250 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



that many, if indeed not most, of the monuments, were "time mark- 

 ers" or "period stones," in every way similar to the "period stones" 

 which the northern Maya are known to ^ have erected at reguhirly 

 recurring periods. That the period which was used as this chrono- 

 logical unit may have varied in tUfferent localities and at cUfferent 

 epochs is not at all improbahle. The northern Maya at the time of 

 the Spanish Conquest erected a "period stone" every katun, wliile 

 the evidence presented in the foregoing texts, particularly those from 

 Quirigua and Copan, indicates that the chronological unit in these 

 two cities at least was the hotun, or quarter-katun period. Wliat- 

 ever may have been the chronological unit used, the writer beUeves 

 that the best explanation for the monuments found so abundantly 

 in the Maya area is that they were "period stones," erected to com- 

 memorate or mark the close of successive periods. 



That we have succeeded in deciphering, up to the present time, only 

 the calendric parts of the inscriptions, the chronological skeleton 

 of Maya history as it were, stripped of the events wliich would vitalize 

 it, should not discourage the student nor lead him to ininimize the 

 importance of that which is already gained. Thirty years ago the 

 Maya inscriptions were a sealed book, yet to-day we read in the 

 glyphic writing the rise and fall of the several cities in relation to one 

 another, and follow the course of Maya development even though we 

 can not yet fill in the accompanying background. Future researches, 

 we may hope, will reconstruct this background from the undeciphered 

 glyphs, and will reveal the events of Maya history which alone can 

 give the corresponding chronology a human interest. 



1 See Chapter II for the discussion of this point and the quotations from contemporary authorities, both 

 Spanish and native, on which the above statement is based. 



