34 THE GROUP OF THE CROSS. 



the right side of his plate traced and reduced by photography, and this reduction 

 joined to a delineation of the left part of the Smithsonian tablet constitutes the 

 illustration Fig. 8. 



A comparison of the Smithsonian tablet, as shown on the outline plate, with 

 Fiir. 6, discloses at once the total incorrectness of the latter. It will be seen 

 that in the Smithsonian slab a row of fifteen glyphs is placed along the back 

 of the standing figure. Of the fifteen characters composing this row, Fig. 6 

 exhibits only ten, which are incorrectly drawn, and, moreover, wrongly placed. 

 Behind the row of glyphs there appears on the Smithsonion tablet a sculptured 

 space presenting the outline of a somewhat irregular rectangle or column, con- 

 taining one hundred and two glyphs, arranged in parallel rows, six of them 

 constituting the width and seventeen the height of the column. Instead of this 

 disposition, Del Eio's plate exhibits only a perpendicular row of eight large 

 characters, selected from those just mentioned, and so badly drawn as almost to 

 defy identification. '•= The figure of the man holding up a child — I will call him a 

 priest — and the ornamental designs close behind it, as shown in Fig. 6, are like- 

 wise wanting in correctness, but, nevertheless, have their value in the present 

 examination. 



It can be perceived by a glance at the outline plate that the Smithsonian 

 tablet is the complement of the Group of the Cross, although the designs on the 

 Smithsonian slab and the middle one fail to meet exactly at the proper places. 

 This, however, is easily explained by the circumstance that Mr. Catherwood drew 

 the original after which the plate in Stephens's work w^as executed, while the 

 portion added by me is the reproduction of a photograph. Such being the case, 

 it would be surprising if no discrepancy were observable ; for a draughtsman, 

 however skillful he may be, cannot be expected to work with the precision of a 

 photographic apparatus. The middle slab, moreover, is much damaged by 

 fractures along its right edge, and there, too, the sculptures appear worn and 

 indistinct. Such, at least, is the impression produced hj an examination of 

 Charnay's photograph. Hence it may be presumed that Waldeck and Cather- 

 vvood had no easy task in drawing the edge portion of the slab. 



Mr. Catherwood did not succeed in giving the correct outline of the fez- 

 like cap worn by the priest, and for this reason the corresponding parts of 

 the head-gear do not meet. Such is especially the case with the flower sur- 

 surmounting the ornament which projects from the end of the cap. The outlines 

 of the lower appendage of the cap, to which two small objects (beads?) are 

 attached, fit much better. A portion of the arabesque-like ornament behind the 

 priest's back should be shown in Catherwood's drawing ; but it is entirely omitted 



* A similar arbitrary arrangement of the glyphs is shown in the remniniug (not reproduced) part of Del 

 Bio's plate. 



