INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 263 
Parts of two consecutive glyph-blocks are preserved (see figure 41), 
recording 6 Chicchan 3? ‘The break occurs just after or perhaps in the mid- 
dle of the month coefficient. Chicchan is a very 
rare day-sign, and its record here immediately 
suggests that it may be the missing terminal 
date of Date 26. Assuming for the moment 
that it is, and that the month coefficient is 3, 
and not 8, 13, or 18, we will have 9.?.?.16.5 6 
Chicchan 3? It can be found by calculation 
that there are only eight places in Cycle 9 
where such a date could have occurred, namely: 

Fic. 41.—Part of Date 26 (?) from the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. 
g.2.19.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Kankin 9. 9. 9.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Cumhu 
g.5-11.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Pop 9.12. 1.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Tzec 
9.6. 4.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Pax g.15. 6.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin 
9.8.16.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Zip g.18.11.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Chen 
All of these lie within the extremes of dates recorded elsewhere on the 
stairway, except the first and last. Of the remaining six, all but the last 
can probably be eliminated on stylistic grounds, the style of the glyphs 
placing this Initial Series in the second or later group. There is another 
point, moreover, which tends to support this reading. The missing tun 
coefficient is probably under 11 and above 5, judging from the width of the 
uinal block following. If true, this eliminates all but the seventh read- 
ing: 9.15.6.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin. 
The size of the glyph-blocks rather supports the idea that this fragment 
is a part of Date 26. The glyph-blocks of Date 26 are unusually wide, 38 
cm. The width of the incomplete glyph-block in figure 41 presenting 6 
Chicchan is 35 cm., but the face on the left requires from 2 to 3 cm. to com- 
plete it. When this is supplied, the glyph-blocks in the two stones are of 
about the same widths. ‘The heights of the glyph-blocks are also the same, 
and this block has the same ledge along the bottom as the other two pieces 
of Date 26. If these three pieces fit together, the resulting date is not with- 
out interest, being only 39 days later than the important Date 23. 
Date23" 9.15.0.14. 6 .6Cimi 4 Tzec 
1.19 
Date 26 9.15.6.16. 5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin 
Again, this same month-glyph, 3 Yaxkin, is recorded to the left of the 
crouching figure, which has the Initial Series introducing glyph of Date 28 
following it. (See Gordon 1902 plate 12, k, first, second, and third blocks.) 
Possibly this may be a repetition of Date 26 or vice versa, as seen between 
Dates 2 and 3, or 4 and 5, for example. ‘he chief objection to this reading 
is the fact that the head in the left half of this glyph-block (see figure 41) 
bears no resemblance to the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, as it 
probably would if these pieces belong to the same date. Although this 
assemblage is doubtful, it may well be that these several fragments originally 
fitted together, and, if so, the reading suggested is possibly correct. 
