162 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
of which material is now on exhibition at the American Museum of Natural 
History, New York.! 
Below, on the ground-level, is the circular altar described on pages 
174-177, and figured in plate 21. As explained more fully there and as 
noted briefly above, it is probable that this altar was not originally cor- 
related with Stela 1, but with some other monument now missing. 
Stela 1 is about 2.75 meters long, 91 cm. wide and 76 cm. thick. Its 
front (west face) presents a large human figure; and its back and sides are 
inscribed with glyphs, on the basis of which arrangement of the design it 
is to be referred to Class 4. There is but one Initial Series introducing glyph 
at Al—B2 on the back (east face), and this is followed by the Initial Series 
g.11.15.14.0 11 Ahau 8 Zotz, as follows: 
A1B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3 9 cycles 
B3 11 katuns 
A4 15 tuns 
B4 14° uinals 
AS o kins 
CI 11 Ahau 
C2 8 Zotz 
This date is just 14 uinals after a hotun-ending in the Long Count; 
and in psb exactly this number of uinals 1s recorded. Finally, there follows 
next in p6é the date 4 Ahau 13 Mol, which is the ending-date of the previous 
hotun, 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol. 
This distance-number of 14 uinals, therefore, is to be counted backward 
from the Initial Series instead of forward to reach the hotun-ending recorded. 
Secondary Series numbers which are to be counted backward are very 
unusual,’ and only the desire to bring the Initial Series terminal date back 
to the nearest hotun-ending could have justified this violation of precedent 
here. The coefficient of the day-sign in this hotun-ending date is also very 
unusual. It is neither the usual type of bar-and-dot numeral nor a head- 
variant. ‘The number recorded is clearly 4 and is represented by 4 dots in 
a circular cartouche, thus @&) These slight irregularities, however, in no 
way destroy the accuracy of the above reading, and the date of Stela 1 
may be safely accepted as 9.11.15.0.04 Ahau 13 Mol. This text has 12-+9+9 
= 30 glyph-blocks, the Initial Series introducing glyph occupying the space 
2) confirms the above 
ment. ‘The prefix, 
variant of the hotun-sign, which further § 
reading as the correct date of this monu- 



1 Gordon, 1896, pp. 36, 37. 
2 Maudslay’s drawing (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 100, A, glyph 4) incorrectly shows 12 uinals. An examination of the 
original, however, provid that the two outside dots had the same interior circles as the two inside ones, and that all 
four are therefore numerical. Compare the dots in B4 with those in 43, B3 and cl, all of which show the same 
interior circle, for verification of this statement. In Maudslay’s drawing also the month coefficient in cz (ibid., 
c, glyph 2) appears as 13; the original, however, is clearly 8. 
® For a discussion of the direction of the count in Maya numerical series, see Morley, 1915, pp. 136-138. 
4 Several other cases of this kind occur both here at Copan (reviewing stand in the Western Court and Altars 
Q and W’) and elsewhere, and the-whole question has been reviewed in Chapter IV, p. 333. 
