INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 271 
DaTE OF THE HIEROGLYPHIC STAIRWAY. 
It has been mentioned that 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz was the date on which 
the Hieroglyphic Stairway was probably completed or at least formally 
dedicated. ‘The basis for this statement is the fact that Stela M, which was 
obviously correlated with its base (see plate 6), was erected on this date. 
Gordon, in his monograph on the stairway, describes this monument in 
such a way as to leave little doubt as to this correlation. 
“In line with the center of the Hieroglyphic Stairway and at a distance of 
fifteen feet [4.57 meters] in front of it stood Stela M, one of the most elaborately 
and delicately carved of all the stele at Copan. ‘This stela and its altar are so 
associated with the stairway that a description of them will be given in this con- 
nection.” 
And again: 
“The center of the stairway was located with special reference to the position 
giesteladVie =... 27? 
After Stela D (9.15.5.0.0) there is a gap of 20 years during which no large 
monuments appear to have been erected at Copan, with the possible ex- 
ception of the hieroglyphic steps on the south side of Mound 2, the date of 
which is by no means certain. (See pp. 233, 236.) 
At the end of this period of apparent sculptural inactivity, Stela M was 
erected at the base of, and apparently correlated with, the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. It is evident from the technique of the carving of the glyphs 
and decorative elements that the stairway, regardless of the many early 
dates recorded upon it, must have been built in the Great Period, and the 
hiatus in the sequence of the dated monuments from 9.15.5.0.0 to 9.16.5.0.0 
strongly indicates that it was being built at this time. Finally, when we find 
that the monument, correlated with its base, closes this hiatus in the se- 
quence of the monuments, the inference is that the stairway was completed 
and dedicated at the same time as this monument, namely, 9.16.5.0.0. 
Owing to Gordon’s misinterpretation of Dates 10 and 11,’° he has 
been led astray in his resulting conclusions concerning the age of the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway. To begin with, he incorrectly deciphers the important 
Date 10, which he believes was the date of the erection of the stairway,’ 
a view also shared by the writer (see p. 269). ‘This he reads as 11.13.9.14.9 
12 Muluc 7 Muan, a highly improbable, if not indeed an impossible date 
from a historical point of view. As already pointed out (p. 250, note 1), no 
other Cycle 11 Initial Series is known in the Old Empire; indeed, the read- 
ing he suggests is some 700 years later than the latest known date at Copan, 
and some 600 years later than the latest date at any other of the Old Empire 
cities. Copan was almost certainly abandoned at least 600 years before 
this date; and if the writer’s date be accepted, Stela M, instead of being 735 
years earlier than the stairway with which it is correlated, will be only 13 


1 Gordon, 1902, p. 164. ® [bid., p. 186. 
3 According to Gordon’s numeration this is Date 6. See Gordon, 1902, p. 178. 
4 See ibid., pp. 173-176. 5 See ibid., p. 185. 
