CHAPTER II. 
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 
Any attempt to divide a series of monuments, arranged according to 
their relative positions in a stylistic sequence, into chronological periods 
must necessarily be more or less arbitrary. The more homogeneous and 
consistent the stylistic development, the more arbitrary (and in a sense the 
more unsatisfactory) are the resulting chronological subdivisions. This is 
particularly true of such an art sequence as that at Copan, where sculpture 
in stone was gradually and consistently developed for more than three 
centuries. Spinden in his earlier classification of the Copan sculptures! 
regarded everything after 9.0.0.0.0 and prior to 9.15.0.0.0 as belonging to 
the Early Period, and after 9.15.0.0.0 as belonging to the Great Period, 
eliminating altogether a middle or intermediate period. But such a classifi- 
cation, while sufficiently accurate for purposes of preliminary investigation, 
was found to break down upon closer study, especially at other sites. It 
necessitated placing within the limits of a single period sculptures-of very 
considerable stylistic dissimilarity—sculptures, indeed, as technically and 
esthetically different as the Apollo of Tenea (circa 550 8. c.) and the Chario- 
teer of Delphi (circa 470 B. c.). Indeed, for purposes of close chronological 
description it was found necessary to recognize a Middle or intermediate 
period between the Early and Great Periods, the limits of which are fixed 
at one end by the first appearance of sustained improvement in technical 
processes, treatment, carving, depth of relief, and the like, and at the other 
end by the final disappearance of archaism. 
Spinden, in another passage of the same work, virtually reached a similar 
conclusion himself: 
“The chronology of Copan may be summed up as follows: The earliest mon- 
uments are very crude and archaic, particularly in regard to the carving of the 
human face. A steady improvement is noted, extending from the ninth [Katun 9] 
to the fifteenth katun [Katun 15]. By the beginning of the fifteenth katun 
almost the last trace of archaic treatment had vanished. The brilliant period 
lasted until the middle of the sixteenth katun [Katun 16] and possibly somewhat 
longer.’” 
The only real difference between this classification and that suggested by 
the writer is that in the former the Early Period is made to end in 9.9.0.0.0, 
while in the latter it is extended to 9.10.0.0.0, another 20 years. 
On this latter date the first half of Cycle 9 came to an end, which, being 
a round number in Maya chronology, is a more appropriate as well as con- 
venient point at which to close a general stylistic period than the preceding 



1Spinden 1913, table 2. 2Tbid., 1913, p. 165. 
53 
