THOMAS] COPAN INSCRIPTIONS—STELA © T717 
Ahau 18 Kayab, designated by the first glyph to be a certain number of score days 
ina 18th cycle. As all the dates are indicated to be the beginning of ahaus, this 
particular date must be in the 13th cycle of the 55th great cycle, as no ahau in the 
13th eyele of the 54th great cycle begins with 6 Ahau 18 Kayab. In the 55th great 
cycle it is 13-2-18-18 20. From this date, according to the glyphs as drawn, there 
is a reckoning of 11-14-5-181 to either another 6 Ahau 18 Kayab or to an 8 
Ahau 13 Muan; but such a reckoning would reach neither of those dates—both of 
which are designated as beginning an ahau 

even if there were no odd day or 
chuen. The only explanation I can conceive is that the reckoning is, or was intended 
to be, 11-17-5-1820, which is 5 ahau rounds; and as the same ahau date recurs 
at each round, the 6 Ahau 18 Kayab would be correct in that event. But this would 
leave the next date, 8 Ahau 13 Muan, still a mystery, it appearing to have no 
connection with the preceding dates. As the beginning ofan ahau it could not occur 
anywhere in the vicinity except at 54-12-16-1-18 20. The second section, like the 
first, begins with a glyph indicating the date to be certain scores of days in the 13th 
cycle. The day number is given as 15, but of course that is impossible. From a 
later examination of the stone Maudsley thinks it may be 9 or 5. It is probably 
the former, the date in all likelihood being—55-13-2-14-18 x 20—9 Ahau 18 Cumhu. 
In this event, the character under the ordinary numeral accompanying the month 
symbol must represent 10. The rest of the inscription is unintelligible, except the 
two dates, 4 Ahau 18 Uo and 5 Ahau 8 Uo. 
Unfortunately Maudslay’s photographs of the inscriptions on this 
stela are not sufficiently distinct and clear to enable us to thoroughly 
test his drawings by inspection, and the latter are not entirely 
satisfactory. 
The initial series in this instance appears to consist of the single 
symbol denoting 13 cycles, followed immediately by 6 Ahau 18 Kayab. 
This, written out after the method adopted, would be 54-13-0-0-0-0, 
to 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, or fifty-fourth great cycle, 13 cycles, 0 katuns, 
0 ahaus, 0 chuens, 0 days, to 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, assuming the date 
to be in Goodman’s supposed fifty-fourth great cycle. However, 
according to this author, no ahau in his fifty-fourth great cycle begins 
with 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, but, as he finds by reference to his scheme as 
shown in his tables, that it does begin the eighteenth ahau (according 
to his method of counting) of the second katun of the thirteenth cycle 
of the fifty-fifth great cycle, he places it there. It is apparent from 
this fact that he has determined the number of the great cycle not by 
an inspection of the initial or great cycle glyph, but from his system. 
Has his determination of the numbers of the other two great cycles 
he mentions been reached in the same way? Iam strongly inclined to 
think that it has, as the process to be followed in determining the 
numbers from the details of the initial glyphs is not clearly given nor 
fully explained anywhere in his work. 
There is an initial series to another inscription on this stela, but it 
is unintelligible to me and apparently so to Goodman. There is one 
numeral series in the first inscription, but it will not connect dates. 
