INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 287 
Again the third reading is the best, since it is less than a year later than 
the date of Stela N. 
Now, the 13 Pop of this date is just at the intersection of the south and 
west bands, that is, just where the west band passes under the south band. 
Moreover, the number mentioned above is next this glyph, and it therefore 
seems probable that it is in some way connected with this date. 
If this number connects these two dates (6 ? 3 Yaxkin and 11 ? 13 Pop), 
it is obvious that neither of its two recorded coefficients (6, 7, or 8 and 1, 2, 
or 3) can be the kin coefficient, since in counting either way from either date, 
O, 5, 10, and 15 are the only four values of the kin coefficient which will reach 
3 Yaxkin from 13 Pop or vice versa, and none of these numbers appear 
attached to this period glyph. Therefore, if this number does represent 
the distance between these two dates, it is evident that neither of the two 
coefficients present can be the kin coefficient. But we have already seen 
that in certain rare cases both coefhcient and period-glyph may be omitted 
when the value of the former is 0;! and we have also just seen that the kin 
coefficient here must be either 0, 5, 10, or 15 if this number connects these 
two dates. Therefore we may probably conclude that this number is con- 
posed of tuns and uinals but no kins, 2. ¢., its kin coefficient iso. Finally, as 
a corollary of the above conclusion, it follows that the uncertain day-signs 
in these two dates must be the same; that ts, if we supply Men as the missing 
day-sign in one date we must also use it in the other, and so on. Fortun- 
ately, both the day coefficients and the months of these two dates are ex- 
ceedingly clear, and leave no doubt as to the readings intended here. The 
first, 3 Yaxkin, is distant from the second, 13 Pop, 110 days, and the second 
from the first, 255 days. [he number at the top of the west band, therefore, 
must be either one of these two numbers plus 365 days or a multiple thereof; 
and finally, since the day-signs must be the same, the total number at the 
top of the west band must be exactly divisible by 20,” and when divided by 
13 the remainder must be either 5 or 8.° 
It can be shown by calculation that no possible combination of 6, 7, or 
8 tuns, I, 2, or 3 uinals, and o kins will give a number which will fulfill all the 
necessary conditions present here. It is evident, therefore, that 1, 2, or 3 
can not be the uinal coefficient, nor 6, 7, or 8 the tun coefficient; and yet one 
of each set of these numbers is surely recorded here. 
A few cases are known, however, where the usual positions of the 
coefficients are reversed, the coefficient of the higher period being written to 
the left of the period-glyph instead of above in the usual position.* Trying 
this new arrangement, it will be found that if 2 tuns, 6 uinals, and o kins, 
2.6.0, 1.é@., 110 +2 (365), is counted forward from 13 Pop, the month reached 


1See note I, page 203. 
2 Only when a number is exactly divisible by 20 will the same day-sign be reached in counting between two 
Maya dates. 
3These two numbers are the only ones which will reach the two day-coefficients actually recorded, 11 and 
6, viz, 5+6=11, or 8-+11 =19, which, after casting out a 13, leaves 6. 
4 See, Morley, 1915, pp. 127-129. Stela E at Quirigua and Altar U here at Copan are perhaps the best known 
examples of this inversion of the regular order. 
