250 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
passed out of use, if indeed not out of memory, before Cycle 11 began.! Thus, 
while he correctly deciphers the Initial Series terminal date as 12 Muluc 7 
Muan and the katun and kin coefficients as 13 and 9 respectively, his mis- 
identification of the cycle, tun, and uinal coefficients as 11, 9, and 14 respec- 
tively leads him astray, and makes necessary the rejection of his reading. 
There are no other dates on this step. 
This concludes the discussion of the steps 7m situ, which we have seen 
contain four Initial Series—Dates 1, 3, 5, and 10. Let us next examine the 
15 steps which slid down from some higher part of the stairway, but which 
still retain their original sequence, 1. ¢., fg, figure 37. (See Gordon, 1902, 
plate 5.) 
The first step of this section, M (Gordon, 1902, plate 5, A),? is incom- 
plete, and shows no dates. The next step, N, is also very fragmentary. There 
is a Secondary Series composed of 6, 7, or 8 kins, 9 uinals, and 11 tuns at 
JK, but as L is destroyed it is impossible to tell whether it contained any 
katuns or not; the terminal date is wanting, and indeed the whole series is so 
fragmentary that it is impossible to decipher it further. 
The next step, O, begins with a curious glyph in which the tun-sign 
appears, but with no other known period glyphs, and p is 8 Ahau, but as 
E is destroyed it is impossible to even approximate its position in the Long 
Count. 
Darr lie 
The first three glyph-blocks on Step P, a-c, present no familiar signs. 
Next probably came one of the large seated human figures occupying the 
space of four glyph-blocks, p-c. The next three, H—-], are occupied by a 
crouching human figure; and this is followed in kK by an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph. Although the right half of this is missing, enough remains to 
render its identification certain. The left half of L is also missing, but the 
right half shows that it had been the cycle-sign and its coefficient. We are 

1 Tt is possible that the Initial Series in the Temple of the Initial Series at Holactun, Yucatan, may record 
the following Cycle 11 date, 11.2.8.4.9 7 Muluc 17 Tzec (see Morley, 1918a, p. 274), and there are also several 
Cycle 11 Period Ending dates known. (See Appendix II, pp. 510, 511). Gordon suggests the Secondary Series 
11.14.5.1.0 on Stela C may record a Cycle 11 date: 
“The probable exception referred to is Stela C, Copan, which has on the south side an inscription having a 
date which would seem to be not far removed from Date 4 [Date Io here], and it is not unlikely that when the 
dates on Stela C are understood, this monument will be found to belong to the same period as the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. The two monuments have certain technical affinities in the carving, as though they might have been 
the work of the same master.” (1902, p. 185.) 
As will appear in the discussion of Stela C (pp. 345-351), this text will not permit such an interpretation. To 
begin with, a6d is 11 cycles and not Cycle 11 of Maya chronology; and instead of reaching forward from Cycle 9 
(the cycle of the historic epoch at all the southern cities) to Cycle 11, this count actually reaches backward to a date 
before the starting-point of Maya chronology. In other words, instead of being an Initial Series, as it would have 
to be to record a Cycle 11 date as Gordon suggests, A5—A6 is simply a Secondary Series of 11.14.5.1.0 which 
reaches backward from the date (9.16.12.13.0) 6 Ahau 13 Muan in ag to (18.2.7.12.0) 6 Ahau 18 Kayab in 
a7b-a8a, more than 700 years before the starting-point of Maya chronology, and in the previous great-cycle 
(18) to that of the historic period (19). 
2In the present discussion these steps have been given continuous lettering with the steps im situ, that is, 
Step M is the first of this section. 
3 Gordon (1902, p. 178) calls this Date 6; his Date 5 is the Initial Series introducing glyph at E, plate 12, here 
described as Date 28. 
