142 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
opposite side (D1)! is entirely effaced, and it is impossible to tell whether it 
had been an Initial Series introducing glyph or not. 
Maudslay’s drawing of this Initial Series is extremely faulty; indeed, 
it is the most inaccurate of all his reproductions of the Copan inscriptions. 
In the first place, the cycle coefficient in a2a u. h. is shown with a clasped 
hand on the lower jaw, which would signify 0 cycles. A study of the original, 
however, failed altogether to establish the presence of this element. On the 
contrary, the dots of the head for 9 could be clearly distinguished, the dots 
not only being double outlined, but also cross-hatched. 
‘His next error is in the katun coefficient (a2) u. h.), which he shows as 
15, 1. ¢., as 3 bars, whereas the original has but 2 bars. This error doubtless 
arose ikon his mistaking the upper part of the head-variant representing 
the katun fora bar. The reading 10, however, is quite clearinthe original. His 
drawing of the tun coefficient (a3a u. h.) while not actually inaccurate, 1s far 
from clear. Although the fleshless lower jaw of the head for 10 appears very 
clearly, he does not show the small double-outlined and cross-hatched dot 
denoting 9, of exactly the same type as those in the cycle coefficient just 
above. The tun coefficient, therefore is unmistakably 19. 
The uinal coefficient (a3) u. h.) as drawn by Maudslay is obviously 
incorrect. It is 18, an impossible value for the coefficient of the second 
period.?, An examination of.the original, moreover, shows that it is 13. 
Maudslay fell into the same error here as he did in the case of the katun 
coefficient, namely, in identifying the upper part of the period-glyph as a 
bar, giving 18 instead of 13. The two upper bars appear like this Gaz), 
whereas the upper part of the uinal head is rounding and lacks the four 
slanting interior lines. The kin coefficient (a4a u. h.) is o, and the Initial 
Series terminal date (a9), 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin. Fortunately, the latter is very 
clear both in the Maudslay drawing and the original, and proved a valu- 
able check in the final decipherment of this date. The Initial Series here 
recorded, therefore, is 9.10.19.13.0 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin, as follows: 
Ar Initial Series introducing glyph 
Aza sg: cycles 
A2b 10 katuns 
A3a_ 1g tuns 
A3b 13: ulnals 
Aga ~—s Oo kins 
Aga 3 Ahau 
Agb = 8 -_Yaxkin 
In addition to the Initial Series, there are a few other recognizable glyphs 
in the text, though of unknown meaning. cs* would appear to be a day-sign, 
perhaps Ahau, although if so its coefficient can not be 18.4 p3° is the variant 

1Glyph 29, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 
°There are 18 uinals in 1 tun the period next higher, but as 1 tun is never recorded as 18 uinals in the inscrip- 
tions, 18 is an impossible value for the uinal coeficient. (See Morley, 1915, p. 110.) Bowditch (1910, pp. 41, 42) 
notes an apparent exception in the Dresden Codex, where in a series of numbers on pp. 71-73, the number 390, 
1. ¢., 1.1.10, 1s written 19.10, that is, 19 uinals and 10 kins. 
3Gly ah 24, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 
*The day coefficients can only be one of the numbers 1 to 13 inclusive. See Morley, 1915, p. 41. If this 
glyph is a month-sign, the coefficient 18 would be possible. 
5Glyph 31, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 

