INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 283 
This point is indissolubly connected with the question of how many cycles 
formed a great-cycle, and in the passage already cited (Morley, rg1s, 
pp. 107-127) this question is discussed at considerable length. It will be 
found there that the Initial Series on Stela 10 at Tikal fixes the current cycle 
of the first historical epoch (Cycle 9) as having been Cycle 9 of Great-Cycle 
19 of Great-Great-Cycle 11, of Great-Great-Great-Cycle 1, and (possibly) 
of Great-Great-Great-Great-Cycle 1, in short, within a chronological system 
covering over five millions of years. If this is true, 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, 
the Initial Series on Stela N is in reality 1.11.19.9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, 
and the starting-point of the number 14.17.19.10.0.0 on Stela N can be 
shown by calculation to have been as follows: 
IhLr.11.19. 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 
14.17.19.10.0.0 backward 
Letate 4.11.17. 00.09  T2Ahau 13 Pax 
That is, this latter date was in Great-Cycle 4 instead of Great-Cycle 19, as 
most other dates, and thus was over 100,000 years earlier than the beginning 
of the historic period.? 
The glyph following B16 is possibly a month-sign, perhaps 8 Chen, 
Yax, Zac, or Ceh. The writer, however, has been unable to connect it in any 
way with any of the foregoing calculations. 
The conclusions of the earlier writers differ so greatly from the above 
interpretation that it may be well to review them here. 
Goodman, after making the change in the month coefficient on the east 
side from 8 to 3 (already suggested) proceeds to discredit the accuracy of the 
Secondary Series at B10-B14: 
“The reckoning is not only wrong but is absurd as well. The cycles run only 
to 13,° and no such reckoning as 14.17.19.10.0.0 backward or forward from the 
initial date would reach 1 Ahau 8 Chen. But fortunately, despite all the blunder- 
ing, we can see what the intention was. 1 Ahau 8 Chen begins the 17th katun of 
the 8th cycle and thence to the initial date is just 19 katuns and to ahaus.’”! 
Goodman means here that he regards B10-B12 as a Secondary Series 
composed of o kins, 0 uinals, 10 tuns, and 19 katuns, 1. ¢. 19.10.0.0, which is 


1 The great-great-great-great-cycle glyph and coefhcient are doubtful. (See Morley 1915, pp. 125-127.) 
2 Lest such vast time conceptions arouse in the reader a feeling of disbelief in the accuracy of the conclusions 
responsible for them, the writer recommends an examination of the Initial Series of Stela ro at Tikal, where 
some five millions of years are apparently recorded. (See Morley, t915, pp. 114-127.) 
3 The writer’s dissent with this opinion has already been noted. 
4Goodman, 1897, p. 132. Goodman’s name for the period of the third place is ahau instead of tun. 
He also calls the periods of the second place chuens instead of uinals. His reasons for this nomenclature follow: 
“The ahau is a period of 360 days—the sum of the days in the eighteen regular months—and derives its name un- 
doubtedly from the fact that it always begins [7. ¢., ends] with the day Ahau”’ (1897, p. 23). This reason is un- 
sound, because of the fact that every Maya time-period above the kin, that is, the uinal, tun, katun, cycle, and 
great-cycle, etc., ended with a day Ahau; and any time-period therefore above the kin could with equal justi- 
fication be called the ahau. However, the rejection of this term rests on firm historical grounds, as Bowditch has 
very satisfactorily demonstrated (1910, pp. 276, 277). _He has shown that in the Books of Chilan Balam, native 
Maya writings of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the term tun is repeatedly used to designate 
the 360-day period, but never the word ahau. Concerning Goodman’s use of the term chuen to designate the 
periods of the second order, he says: “TI call this period ‘chuen’ because it is commonly designated by the character 
Landa gives as the sign for that day” (1897 p. 22). While admitting this resemblance, Bowditch cites sufficient 
historical evidence to prove that the 20-day period was called uinal rather than chuen (1910, pp. 275, 276). Good- 
man’s terms for these two periods have not been adopted by later writers and, as used in this sense, may be said 
to have disappeared from the nomenclature of the science. 
