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 has been made towards a better understanding of its type and of the nature of the characters. The direction in which it is to be read must of course be determined before any progress can be made in deciphering it. This was, until recently, a matter of speculation, but now may be considered settled. As this has been explained[345-1] it is unnecessary to repeat that explanation here.