INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 169 
and again this glyph is attached to the same variant of the kin-sign, the 
meaning probably being 15 kins. 
The third example (figure 31, c) is from Lintel 29, Structure 10. In this 
case a variation has been introduced. ‘The bar, instead of being prefixed 
to a head, is prefixed to a sign, the principal element of which is five dots. 
Can this be a substitute for the death’s head, which has the same charac- 
teristic in figure 31, a, d, and g, a sort of glyphic synecdoche wherein a part, 
1. e., the five dots, is used for the whole, 7. ¢., the death’s head? At any 
rate, this glyph is again attached to the same variant of the kin-sign, and 
the writer has little hesitancy in reading the two characters as 15 kins. 
The foregoing six examples, 7. ¢., including the one from Palenque and 
the two from Copan, d, ¢, and f, figure 31, respectively, are all composite 
forms for the number 15, that is, single bars prefixed to death’s heads. ‘There 
is one example, however (figure 31, g), of a composite 17, which would seem 
to indicate that other numbers beside 15 could be formed in this same 
unusual way. This is also from Lintel 21, Structure 22 at Yaxchilan, and 
has a bar-and-dot numeral 7 prefixed to a death’s head with the same five 
dots in the upper part of the latter, the resulting number being 17. 
Reviewing these seven examples, two from Copan, four from Yaxchilan, 
and one from Palenque, it will be seen that they are fairly well scattered 
geographically (plate 1), and moreover, that insofar as three of them are 
concerned (figure 31, a, d, and g) the dots in the head appear to be an 
important characteristic. They constitute, the writer believes, sufficient 
evidence to prove the existence of these composite numerals, and to demon- 
strate their use in certain rare instances. Indeed, in the present case the 
burden of proof would certainly appear to rest upon those who decline to 
recognize in ca u. h., plate 20, b, the numeral 15, irregularly as it is 
there expressed, since the record of the month-sign, 13 Mol, and the “‘ End 
of a hotun”’ in 1a~j render any other reading practically impossible. When 
we attempt to explain why this unusual variant should have been used in 
this particular text, however, we enter upon uncertain ground. The follow- 
ing possible explanation, therefore, is advanced only as a suggestion. 
The sculptor of this monument knew that if he used the head-variant 
for 15 he would have to carve a death’s head with a tun-sign for its head- 
dress. Inasmuch as all the period glyphs and their coefficients are head- 
variants, in this text it is probable on artistic grounds that a simple bar-and- 
dot numeral 15 could not have been contemplated here. On the other hand, 
to have recorded a head-variant 15 in the space available would have resulted 
in an unsightly contraction (a flattening) of the death’s head, to make room 
for the tun head-dress, which would have thrown it badly out of line with 
the heads in the cycle, katun, uinal, and kin coefficients. In short, artistic 
considerations may have weighed so heavily against such a violation of 
symmetry that the sculptor took the only other course open to him, namely, 
that of recording the number Io as a head variant and then prefixing a bar 
to it, 7. ¢., 5, making 15, as required by the calculations. 
