8 
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, TECHNICAL PAPERS 
FIGURE 7 -THE “MASK PANEL” FACE ON STELA “c”, RESTORED 
which have a fairly wide distribution in 
Middle America (figure 8, c). They are 
generally assigned by archeologists to a 
very early cultural horizon. Vaillant finds 
baby face figurines associated with his early 
Gualupita material in the Valley of Mexico 
with a postulated date which would repre¬ 
sent a period not far removed from that 
given by the Initial Series of Stela “C”. 1 
It is interesting to observe that the only 
large true “baby face” monument thus far 
found is on the near-by San Martin vol¬ 
cano, 2 and that the State of Vera Cruz is 
the principal center for these so-called 
“Olmec” figures. 
It is well known that the Maya occa¬ 
sionally recorded non-contemporary dates 
which fall within a period that could refer 
to historic events. 3 Stela 25 at Naranjo 
with a contemporary date of 9-9-2-0-4 has 
recorded on it also the date 8-5-18-4-0. 4 
A cylindrical polychrome vase of rela¬ 
tively late type found at Uaxactun has 
1 Vaillant, 1934. 
2 Blom, 1925. 
3 For a discussion of the earliest Maya dates, 
see Morley, The Inscriptions of Peten, Volumes 
I and IV, Vol. I, p. 129, Vol. IV, p. 273. 
4 Morley, The Inscriptions of Peten, Vol. II, 
pp. 28-35, Plates 14 and 87. 
painted on it an incorrectly recorded Initial 
Series which Morley believes should prob¬ 
ably read 8-5-0-0-0. 5 
On page 70 of the Dresden Codex is an 
Initial Series reading 8-6-16-12-0.“ 
The non-contemporary date on Lintel 49 
at Yaxchilan will be discussed elsewhere. 
In his report on the Inscriptions of Peten, 
Dr. Morley has called attention to the fact 
that there are but four other Initial Series 
known in the entire body of Maya inscrip¬ 
tions which are in the style represented on 
Stela “C”, that is, consisting of a vertical 
column of bar and dot numerals horizon¬ 
tally placed and without accompanying pe¬ 
riod glyphs. Including the subject of the 
present discussion and arranged chronologi¬ 
cally according to the dates expressed, these 
are as follows: 7 
1. Stela “C”, Tres Zapotes—7-16-6-16- 
18, 6 Eznab 1 Uo 
2. Stela 1, El Baul—7-19-7-8-12, 12 Eb 
O Muan 
3. Tuxtla Statuette—8-6-2-4-17, 8 Ca¬ 
ban (O Kankin) 
5 Morley, Peten, Vol. I, p. 231. 
3 Morley, Peten, Vol. II, p. 29. 
7 This is leaving out of consideration the Initial 
Series contained in the Dresden Codex. 
AN INITIAL SERIES FROM TRES ZAPOTES 
9 
FIGURE 8-(a) MASK PANEL FROM THE BASE OF A STELA AT LA HONRADEZ (AFTER 
SPINDEN); (b) MASK PANEL FROM THE BASE OF A STELA AT YAXCHILAN (AFTER 
SPINDEN); (C) HEAD OF A JADEITE PLAQUE FROM SOUTHERN MEXICO (SPECIMEN 
IN U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM); (d, e) STUCCO MASKS FROM PYRAMID E-VII SUB, 
UAXACTUN (AFTER RICKETSON) 
4. Lintel 49, Yaxchilan—8-7-13-4-11, 8 
Chuen 19 Tzec 
5. Stela 1, Pestac—9-11-12-9-6, 7 Cimi 
(14 Cumhu) 
Thus we find the interesting situation 
that, with the exceptions previously noted, 
of the 5 Initial Series of this type, 4 repre¬ 
sent the earliest dates known in the entire 
body of Maya inscriptions. 1 The three 
1 We do not consider here a few dates which are 
so remote as to obviously refer to non-historic 
events. 
earliest of these, all found west of the tradi¬ 
tional Maya area, are the only Initial Series 
ever found outside the classic Maya region. 
If this fact does not have chronological 
significance it is at least a remarkable coin¬ 
cidence. 
THE PESTAC STELA 
Of the five inscriptions listed above, the 
Baktun 9 date on Stela 1 at Pestac is the 
most divergent, since the uinal and kin pe¬ 
riods do have their corresponding glyphs 
