INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. Ly 
bewildering ramifications and presumably joined over the middle of the 
doorway. Maudslay’s restoration of this sculpture (1889-1902, vol. 1, 
plate 12) gives an excellent idea of its character and former magnificence. 
The chamber into which such an imposing entrance gave access must 
indeed have been of peculiar sanctity, even though it is quite plain. It ran 
the entire length of the building, being 21.33 meters long. The ends are 
rather narrow, not more than 1.75 meters wide, but the middle section is 
about 3.66 meters wide. (See plate6.) During the course of its excavation 
two stone incense-burners carved in the semblance of grotesque heads, to- 
gether with some charcoal, were found on the floor. Holes through the 
jambs and sill of the doorway permitted the hanging of curtains across the 
opening, thus shutting off this Holy of Holies from the profane during secret 
parts of the ceremonies practiced herein. 
The inscribed step, in spite of the fact that it presents 32 glyphs, in an 
excellent state of preservation, has only two of a decipherable nature, the 
first and the last. [he former is the day 5 Lamat and the latter the day 5 
Eb. No month-sign accompanies either, and since both recurred at inter- 
vals of 260 days throughout the Long Count, in order to date this temple 
even approximately we are forced to rely upon other evidence, such as the 
stylistic criteria, or its position with reference to Temple 21a, which is 
datable. Froms5 Lamat to 5 Ebisa period of 104 days or just two-fifths of a 
tonalamatl. The nearest occurrence of either of these days to 9.17.0.0.0 
13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, the date of Temple 21a, was 9.16.19.17.12 5 Eb 10 
Cumhu, which was only 8 days earlier. If this is the correct date for the 
latter of these two days, the first is probably 5 Lamat 6 Mac, viz, 9.16.19.12.8 
5 Lamat 6 Mac, 104 days earlier. Where the record is so abbreviated that 
even the corresponding month-parts of the days are wanting, it is idle to 
attempt to fix such dates accurately, and the readings suggested can not be 
regarded as in any sense definitive. 
Spinden claims with considerable assurance that the sculpture in Temple 
22 is the best at Copan: “The most beautiful and perfect sculptures at 
Copan are those that served to decorate the facade of Temple 22.’"' He also 
sees certain very close resemblances between Temple 22 and Stela H: “[Tem- 
ple 22] decorated by fringe of beautiful human heads showing remarkable 
similarity to face of Stela H.’”? As will appear later, the date of Stela H is 
probably 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan; therefore, if Spinden is correct here, 
Temple 22 would be later than Temple 214, since the latter was dedicated 
ing.17.0.0.0. Gordon, ontheother hand, offers excellent reasons for believing 
that this is not the case: 
“The excavation of Mound 21 brought to light an interesting building [Temple 
21a] occupying the space between Mounds 21 and 22, its walls abutting those of 
the two mounds. Although neither so large nor so elaborate as Temple 22, and 


1 Spinden, 1913, p. 162. A fragment from this temple is in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. It is a 
human head of exceeding beauty. See Spinden, ibid., plate 23, 2. 
2 Spinden, 1913, table 1, Temple 22. 
