is that for the sextula, which resembles very closely a cursive digit 2. Now, as stated by Friedlein, this symbol indicates the value of 1/72 of an As. However, he stated specifically in the penultimate sentence of section 32 on page 23, the two beads in the bottom slot each have a value of 1/72. This would allow this slot to represent only 1/72 (i.e. 1/6 × 1/12 with one bead) or 1/36 (i.e. 2/6 × 1/12 = 1/3 × 1/12 with two beads) of an uncia respectively. This contradicts all existing documents that state this lower slot was used to count thirds of an uncia (i.e. 1/3 and 2/3 × 1/12 of an As. This results in two opposing interpretations of this slot, that of Friedlein and that of many other experts such as Ifrah, and Menninger who propose the one and two thirds usage. There is however a third possibility. If this symbol refers to the total value of the slot (i.e. 1/72 of an as), then each of the two counters can only have a value of half this or 1/144 of an as or 1/12 of an uncia. This then suggests that these two counters did in fact count twelfths of an uncia and not thirds of an uncia. Likewise, for the top and upper middle, the symbols for the semuncia and sicilicus could also indicate the value of the slot itself and since there is only one bead in each, would be the value of the bead also. This would allow the symbols for all three of these slots to represent the slot value without involving any contradictions. A further argument which suggests the lower slot represents twelfths rather than thirds of an uncia is best described by the figure above. The diagram above assumes for ease that one is using fractions of an uncia as a unit value equal to one. If the beads in the lower slot of column I represent thirds, then the beads in the three slots for fractions of 1/12 of an uncia cannot show all values from 1/12 of an uncia to 11/12 of an uncia. In particular, it would not be possible to represent 1/12, 2/12 and 5/12. Furthermore, this arrangement would allow for seemingly unnecessary values of 13/12, 14/12 and 17/12. Even more significant, it is logically impossible for there to be a rational progression of arrangements