114 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Stela E, west side, A1—B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3, B3. _—«:£ probably g cycles 
A4, B4 __? probably g katuns 
As, Bs __? probably 2 tuns 
A6, B6 ~—s missing, probably 17 uinals 
A7, B7 ‘missing, probably o kins 
north side, cz |.h. cz 10 Ahau 8 Uo 
C13 13 Ahau, perhaps 13 Ahau 18 Tzec 
south side, Dio 13 Ahau 18 Tzec, perhaps 9.9.1.2.0 
pDi2l.h. g Ahau, perhaps 9.9.5.0.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Uo 
Altar, F1DE2 9 Ahau 18 Uo, probably 9.9. 5- 0.0 
Dyan she multipliers [7. ¢., coeficients] eet ae seems is that éf 
the first group [1. ¢., a3, the cycle Socinneney which represents quite a new form, 
and about which I dare express only a surmise—that it is possibly another form 
of the heiroglyph 9. The multiplier of the second group [i. ¢., a4, the katun 
coefficient] appears to be like that of the third of Stela P [Maudslay, 1889-1902, 
vol. 1, plates 88, 89, A4a] for which the value 13 must be supplied. With the 
third multiplier of Stela E [7. ¢., a5, the tun coefficient] all identification ceases.” 
This text has 23+13+13=49 glyph-blocks the Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph occupying the position of four glyph-blocks. 
Since the only two lines of evidence available—artistic and cirsdolenea 
both agree upon 9.9.5.0.0 as being the most likely date for Stela E, it may 
probably be accepted as correct; and on the basis of this date, as already 
noted, this monument may possibly be referred to Group 9, where the 
previous hotun-marker, Stela 7, is known to have stood in ancient times. 
STELA P. 
Provenance: Original position uncertain, possibly at Group 9. Now 
standing in the Western Court at northwest corner 
of Mound 16 at the Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop. 
Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 86 and 88. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 18, 3 (front only). ~ 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 87-89. 
Morley, 1915, figure 69, B 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, page 772, figure 222. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, facing p. 140 (front only). 
Thomas, 1904, figures 150 and ISI. 
References: _ Bowditch, 1910, pp. 143, 144, and table 29. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 133. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 15, 35. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 58, 59. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, p. 773. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 156, 158, 159, 162, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. I, p. 140. 
Thomas, 1904, pp. 223-226. 

1The assumption that the cycle coefficient is 9 is doubtless correct, but the identification of the katun coefhi- 
cient as 13 can not be substantiated by the evidence adduced. This identification is based upon the 
similarity which Seler believes exists between the katun coefficient of Stela E and the tun coefficient 
of Stela P. Even granting this similarity, which the writer does not, the identification of the katun 
coefficient as 13 collapses, since the tun coefficient of Stela P is not 13 but 10, as will appear in the dis- Beal 
cussion of that monument to follow. 
2Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 774. 
