Fig. 80. Glyphs which may disclose the nature of the events that happened at Quirigua on the dates: a, 9. 14. 13. 4. 17 12 Caban 5 Kayab; b, 9. 15. 6. 14. 6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec.

We have explained all the dates figured except 3 Ahau 3 Mol in plate [19], B, A15, the discussion of which was deferred until after the rest of the inscription had been considered. It will be remembered in connection with Stela J (figs. [78], [79]) that one of the dates reached in the course of the calculations was just 1 katun earlier than the date recorded by the Initial Series on the same monument. Now, one of the Initial-series values corresponding to the date 3 Ahau 3 Mol here under discussion is 9.15.10.0.0, exactly 1 katun earlier than the Initial-series date on Stela F. In other words, if we give to the date 3 Ahau 3 Mol in A15 the value 9.15.10.0.0, the cases are exactly parallel. While it is impossible to prove that this particular Initial Series was the one which the ancient scribes had in mind when they recorded this date 3 Ahau 3 Mol, the writer believes that the coincidence and parallel here presented are sufficient to warrant the assumption that this is the case. The whole text reads as follows:

9.14.13. 4.17] 12 Caban 5 Kayab Plate [19], A, A1-A6
13. 9. 9] Plate [19], A, A10
9.15. 6.14. 6] 06 Cimi 4 Tzec Plate [19], B, B11b-A12a
[9.15.10. 0. 0] 03 Ahau 3 Mol Plate [19], B, A15
[9.15. 0. 0. 0] 04 Ahau 13 Yax Plate [19], B, A17
9.14.13. 4.17] 12 Caban 5 Kayab Plate [19], B, A18b B18a
1.16.13. 3] Plate [19], B, B17 A18a
9.16.10. 0. 0] 01 Ahau 3 Zip Plate [19], B, A19
(repeated as Initial Series on east side of monument)
9.16.10. 0. 0] 01 Ahau 3 Zip Plate [20], A1-B5-B8

The student will note the close similarity between this inscription and that on Stela J (figured in figs. [78] and [79]), a summary of which appears on page [239]. Both commence with the same date, 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab; both show the date 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec; both have dates which are just 1 katun in advance of the hotuns which they mark; and finally, both are hotun-markers, Stela J preceding Stela F by just 1 hotun. The date from which both proceed, 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab, is an important one at Quirigua, being the earliest date there. It appears on four monuments, namely, Stelæ J, F, and E, and Zoömorph G. Although the writer has not been able to prove the point, he is of the opinion that the glyph shown in figure [80], a, tells the meaning of the event which happened on this date, which is, moreover, the earliest date at Quirigua which

it is possible to regard as being contemporaneous. Hence, it is not improbable that it might refer to the founding of the city or some similar event, though this is of course a matter of speculation. The fact, however, that 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab is the earliest date on four different hotun-markers shows that it was of supreme importance in the history of Quirigua. This concludes the discussion of texts showing the use of Secondary Series with Initial Series.

Texts Recording Period Endings

It was explained in Chapter III (p. [77]) that in addition to Initial-series dating and Secondary-series dating, the Maya used still another method in fixing events, which was designated Period-ending dating. It was explained further that, although Period-ending dating was less exact than the other two methods, it served equally well for all practical purposes, since dates fixed by it could not recur until after a lapse of more than 18,000 years, a considerably longer period than that covered by the recorded history of mankind. Finally, the student will recall that the katun was said to be the period most commonly used in this method of dating.

The reason for this is near at hand. Practically all of the great southern cities rose, flourished, and fell within the period called Cycle 9 of Maya chronology. There could have been no doubt throughout the southern area which particular cycle was meant when the "current cycle" was spoken of. After the date 9.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh had ushered in a new cycle there could be no change in the cycle coefficient until after a lapse of very nearly 400 (394.250 +) years. Consequently, after Cycle 9 had commenced many succeeding generations of men knew no other, and in time the term "current cycle" came to mean as much on a monument as "Cycle 9." Indeed, in Period-ending dating the Cycle 9 was taken for granted and scarcely ever recorded. The same practice obtains very generally to-day in regard to writing the current century, such expressions as July 4, '12, December 25, '13, being frequently seen in place of the full forms July 4, 1912, A. D., December 25, 1913, A. D.; or again, even more briefly, 7/4/12 and 12/25/13 to express the same dates, respectively. The desire for brevity, as has been explained, probably gave rise to Period-ending dating in the first place, and in this method the cycle was the first period to be eliminated as superfluous for all practical purposes. No one could have forgotten the number of the current cycle.

When we come to the next lower period, however, the katun, we find a different state of affairs. The numbers belonging to this period were changing every 20 (exactly, 19.71 +) years; that is, three or four times in the lifetime of many individuals; hence, there was plenty of opportunity for confusion about the number of the katun in which a particular event occurred. Consequently, in order to insure accuracy the katun is almost always the unit used in Period-ending dating.