236 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The second reading above is 1.0.0.8 later than the Initial Series of Stela 
D, and the third reading is 1.0.3.8 later than the reading suggested for the 
lower step. On the other hand, the preliminary inspection of the text gives I 
as the best value for the day coefficient in G2, which gives the first reading above. 
These dates well illustrate the uncertainty to which Calendar Round 
dating gives rise.’ We are uncertain which one of them is correct, because 
no corresponding Initial Series number is recorded, nor indeed for the date on 
the lower step either. Because the date of the associated stela is 9.15.5.0.0, 
and because a Katun 15 is possibly recorded at ma, it is not unlikely that 
the Calendar Round date in md, nN, 1 Ahau 8 Xul, is 9.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 
8 Xul, although even this reading, the surer of the two, is open to doubt. 
The choice of 9.14.16.11.8 for the Initial Series number of the Calendar 
Round date on the upper step, although leaving much to be desired, is 
perhaps the best compromise that can be effected; at all events, the day 
coefficient in G2 looks more like 1 than 2 or 3. Either of the other readings, 
however, is well within the range of probability. 
The fact that the best reading of both the day-sign coefficients is I is an 
additional item of evidence in their favor, since there is always an effort in 
Maya Secondary Series to return to the same day, though here only the same 
day coefhcient appears to have been repeated. 
Another possible explanation for this unsatisfactory inscription is that 
these sculptured steps were originally designed for use elsewhere and have 
no relation to each other as they are now assembled. In this connection it 
will be remembered that each is of different length and height, and each 
has a different glyph presentation, the upper one having two horizontal 
rows and the lower but one. The style of carving, however, is similar, and 
both would appear to have been built into the southern slope of Mound 2 at 
the same time. Moreover, a niche or break in the northern side of the Great 
Plaza seems to have been left for the approach to this mound. All things 
considered, the readings suggested are better than any others available. 
A summary of the inscription with relation to Stela D is given below: 
Upper Step G2, H2 (9.14.16.11. 8) 1 Lamat 16 Zotz 
(8. 6.12) undeclared 
Stela D, ar—Ag, As sesh e 10 Ahau 8 Chen 
1240.0) undeclared 
Lower Step Md, N (9.15.17. 0.0) 1 Ahau8 Xul 
It will be seen from the foregoing that the date of Stela D falls between 
the dates on the upper and lower steps, a not improbable arrangement for the 
three. Noteworthy features of this text are: 
1. That Initial Series introducing glyphs sometimes, though very rarely, were 
used without accompanying Initial Series numbers. This will be found to be the 
case in two other monuments of the Great Period here, namely, Stele F and C.? 

1 See Morley, 1915, pp. 76, 240-245. 
2 Stele 15, 7, and P are not to be included here, since at least one Initial Series number is recorded upon each 
of these monuments, the extra Initial Series introducing glyphs in each case being in a sense redundant. 
