INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 255 
Museum photograph, the missing block having had the greater part of the 
corresponding Supplementary Series. In any event, however, Date 15 is 
surely deciphered as given: 
Block 1 A Initial Series introducing glyph 
Ba 9 cycles 
BD 5 katuns 
Ca 17 tuns 
cb 13, uinals 
Da 7 kins 
bb 2 Manik 
Block 3? o Muan 
Date 16. 
In the same Peabody Museum photograph, which shows the two blocks 
of Date 15 (No. 385), in fact immediately above them, as though it began 
the next step above in the stairway, is shown a single block of stone 89 cm. 
long, presenting the first two glyph-blocks and part of the third of an Initial 
Series. (See Gordon, 1902, plate 12, rR, second block.) Unfortunately the 
cycle and katun coefficients in B are both destroyed. The former, however, 
appears to have been almost twice as thick as the latter, and comparing these 
with the corresponding coefficients in Dates 15 and 17, it seems highly 
probable that the katun coefficient of Date 16 was not above 5; and indeed 
the best reading would appear to be 5. C—Q The tun coefficient was either 
13 or 18. Two bars and three dots » show clearly, and then comes 
the right edge of the stone. The date, $ though fragmentary, may be de- 
ciphered as far as it goes as 9.5.13 or 18.?.? and probably as 9.5.13.?.?. 
Date 17. 
In the same Peabody Museum photograph (No. 385), as Dates 15 and 
16, in fact directly above Date 16, as though it began the step just above 
that on which Date 16 was inscribed, is shown a single block of stone, again 
89 cm. long, presenting the first two glyph-blocks and part of the third of an 
Initial Series. (See Gordon, 1902, plate 12, r, third block.) The Initial 
Series introducing glyph appears at a, the cycles and katuns at Ba and Bb 
respectively. The cycle coefficient is effaced, but can doubtless be restored 
asg. The katun coefficient is clearly 5, with an ornamental inner line. { 
The tun coefficient, ca, was above 5, but is too effaced to decipher. 
The fracture comes about halfway through the tun-sign. ‘The date so 
far as deciphered reads 9.5.?.?.?. 
In this Peabody Museum photograph these three Initial Series (Dates 
15, 16, and 17) are shown one above the other, as though they occurred on 
three successive steps of the stairway. The same photograph also shows 
that they came from the left-hand side of the stairway; and since they are 
Initial Series, it seems probable that they began the inscriptions on three 
successive steps like Dates 1, 3, and 5 in section ce below. Dates 15, 16, and 
17, moreover, show close stylistic affinities with Dates 1, 3, 5, 18, 19, and 20, 
and for this reason, as well as upon chronologic grounds, they all probably 
came from the same part of the stairway. 




