THE QUIRIGUA INSCRIPTIONS. 



I have only six photographs of Qurigua stela?, and four of these are so faint that the 

 glyphs are almost illegible. I shall speak of them first, however, as two of them 

 furnish conclusive proof of the mistakes that everywhere abound in the inscriptions. 

 These errors were terrible stumbling-blocks to me at the start, for I did not feel 

 confidence enough in my knowledge to assume them to be errors. But when I had 

 repeatedly found dates belying each other and reckonings contradicting dates, there 

 could be but one conclusion — the sculptors had made mistakes. Nor is it to be 

 wondered at when we consider how difficult it is to-day, with all the compositor's 

 intelligence and the carefulest scrutiny of the proof-reader, to avoid error in a page of 

 print. The old Maya sculptors were probably not over-intelligent, and their work 

 presumably underwent no proof-reading. If but few artists were engaged on one of 

 the great stelae or altar-pieces, the author of the inscription and the original workmen 

 could hardly have lived to see the work completed ; if many were employed, they must 

 have over-swarmed and confused each other. Either circumstance would render the 

 liability to error very great ; so the surprise perhaps should be that the mistakes are 

 not more numerous. But the number may be greater than is at present apparent, for 

 it is only in the numeral signs and the day, month, and other period symbols that we 

 are able to detect them. What other mistakes there may be we shall not know until 

 we are equally familiar with the rest of the glyphs. To prove beyond a doubt the 

 existence of errors, due probably to the carelessness of the sculptors, I shall go very 

 circumstantially over two inscriptions having the same initial date and covering the 

 same ground. 



Stela F. West side. 



Initial date: 54— 9— 14— 13— 4x17— 12 Caban-5 Kayab. The period numbers 

 here are expressed by face numerals. Following this date are fifteen indeterminable 

 glyphs. They do not include the usual initial directive series, but they probably serve 

 the same or a similar purpose, for we can distinguish a number of period symbols 

 with accompanying numerals, though unable to determine their meaning here. Then 

 comes a reckoning which reads, reversing the order of the periods, for convenience — 

 as I shall do in all cases when necessary: 13—9x9, from 12 Caban-5 Kayab, the 

 initial date, to 6 Cimi-4 Tzec. We will ascertain if this is correct. 



1G* 



