Fig. 76. The Cycle-10 Initial Series from Quen Santo (from drawings): A, Stela 1; B, Stela 2. There is less than a year's difference in time between the Chichen Itza Initial Series and the Initial Series in B.
Two other Initial Series whose cycle coefficient is 10 yet remain to be considered, namely, Stelæ 1 and 2 at Quen Santo.[[171]] The first of these is shown in figure [76], A, but unfortunately only a fragment of this monument has been recovered. In A1-B2 appears a perfectly regular form of the introducing glyph (see fig. [24]), and this is followed in A3-B4 by the Initial-series number itself, with the exception of the kin, the glyph representing which has been broken off. The student will readily identify A3 as 10 cycles, noting the clasped hand on the head-variant period glyph, and B3 as 2 katuns. The glyph in A4 has very clearly the coefficient 5, and even though it does not seem to have the fleshless lower jaw of the tun head, from its position alone—after the unmistakable katun sign in B3 we are perfectly justified in assuming that 5 tuns are recorded here. Both the coefficient and the glyph in B4 are unfamiliar. However, as the former must be one of the numerals 0 to 19, inclusive, since it is not one of the numerals 1 to 19, inclusive, it is clear that it must be a new form for 0. The sign to which it is attached bears no resemblance to either the normal form for the uinal or the head variant; but since it occupies the 4th position after the introducing glyph, B4, we are justified in assuming that 0 uinals are recorded here. Beyond this we can not proceed with certainty, though the values for the missing parts suggested below are probably those recorded on the lost fragments of the monument. As recorded in A3-B4 this number reads 10.2.5.0.?. Now, if we assume that the missing term is filled with 0, we shall have recorded the end of an even hotun in the Long Count, and this monument becomes a regular hotun-marker. That this monument was a hotun-marker is corroborated by the fact that Stela 2 from Quen Santo very clearly records the close of the hotun next after 10.2.5.0.0, which the writer believes this monument marks. For
this reason it seems probable that the glyph which stood in A5 recorded 0 kins.
Reducing this number to units of the first order by means of Table [XIII], we obtain:
| A3 | = | 10 × | 144,000 = | 1,440,000 |
| B3 | = | 2 × | 7,200 = | 14,400 |
| A4 | = | 5 × | 360 = | 1,800 |
| B4 | = | 0 × | 20 = | 0 |
| A5[[172]] | = | 0 × | 1 = | 0 |
| ———— | ||||
| 1,456,200 | ||||
Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 76 (see Table [XVI]), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp. [139], [140], and [141], respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be 9 Ahau 18 Yax, and the whole Initial Series originally recorded on this monument was probably 10.2.5.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Yax.
In figure [76], B, is shown Stela 2 from Quen Santo. The workmanship on this monument is somewhat better than on Stela 1 and, moreover, its Initial Series is complete. The introducing glyph appears in A1-B2 and is followed by the Initial-series number in A3-A5. Again, 10 cycles are very clearly recorded in A3, the clasped hand of the cycle head still appearing in spite of the weathering of this glyph. The katun sign in B3 is almost entirely effaced, though sufficient traces of its coefficient remain to enable us to identify it as 2. Note the position of the uneffaced dot with reference to the horizontal axis of the glyph. Another dot the same distance above the axis would come as near the upper left-hand corner of the glyph-block as the uneffaced dot does to the lower left-hand corner. Moreover, if 3 had been recorded here the uneffaced dot would have been nearer the bottom. It is clear that 1 and 4 are quite out of the question and that 2 remains the only possible value of the numeral here. We are justified in assuming that the effaced period glyph was the katun sign. In A4 10 tuns are very clearly recorded; note the fleshless lower jaw of the tun head. The uinal head with its characteristic mouth curl appears in B4. The coefficient of this latter glyph is identical with the uinal coefficient in the preceding text (see fig. [76], A) in B4, which we there identified as a form for 0. Therefore we must make the same identification here, and B4 then becomes 0 uinals. From its position, if not from its appearance, we are justified in designating the glyph in A5 the head for the kin period; since the coefficient attached to this head is the same as the one in the preceding glyph (B4), we may therefore conclude that 0 kins are recorded here. The whole number expressed in A3-A5 is
therefore 10.2.10.0.0. Reducing this to units of the first order by means of Table [XIII], we have:
| A3 = | 10 × | 144,000 = | 1,440,000 |
| B3 = | 2 × | 7,200 = | 14,400 |
| A4 = | 10 × | 360 = | 3,600 |
| B4 = | 0 × | 20 = | 0 |
| A5 = | 0 × | 1 = | 0 |
| ———— | |||
| 1,458,000 | |||
Deducting from this number all the Calendar Rounds possible, 76 (see Table [XVI]), and applying rules 1, 2, and 3 (pp. [139], [140], and [141], respectively) to the remainder, the terminal date reached will be 2 Ahau 13 Chen. Although the day sign in B5 is effaced, the coefficient 2 appears quite clearly. The month glyph is recorded in A6. The student will have little difficulty in restoring the coefficient as 13, and the month glyph is certainly either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh (compare fig. [19], o and p, q and r, s and t, and u and v, respectively). Moreover, since the month coefficient is 13, the day sign in B5 can have been only Chicchan, Oc, Men, or Ahau (see Table [VII]); since the kin coefficient in A5 is 0, the effaced day sign must have been Ahau. Therefore the Initial Series on Stela 2 at Quen Santo reads 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen and marked the hotun immediately following the hotun commemorated by Stela 1 at the same site.