332 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
There are no other calendric glyphs on the back and remaining side, 
although three glyph-blocks, p2, £2, and F2, have been destroyed, and the 
case presented by ci would therefore appear to be irregular. 
Three explanations suggest themselves in this contingency: (1) either 
the missing month-sign was recorded in one of the three effaced glyph- 
blocks, p2, £2, and F2, or (2) it was omitted altogether, as was sometimes the 
case, or (3) it was incorrectly recorded as 12 Zac instead of 12 Mol. ‘The 
last has most in its favor, and is, the writer believes, the correct explanation 
of the matter. In the first place, ci is the proper place where the month 
of this date should be recorded, namely, following the day in B2b. In the 
second place, the correct coefficient 12 is actually recorded here, as well as 
a month-sign, which is one of the four months immediately following the 
one required by the accompanying calculations. In the face of these con- 
ditions it seems unnecessary to assume that either of the other two explana- 
tions suggested apply, and this irregularity may therefore be explained as an 
error in the original. Errors in month-signs are extremely unusual, but not 
altogether unknown. There is a case of this kind on the tablet in the 
Temple of the Cross at Palenque, where the month Mol is incorrectly re- 
corded for Chen. (See figure 16, D9.) 
Attention should also be called to the close similarity between the month- 
sign in cl and the month-sign at p on Altar D’. (Compare figures 45 and 
46, d, where the superfixes are very nearly identical). This superfix looks 
very much more like that of Zac than those of Chen, Yax, or Ceh, and in the 
case of Altar Db’, the month there recorded was deciphered as Zac, although 
doubtfully. (See pp. 294, 295.) Unfortunately, the calculations on Altar 
W’ indicate an error here, so that although the two month-signs are the same, 
neither has any corroboratory value for the other. Although neither of 
the dates on Altar W’ is accompanied by any glyphs which fix its position 
definitely in the Long Count, there is little doubt as to the proper position 
of either. By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that 6 Ahau 
13 Kayab closed the first hotun after 9.17.0.0.0, namely, 9.17.5.0.0, and from 
this fixed point, the second date can be calculated as having been 9.17.5.9.4 
8 Kan12 Mol. The former date could not recur at the end of a hotun until 
after the lapse of more than 4,500 years either before or after 9.17.5.0.0, 
and since the style of this altar indicates that it dates from the height of the 
Great Period, it is obvious that the 6 Ahau 13 Kayab in B10, a2 could have 
been none other than the hotun-ending 9.17.5.0.0. These two dates on 
Altar W’ bring it into close chronological relation with Altar Q just described, 
the first being identical with the next to last date on Altar Q, and the second 
only 120 days (6.0) later than the last date on Altar Q, the last two both 
being days Kan. ‘The identity of the two hotun-endings recorded on these 
two monuments, as well as the close proximity of their final dates, can hardly 
be accidental, but, as pointed out above, probably reflects some intentional 
relationship between them. 
