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. [Illustration: 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 {246} unmistakably records 19 uinals, a number which had no existence in the Maya system of numeration, since 19 uinals are always recorded as 1 tun and 1 uinal.[237] Therefore the coefficient in C1 is incorrect on its face, a fact we have been able to determine before proceeding with the calculation indicated. If not 19, what then was the coefficient the ancient scribe should have engraved in its place? Fortunately the rest of this text is unusually clear, the Initial-series number 9.15.6.?.1 appearing in B1-D1, and the terminal date which it reaches, 7 Imix 19 Zip, appearing in C2 D2. Compare C2 with figure 16, _a, b_, and D2 with figure 19, d. We know to begin with that the uinal coefficient must be one of the eighteen numerals 0 to 17, inclusive. Trying 0 first, the number will be 9.15.6.0.1, which the student will find leads to the date 7 Imix 4 Chen. Our first trial, therefore, has proved unsuccessful, since the date recorded is 7 Imix 19 Zip. The day parts agree, but the month parts are not the same. This month part 4 Chen is useful, however, for one thing, it shows us how far distant we are from the month part 19 Zip, which is recorded. It appears from Table XV that in counting forward from position 4 Chen just 260 days are required to reach position 19 Zip. Consequently, our first trial number 9.15.6.0.1 falls short of the number necessary by just 260 days. But 260 days are equal to 13 uinals; therefore we must increase 9.15.6.0.1 by 13 uinals. This gives us the number 9.15.6.13.1. Reducing this to units of the first order and solving for the terminal date, the date reached will be 7 Imix 19 Zip, which agrees with the date recorded, in C2 D2. We may conclude, therefore, that the uinal coefficient in C1 should have been 13, instead of 19 as recorded.