302 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Al, BI 9.15. 9.10.17 3 Cabano Pop 
A2 rete fe 
Not recorded, 9.15.12. 5.17. 8 Caban 10 Mac 
1.80.10H0 
Kr. U1, 9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 
Returning to the discussion of the glyphs on the top, it will be found 
that there are no others of a calendric nature after the number 2.13.0 in 
A2. Some of the remaining glyphs are of familiar form, such as the head of 
God C in c3 and again in F1 and the Zotz head with the Ben—Ik superfix in 
H3, but none are of known meaning. 
The inscription is continued at 11, which is clearly the katun-sign with 
a coefficient of 10 prefixed to it.’ {32 Originally there was another coeffi- 
cient above, but this 1s now de- stroyed. It could not have been 
above 5, however, and, as we g® shall see, was probably only 1. 
Following this, at J1, is a grotesque head, and just around the corner at k1, 
L1 the date ? Caban ? Mol, both the day and month-signs being certain, 
and the coefficients in each case being above 5 but under 11. 
We can hardly refuse to recognize in K1, L1, therefore, the well-known 
date 6 Caban 10 Mol found so frequently in this group of monuments, and 
while direct proof of this reading is lacking, strong indirect confirmation of 
itexistes 
1. In the first place, the date recorded is ? Caban ? Mol, with the two effaced 
coeflicients surely above 5 but under 11. No other date has been found at Copan 
wherein the day-sign is Caban and the month-sign Mol, except 6 Caban 10 Mol, 
which is found, however, in seven other sculptures, all from the close of the Great 
Period. The conclusion, therefore, is almost inevitable that 6 Caban 10 Mol is 
recorded here, particularly since the spaces occupied by the effaced day and month 
coefficients also agree with this reading. 
2. This date is recorded in the most conspicuous place on the monument, 
namely, in the first two glyph-blocks on the back. 
3. Finally, by reading Ki, L1 as 6 Caban 10 Mol an interesting condition 
develops. 


Returning to the Secondary Series number in 11, we see that at least 
two of its coefficients have been omitted. There is a Io to the left of the 
katun-sign and probably 1 above, leaving two coefficients missing, pre- 
sumably both o. This is the only case of its kind of which the writer knows. 
There are several instances, as already noted, where two coefficients are 
attached to the tun-sign and one missing; indeed, such a case occurs in this 
same inscription at A2. But this is the only place known where two coeff- 
cients are missing. It is doubtless perfectly safe to assume that they were 
both 0, and the real difficulty is to determine how these four coefficients of 
I, 0, 0, and 10 are to be distributed among the four periods involved here: 
katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins. This question is incapable of positive answer 
at this time, but the arrangement suggested below is not only the most 

1 Maudslay’s drawing of this glyph (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 98, glyph 25) is incorrect. He shows the katun-sign 
as extending to the top of the glyph-block, whereas it falls 2.5 cm. short of it, just space enough for a coefficient 
below 6, as noted above. 
