INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 363 
g.16.12.13.0, is very near the important date 9.16.12.5.17, being in fact only 
143 days later, and only 195 days earlier than the last date on the pedestal 
of Stela N. More important still, however, is the fact that it is just 1 katun 
earlier than the closing dates of Stele F and 4. The second, 9.16.19.2.0, 
seems to have no connection with the first, but it is just 4 tonalamatls 
earlier than the third. ‘The third, 9.17.2.0.0, has the relationship with the 
second just noted, but more important still, it is just a lahuntun or half 
katun earlier than the last date on this monument and the only date on 
Stela H. The fourth, 9.17.11.5.0, is exactly 1 tonalamatl earlier than the 
last date on this monument and the only date on Stela H. The next date, 
9.17.12.0.0, is not only the last date on Stela C and probably its contempo- 
raneous date as well, but also is the only date on Stela H. It is just exactly 
1 tonalamatl /ater than the preceding date on Stela C and 1 tonalamatl 
earlier than the closing dates of Stele F and 4. Since it is the only date of 
any kind on Stela H, it is necessary to conclude that it was the contemporane- 
ous date of the monument, but in addition to this, the writer believes, it 
also was the contemporaneous date of Stela C, being not only the latest in 
point of time on that monument, but also the last date in the inscription, 
1. €., at the bottom of the north side. 
There remain but two other dates to discuss, the closing dates of Stele 
F and 4. These are both the same, and, as already pointed out, they are 
just 1 katun later than the second date on Stela C. In addition to this, 
they are just 1 tonalamatl later than the contemporaneous date of Stela C 
and the only date on Stela H. 
From the foregoing it is apparent that when these two pairs of monu- 
ments are arranged according to their chronological sequence, C being 
earlier than H and F earlier than 4, they will be found to be in their proper 
stylistic sequence as well, and the chronological evidence therefore agrees with 
Spinden’s analysis of the stylistic criteria, 7.e., two pairs of similar monu- 
ments, and indicates the accuracy of the readings suggested, which are re- 
peated below: 
Stelz C and H, 9.17.12. 0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 
Stele F and 4, 9.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax 
It will be noted that all four of these stele were dedicated on a day 
4 Ahau, and since in not one of them does this day coincide with a hotun- 
ending, the question arises, why should this particular day have been thus 
specially favored. The only suggestion the writer has to offer in this con- 
nection is that 4 Ahau was the day upon which Maya chronology commenced, 
i. e., 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and therefore it may have had an unusual ceremonial 
importance on that account. 
In the above positions, Stele C, H, F, and 4 are practically contempor- 
aneous with Stela 8, Altar T, and Fragment E’; indeed, these last three 
monuments appear to have been erected during the tonalamatl between 
Stele C and H on the one hand and F and 4 on the other, all seven having 
