One of the most exotic Maya glyphs consists of a seated figure having a head that appears to be a penis. This paper argues that the head is indeed a penis and provides an interpretation and a linguistic decipherment for the glyph. The glyph can be read as xib'ah "underworld lord" (Cholan) or xib'alb'a "underworld, underworld lord" (Yucatec). It is an epithet for a major Maya deity who was both god of Venus and Lord of the Underworld. In one case, it is used as a place name for the underworld. The paper also presents a rationale for the unusual graphic form of the glyph based on ethnohistoric documentation.

Coggins and Bricker have accepted my phonetic reading of one version of the north glyph as xaman, "north." Nevertheless, they maintain that the traditional north-south axis in Maya directional symbolism pertains more properly to a zenith-nadir axis. In my response I argue against that position and provide evidence that the cardinal directions played a fundamental role in mesoamerican cosmology. These directions are interpreted in a relatively loose sense as sectors on the horizon and not as cardinal points. In particular, the north direction is viewed as a sector on the horizon centered at a point which is approximately 14 degrees east of north. The evidence includes three independent proofs of the cardinal direction hypothesis. These proofs specifically implicate the four Maya directional glyphs as symbols of the four cardinal directions.

The symbolic variant of the Maya glyph for north is claimed to be a phonetic construction xa-ma-n(a) generating the Yucatec term xaman, "north." The reading supports the notion that Maya directional symbolism was related to the horizon and disagrees with recent revisionist theory that such symbolism was related to the path of the sun across the sky and through the underworld.

The Maya text on an all-glyphic stone column now in the Museo del Camino Real in Hecelchakan, Campeche, Mexico, is deciphered. The inscription consists of an unusual truncated Initial Series with an associated Tun-Ahua statement. Arguments are given to justify assigning a Xcalumkin provenance to the monument. The Initial Series is only the third such record known from this site. Other epigraphic highlights include a rare head variant formation of the numeral for 16 by tandem heads for 6 and 10 and a new version of the head variant for 2. A summary of the chronological information available from the site of Xcalumkin is included.

The recently discovered Stela 5 at Pixoy is of particular interest because its Initial Series contains lunar glyphs as coefficients for the 3 lowest periods. While lunar glyphs do not appear in any other known Initial Series, they are to be found in other chronological counts. A study of the moon sign usage in these other counts leads to the conclusion that Stela 5 records the Long Count position 9.14.0.0.0 in a nontraditional manner as the Initial Series 9.13.20.0.0.

Most investigators of Maya chronology consider that the Maya measured time intervals by a modified vigesimal count of days or, alternatively, by a tun count in which the uinal and the kin were fractions of the tun. The claim is made that neither of these interpretations is satisfactory and that the Maya perceived their time count to be a composite count comprised of three distinct counts whose respective units are the tun, the uinal and the kin. Support for this contention is found in the early post-Conquest writings as well as in the representations of time counts in the inscriptions and codices. Adoption of this interpretation leads to a clearer understanding of the Maya use of positional notation and also serves to explain some peculiar epigraphic features present in several chronological counts.

It has been known since 1972 that Ponce de Leon discovered Yucatan in 1513. New information confirming this is found in the books of Chilam Balam where the Maya record that the Spanish first arrived in their land at that time. The sundry data indicate that 8 July 1513 (N.S.) falls in Tun 13 of Katun 2 Ahau. This relation provides a new test for correlations of the Maya and Christian calendars. The Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation passes the test and the Morley-Spinden correlation fails it.