INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 301 
been numerical,' the latter reading, 3 Caban o Pop, is practically certain. 
Moreover, as will be shown later, 3 Caban o Pop is closely connected with 
another date on Altar U, whereas 2 Caban o Pop has no significant relation- 
ship with any other dates on the monument. Indeed, all things considered, 
the date in a1, B1 may be accepted with certainty as 3 Caban o Pop. This 
date occurred in the Great Period, to which Altar U must be referred on 
stylistic grounds, in two places, namely, at 9.15.9.10.17 and 9.18.2.5.17. 
Before attempting to decide which of these two is the correct value here, 
let us examine the text further. 
Following A1, B1 in A2 is a Secondary Series composed of two coefficients 
attached to the tun-sign:O&2:8. The one to the left is clearly 2, and the 
Onevabove, 11 or 13. A {an first-hand study of the latter established 
the fact that although Ox° 2 both the outside dots are destroyed, their 
stumps looked just like the middle dot, which is undoubtedly numerical. 
It is obvious, further, that either the uinal or kin coefficient must be 0, 
otherwise it could not have been omitted. The only reading of a2 which 
appears to have any particular significance is based on the assumption 
that the kin coefficient is 0; and that the tun and uinal coefficients are 
reversed in position, the 2 at the left being the tun coefficient and the 13 
above the uinal coefficient. Although this latter is just the reverse of the 
usual order in Secondary Series numbers, such cases occur,” and the rela- 
tionship which this inversion makes possible amply justifies its acceptance 
here. A2 therefore probably records 2.13.0, and if this number is counted 
forward from 3 Caban o Pop, the date reached will be found to be 8 Caban 
10 Mac, which is exactly 1 katun earlier than 6 Caban 10 Mol, the important 
date recorded so many times during the Great Period here at Copan, and 
in fact on this very monument at K1, L1. But we have already assumed that 
the Initial Series of this latter date was probably 9.16.12.5.17, and we may 
therefore calculate the Initial Series of these other two dates, 7. ¢., 3 Caban 
o Pop and 8 Caban 10 Mac (the latter not recorded), as shown on page 302. 

17This results directly from the Maya method of notation. When there is an uneven number of effaced 
elements—always 3—the upper and lower elements are always the same. If they are numerical, the number 
may be either 2 or 3, depending on whether the middle element is numerical or ornamental. But if the upper 
and lower elements are ornamental, the number can only be 1. So here, since the lower element is surely numeri- 
cal, the coefficient must either be 2 or 3, depending on the character of the middle element. Maudslay’s drawing 
of this glyph (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 98, glyph 1) shows a cross between the two dots. The original, however, does 
not show this, having quite clearly the traces of a middle dot. 
2 A case in point is glyph a17 on the west side of Stela E at Quirigua. Here the uinal-sign is surmounted by a 
coefficient of 19 (clearly an impossible value in Maya numeration) and preceded by a coefhcient of 4. At first 
sight this distance-number would appear to be 8.19.4. The two dates which it separates are 9.16.11.13.1 II 
Imix 19 Muan and 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. But these two dates are only 8.4.19 apart, viz: 
9.16.11.13. 1 11 Imix 19 Muan 
8. 4.19 
9.17. 0.0.0 13Ahau 18 Cumhu 
and it is therefore evident that the usual positions of the uinal and kin coefficients are reversed, the 19 standing 
above the uinal-sign instead of to the left. Glyph 12 of the same inscription is another case in point. Here the 
kin coefficient 6 stands above the uinal-sign instead of to its left. The Secondary Series number beginning the 
west side of the pedestal of Stela N, here at Copan, 2.6.0 also shows this same inversion of the regular order. A 
few other examples might be cited, but the foregoing are sufficient to show that this unusual arrangement sometimes 
occurs. It seems to have arisen from a desire to improve the appearance of the glyph rather than as indicating any 
corresponding change in the number thus manipulated. 
