| Altar 5 | ||||||
| 9. | 12. | 19. | 12. | 9] | 1 Muluc 2 Muan | glyphs 1 and 2 |
| 11. | 11. | 18] | glyphs 8 and 9 | |||
| 9. | 13. | 11. | 6. | 7] | 13 Manik 0 Xul | glyphs 10 and 11 |
| 8. | 9. | 19] | glyphs 22 and 23 | |||
| 9. | 13. | 19. | 16. | 6] | 11 Cimi 19 Mac | glyphs 24 and 25 |
| (3) | undeclared | |||||
| 9. | 13. | 19. | 16. | 9] | 1 Muluc 2 Kankin | glyphs 27 and 28 |
| (1. | 11) | (Time between the two monuments, 31 days.) | ||||
| Stela 16 | ||||||
| 9. | 14. | 0. | 0. | 0] | 6 Ahau 13 Muan | A1-A4 |
Sometimes, however, monuments showing Calendar-round dates stand
alone, and in such cases it is almost impossible to fix their dates in the Long Count. At Yaxchilan in particular Calendar-round dating seems to have been extensively employed, and for this reason less progress has been made there than elsewhere in deciphering the inscriptions.
Errors in the Originals
Before closing the presentation of the subject of the Maya inscriptions the writer has thought it best to insert a few texts which show actual errors in the originals, mistakes due to the carelessness or oversight of the ancient scribes.
Fig. 84. Texts showing actual errors in the originals: A, Lintel, Yaxchilan; B, Altar Q, Copan; C, Stela 23, Naranjo.
Errors in the original texts may be divided into two general classes: (1) Those which are revealed by inspection, and (2) those which do not appear until after the indicated calculations have been made and the results fail to agree with the glyphs recorded.
An example of the first class is illustrated in figure [84], A. A very cursory inspection of this text—an Initial Series from a lintel at Yaxchilan—will show that the uinal coefficient in C1 represents an impossible condition from the Maya point of view. This glyph as it stands