110 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



3. Moreover, in the inscriptions themselves the cycle glyph occurs 

 at least tmce (see fig. 57, a, h) wdth a coefficient greater than 13, which 

 would seem to imply that more than 13 cycles could be recorded, and 

 consequently that it required more than 13 to make 1 of the period next 

 higher. The writer knows of no place in the inscriptions where 20 

 kins, 18 uinals, 20 tuns, or 20 katuns are recorded, each of these being 

 expressed as 1 uiual, 1 tun, 1 katun, and 1 cycle, respectively. ^ There- 

 fore, if 13 cycles had made 1 great cycle, 14 cycles would not have 

 been recorded, as in figure 57, a, but as 1 great cycle and 1 cycle; 

 and 17 cycles would not have been recorded, as in h of the same figure, 

 but as 1 great cycle and 4 cycles. The fact that they were not 

 recorded in this latter manner would seem to indicate, therefore, that 

 more than 13 cycles were required to make 

 a great cycle, or unit of the 6th place, in 

 the inscriptions as well as in the codices. 



The above points are simpiy positive evi- 

 dence in support of this hypothesis, however, 

 and in no way attempt to explain or other- 

 FiG. 57. Signs for the cycle showing wisc accouut for the Undoubtedly contra- 

 coefficients above 13: o, From the dictory poiuts givcn in the discussiou of (1) 



Temple of the Inscriptions, Pa- ^ ^r^ ^ ^^ i-i < i , •! 



lenque; 6, from Stela N, copan. ou pagcs lOS-109. Furthermore, not until 

 these contradictions have been cleared away 

 can it be established that the great cycle in the inscriptions was of 

 the same length as the great cycle in the codices. The writer 

 believes the following explanation will satisfactorily dispose of these 

 contradictions and make possible at the same time the acceptance of 

 the theory that the great cycle in the inscriptions and in the codices 

 was of equal length, being composed in each case of 20 cycles. 



Assuming for the moment that there were 13 cycles in a great 

 cycle, it is clear that if tliis were the case 13 cycles could never be 

 recorded in the inscriptions, for the reason that, being equal to 1 

 great cycle, they would have to be recorded in terms of a great cycle. 

 This is true because no period in the inscriptions is ever expressed, 

 so far as now known, as the full number of the periods of which 

 it was composed. For example, 1 uinal never appears as 20 kins; 

 1 tun is never WTitten as its equivalent, 18 uinals; 1 katun is never 

 recorded as 20 tims, etc. Consequently, if a great cycle composed 

 of 13 cycles had come to its end \vith the end of a Cycle 13, wliich 

 fell on a day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, such a Cycle 13 could never have been 

 expressed, since in its place would have been recorded the end of the 

 great cycle which fell on the same day. In other words, if there had 

 been 13 cycles in a great cycle, the cycles would have been num- 

 bered from to 12, inclusive, and the last. Cycle 13, would have been 

 recorded instead as completing some great cycle. It is necessary to 



1 Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 41-42) notes a seeming exception to this, not in the inscription, however, 

 but in the Dresden Codex, in which, in a series of numbers on pp. 71-73, the number 390 is written 19 

 uinals and 10 kins, instead of 1 tun, 1 uinal, and 10 kins, 



