INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 149 
mentary Series, p6 and £6. It is difficult to say whether four or six glyph- 
blocks are missing here, though from what remains of the Supplementary 
Series on the next piece, it would seem as though there had probably been 
six, as shown in figure 26, b. If so, the last two, pé and £6, doubtless were 
Glyphs G and F, respectively, of the Supplementary Series. 
The glyphs on the third fragment continue the Supplementary Series, 
E7 being very clearly Glyph C; ps, Glyph X; and Es, Glyph B. 
The fourth fragment opens with Glyph A, the last glyph of the Supple- 
mentary Series at p9, followed by the month of the Initial Series terminal 
date 8 tat £9. There follow two familiar, though undecipherable, glyphs in 
D10, E10, in which the kin or day-sign appears to be the most important 
element, and then comes a Secondary Series in pilof 5.11. Finally, the last 
glyph on the back, £110, is very clearly 12 Ahau, and the top of the adjoining 
side on the right facing the front of the stela, figure 26, a, F1,is 8 Ceh. The 
next glyph, ci (figure 26, a), is entirely effaced, and the next, F2, is a period- 
glyph, recording probably 11, 12, or 13 katuns. 
Goodman’s tables show that the only place the Calendar Round date 
12 Ahau 8 Ceh could have ended an even tun in Cycle 9 was in 9.11.0.0.0, 
at which time it also ended a katun and hotun as well, so there is little doubt 
that 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, End of Katun 11, is the date recorded by £115-F2. 
Other points in support of this reading are: the proximity of the 
Initial Series date, which we know is in Katun Io (£3); the proximity of the 
Calendar Round date on the other side (left facing the front of the stela), 
i. é., Within two years of 9.11.0.0.0, as we shall see; the prominence of this 
date 9.11.0.0.0 elsewhere at Copan being recorded on no less than six other 
stele; and finally the general stylistic criteria. Indeed, the contemporaneous 
date of this monument may safely be accepted as 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh. 
If the Secondary Series number in DU, 2. ¢., 5.11, is counted back from 
9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, it will not reach the Initial Series terminal date: 
9.11. 0. 0. 0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh 
Bury 
g.10.19.12. 9 5 Muluc17 Xul 
The katun coefficient in £3 agrees, but the month coefficient in £9 does 
not. As recorded, it is clearly 8, while by the above calculation 17 is reached. 
If, however, we change the Secondary Series number from 5.11 to 5.12, 7. ¢., 
supposing one dot to have disappeared from the coefficient in pila, we 
reach a date 9.10.19.12.8 4 Lamat 16 Xul, which is exactly 1 tun later than 
the best reading of the Calendar Round date on the left side facing the 
monument (see figure 26, c, H4, 14), a significant coincidence: 
9.10.18.12.8 8 Lamat 1 Yaxkin 
I. 0.0 
g.10.19.12.8 4 Lamat 16 Xul 
Neither of these, however, can be the Initial Series terminal date, and 
owing to the loss of the second fragment it is impossible to fix this other than 
as having been some time in Katun Io. 
