[173] At Seibal a Period-ending date 10.1.0.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Kayab is clearly recorded, but this is some 30 years earlier than either of the Initial Series here under discussion, a significant period just at this particular epoch of Maya history, which we have every reason to believe was filled with stirring events and quickly shifting scenes. Tikal, with the Initial Series 10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Ceh, and Seibal with the same date (not as an Initial Series, however) are the nearest, though even these fall 10 years short of the Quen Santo and Chichen Itza Initial Series.
[174] Up to the present time no successful interpretation of the inscription on Stela C at Copan has been advanced. The inscription on each side of this monument is headed by an introducing glyph, but in neither case is this followed by an Initial Series. A number consisting of 11.14.5.1.0 is recorded in connection with the date 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, but as this date does not appear to be fixed in the Long Count, there is no way of ascertaining whether it is earlier or later than the starting point of Maya chronology. Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 195-196) offers an interesting explanation of this monument, to which the student is referred for the possible explanation of this text. A personal inspection of this inscription failed to confirm, however, the assumption on which Mr. Bowditch's conclusions rest. For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902: I, pls. 39-41.
[175] For the full text of this inscription, see ibid.: II, pls. 16, 17, 19.
[176] Table [XVI] contains only 80 Calendar Rounds (1,518,400), but by adding 18 Calendar Rounds (341,640) the number to be subtracted, 98 Calendar Rounds (1,860,040), will be reached.
[177] Counting 13.0.0.0.0 backward from the starting point of Maya chronology, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, gives the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which is no nearer the terminal date recorded in B5-A6 than the date 4 Ahau 3 Kankin reached by counting forward.
[178] For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902: IV, pls. 73-77.
[179] As noted in Chapter IV, this is one of the only two heads for 13 found in the inscriptions which is composed of the essential element of the 10 head applied to the 3 head, the combination of the two giving 13. Usually the head for 13 is represented by a form peculiar to this number alone and is not built up by the combination of lower numbers as in this case.
[180] Although at first sight the headdress resembles the tun sign, a closer examination shows that it is not this element.
[181] Similarly, it could be shown that the use of every other possible value of the cycle coefficient will not give the terminal date actually recorded.
[182] For the full text of this inscription see Maler, 1903: II, No. 2, pl. 56.