306 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The next important fact is that two consecutive New Years’ days are 
recorded which are more than a katun prior to this closing date, and which 
contain between them, a date (9 Ik 10 Mol) exactly 23 haab earlier than this 
closing date. The latter of these, moreover (9.15.9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop), 
is used as a point of departure for a number (2.13.0) which brings the count 
forward to a date, not recorded, exactly 1 katun eailier than the important 
closing date. But since it only occurs this once at Copan as compared to 
eight occurrences of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol itself, it probably did not 
become important until after 9.16.12.5.17, at which time the priests projected 
back their calculations so as to include it here. This preceding katun 
anniversary of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban ro Mol, 1e., 9.15.12.5.17 8 Caban 10 
Mac, however, must have been regarded as having been fairly important, 
since there are two other dates on Altar U within 10 and 17 days of it, 
respectively. The earlier of these, 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, is possibly 
used as a point of departure for a backward count of 13 tuns to 9.14.19.5.0 
4 Ahau 18 Muan, recorded on Stela A, which is just 1 tonalamatl before the 
end of an even katun 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, which also appears on Altar 
U at 01, Pi. 
The other one of these two dates, 9.15.12.5.7 11 Maniko Mac, though not 
recorded, is the point of departure for the Secondary Series number 1.0.0.10 
in 11, Jl, whose terminal date is 6 Caban 10 Mol, the closing date of the 
inscription. These three dates, 9.15.12.5.0, 9.15.12.5.7, and 9.15.12.5.17, 
are only 110, 103, and 93 days earlier respectively than Date 11 of the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway, 9.15.12.10.10 10 Oc 3 Cumhu, which may indicate 
some relationship between them. 
Finally, the remaining date, 9.15.9.0.2 9 Ik 10 Mol, occurs between the 
two New Years’ days recorded, 150 days after the earlier one and 215 days 
before the later one, and is just 23 haab earlier than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 
10 Mol. Goodman makes no attempt to decipher this inscription, confining 
himself to the observation that “‘so much is illegible, and so much of the 
remainder is unintelligible . . . . that nothing connected can be made of 
ttsas 
Bowditch, on the other hand, was the first to point out that this in- 
scription has two New Years’ days in it, although in the writer’s opinion he 
reads both incorrectly, the first as 10.1.7.3.17 2 Caban o Pop instead of 
9.15.9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop, and the second as 9.14.16.7.12 3 Eb o Pop 
instead of 9.15.8.10.12 2 Eb 0 Pop.’ These readings are open to two seri- 
ous, if not indeed eliminative, objections; first, instead of I year apart as 
suggested here, they make these two New Years’ days 129 years apart: 
6.10.14.5 =47,085 days=365 X129; and second, they both lie beyond the 
extremes of the other dates on this altar, 9.14.16.7.12, being 3 years earlier 



1 Goodman, 1897, p. 134. 
2 Bowditch (1910, pp. 206, 207) gives the first of these Initial Series, 10.1.7.3.17 outright, but the second, 
9.14.16.7-12, he only implies, saying 922 days (2.10.2) backward from 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax reaches (9.14.17.- 
7.18) 5 Eznab 1 Pop, and 366 days (1.0.6) further back reaches (9.14.16.7.12) 3 Eb o Pop. As pointed out above 
the writer can not agree with either of these readings. : 
