280 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The inscription on Stela N opens at the top of the east side with an Initial 
Series introducing glyph at a1 followed by an Initial Series at a2—a7, Als. 
This records the date 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip, although in order to use the 
Initial Series number as it stands it 1s necessary to change the month coef- 
ficient in ais from 8 to 3: 
AI Initial Series introducing glyph 
A2 9 cycles 
A3 16 katuns 
A4 Io tuns 
As © uinals 
A6 o kins 
A7 1 Ahau 
AIS atZap 
This error in the month coefficient, if error it is, is difficult to explain. 
At first sight it would appear as though the bar might be ornamental, mak- 
ing the coefficient 3 instead of 8, but a close examination of the original 
shows that such ts not the case. 
We have, then, an error on the part of the ancient sculptors, for the 
Initial Series number recorded, “9.16.10.0.0,”’ will not lead to the terminal 
date recorded, “1 Ahau 8 Zip,” and one or the other, therefore, must be wrong. 
The terminal date recorded, 1 Ahau 8 Zip, occurred in Cycle 9 nearest the 
Initial Series number recorded, 9.16.10.0.0, at 9.16.4.17.0, but this is not at 
the end of a hotun. Moreover, its acceptance involves two extensive cor- 
rections in the original instead of one if we accept the Initial Series number 
as correct and the terminal date as wrong, namely, changing the two bars of 
the tun coefficient to four dots, and the zero of the uinal coefficient to three 
bars and two dots. For this reason, and also because of the fact that 
9.16.10.0.0 is a hotun-ending, it is more than probable that the error here is 
in the month coefficient Ais, which should be 3 instead of 8, which makes 
Stela N a regular hotun-marker, as the other would not. Finally, the 
lahuntun-sign itself is possibly recorded at B1. 
Errors in the originals are so rare that it is only in such self-evident cases 
as the above that we should permit ourselves to make corrections. In this 
case, however, the number recorded will not lead to the date recorded, and 
it is necessary to presuppose an error somewhere. ‘The correction suggested 
not only requires less change in the original than any other to make the 
record correct, but it is strongly indicated by internal evidence in the text 
itself. We may therefore accept with little hesitation 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 
3 Zip as the date of Stela N. 
Attention should be called to the unusual form of the month-sign in ais. 
Only two other examples of this variant for Zip are known, both of which 
are also here at Copan.’ Indeed, the writer has suggested elsewhere (foot- 
note I, p. 67) that all three of these monuments may be from the hand of 



1 The original incorrectly has 8. 
2 a2, Altar L, and vy, on the reviewing-stand in the Western Court. It is unfoitunate that in both these cases 
the calculations are not certain, although the readings suggested on pp. 290 and 323 respectively are probably 
correct. The practically certain identification of the month-sign on Stela N as Zip, and its close resemblance to 
these other two examples, tends to confirm these other 1eadings. 
