MOKLEY] INTRODUCTION TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS 111 



admit tliis point or repudiate the numeration of all the other periods 

 in the inscriptions. The writer believes, therefore, that, when the 

 starting point of Maya chronology is declared to be a date 4 Ahau 8 

 Cumhu, which an ''ending sign" and a Cycle 13 further dedans fell at 

 the close of a Cycle 13, this docs not indicate that there were 13 

 cycles in a great cycle, but that it is to be interpreted as a Period- 

 endhig date, pure and simple. Indeed, where this date is found in 

 the inscriptions it occurs with a Cycle 13, and an '^ ending sign" 

 which is practically identical with other undoubted ''ending signs." 

 Moreover, if we interpret these places as indicating that there were 

 only 13 cycles in a great cycle, we have equal grounds for saying that 

 the great cycle contained only 10 cycles. For example, on Zoomorph 

 G at Quirigua the date 7 Ahau 18 Zip is accompanied by an ''ending 

 sign" and Cycle 10, which on this basis of interpretation would sig- 

 nify that a great cycle had only 10 cycles. Similarly, it could be 

 shown by such an interpretation that in some cases a cycle had 14 

 katuns, that is, where the end of a Katun 14 was recorded, or 17 

 katuns, where the end of a Katun 17 was recorded. All such places, 

 including the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, which closed a Cycle 13 at the 

 starting point of Maya chi'onology, are only Period-ending dates, tlu> 

 writer believes, and have no reference to the number of periods which 

 any higher period contains whatsoever. They record merely the end 

 of a particular period in the Long Count as the end of a certain Cycle 

 13, or a certain Cycle 10, or a certain Katun 14, or a certain Katun 

 17, as the case may be, and contain no reference to the beginning or 

 the end of the period next higher. 



There can be no doubt, however, as stated above, that the cycles 

 were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and then began again with 1. 

 This sequence strildngly recalls that of the numerical coefficients of 

 the days, and in the parallel which this latter sequence affords, the 

 writer believes, lies the true explanation of the misconception con- 

 cerning the length of the great cycle in the inscriptions. 



Table XI. SEQUENCE OF TWENTY CONSECUTIVE DATES IN THE 

 MONTH POP 



The numerical coefficients of the days, as we have seen, were num- 

 bered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and then began again with 1. See 



