These are in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque and on the east side of Stela C at Quirigua. In these two cases, if the long numbers expressed in terms of cycles, katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins are reduced to kins, and counted forward from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the starting point of Maya chronology, in neither case will the recorded terminal day of the Initial Series be reached; hence these two Initial Series could not have had the day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu as their starting point. It may be noted here that these two Initial Series are the only ones throughout the inscriptions known at the present time which are not counted from the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.[77] However, by counting _backward_ each of these long numbers from their respective terminal days, 8 Ahau 18 Tzec, in the case of the Palenque Initial Series, and 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, in the case of the Quirigua Initial Series, it will be found that both of them proceed from the same starting point, a date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, exactly 13 cycles in advance of the starting point of Maya chronology. Or, in other words, the starting point of all Maya Initial Series save two, was exactly 13 cycles later than the starting point of these two. Because of this fact and the fact that the cycles were numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, as shown above, Mr. Bowditch and Mr. Goodman have reached the conclusion that in the inscriptions only 13 cycles were required to make 1 great cycle. It remains to present the points against this hypothesis, which seem to indicate that the great cycle in the inscriptions contained the same number of cycles (20) as in the codices: 1. In the codices where six orders (great cycles) are recorded it takes 20 of the 5th order (cycles) to make 1 of the 6th order. This absolute uniformity in a strict vigesimal progression in the codices, so similar in other respects to the inscriptions, gives presumptive support at least to the hypothesis that the 6th order in the inscriptions was formed in the same way. 2. The numerical system in both the codices and inscriptions is identical even to the slight irregularity in the second place, where only 18 instead of 20 units were required to make 1 of the third place. It would seem probable, therefore, that had there been any irregularity in the 5th place in the inscriptions (for such the use of 13 in a vigesimal system must be called), it would have been found also in the codices. {110}