INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. IOI 
the form for o here under consideration, and, as pointed out, is the value 
demanded by the Initial Series number actually recorded.! 
Even disregarding this last doubtful example, the writer believes suffi- 
cient evidence has been presented to show that the tun coefficient in a4a, 
figure 15,is probably 0; and further, that it is probably the normal form of the 
tun sign, though why this should have been chosen to stand for o in these 
particular cases is unknown. 
Returning once more to the consideration of our text (Stela 18), the 
next glyph after the tun sign and coefficient, 7. ¢., B4 (see plate 9, a, and figure 
15), is badly effaced. Enough remains of the coefficient, however (B4a), to 
show that it had almost certainly been o, the outline ~ being that of the 
usual sign for o The kin coefficient in as is entirely { effaced. 
The day||| of the Initial Series terminal date? is probably re- 
corded at sBa. At first sight the coefficient appears to be 6, but a very 
careful examination of the original revealed the fact that formerly there 
appears to have been two other dots, one on each side of the central one, 
and that this coefficient may therefore have been 7 or even 8, all three 
possibilities having to be reckoned with. 
Antecedent probability, we have seen, probably justifies the postulate 
that a katun, lahuntun, or at least a hotun-ending was recorded by this 
Initial Series. That this was a general practice, moreover, is explained in 
Appendix VII and has been exemplified already in the cases of Stele 24, 15, 
and 9, and probably also in the cases of Stele 20, 25, and 17, and we are 
therefore justified in accepting it as our first postulate. Again, as shown 
above, there are excellent reasons for believing that a4a, the tun coefficient, 
is 0, which would make the period-ending here recorded a katun-ending, 
which we will make our second postulate, thereby restricting the possible 
dates under our first postulate to katun-endings only. That the coefficient 
of the day-sign in Bsa is surely 6, 7, or 8, will be our third postulate; and 
finally, on stylistic grounds, Spinden has shown that Stela 18 must be earlier 
than Stela 7 (9.9.0.0.0), which will be our fourth and last postulate. 
An examination of Goodman’s tables discloses that there are only 
three places in the Early Period where the conditions imposed by these four 
postulates are fulfilled, namely: 
g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh 
g.1.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Yaxkin 
9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin 
Unfortunately there is nothing further in the text as it has come down 
to us—the most hopelessly effaced of all the Copan stele—to aid further 
in its decipherment, and we are forced to fall back upon the stylistic criteria 
and historical probability to decipher its date even approximately. 

1]t is interesting to note in these three examples that the month having this unusual sign for o is Yaxkin. 
Since there are some grounds for believing that the Maya year may have begun with this month at one time, the 
three days recorded in figure 17 would then have been Maya New Year Days. 
