INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 67 
single form.! él[s él COP) The superfix in Bi (plate 8, 4), how- 
ever, bears a strong resemblance to the first and 
second variants of the Uo superfix just given, and at the same time is 
totally dissimilar to any of the known forms of the Zip superfix. The reading 
6 Cimi 19 Uo therefore appears reasonably certain.” 
This date occurred in Cycle 9 within the limits stylistically probable at 
three® positions, namely: 
9.4. 8.12.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo 
O.7tn7 0 6:Cim to Us 
9.9.14. 2.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo 
Whichever of these values is chosen, it will be found that it is within 21 
years of one or other of the three values already given for Altar X, viz: 
9.4.8.12. 6 ey Fa ay Pan 9.9.14. 2. 6 
9.3-6.17.18 g.§-19.12.18 S812. 7.15 
PPE He ge Bye Pee lah 2c.0 SoCisk oo 
In other words, although the dates of Altars X and Y may be 73 or 
even 125 years apart,‘ in view of their very close stylistic similarity, they 
were probably only 21 years apart, which is as near as their dates will 
permit them to be. Therefore, if we could establish the date either of Altar 
X or Altar Y, the corresponding date in the other set would probably be 
correct for the other monument. Unfortunately, viewed in the light of 
Altar X, the most probable date for Altar Y would be the second value 
given above, whereas, judged on its own merits alone, the first is the only 
one of the three which has anything particular that may be urged in its 
favor. To begin with, 9.4.8.12.6 is less than two years earlier than the 
date of Stela 15, which is 9.4.10.0.0. 
Again, this date is only 104 days earlier than the next tun ending in the 
Long Count, 9.4.9.0.0. Finally, it is only 454 days earlier than one of the two 
best readings for Stela 16, 9.4.9.17.0. Even in spite of these rather satis- 
factory connections with other monuments, it appears unwise in the absence 
of more definite evidence to accept this reading as final or to reject altogether 
the other two possibilities. Further consideration of the date of Altar Y 
will be deferred until after Stele 16 and 17 have been described. 
The remaining glyphs of this text are either unfamiliar or of unknown 
meaning. 



1In three texts at Copan, namely, Stela N(east side), ats, Altar L, a2, and the reviewing stand on the south 
side of Mound 11, vi, another variant for Zip seems to have been used. These three 
texts date from the same decade (9.16.10.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0), and the close > 
between their three forms for Zip may be due to the personal equation WON Po of a single 
sculptor. At least, the above variants have not been found elsewhere, and { |B aS) at Copan 
they appear only during this particular decade. 
2In order that the student may draw his own conclusions, however, Appendix X should be consulted, where 
all known occurrences of all the day and month-signs in the Copan inscription are listed. 
3The very earliest occurrence of 6 Cimi 19 Uo in Cycle 9, 1. ¢., 9.1.15-17.6, is not included above, as it is too 
early to be either historically or stylistically probable. 
4That is 1 or 2 Calendar Rounds +1.1.12.8. sweesery OF ILEING! 

