In the inscriptions, however, there is some ground for believing that only 13 units of the 5th order (cycles), not 20, were required to make 1 unit of the 6th order, or 1 great cycle. Both Mr. Bowditch (1910: App. IX, 319-321) and Mr. Goodman (1897: p. 25) incline to this opinion, and the former, in Appendix IX of his book, presents the evidence at some length for and against this hypothesis. This hypothesis rests mainly on the two following points: 1. That the cycles in the inscriptions are numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and not from 0 to 19, inclusive, as in the case of all the other periods except the uinal, which is numbered from 0 to 17, inclusive. 2. That the only two Initial Series which are not counted from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, are counted from a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, which is exactly 13 cycles in advance of the former date. Let us examine the passages in the inscriptions upon which these points rest. In three places[75] in the inscriptions the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is declared to have occurred at the end of a Cycle 13; that is, in these three places this date is accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13. In another place in the inscriptions, although the starting point 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is not itself expressed, the second cycle thereafter is declared to have been a Cycle 2, not a Cycle 15, as it would have been had the cycles been numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, like all the other periods.[76] In still another place the ninth cycle after the starting point (that is, the end of a Cycle 13) is not a Cycle 2 in the _following_ great cycle, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but a Cycle 9, as if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. Again, the end of the tenth cycle after the starting point is recorded in several places, but not as Cycle 3 of the following great cycle, as if the cycles were numbered from 0 to 19, inclusive, but as Cycle 10, as would be the case if the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13. The above examples leave little doubt that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, and not from 0 to 19, as in the case of the other periods. Thus, there can be no question concerning the truth of the first of the two above points on which this hypothesis rests. {109} But because this is true it does not necessarily follow that 13 cycles made 1 great cycle. Before deciding this point let us examine the two Initial Series mentioned above, as _not_ proceeding from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, but from a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, exactly 13 cycles in advance of the former date.