262 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 



Cycle-sign and | Katun-signand | Tun-sign and | Uinal-sign and | Max. difference 
coefhcient. coefhcient. coefficient. coefficient. between stones. 
mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. 
Height of glyph-block.. .. 264 266 266 272 8 
Width of glyph block..... 343 254-+095 or 349 330 330 19 


The above maximum differences are so slight as to be negligible, and in all 
probability these two stones fit together and record one of the two follow- 
ing Initial Series, depending upon whether the kin coefficient is 12 or 17, 
9.14.10.10.12 9 Eb 10 Tzec or 9.14.10.10.17 1 Caban 15 Tzec, as follows: 
First block A (Initial Series introducing glyph) missing 
B 9 cycles 
First and second blocks c 14 katuns 
Second block . D 10 tuns 
E 10 uinals 
Second and third blocks F_ 12 or 17 kins 
Fourth block G (9 Eb or 1 Caban) missing 
(10 Tzec or 15 Tzec) missing 
Gordon suggests the possibility! that the first block above was followed 
by the two blocks described below as Date 26. This hypothesis necessitates 
the assumption that the right third of the katun-glyph and the tun coefficient 
were recorded on a narrow block now missing. ‘This would have been con- 
trary to the general practice in the stairway of using longer blocks whenever 
possible. Moreover, his suggestion is open to the insuperable objection 
that the glyph-blocks of Date 26 are 5 cm. higher than those of Date 2s. 
The two blocks on which the writer’s Date 26 is recorded each have a ledge 
along the bottom (see Gordon, 1902, plate 13, N, and plate 12, p, fourth 
block), the one on which Date 25 is recorded being without such a ledge. 
Gordon offers an ingenious explanation for this difference, which, however, is 
unnecessary if the above arrangement is accepted. 
DaTE 26. 
Date 26, however, is very similar in style and arrangement to Date 25. 
It has the same large head-variant period-glyphs with bar-and-dot coeffi- 
cients to the left, each period occupying an entire glyph-block. (See plate 
26,¢; also Gordon, 1902, plate 13, N, and plate 12, p, fourth block). Date 26, 
what little is left of it, is presented upon two consecutive stones and records 
? tuns 16 uinals and 5 kins. Both ends of both blocks are smoothed 
for fitting against each other and adjoining blocks, the latter now missing. 
As it stands, nothing further can be done in deciphering this Initial Series 
other than to say that the day-sign must have been Chicchan and the month 
coefficient 3, 8,13, or18. ‘There is, however, a stone in the Peabody Museum 
(see figure 41) which may record the terminal date of this Initial Series. (Cat- 
alogue No. C 858.) 

1 Gordon, 1902, p. 184. 
