[153] For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902; IV, pls. 87-89.
[154] For the full text of this inscription, see Maudslay, 1889-1902: IV, pl. 23.
[155] It is clear that if all the period coefficients above the kin have been correctly identified, even though the kin coefficient is unknown, by designating it 0 the date reached will be within 19 days of the date originally recorded. Even though its maximum value (19) had originally been recorded here, it could have carried the count only 19 days further. By using 0 as the kin coefficient, therefore, we can not be more than 19 days from the original date.
[156] For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902: I, pls. 88, 89.
[157] While at Copan the writer made a personal examination of this monument and found that Mr. Maudslay's drawing is incorrect as regards the coefficient of the day sign. The original has two numerical dots between two crescents, whereas the Maudslay drawing shows one numerical dot between two distinct pairs of crescents, each pair, however, of different shape.
[158] For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902: II, pls. 41-44.
[159] For the text of this monument see Spinden, 1913: VI, pl. 23, 2.
[160] For the discussion of full-figure glyphs, see pp. [65]-[73].
[161] The characteristics of the heads for 7, 14, 16, and 19 will be found in the heads for 17, 4, 6, and 9, respectively.
[162] For the full text of this inscription see Maudslay, 1889-1902: I, pls. 47, 48.