INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 373 
Altar F’ is a small, oblong, block of stone 46 cm. high, 36 cm. wide, and 
33 cm. deep, now in the Peabody Museum (catalogue No. C.88). Gordon does 
not give its exact provenance, but in the museum catalogue it is stated to have 
been found in the débris on the southern side of Mound 32, just south of the 
Main Structure. (See plate 6.) Around three sides extend nine parallel 
bands, which occupy the entire height of the altar. Each one of these has a 
knot in the middle, making a vertical row of 9 knots on one side. The oppo- 
site and remaining side, probably the front of the altar, is inscribed with 
two columns of 4 glyph-blocks each, making a total of 8 for the inscription.' 
The text opens with a Secondary Series number in a1, composed of tuns, 
uinals, and kins, but most unfortunately this corner is broken off, and of these 
three coefficients, two are missing. (See plate 24, ¢.) The tun coefficient is 
gone, but judging from the space which it occupied it must have been high, 
probably above 10 but under 16. The uinal-sign, as usual in Secondary 
Series, has two coefficients. The one to the left is clearly 10, and the one 
above, though destroyed, would appear to have been above 5 but under 11. 
The first half of B1 is a glyph of unknown meaning frequently found with 
Secondary Series as here, and Bib is the Calendar Round date 2 Chuen 4 
Pop. Although the form for Chuen in Bid u. h. is somewhat irregular, 
this identification seems likely, since the only other day-signs possible with 
a month coefficient of 4, 7. ¢., Cimi, Cib, and Imix, are all very unlike the day- 
sign recorded. ‘There is some little doubt about the day coefficient also. 
Gordon in his drawing shows this clearly as 3, but in the original the upper 
element is entirely broken off. Rather than assume an asymmetrical pre- 
sentation here, 7. ¢., 3 dots above one ornamental element, an X, it is more 
likely that the effaced element at the top was another X like the one at the 
bottom; and that the resulting coefficient was 2 instead of 3. There is 
nothing in the original militating against the latter assumption, and the 
whole weight of Maya practice in recording bar-and-dot coefficients is 
against the former.” It seems probable, therefore, that the date recorded 
here is 2 Chuen 4 Pop, instead of 3 Chuen 4 Pop as read by Gordon. 
The next question to be settled is, what was the position of this date in 
the Long Count? In the first place, it is extremely probable that the Second- 
ary Series number in Al is to be counted either to or from this date, but 
which? One thing alone is clear in this connection: If 2 Chuen 4 Pop is the 
starting-point and the uinal coefficient is 10, there is no place in Cycle 9 
where the end of a tun can be reached, and furthermore, if 2 Chuen 4 Pop is 
the terminal date and the uinal coefficient is 10, there is no place in Cycle 9 
where the end of a tun can be the starting-point. This follows because at 
no place in Cycle 9 is 2 Chuen 4 Pop found with a uinal coefficient of 7 or to. 
Turning to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this date occurred 
in Cycle g at the following places. 

1 Most of these glyph-blocks are quadruple, so that there are 27 glyphs in the text in all. 
2 The writer recalls no example of an asymmetrical disposition of the elements in a bar-and-dot numeral. 
