INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 339 
The history of this fragment indicates how much probably yet remains 
hidden in walls and foundations of the houses in the village, and offers 
hope of other similar finds from time to time. 
Fragment E’ is only a very small part of an inscription showing one 
complete glyph-block and parts of two adjacent ones. It is 61 cm. long and 
38 cm. wide. 
Most happily, the only complete glyph 
is the katun-sign and coefficient and is very 
clearly 17 katuns (see fig. 48). The glyph 
preceding it presents the right half of the 
cycle-sign. This sequence unmistakably 
indicates that we have here part of an Ini- 
tial Series,! and we are perfectly justified in 
supplying the missing cycle coefficient as 9. 
The tun coefficient is clearly either 7, 12, or 17, the right-hand edge of the 
block coming just after the two dots and part of one bar, the lower right- 
hand corner in particular showing a small part of the latter. (See fig. 48.) 
Careful measurements of the katun and cycle-signs and of the katun 
coefficient led the writer to believe that if the tun-sign was the same width 
as the cycle and katun-signs there would have been space for just two bars 
of the same size as those in the katun coefficient. If true, this would make 
the Initial Series read 9.17.12.?.?. But this block was found underneath 
Altar T, the best reading of the closing date of which is 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 
10 Zip, which exactly corresponds with the best reading of Fragment E’ so 
far as the latter goes. Therefore, since these two monuments were associ- 
ated with each other when found, and since the later date on Altar T is 
doubtless its contemporaneous date as well, the writer is strongly inclined 
to fill in the missing parts of the Initial Series of Fragment E’ as follows: 
9.17.12.(5.17 4 Caban 10 Zip). In other words, the Initial Series on Frag- 
ment E’ probably records the same date as the later of the two Calendar 
Round dates on Altar T (4 Caban to Zip) and fixes its position in the Long 
Count beyond all dispute, and in any case it could only record dates in the 
puLUNseperoreaand altel 0.17.12.5.17, 2. ¢., cither in 9.17.7.f.! Or 9.17.17.!.2 
The close association of these two monuments definitely establishes the 
fact that the important date 6 Caban 10 Mol recorded so many times at 
Copan was none other than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. In the first place, 
Altar T records two dates exactly 1 katun apart, the earlier being 6 Caban 
to Mol and the latter 4 Caban 10 Zip. It has been noted already that the 
only places during the Great Period where 6 Caban 10 Mol occurred were in 
9.16.12.5.17 and 9.19.5.0.17, and therefore the only places where 4 Caban 
10 Zip could have occurred are 9.17.12.5.17 and 10.0.5.0.17._ But Fragment 
E’, which was found under Altar T, has an Initial Series (9.17.7, 12 or 17.?.?) 

Fic. 48.—Inscription on Fragment FE’. 


1 The only other count possible here would have been a Secondary Series, and aside from the rarity of Second- 
ary Series involving cycles, this could not be one, because the periods descend from left to right, *e., cycles, katuns, 
etc., whereas in Secondary Series they ascend from left to right, 7. ¢., kins, uinals, tuns, katuns, and cycles. 
