The first five glyphs on the east side of Stela 10 at Tikal are not illustrated in figure 60. The sixth glyph is A1 in figure 60, and the remaining glyphs in this figure carry the text to the bottom of this side of the monument. The first of these five unfigured glyphs is very clearly an Initial-series introducing glyph. Of this there can be no doubt. The second resembles the day 8 Manik, though it is somewhat effaced. The remaining three are unknown. The next glyph, A1, figure 60, is very clearly another Initial-series introducing glyph, having all of the five elements common to that sign. Compare A1 with the forms for the Initial series introducing glyph in figure 24. This certainly would seem to indicate that an Initial Series is to follow. Moreover, the fourth glyph of the eight-term number following in A2-A9, inclusive (that is, A5), records "Cycle 9," the cycle in which practically all Initial-series dates fall. Indeed, if A2, A3, and A4 were omitted and A5, A6, A7, A8, and A9 were recorded immediately after A1, the record would be that of a regular Initial-series number (9.3.6.2.0). Can this be a matter of chance? If not, what effect can A2, A3, and A4 have on the Initial-series date in A1, A5-A9? The writer believes that the only possible effect they could have would be to fix Cycle 9 of Maya chronology in a far more comprehensive and elaborate chronological conception, a conception which {124} indeed staggers the imagination, dealing as it does with more than five million years. If these eight terms all belong to one and the same numerical series, a fact the writer believes he has established in the foregoing pages, it means that Cycle 9, the first historic period of the Maya civilization, was Cycle 9 of Great Cycle 19 of Great-great Cycle 11 of Great-great-great Cycle 1. In other words, the starting point of Maya chronology, which we have seen was the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, 9 cycles before the close of a Cycle 9, was in reality 1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, or simply a fixed point in a far vaster chronological conception. Furthermore, it proves, as contended by the writer on page 113, that a great cycle came to an end on this date, 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This is true because on the above date (1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) all the five periods lower than the great cycle are at 0. It proves, furthermore, as the writer also contended, that the date 4 Ahau 8 Zotz, 13 cycles in advance of the date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, did not end a great cycle-- 1. 11. 19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu 13. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 11. 18. 7. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Zotz but, on the contrary, was a Cycle 7 of Great Cycle 18, the end of which (19. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) was the starting point of Maya chronology. It seems to the writer that the above construction is the only one that can be put on this text if we admit that the eight periods in A2-A9, figure 60, all belong to one and the same numerical series.