INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 355 
satisfactory agreements between the stylistic and chronologic criteria, would 
appear to be in danger of breaking down. ‘ 
In every other monument previously examined, at least one date, when 
there are several, designates the time at which the monument was erected or 
dedicated; that is, one date is the contemporaneous date. But in Stele F 
and 4 this can not be the case. Although the dates recorded are associated 
with fixed positions in the Long Count, not one in either inscription can 
possibly indicate the time either monument was erected on stylistic grounds. 
The altars of Stele F and 4, moreover, are not inscribed with glyphs, and 
therefore could not have brought forward the final dates on either of their 
associated stele to later times. Indeed, the condition presented by these two 
stele is unique, so far as the writer is aware, and it would appear at first sight 
that none of their dates can indicate the times at which they were erected. 
The true explanation of this apparently irregular and highly unusual 
condition the writer believes is afforded by the inscription on Stela H. Here, 
as we have already seen, there is recorded a single Calendar Round date, 4 
Ahau 18 Muan, which is exactly the same as a date on Stela A nearby, whose 
position in the Long Count is known, 7. ¢., 9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan. 
But instead of having this position in the Long Count, the style of Stela H 
is such as to indicate that it was much later, and since there is only one date 
present, 4 Ahau 18 Muan, it must have been at least one Calendar Round 
later, 1.¢., 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan. 
Applying this same principle to Stela F, its contemporaneous date would 
appear to have been the first Calendar Round anniversary either of 9.14.10.- 
0.0 5 Ahau 3 Mac or of 9.15.0.0.0. 4 Ahau 13 Yax, namely, 9.17.2.13.0 
5 Ahau 3 Mac or g.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax respectively and presumably 
of the latter, since it is the later of the two. As will appear in the discus- 
sion of the stylistic criteria of these four stele, the later position for Stela 
F best agrees with its position in the stylistic sequence. If this is the true 
explanation, it is not unlikely that one of the glyphs following B3 declares 
that there is to be added to the last date recorded, 7. ¢., “End of Katun 15” 
in B3, one complete Calendar Round, to reach the contemporaneous date of 
the monument. Only in this way may we reconcile the chronology and art 
of Stela F. 
STELA 4. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure between 
Stele A and B. (See plate 6.) 
Date: Dal ical 5 ed na ee ak.) 
Text, (a) photograph: hahaa: 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 103, b and c. 
(b) drawing: | Catherwood, 1844, plate 2. 
Gordon, 1902b, figure 19. 
Maudslay, ibid, plate 104, a 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, cut on p. 157. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 135, 183. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 42. 
Gordon, 1902), p. 249. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 42, 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 161, 162, 165, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 157. 
