THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 413 
region (see plate 1 and fig. 64), where three centuries later they were to 
attain such cultural brilliance. 
Uaxactun is approximately 600 kilometers south of east from San 
Andres Tuxtla, which latter place, as we have already seen, is about half- 
way between the historic habitat of the Huasteca and the northern Peten 
region, the earliest known historic habitat of the Maya. 
Still another 160 years, seven generations later, and we find that some 
branch of the Maya had found its way 300 kilometers farther south; had 
reached the Copan Valley, and had established itself there with sufficient 
confidence and permanency to be able to execute and erect Stela 24 in 
g.2.10.0.0, or possibly Stela 20, a katun earlier. 
On the basis of the provenance and dates of the earliest surely deci- 
phered contemporaneous inscriptions, therefore, it appears probable that 
Copan is not so old as Uaxactun by some 160 years; and even if we admit 
that the date of Stela 20, the earliest monument at Copan on stylistic 
grounds, is correctly deciphered as 9.1.10.0.0, this only cuts down the 
priority of Uaxactun by 20 years. But this important question as to which 
is the older city and which region the first occupied does not rest on the 
evidence supplied by these two monuments alone. Whereas Stela 20 is the 
only monument earlier than Stela 24 at Copan that we can possibly admit 
even on stylistic grounds, there are several other early monuments at 
Uaxactun and Tikal, besides those given on page 411. Thus, for example, 
Stela 5 at Uaxactun may have another Cycle 8 Initial Series, 8.15.10.3.12, 
within 20 years of that on Stela 9; and again, although the earliest surely 
deciphered date at Copan (Stela 24) is 3 years older (or if we accept the 
reading suggested by the writer for Stela 20, 23 years o/der) than the earliest 
surely deciphered date at Tikal (Stela 3), there is this important difference 
between these two great cities: At Copan we have nothing earlier than 
Stela 20, even on stylistic grounds, whereas at Tikal there are at least 7 
other stele the dates of which have not yet been deciphered, but which are 
fully as early as Stela 3 on stylistic grounds, and 4 of which are almost cer- 
tainly even earlier. 
Maler! describes 17 sculptured stele at Tikal, and Tozzer? enumerates 
51 plain ones. Of the former only 4, Nos. 5, 11, 16, and 6 (?), belong to the 
Great Period, all the rest dating not only from the Early Period, but also 
from its earlier half.2 Of the remaining 13 sculptured stele, 2, Nos. 14 and 
15, are so badly injured that Maler took no photographs of them, and of 
1Maler, 1911, pp. 62-91. 2 Tozzer, I9II, p. 102. 
3 Thus, for example, there are no dates at Tikal after 9.6.3.9.15 (Stela 17) until 9.14.0.0.0 (Stela 16), an interval 
of 150 years. It is highly probable, however, that the 51 plain stele here were erected during this period, 
their inscriptions and designs being painted upon them instead of engraved. If we suppose them to have been the 
hotun-markers (and of the 17 sculptured stelz only 2, Nos. 11 and 16, record hotun-endings, 10.2.0.0.0 and 9.14.0.0.0 
respectively), and if we suppose further that only the lahuntuns and katuns were marked up to 9.10.0.0.0, there 
would have been required between 9.3.0.0.0 (the next katun after Stela 3) and 10.2.0.0.0, the date of Stela 11, 63 
stele, and deducting 2, for Stelae 11 and 16, because they record two katun-endings within this period," we will 
have left 61 stela, or only 10 more than the number of plain stelz already discovered. It seems not unlikely, 
therefore, that the hotuns at Tikal may have been marked by painted, plain stelz instead of carved ones. 
