380 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The text opens with the day 1 Ahau in a1 and then follows in B1 a sign 
which the writer long mistook for 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, followed by 
the end of a tun in a2. But it will be found from Goodman’s tables that no 
tun of Cycle 9 ended on the day 1 Ahau 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, and for 
a long time this date baffled all efforts looking toward its decipherment. 
Indeed, it was not until the writer’s discovery in 1918 that the “winged 
Cauac”’ sign is a variant of the tun-glyph that decipherment was made possi- 
ble, and it then became apparent that B1, which had previously been mis- 
taken for 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh was in reality Tun 8, which in October 
1919 led to the reading given below. 
This text reads: “1 Ahau (a1), Tun 8 (B1), End of a tun (a2), Ahau (?) 
(p2)’’; and referring to Goodman’s tables once more, it will be found that 
the only Tun 8 in Cycle 9 which ended on the day 1 Ahau was 9.7.8.0.0 
t Ahau 3 Ceh, the month being suppressed in the present text, as was not 
infrequently the case. 
9.7.8.0.0 is a fairly early date, but happily a highly unusual feature in 
this text authenticates the correctness of this reading on stylistic grounds 
also. It will be noted that the Ahau-sign, both in a1 and B2 of figure 56, a, 
shows an unusual notch on either side of the face (the inner line in a1 and the 
central element in B2). This is a very unusual characteristic, and so far as 
the writer is aware, is only found in four other texts known: Altar Y, Stela 
25, Stela 15, and Stela 16, all at Copan, dD, c, d, and e, figure 56, respectively, 
all of which are earlier than 9.7.8.0.0, viz.: 
Stela zs: "9.2710.°0.0 
Stela 15 9.4.10. 0.0 
Alarey Bo. Joule es 
Stela 16° 9.7. 2.12.0 
Thus on stylistic grounds (its resemblance to other known dated inscrip- 
tions), the early character of this text is amply substantiated, and is in perfect 
agreement with the early date which it records. 
Slight and apparently adventitious details like this are frequently of 
more importance in establishing general contemporaneity on. stylistic 
grounds between two texts than resemblances between the larger features, 
another case illustrating this point being the protuberances at the corners of 
the day-signs on Stela 3 at Tikal and on Stela 24 at Copan, only 3 years 
apart in date, a feature found in no other inscriptions known. 
Another interesting feature in connection with this text is that it pre- 
sents the earliest example of the use of the “winged-Cauac” variant of the 
tun-sign yet discovered. It shows, moreover, that tun-ending dating was in 
vogue as early as the Early Period of the Old Empire, and as the writer has 
shown elsewhere,! that it continued in practice down to the close of the New 
Empire, a range of more than a thousand years. 
Smaller objects such as this peccary skull were doubtless executed 
whenever fancy dictated, although even here a tun-ending was chosen for 
the contemporaneous date, but the larger monuments, particularly during 

1 Morley, 1919, p. 274, and Appendix II. 
