istinction is found in a strange and unusual relation in
the lower division of Plate XV, Manuscript Troano. The first red numeral
of the series is given thus:

[Illustration: FIG. 372. Numeral character from the lower division of
Plate XV, Manuscript Troano.]

Most of the day and about half of the numeral symbols are obliterated,
but all that are necessary for present purposes remain distinct and
uninjured, as follows:

III, }
Ix } 10, XI[(I)]I.
Cimi }

Judging by these and the few numbers remaining, the entire series was as
follows:

III, }
Ix }
Cimi }
Ezanab } 10, XIII; 4, IV; 20, XI; 9, VII; 9, III
Oc }
Ik }

The only doubt in reference to the restoration is whether the second and
third pairs of numerals should be as given, or 2, II, and 22, XI. If we
select the Kan column of our Table II and count from 3 Ix of the eleventh
figure column, we reach 13 Kan. If the four year series was the system
used 13 Kan might be the first day of a year, but not the first day of an
Indication. As this is the only day referred to by the XIII which could
have been the first of a year we must seek an explanation in something
else. Counting ten days from 3 Ezanab will bring us to 13 Lamat, which is
the last day (counting the five added days) of an Indication, commencing
with the year 1 Kan and ending with the year 13 Kan.

According to my theory of the ahaues,[344-1] the year 13 Kan would have
corresponded with the Gregorian years 1376, 1438, 1480, and 1532.
According to the theory advanced by Perez,[344-2] it would have
corresponded with 1385, 1437, 1489, and 1541.

It is therefore possible that this mark of distinction may be of some
value in determining the relation of the Maya to the Gregorian calendar.

FOOTNOTES:

[339-1] See Study of the Manuscript Troano, by Cyrus Thomas.

[339-2] See note on page 337.

[344-1] See Table XVII, Study of the Manuscript Troano, by Cyrus Thomas,
p. 44.

[344-2] See Table XVIII, ibid., p. 45.

CHAPTER III

THE WRITING.

It must be admitted that none of the attempts made at deciphering the
writing in these manuscripts has proved entirely satisfactory; in fact
there is still some doubt as to whether any of the characters are truly
phonetic; nevertheless it is believed that what is here shown will tend
to lessen this doubt. It must be conceded, however, notwithstanding these
drawbacks and difficulties, that some material progress h