62 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Of these, the results of our preliminary inspection would give preference 
to the first or fifth, 9.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax or 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol, 
respectively, though between these two it is impossible to choose on the 
basis of anything now recognizable in the text. Moreover, it is even neces- 
sary to admit two other values, 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax or 9.7.10.0.0 6 
Ahau 13 Zac, as remoter possibilities. 
There are present, however, two other factors which make it extremely 
likely that 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol was the date originally recorded here. 
In the first place, historical probability as well as the stylistic criteria favors 
the later rather than earlier reading, and in the second place there is a stela in 
the immediate vicinity, z. e., No. 15, recording this same date (see pp. 86-89). 
Moreover, 9.0.10.0.0 is 40 years older than the earliest surely deciphered 
date at Copan (Stela 24), and if accepted would cause a lacuna of that 
length in the sequence of the sculptures. Again, the fact that there isa stela 
recording the later date, for which no corresponding altar has yet been 
found, itself renders the later reading the more probable. 
The case may be summed up as follows: Although exact proof is wanting, 
it is not unlikely that Altar Q’ may have recorded the lahuntun 9.4.10.0.0, 
the same as Stela 15, and in that case it may have been associated with Stela 
I5 in ancient times. If this reading is rejected, the next best appears to be 
9.7.10.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Zac, on the ground that the three dots of the day 
coefficient are obviously mot of the same size. 
The style of Altar Q’ closely resembles that of Altars L’ and M’. Indeed, 
if we assume that the missing left end of Altar M’, and probably of Altar L’ 
as well, presented the same large serpent heads as their respective right ends, 
only reversed, an assumption the writer favors, we have exactly the same 
design as on Altar Q’, 7. e., a panel of glyphs flanked on either side by a large 
serpent head and divided by the same arrangement of vertical and hori- 
zontal bands. The only difference would then be in the number of the 
glyph-blocks, Q’ having 4 and L’ and M’ 6. And further, since Q’ is almost 
certainly referable to the lahuntun 9.4.10.0.0, it is probable that L’ and M’ 
date from the same general period. Possibly being a little more complex in 
subject-matter, they may be slightly later, 9. 5.0.0.0 or 9.5.10.0.0, for example, 
although it is dangerous to push the stylistic criteria too far when objects 
and treatment are so similar. 
In closing the presentation of these five archaic altars, it should be 
pointed out that they are all tables, flat slabs of stone, which were intended 
to lie on their broad faces rather than stand on their ends or narrow faces. 
This is conclusively proved by L’ and M’, where the front narrow faces are 
sculptured with glyphs, the backs and bottoms being dressed, but plain. 
In other words, to have both the top and front designs appear right side up 
at the same time, it is necessary to have the stone lying on its plain broad 
surface, and face the narrow sculptured front. In this latter position only 
will the designs on both the top and front appear right side up. 
