Page 24: 9. 9.16. 0. 0[255]| Page 58: 9.12.11.11. 0 Page 24: 9. 9. 9.16. 0 | Page 62: 8.16.15.16. 1 Page 31: 8.16.14.15. 4 | Page 62: 8.16.14.15. 4 Page 31: 8.16. 3.13. 0 | Page 63: 8.11. 8. 7. 0 Page 31: 10.13.13. 3. 2[256]| Page 63: 8.16. 3.13. 0 Page 43: 9.19. 8.15. 0 | Page 63: 10.13. 3.16. 4[257] Page 45: 8.17.11. 3. 0 | Page 63: 10.13.13. 3. 2 Page 51: 8.16. 4. 8. 0[258]| Page 70: 9.13.12.10. 0 Page 51: 10.19. 6. 1. 8[259]| Page 70: 9.19.11.13. 0 Page 52: 9.16. 4.11.18[260]| Page 70: 10.17.13.12.12 Page 52: 9.19. 5. 7. 8[261]| Page 70: 10.11. 3.18.14 Page 52: 9.16. 4.10. 8 | Page 70: 8. 6.16.12. 0 Page 52: 9.16. 4.11. 3 | Page 70: 8.16.19.10. 0 Page 58: 9.18. 2. 2. 0 | There is a wide range of time covered by these Initial Series; indeed, from the earliest 8.6.16.12.0 (on p. 70) to the latest, 10.19.6.1.8 (on p. 51) there elapsed more than a thousand years. Where the difference between the earliest and the latest dates is so great, it is a matter of vital importance to determine the contemporaneous date of the manuscript. If the closing date 10.19.6.1.8 represents the time at which the manuscript was made, then the preceding dates reach back {272} for more than a thousand years. On the other hand, if 8.6.16.12.0 records the present time of the manuscript, then all the following dates are prophetic. It is a difficult question to answer, and the best authorities have seemed disposed to take a middle course, assigning as the contemporaneous date of the codex a date about the middle of Cycle 9. Says Professor Förstemann (_Bulletin 28_, p. 402) on the subject: In my opinion my demonstration also definitely proves that these large numbers [the Initial Series] do not proceed from the future to the past, but from the past, through the present, to the future. Unless I am quite mistaken, the highest numbers among them seem actually to reach into the future, and thus to have a prophetic meaning. Here the question arises, At what point in this series of numbers does the present lie? or, Has the writer in different portions of his work adopted different points of time as the present? If I may venture to express my conjecture, it seems to me that the first large number in the whole manuscript, the 1,366,560 in the second column of page 24 [9.9.16.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the first Initial Series figured in plate 31], has the greatest claim to be interpreted as the present point of time. In a later article (_Bulletin 28_, p. 437) Professor Förstemann says: "But I think it is more probable that the date farthest to the right (1 Ahau, 18 Zip ...) denotes the present, the other two [namely, 9.9.16.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu and 9.9.9.16.0 1 Ahau 18 Kayab] alluding to remarkable days in the future." He assigns to this date 1 Ahau 18 Zip the position of 9.7.16.12.0 in the Long Count.