Our knowledge of the meaning of the Maya glyphs is practically limited to the day-, month- and period-signs and the names of the gods. The latter have been gleaned from the manuscripts. Here the figures of the various divinities are accompanied by a series of four or more glyphs, and after a careful comparison of the glyphs which are attached to one particular figure, it is found that one glyph is constant. It is a fair assumption that the latter expresses the name of the god, though we cannot say how it should be transliterated. As we have seen, the Mexican script is purely ideographic, that is to say the pictures are symbolical, or, in the case of names, constitute a rebus. It seems likely that the Maya writing had evolved a little further, and that many of the signs were of a syllabic nature. For instance, in the names of the months we find indications that definite signs were employed to express the syllables _yax_ and _kin_; but as we cannot say for certain what was the dialect spoken by the builders of the monuments, and as many of the signs are so highly conventionalized that their origin is difficult to trace, the interpretation is beset with many difficulties. Lizana, writing in 1626, speaks of certain old men, sons of priests, who were able to read the manuscripts, and it is probable that the builders of the monuments spoke a tongue closely akin to the historical Maya. In any case a good knowledge of this language will be necessary for future students of the glyphs. As remarked before, it seems unlikely that much information of a historical nature will be extracted from the inscriptions if they are ever read; they probably consist for the most part of calculations for fixing the periodical feasts, and for bringing the year of 365 days into line with true time. It is practically certain, as remarked above, that the Maya did not intercalate days for this purpose, but it is equally certain that a people who were agriculturists and who computed the synodical revolutions of Venus, could not have failed to notice that the months gradually gained upon the seasons. At the time of the discovery the month pop began the year, but it is worth mentioning that the name of the month xul seems to mean “termination,” and it is possible that yaxkin was at some period the first month. The displacement of the commencement of a year by a month would not affect the year-bearer, since each month began with the same day-sign, and it is not unlikely that the feasts were shifted from month to month when they became inappropriate to the seasons. If this is so, no doubt many of the longer inscriptions consist of calculations relative to the proper ordering of the festivals. It is not of course absolutely certain that the initial dates of monuments refer to their erection, but even if such dates have a historical value (and I am inclined to believe that most of them have) it is not yet possible to correlate them with our