INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 199 
point of view shows an earlier unexpressed event 17 days before. Sign 1 is here a 
grasping hand and I see therein a sign of subtraction. No. 2 is 10, under which is the 
date o Zoz, which means as we first learned from Dresden 48 and 50, the eve of 1 
Zoz also 20 Zip. No. 3 is the figure 7, under which I believe I see kin=day. And 
aes 17 days before 10 Zoz is in fact 13 Zip, which actually is given in the fourth 
place. 
If the writer gathers F6rstemann’s meaning correctly, he believed aia 
u. h. was the Initial Series introducing glyph, an identification not sup- 
ported by the original. His reading of aia |. h. as 10 Zotz is equally 
impossible. The grotesque head there portrayed can not be a sign for 
Zotz, even though its coefficient is 10; and his reading of aid |. h. as 8 
Manik, according to his own admission, depends upon the correctness of 
his reading of B1. 
He reads Bia u. h. as a subtraction sign, whereas throughout the Maya 
inscriptions this glyph always means “ending,” and in Period Ending dates 
is never used in any other way. 
The grotesque head of Bid u. h. he identifies as o Zotz, and its coeffi- 
cient as 10 kins. The “subtraction sign” in the preceding glyph he inter- 
prets as indicating that these 1o kins are to be subtracted from 10 Zotz in 
Ala |. h. to give the o Zotz in Bib u.h. Bia |. h., according to his view, is 
7 kins, which are to be counted backward from o Zotz to reach 13 Zip 
recorded in Bib |. h. Finally, he assigns to the date 8 Manik 10 Zotz the 
Initial Series 9.18.2.9.7,” although there is no real foundation for this read- 
ing in either Ai or BI. 
The writer believes that Forstemann’s interpretation of Al, B1 not only 
disagrees with the glyphs actually recorded, but that it is also incompatible 
with Maya practice and thought as set forth in their inscriptions. No single 
instance is recalled where day-signs are omitted and their corresponding 
month-parts given, though the reverse is sometimes the case, as we have 
already seen (see Stele 2, 3 and I for examples, pp. 138, 157 and 178 respec- 
tively). Moreover, the date 9.18.2.9.7 is almost 100 years later than the Initial 
Series of Stela J, and for this reason alone it should be viewed with suspicion. 
All things considered, it seems probable that F6rstemann’s interpretation 
of these two glyph-blocks must be rejected in its entirety. 
Beginning with a2, the text on both the north and south sides is perfectly 
clear until the last two glyph-blocks on the south side, which are effaced. 

1 See Férstemann, 19044, p. 361. 
2 The number of days, 1,426,507, is equal to the above date in Maya chronology, viz: 

9 144,000 = 1,296,000 
18 7,200= 129,600 
2 360= 720 
9 20= 180 
7 i= 7 
1,426,507 
This passage gives the basis for Férstemann’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology. For further 
discussion of this point, see Appendix IT. 
