160 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
of the full-figure variant of the uinal-sign, and of head variants for all the 
other periods, found only on Stele 15, 24,1 12, and 2; or again, the use of a 
very unusual grotesque head with large prominent teeth for the kin-sign 
found only in Stele to and 3. These stylistic similarities between the 
several monuments of the group establish a very close connection between 
them, and probably indicate a single source of inspiration, or group of 
sources very closely related, and almost certainly contemporary. 
Doubtless some artisans were more skillful than others; some more 
clever in reproducing in stone the working drawings on paper or skin, which 
must have preceded such elaborate compositions as those represented on 
the Copan stele. Such differences, however, due to individual variations 
in the personal equation, are inevitable in any art at any time. For every 
Maya Phidias or Praxiteles there must have been a score of Alcamenes, 
Naucydes, or Thrasymedes; for every genius, a host of lesser lights. And the 
observed stylistic divergences in the several monuments of this group are 
not greater than would have been due to the varying personal equaticns of 
contemporary sculptors either here at Copan, or at Athens, or at Thebes. 
Indeed, it is almost necessary to postulate a contemporaneous origin for the 
monuments of this group to explain satisfactorily their glyphic similarities. 
The foregoing stylistic analysis forecasts, as it were, the chronologic 
situation as established by the dates actually recorded upon these monu- 
ments, namely, that all seven date from the same period, five (Stele 12, 2, 
23, 13, and 3) actually recording the date 9.11.0.0.0, and the other two, 
Stele 1o and 19, dates only 100 days and 60 days earlier respectively; and 
in the case of the last-mentioned, the inscription on the associated altar 
doubtless also brought its date down to 9.11.0.0.0. 
Considering the chronologic record somewhat closer, it will be remem- 
bered that (1) two of these monuments (Stele 12 and 2) have 9.10.15.0.0, 
the previous hotun-ending as their Initial Series, but close with Period End- 
ing dates of 9.11.0.0.0; (2) that another, Stela 23, has a Katun 1o Initial 
Series, but closes with this same Period Ending date; (3) that two others 
(Stele 10 and 19) have as their Initial Series dates less than 6 months earlier, 
one of which, as just explained, was probably brought down to 9.11.0.0.0 
by a Secondary Series on the associated altar; and finally (4) that the 
remaining two, Stele 13 and 3, actually have 9.11.0.0.0 as their Initial 
Series.2. In short, chronologically considered, these monuments probably 
date from the same hotun-ending, namely, 9.11.0.0.0, a condition corroborated 
by the stylistic criteria in spite of considerable technical divergences.’ 
The situation, therefore, may be summed up as follows: These seven 
stele were probably erected, or at least dedicated, at the same time, namely, 

1 Although Stele 15 and 24 show this same unusual feature, they are 130 and 170 years earlier respectively 
than Stela 12 and Stela 2 and therefore are in no danger of being confused with them either on chronologic or 
stylistic grounds. 
2 Although Stela 3 presents two Initial Series, 9.0.0.0.0 and 9.11.0.0.0, only the latter of couise could have 
been the contemporaneous date. 
3It is possible that Stele 12 and 2 may date from the previous hotun-ending, 9.10.15.0.0, in which case the 
Katun 11 dates on them are prophetic. 
