LO THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Such a departure from regular practices must necessarily have been due 
to an unusual circumstance, perhaps such as this, and if this explanation 
really explains the situation, it is but another example of that broad prin- 
ciple found applying throughout the Maya hieroglyphic writing, namely, 
the extraordinarily coercive influence of artistic considerations in glyph 
delineation.' 
But after all, the task of accounting for this unusual departure from 
regularly established practices is not so important as the recognition of its 
existence here, from which, in view of the decisive evidence presented, we 
can hardly escape, and we may therefore accept 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol 
as the date of this altar. A summary of the text follows: 
A Fragments S, R, and U, Initial Series introducing glyph 
Ba Fragment V 9 cycles 
Bb Fragment V 11 katuns 
ca Fragment V I5 tuns 
cb Fragment V O uinals 
pa Fragment T (missing) (o kins) 
pb Fragment T (missing) (4 Ahau) 
1b Fragment X 13 Mol 
j Fragment X End of a hotun 
Ka Fragment X 12 Ahau (perhaps 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh) 
The above date is the same as that on Stela 1 just described, and this 
chronologic coincidence at once raises the interesting question as to whether 
or not this altar may originally have been associated with Stela 1 instead of 
Stela 5. It will be shown in the description of the latter that it was not 
erected until 35 or 40 years later than either of the two altars now asso- 
ciated with it, which might be taken as indicating that neither was designed 
originally for use with it. Similarly, the altar now associated with Stela 1 
marks a later hotun-ending, 7. ¢., 9.12.0.0.0 (see p. 176), than the stela itself. 
It therefore appears not unlikely that the East Altar of Stela 5 itself may 
have been associated with Stela 1 originally. The points in favor of this 
association are summarized below: 
1. The same hotun-ending 9.11.15.0.0 is unmistakably recorded on both. 
. The stela with which this altar is now associated (Stela 5) was not erected 
until 40 years after the date on this altar. 
3. The altar now associated with Stela 1 similarly records a later hotun-ending 
than Stela 1, and one, moreover, which is also recorded on another 
altar, namely, the West Altar of Stela 5. (See p. 173.) 
4. Finally, all the other altars of this type, except the altar of Stela 13 and 
the altar of Stela 19,? which is fragmentary, namely, the altars of 
Stela E, 1, and I and the West Altar of Stela 5, record hotun-endings; 
and in the case of two, the altars of E and I, they are still associated 
with their original stelz. 
iS) 
This whole question, of course, hinges upon whether Stela 1 is in situ 
where it was first found at the Main Structure, or whether it was carried 

1 Morley, 1915, pp. 23, 24. 
2 As already pointed out (pp. 145, 146), this altar probably brought the Initial Series of the stela with which it is 
associated, 7. ¢., 9.10.19.15.0, forward to the next hotun-ending, 1. ¢., 9.11.0.0.0, 
