INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. rs 
It will be seen from the measurements below that both pieces are of the 
same width, 52 cm., but since both are only fragments, the present heights 
have no significance. Further, as the pieces can not be fitted together back 
to back, it is impossible to determine the original thickness of the monument 
exactly. Judging from the incomplete glyph-blocks on their respective 
sides, the latter must have been of unusual width, at least 23 to 24 cm. and 
22 cm. respectively, that is, wider than the glyph-blocks on their correspond- 
ing fronts. This almost certainly indicates that originally there had been 
only one column of glyph-blocks on the sides of each. And on the basis of 
this assumption, the former thickness of each piece can be estimated to have 
been about 40 cm. 
From houses 
of Ramirez 
and Galvan. 
From house 
of Hernandez. 
Dimensions of the fragments : cm, cm. 
LAE Ree oe eo te hc 2 52 
Presentibeight 5 260d x04 sues. VhS 64 
Present: thickness............. 30 20 
Dimensions of the glyph-blocks: 
Front and back: 
ie ee eeocare Cae 16 to 18 16 to 16.5 
MT ee ees Sere 19 to 20 19 to 20 
Sides: 
i EPL Oe Cee ee 16 to 19 17 to Ig 
Presentiwilttiry. 7.0: «oe. 23 to 24 22 


Continuing this comparison, it will be noted that both pieces have double 
columns of glyph-blocks on one of their two broad faces and that the opposite 
broad faces are fractured. 
The measurements of their respective glyph-blocks show even more 
satisfactory agreements. The widths—the important measurement, if both 
are parts of the same monument—are identical, 19 to 20 cm., and the heights 
vary by less than 2 cm. at the most. On the sides it is impossible to secure 
the original widths, but the heights are the same in both cases, 
This identity in the essential measurements, not only of the two pieces 
but also of their respective glyph-blocks, strongly suggests that both are 
parts of the same monument; but if so, how were they related. All attempts 
to fit them back to back on the ground failed, and indeed it was apparent 
that the two fragments recovered never could have fitted together in that 
way. It will appear presently, in the discussion of the inscription, that the 
fragment found by Spinden in 1914 was surely a section of the front of the 
stela, coming from immediately below a top section, 1.14 meters long by 
calculation, which presented the Initial Series. Since the piece found in 
1916 is only 64 cm. long, and could not have been from the front in any case, 
it seems more probable that it came from a lower section of the same stela 
(if it belongs to it at all) instead of from the top, as this missing top was 50 
cm. longer, if it broke in one piece. The best assemblage of the two pieces 
is shown in figure 11, where the second piece is placed at the bottom. 
