ahau- 

 1S Kavab, designated by the first glyph to be a certain number of score days in a 13th 

 cvcle. As all the dates are indicated to be the beginning of ahaus, this particular date 

 must be in the 3 3th cycle of the 55th great cycle, as no ahau in the loth cycle of the 

 54th great cycle begins with 6 Ahau-18 Kayab. In the 55th great cycle it is 

 13 — 2 — 18 — 18x20. From this date, according to the glyphs as drawn, there is a 

 reckoning of 11 — 14 — 5 — 18x1 to either another 6 Ahau-18 Kayab or to an 8 Ahau- 

 13 Muan ; but such a reckoning would reach neither of those dates — both of which 

 are designated as beginning an ahau — even if there were no odd day or chuen. The 

 only explanation I can conceive is that the reckoning is, or was intended to be, 

 11 — 17 — 5 — 18x20, which is five ahau rounds; and as the same ahau date recurs at 

 each round, the 6 Ahau-18 Kayab would be correct in that event. But this would 

 leave the next date, 8 Ahau-13 Muan, still a mystery, it appearing to have no connection 

 with the preceding dates. As the beginning of an ahau it could not occur anywhere 

 in the vicinity except at 54 — 12 — 16 — 1 — 18x20. The second section, like the first, 

 begins with a glyph indicating the date to be certain scores of days in the 13th cycle. 

 The day number is given as 15, but of course that is impossible. From a later 

 examination of the stone Maudslay thinks it may be 9 or 5. It is probably the former, 

 the date in all likelihood being— 55— 13— 2— 14— 18x20— 9 Ahau-18 Cumhu. In 

 this event, the character under the ordinary numeral accompanying the month symbol 

 must represent 10. The rest of the inscription is unintelligible, except the two dates, 

 4 Ahau-18 Uo and 5 Ahau-8 Uo. 



Stela D. 



Initial date: 54—9—5—5—18x20—4 Ahau-13 Zotz. The month symbol here 

 probably comes after the initial directive series, and is peculiar in two respects : the 

 bat, which the name of the month signifies, is represented in full instead of by its 

 head, and the numeral is the outdaring sign for 13, which is nowhere else used in 

 connection with a date. This is one of the inscriptions in which I think the number 

 of the great cycle is specifically designated. 



