A somewhat similar case is that of the katuns in the u kahlay katunob in Table IX. Assuming that a cycle commenced with the first katun there given, the name of this katun is Katun 2 Ahau, although it occupied the _first_ position in the cycle. Again, the name of the second katun in the sequence is Katun 13 Ahau, although it occupied the second position in the cycle. In other words, the katuns of the u kahlay katunob were named quite independently of their position in the period next higher (the cycle), and their names do not indicate the corresponding positions of the katun in the period next higher. Applying the foregoing explanation to those passages in the inscriptions which show that the enumeration of the cycles was from 1 to 13, inclusive, we may interpret them as follows: When we find the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in the inscriptions, accompanied by an "ending sign" and a Cycle 13, that "Cycle 13," even granting that it stands at the end of some great cycle, does not signify that there were only 13 cycles in the great cycle of which it was a part. On the contrary, it records only the end of a particular Cycle 13, being a Period-ending date pure and simple. Such passages no more fix the length of the great cycle as containing 13 cycles than does the coefficient 13 of the day name 13 Ix in Table XI limit the number of days in a uinal to 13, or, again, the 13 of the katun name 13 Ahau in Table IX limit the number of katuns in a cycle to 13. This explanation not only accounts for the use of the 14 cycles or 17 cycles, as {113} shown in figure 57, _a_, _b_, but also satisfactorily provides for the enumeration of the cycles from 1 to 13, inclusive. If the date "4 Ahau 8 Cumhu ending Cycle 13" be regarded as a Period-ending date, not as indicating that the number of cycles in a great cycle was restricted to 13, the next question is--Did a great cycle also come to an end on the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu--the starting point of Maya chronology and the closing date of a Cycle 13? That it did the writer is firmly convinced, although final proof of the point can not be presented until numerical series containing more than 5 terms shall have been considered. (See pp. 114-127 for this discussion.) The following points, however, which may be introduced here, tend to prove this condition: 1. In the natural course of affairs the Maya would have commenced their chronology with the beginning of some great cycle, and to have done this in the Maya system of counting time--that is, by elapsed periods--it was necessary to reckon from the end of the preceding great cycle as the starting point. 2. Moreover, it would seem as though the natural cycle with which to commence counting time would be a _Cycle 1_, and if this were done time would have to be counted from a _Cycle 13_, since a Cycle 1 could follow only a Cycle 13.