66 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
ALTAR Y. 
Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the Great Plaza 
at the Main Structure in the foundations of Stela 4. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.4. 8.12.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?) or 
g.7- 1. 7.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?) or 
ae 2.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?). 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 8, b. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 103, c (front only). 
(b) drawing: — 1bid., plate 104. 
Gordon, 19024, plate 14. 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 42, 43. 
Gordon, 19024, pp. 130-132, 139-143. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 161, 164, and table I. 
Altar Y is 1.22 meters long, 91 cm. wide, and 38 cm. thick. It was 
found buried in the ground underneath Stela 4, in the support of which it 
seems to have served. Its decoration is similar in every respect to that of 
Altar X. There are the same bands dividing the top and four sides into four 
compartments each, the same arrangement of figures in the four panels on 
the long sides, and of glyphs in the four panels on the short sides. Each 
glyph panel similarly has 4 glyph-blocks, making a total of 16 for the 
entire text. In size, shape, and decoration the two monuments are prac- 
tically identical. The text on Altar Y (plate 8,d), like that on Altar X, opens 
with a Calendar Round date, which the writer deciphers as 6 Cimi 19 Uo,} 
although the month-sign in B1 may possibly be Zip instead of Uo. 
As the main elements in the signs for Uo and Zip are identical 
(a pair of bands crossing in the center), one is frequently mis- 
taken for the other, and vice versa. The determining charac- 
ic in each case is the superfix (=) 
Sie es CB). 
(or prefix),* which in Uo has several variants but which in Zip is confined toa 





1A serious error should be noted in Gordon’s drawing of this text (1902a, plate 14, 3, B1). He shows the 
month coefficient thus: that is as 14, 2 bars and 4 dots, the first bar showing a decorative inner line. 
U) 
Tea Maudslay CY} (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 104, upper half, glyph 2) shows the correct month 
coefhcient 19, but makes 0 the right-hand bar thicker than the middle and left ones, and 
introduces an interior (J decoration in the dots, not present in the original. An exami- 
nation of the original showed that Maudslay’s drawing of the coefficient is substan- 
tially correct, except that all three of the bars are practically of the same thickness. Gordon’s error 
seems to have arisen through mistaking the line between the first and second bars for a decorative 
element of the first bar, thus reducing the number of bars from 3 to 2 and making the coefficient 14 instead of 19, 
?There are four other month signs Chen, Yax, Zac, and 
Ceh, which have their main elements alike. These also are (Gay C22) 
to be distinguished from each other only by their super- (7 
fixes or prefixes. It should be noted in this connection that 
the superfixes in the signs for Zip and Ceh are identical, = 
the only difference between thetwo signs being their main elements. 
See last two signs above. 
3In one text at Copan, Altar Q, £6, the Uo superfix is wanting altogether. —— 
In this case the main element takes the unusual form shown herewith. eee 
<——~S 




