INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 59 
the same twisted-rope pattern as in the corresponding position on Altar L’. 
The back is dressed but not carved. Both ends show fractured surfaces, and 
it is evident from the design on the top that a piece is missing from each, 
in which last particular Altar M’ differs from Altar L’. 
The glyphs are again well preserved, but unfortunately are undecipher- 
able. The first, Al, appears to be the cycle-sign preceded by 3 and sur- 
mounted by 11. Oj G2—, Its meaning is unknown. The omission of 
ornamental side el- 8 === ements in the number 11 should be noted. As 
already mentioned, a@@ this is characteristic of the Early eam 
A3 may be the kin-sign, although this identification is doubtful. The 
remaining glyphs are unknown. 
As already explained, the style of carving and the subject-matter are 
identical with those of Altar L’ and very similar to those of Altar Q’, for 
which reason Altar M’ has been assigned to the same general period, 7. ¢., 
Katuns 4 to 6 of Cycle 9. The left-hand ends of both L’ and M’ are prob- 
ably missing, since their original designs would appear to have been like that 
of Altar Q’: a pair of grotesque serpent-heads flanking a central glyph panel. 
The writer has been unable to find any previous reference either to this 
altar or to its companion-piece, Altar L’. As noted in the description of the 
latter, when he was in Copan in March 1915, the village church had just 
been torn down, and these two monuments had been removed from the high 
altar, but before he returned the following year both had been destroyed. 
Although the exact dates of Altars J’, K’, L’, and M’ can not be deter- 
mined, their relative ages may be accepted as established above. There is 
very little doubt on stylistic grounds, for example, that Altars L’ and M’ are 
later than J’ and K’. The technique of L’ and M’ is a little more advanced, 
the style a little more developed, and the subject-matter a little more 
elaborate. These differences, although slight in themselves, in the aggregate 
indicate a corresponding advance in sculpture and warrant the relative 
chronological sequence suggested above. 
ALTAR Q’. 
Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Now part 
of a wall behind the house of Domingo Hernandez 
in the southwestern quarter of the village. (See plate 
3 and figure 22, c’.) 
Date: 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol (?).? 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, f. 
(b) drawing: figure 6. 
In 1912 Spinden found four sculptured fragments of archaic monuments 
behind the house of Domingo Hernandez, in the southwestern quarter of the 

1In some provincial cities this practice obtained down to the latest times. For example, at La 
Honradez, in northern Guatemala (see plate 1), as late as 9.17.0.0.0, 1.¢., at the height of the Great 
Period, we find ornamental dots omitted in bar-and-dot numerals, the katun coefficient, A2, on the 
west side of Stela 7, being a case in point. Here the number 17 is recorded without an ornamental 0 
central dot. But the omission is due to provincialism rather than to archaistic treatment. 
2 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VITT. 

