INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 349 
The date 6 Ahau 13 Muan occurred twice during the Great Period at 
9.16.12.13.0 and 9.19.5.8.0. The former is much more likely to have been 
the Initial Series corresponding to this date for three reasons: 
(1) It is only 143 days later than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban to Mol. 
(2) The other possible reading 9.19.5.8.0 is too late to be historically probable. 
(3) It is exactly 1 katun earlier than the contemporaneous dates of Stela F 
and 4. 
The writer therefore regards 9.16.12.13.0 as the Initial Series correspond- 
ing to6 Ahau 13 Muaninag.! And if this is the Initial Series of the terminal 
date, the Initial Series of the starting-point can be shown by calculations to 
have been (1).11.(18).18.2.7.12.0, by supplying the coefficients of the cur- 
rent great-cycle (19), and the current great-great-great-cycle (1) as indicated 
by the Initial Series on Stela 10 at Tikal, the current great-great-cycle, 11, 
being actually recorded in za. 
Ag (1).11-(19). 9.16.12.13.0 6Ahau13 Muan 
As, A6 11.14. 5. 1.0 backward 
A2b, a3a_— (1).11.(18).18. 2. 7.12.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab 
That is, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab was a date which occurred toward the end of 
the great-cycle (18) previous to the great-cycle of the historic period (19). 
The inscription on the north side begins with an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph, B1, of exactly the same character as that on the south side, 
except its variable central element, which is a grotesque head, whereas the 
corresponding element on the south side is a human head. 
The next glyph, B2a, is the head-variant of the cycle, surmounted 
by the same hand holding a rod, and the same tassel post- fix as the cor- 
responding glyph, A2a, on the other side. (See fig. 50, b.) & The coeffi- 
cient again is either I1, 12, or 13, as on the other side.? Since Aza on the 
south side probably records great-great-cycle 11, and since B2a is almost ex- 
actly like a2a, it too may be regarded as designating the same period. 
The writer’s drawing of this glyph, figure 50, b, shows the left dot has an orna- 
ment; his notes state that the two right-hand dots are too eroded to deter- 
mine whether they were similarly treated or not. 
The next glyph, B2b, is very clearly 5 Ahau. Maudslay incorrectly 
shows the coefficient as 15, an impossible value for any day-sign coefficient.’ 

1 Bowditch (1910, p. 195) suggests that 6 Ahau 13 Muan may be 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan. If this were 
true, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab can be shown by calculation to have been (1).11.(18).17.19.14.17.0, the coefficients in paren- 
thesis being supplied from those given on Stela 1o at Tikal for the great-great-great and great-cycle glyphs respec- 
tively: 
AQ (1).11.(19). 9.14. 0. 0.0 ©6 Ahau 13 Muan 
AS,A0 11.14. 5. 1.0 backward 
A2b,A3a_— (1). 11.(18).17.19.14.17.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab 
Bowditch gives the cycle coefficient as 10 instead of 17, believing there were only 13 cycles in a great-cycle 
instead of 20. The writer has explained that this is probably not the case elsewhere (1915, pp. 107-127). 
9.14.0.0.0, however, is too early for this monument, and the writer regards the next occurrence of 6 Ahau 13 
Muan, 9.16.12.13.0, as the value originally intended here, although it must be admitted 9.14.0.0.0 is within the 
range of probability, since it ends a katun of the Long Count. 
2 Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 41, glyph 1a) gives this as 13. 
3 The day-sign coefficients ran only from 1 to 13 inclusive. 
