214 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
is not itself the hotun-ending this monument was erected to commemorate, 
there is present in the text on the associated altar a Secondary Series leading 
from the Initial Series terminal date on the stela to the current hotun-ending 
on the altar. That this same condition probably also obtained on Stela 19 
and its altar we have already seen; and since the Initial Series of Stela Io is 
only 100 days earlier than a hotun-ending, the same one in fact that Stela 19 
was erected to commemorate, and indeed only. 40 days earlier than the 
Initial Series of Stela 19, it is probable that the altar formerly associated 
with Stela 10, now missing, also had a Secondary Series bringing forward 
its Initial Series to the current hotun-ending. ‘This latter case is one of the 
possible exceptions noted above, but in view of the close connection apparent 
between Stela I and its altar and probably between Stela 19 and its altar, 
it is likely that the same relation existed between Stela 10 and its now missing 
altar, in which event it can not be regarded as an exception at all. 
The study of the foregoing shows that all the stele of the Middle Period, 
when taken into consideration with their respective altars, are hotun-markers, 
and we may therefore make this fact the basis for our second generalization: 
All stele of the Middle Period date from hotun-endings; sometimes these 
hotun-endings are recorded as the Initial Series terminal dates of the stelz; some- 
times they appear as Period Ending dates on the stele, either with or without 
Secondary Series connecting them with the Initial Series terminal dates; sometimes 
they even appear as Period Ending dates on the associated altars, anes with or 
without the proper Secondary Series to connect them with the Initial Series terminal 
dates of their respective stelz. 
The above generalization brings out the important fact that, in at least 
some cases, the associated altars are the actual hotun-markers. But we have 
already seen that on two occasions, 9.12.0.0.0 and 9.13.0.0.0, the hotuns 
were marked by pairs of altars without the erection of accompanying stele; 
at least, stela marking these particular hotun-endings have yet to be found. 
Moreover, these four inscriptions all begin with Initial Series, just like the 
stele.’ 
It seems possible, therefore, that, beginning with the Middle Period, 
altars as well as stele were used independently for marking the hotuns, and 
furthermore, that the functions of the two types, in some cases at least, 
began to merge.’ The only alternative explanation is that the stele origi- 
nally associated with the West Altar of Stela 5 and the altar of Stela 1 on the 
one hand, and with Altars H’ and I’ on the other, have disappeared, which 
the writer does not believe. 

1 This is also true of the East Altar of Stela 5, which probably was originally designed for use with Stela 1. 
2 This is particularly true at Quirigua (plate 1), where four consecutive hotuns there, from 9.17.10.0.0 to 
g.18.5.0.0 inclusive, are marked by low altar-like monuments, the so-called Zo6bmorphs B, G,O, and P. These 
are preceded by Stelx S, H, J, F, D, E, A, and C, marking the hotuns 9.15.15.0.0 to9.17.5.0.0 inclusive, and are 
followed by Stele I and K and Structure 1, marking the hotuns 9.18.10.0.0 to9.19.0.0.Oinclusive. It is obvious 
from the above dates that in spite of their widely differing shapes, being flat and oval instead of long and rectan- 
gular, the functions of these four monuments at Quirigua are identical with those of the stel# there, namely, that 
of marking the current hotuns, and to all intents and purposes they are to be considered as much hotun-markers 
as are the stele themselves. 
