260 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
however, is not so easily deciphered. The head of the human figure record- 
ing this number is normal, but is somewhat different from the head for 8 in 
Fragment 5. It seems to be more like the head of an old man, whereas the 
head for 8 is more youthful, showing none of the lines of age. The best 
readings are 1, 12, and 4 in this order, although several other values, namely, 
2 and 11, must be admitted as possibilities.!. Part of Glyph F, the seventh 
glyph of the Supplementary Series, counting from the right, is at the right 
side of Fragment 7, and the rest of it is on Fragment 8. 
Fragment 9 has Glyph C, the fourth of the Supplementary Series.” The 
rest of the text, including the month-sign of the Initial Series, is missing. 
The Peabody Museum photograph, No. 378, shows a fragment, which 
almost certainly must have been a part of Date 24. The single glyph-block 
preserved shows two human figures facing each other as in the other glyph- 
blocks of this date. 
Assembling the preceding values and selecting the best reading in each 
case, we will have the following Initial Series number: 9.13.3.7.8; and re- 
ferring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this corresponds to the 
date 1 Lamat 1 Chen. 
Fragment 1 Initial Series introducing glyph 
Fragments 1 and 2 9 cycles 
Fragment 2 13 katuns 
Fragment 3 3 tuns 
Fragments 3 and 4 7 uinals 
Fragment 5 8 kins 
Fragment 6 1 Lamat 
Missing 1 Chen 
If the uinal coefficient is either 1, 2, 4, 7, 8,9, 11, or 12, and the day coeffi- 
cient either I, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, or 12, which would seem to comprise all the 
values even remotely possible for either of them, there will be found to have 
been only four places in Tun 3 of Katun 13 of cycle gwhere these conditions fit: 
9.15.3.1:8. sell veamaterean 
9.13.3-7-8 1 Lamat 1 Chen 
9.13.3.8.8 8 Lamat 1 Yax 
9.13.3.9.8 2 Lamat 1 Zac 
But of these, the first and the last two may probably be eliminated, the 
first because the uinal coefficient does not resemble any known forms for 1; 
the third because the uinal and day coefficients are not alike and do not 
resemble the kin coefficient in Fragment 5, which is 8; and the fourth because 
the uinal coefficient does not resemble any known forms for 9. And this 
leaves the second 9.13.3.7.8 1 Lamat 1 Chen as the most probable reading 
for this date, although it is by no means certain. If the block presenting 
the month-glyph should be discovered, this uncertainty would disappear. 

1 It is necessary to include 2 and 11 here, since the head-variants for these numbers have not been identified 
yet, and either might be the day coefhcient here. 
2 This last sign is clearly Glyph C of the Supplementary Series. (See Morley, 1916, pp. 376-381.) The 
month-sign was the fourth glyph after this, the variable Glyph X, Glyph B, and Glyph A intervening. There are 
at least three fragments missing after Glyph C, or perhaps even four. 
