354 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
side these loops there is a profusion of feather-work, rosettes, and tassels 
Slike those on Stela H. This close similarity in treatment extending 
‘even to small decorative details would appear to indicate that Stela H 
land Stela F can not be far apart in point of time, and on the basis of the 
arrangement of its design Stela F may be referred to the same class as Stela H, 
namely, Class 6. 
The text opens with an Initial Series introducing glyph in a1, which is 
followed, not by the customary Initial Series, but by a Calendar Round 
date, 5 Ahau 3 Mac, in B1,a2. ‘The greater part of the month-sign is effaced, 
but the superfix (2) 0¢€ fortunately is preserved enough to show that 
this sign is Mac. ot (@ O Following this in B2 is the lahuntun-sign 
already noted in (hs SO several places,’ and in B3 “End of Katun 15.” 
The remainder of the text, so far as known, has no other calendric glyphs. 
_ The record of 5 Ahau 3 Mac in B1, a2, followed by a lahuntun-sign in 
B2, indicates that the position of this date here was at the end of some lahun- 
tun in the Long Count. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found 
that the only place in Cycle 9 where 5 Ahau 3 Mac could have stood at the 
end of a lahuntun, or in fact for 19,000 years either before or after, is the 
lahuntun-ending 9.14.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Mac. This position, moreover, gives 
point to the record of “End of Katun 15” in B3, since Katun 15 was the next 
katun-ending after 9.14.10.0.0 1.¢., “5 Ahau 3 Mac End of a lahuntun 
a eaty End of Katun 15.” 
The real difficulty with this inscription, however, lies in reconciling 
either of these dates with the admittedly much later style of the monument; 
and it must be granted at the outset in this connection that on the basis of 
all the data previously utilized in this study, it is necessary to refer Stela F 
elther to 9.14.10.0.0 or 9.15.0.0.0. 
Spinden, on the other hand, has proved quite conclusively’ on stylistic 
grounds that Stela F comes after Stele A, B, D, M, and N, and that no 
matter what dates are recorded upon it, it was not made until some time 
after 9.16.10.0.0, the date of Stela N. The criteria of stylistic sequence 
proving this point are so clear and so apparently indisputable that accept- 
ance of his conclusions is well-nigh inevitable. Indeed, the presence of 
this clearly recorded but too early date, and the entire absence of any glyph, 
so far as known, which might indicate that the contemporaneous date of 
Stela F was later, constitute a serious challenge to the accuracy of the 
conclusions heretofore set forth in regard to the contemporaneous character 
of the Maya dates; and unless this apparent exception can be satisfactorily 
explained in some other way, these conclusions, as well as the heretofore 



‘Tt is interesting to note in this connection that Catherwood’s drawing of the east side of Stela F (Stephens, 
1841, vol. 1, second plate after p.152) shows this glyph (az) was destroyed when he and Stephens were there in 1839. 
® The occurrences of the lahuntun-sign here at Copan are as follows: Altar Q’, p. 61; Stela 15, p. 88; Stela P, 
p. 116; Stela 6, p. 183; Altar H’, p. 188; Stela J, pp. 195, 200; Hier. Stair., Mound 26, Date 21, p. 256; Altar R (?), 
p. 299; and Stela F above. Other doubtful occurrences are Stela A, p. 222, and Stela N, p. 280. For other occur- 
rences of this sign see Morley, 19178, plate 2. 
3 The letter from Spinden to the writer, on pages 358, 359, sets forth the stylistic criteria by means of which 
this conclusion has been reached. 
