INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 347 
dots of this coefficient are, and apparently always have been, plain, although 
the left-hand one is a trifle smaller than the other two. (See figure so, a.) 
Since 11 is required by the calculations here, the writer has little hesitation in 
accepting this value; possibly the two outside dots were originally painted a 
different color to differentiate them from the middle numerical dot.! 
The identity of the period glyph and coefficient in a2 with the great- 
great-cycle sign and coefficient on Stela 10 at Tikal seems to justify the 
interpretation suggested by the writer for this glyph namely, that the date 
following in a2b, a3a occurred in Great-great-cycle 11, which was the current 
great-great-cycle of Maya chronology. 

Fic. 50.—Occurrences of the great-great-cycle glyph: a, Copan, Stela C, south side; 6, Copan, Stela 
C, north side; c, Palenque, Temple of the Inscriptions; d, Tikal, Stela ro. 
The natural thing to expect after the great-great-cycle would be the 
record of the great-cycle, then the cycle, then the katun, etc., but instead of 
finding an Initial Series like the one on Stela 10 at Tikal, the next glyphs, 
A2b, a3a, unmistakably record the Calendar Round date 6 Ahau 18 Kayab. 
It is clear at the outset, therefore, that whatever this count may be, it is 
not an Initial Series; and we should note here that this is another example of 
the Initial Series introducing glyph not followed by a corresponding Initial 
Series.? Leaving the position of this 6 Ahau 18 Kayab in the Long Count 
indeterminate for the present, let us continue the examination of the text. 
A3b and a4 are unknown, but in as, A6 there follows a Secondary Series 
number® 11.14.5.11.0; Aza is unknown, and a7, Asa is the same Calendar 
Round date, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, as recorded above in a2), a3a._ asd is also 
unknown, and then in ag there is the Calendar Round date 6, 7, or 8 Ahau 
1 Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 41, glyph 1a) shows this coefficient as 13. 
2 The occurrence of Initial Series introducing glyphs without accompanying Initial Series is confined exclu- 
sively to Copan, so far as the writer is aware, and is found here only on very early or very late monuments. There 
is, moreover, an important difference even between these two groups. The early monuments presenting this 
feature (Stele 7, 21, 18, 16, 17, 15, 7, and P) have in every case more than one Initial Series introducing glyph, 
sometimes two, three, and even four. Invariably, however, only one is followed by an Initial Series number which 
thus belongs to the monument, and by extension to the other Initial Series intreducing glyphs on it as well. In the 
late monuments showing this feature (hieroglyphic step of Mound 2, Stela C and F), however, there are no Initial 
Series, even though in one case (Stela C) there are two Initial Series introducing glyphs on the monument. Here 
is an important difference indeed. All the early monuments having more than one Initial Series introducing 
glyph have at least one Initial Series number, but in the later group, whether there be one or two Initial Series 
introducing glyphs, there is no accompanying Initial Series number. ‘This strongly tends to prove that Initial 
Series dating had already begun to disappear before the close of the Great Period, a fact commented upon else- 
where (pp. 288, 351, 364, 388, 392, 393). 
3 This can be nothing but a Secondary Series number, since its several terms are arranged in ascending order 
from left to right and top to bottom on the monument. 
4 Seler falls into error here, reading the uinal coefficient 0 instead of 1. An examination of the original con- 
vinced the writer that this is not the case, and that the correct reading is that given above. (Seler, 1902-1908, 
vol. I, p. 812). 
