31O THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
L and Q, and they constitute a class of design all by themselves. The first 
two glyphs very clearly record the Calendar Round date 6 Caban 10 Mol, 
the month coefficient being a head-variant instead of a bar-and-dot numeral, 
as in the case of Altars V, R, and U. Seler was the first to read this date,} 
although he says nothing about its position in the Long Count. This we 
have assumed for the present to have been 9.16.12.5.17. 
There are no other decipherable glyphs on this step, although almost 
all of them are of familiar form. Attention should be called to the late form 
of the tun-sign under the third figure on the right. 
Let us next examine the four glyph-panels in the outer doorways. 
(See plate 29.) These were probably uncovered by Maudslay in 188s, 
when he made most of his excavations at Copan. He mentions them, but 
states that the stones were so much worn and displaced by trees that nothing 
could be preserved or copied.2, The damage wrought by this latter factor, 
the roots of trees, is well illustrated in plate 28, c, which shows the present 
ruinous condition of the east jamb of the north doorway.’ Note how the 
stones of the mosaic have been pried apart by the roots; some have slipped 
only a few centimeters, others have fallen out on the plaster floor of the 
vestibule and were recovered in the excavations, and still others have entirely 
disappeared. 
In 1915 the writer spent several days in Temple 11 drawing what was 
left of these panels, and, wherever possible, restoring fallen elements of the 
mosaics to their original positions in the walls. It will be seen that the 
panels in the southern doorway, at the back of the temple (a and J, plate 29) 
suffered more heavily than the panels in the northern doorway (c and 4d), 
and that the outer edges of all the panels suffered more heavily than the 
inner edges. The latter is easily accounted for by the tendency of all struc- 
tures to assume the form of a mound when they collapse; the nearer the 
center of the structure, the better being the state of preservation. 
It is more difficult, however, to explain the difference in the state of 
preservation between the two doorways; possibly the back (south facade) 
of Temple 11 stood nearer the edge of the substructure than the front (north 
facade), and when the roof collapsed the south doorway suffered greater 
damage. Or again, there may have been a roof-comb rising above the rear 
of the building. If so, its collapse would undoubtedly have done more 
damage to the back than the front. In any event, there remains much less 
of the panels in the south doorway than of those in the north doorway. 
Fortunately, the writer was able to find the lower right-hand corner of the 
panel on the west jamb of the north doorway—the only outer corner recov- 
ered—and from this it was possible to ascertain the original widths of the 
panels as having been 71 cm. ‘The tops were missing in every case, the 
maximum height now obtainable being 81 cm., in the present upper left- 

1 Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 758. * Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 22. 
* The title of this panel in plate 28, c, is given incorrectly. It should read “Glyph-panel in the north doorway 
(east jamb) of Temple 11.” 
