64 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
sponding to the second position, namely 1.1. That is, the upper and lower 
dots in Bi are purely ornamental. An examination of the original, more- 
over, proves this to be the case, the upper and lower dots being clearly differ- 
ent from the middle one. (See plate 8,c, Bi.) We may therefore restrict 
this date to one of two possible readings, 11 Lamat 1 Kankin or 11 Eznab 
1 Kankin. Since both Lamat and Eznab may occupy the second position in 
any month, the identity of a1 can be determined only by a study of the 
internal characteristics of the sign itself. Whenever the normal form? of 
Lamat appears in the inscriptions, each of the four quadrants into which it is 
divided has a small circle in the center, thus: (==>) As such circles are en- 
tirely wanting in Ai, we must identify it as the sign for Eznab, the 
only other day-sign possible here. (Compare @JYJ® ai, plate 8, c, with the 
forms for Eznab in Bowditch, 1910, plate 6.) a1, B1, therefore, reads 11 
Eznab 1 Kankin. This latter date, as stated above, recurred at intervals 
of every 52 years in the Long Count,’® and therefore additional data are 
necessary if we are to determine the exact position in the Long Count 
which the ancient sculptors had in mind when they carved it. Finally, as 
such data appear to be lacking in the text itself, we must depend upon the 
style of the monument and its position in the stylistic sequence to settle this 
question. 
Fortunately a consideration of the style of Altar X leaves little room for 
doubt as to its position-in the stylistic sequence at Copan. For example, 
the omission of the ornamental elements on each side of the dot in the num- 
ber 11 in al is a fairly reliable indication that it belongs somewhere in the 
Early Period; and when this point is taken into consideration with other 
indubitably technical as well as stylistic crudities present, there can be no 
doubt that it is one of the earliest sculptures found there. Combining the 
data derived from these two independent lines of evidence, 7. ¢., the chrono- 
logic and artistic, it will be found that there are only three positions possible 
for the date 11 Eznab 1 Kankin in the Early Period, namely: . 

6.3;-04 715 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 
9.5.19.12.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 
9.8.12. 7.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 
But when it comes to choosing further between these three, we venture 
upon uncertain ground. Indeed, each has something that may be urged in 

1Owing to the Maya custom of recording only elapsed time, the first position in a Maya month was written 
zero, viz, O Kankin, the second position, 1 Kankin, the third, 2 Kankin, the fourth, 3 Kankin, etc. The second 
position, therefore, 7. ¢., 1 Kankin, is the only reading possible here. 
2Most Maya glyphs have two distinct forms: (1) the normal form and (2) the head variant. The latter, as its 
name implies, is a human, animal, or grotesque head. In the day and month-signs the head variants are charac- 
terized by the same essential elements as their corresponding normal forms; but in the period glyphs the two 
forms usually have little or nothing in common. See Morley, 1915, pp. 24, 25. 
3The Long Count is a term that has been applied to the old Maya chronological epoch. Dates are fixed in this 
period by the record of their corresponding Initial Series, 7. ¢., their distances from the starting point of Maya 
chronology. This method of recording dates, .as pointed out in Chapter I, was so accurate that a given date could 
not recur, filling all the given conditions, until after an interval of 374,000 years, and possibly until after 5,000,000 
years. See note I, p. 34. 
ias 
