568 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
clear that the custom began not later than the third lahuntun of Cycle 9 (Copan, 
Stela 24), and admitting them, as early as the first lahuntun of Cycle 9 (Tikal, 
Stela 8); in other words, we get our first traces of it some 140 or 160 years after the 
earliest stela known was erected (Uaxactun, Stela 9). 
On the basis of the evidence now available, Stela 8 at Tikal (9.0.10.0.0), Stelz 
20, 24, 15; and g at Copan (9.1.10.0.0, 9.2.10.0.0, 9.4.10.0.0, and 9.6. 10.0.0 respec- 
tively), it appears as though the lahuntun-endings were actually commemorated in 
this way before the katun-endings, although the latter 1s much the more important 
period of the two. 
This 1s so contrary to the logical order for this custom to have followed in its 
development, 7. ¢., first the katuns, then the half-katuns (the lahuntuns), and finally 
the quarter-katuns (the hotuns), that even in spite of the above evidence to the 
contrary, the writer feels that at first monuments were only erected at the katun- 
endings; that is to say, as first worked out, possibly during the close of Cycle 8, at 
Tikal, the katun-endings (1. ¢., once every 20 years) were the only times at which 
stele were erected. Jater, as the Maya became more prosperous, in a second 
stage (the first at Copan), they were able to erect the stele on lahuntun-endings 
as well (7. e., once every ten years), and finally, toward the close of the Early 
Period (9.8.15.0.0), they became sufficiently prosperous to be able to erect them 
on the first and third hotun-endings as well (1. ¢., once every 5 years). This 
surely is the logical order of development, and the fact that the only evidence 
available tends to indicate the priority of the lahuntun over the katun as the 
period first chosen for this purpose, the writer believes is due to the chance survival 
of these few earliest lahuntun-markers and the chance destruction or non-recovery 
of the earliest katun-markers, rather than to any actual priority of the former 
over the latter. Bowditch’s conclusion (see page 565) that the quarter-katuns 
were probably marked from the first appears to the writer incorrect. He believes 
the evidence on this point at least 1s sufficient to show that the hotun-endings 
were not marked until some time after the katun and lahuntun-endings—in fact, 
until toward the close of the Early Period. 
The custom, moreover, appears to have varied in different cities at the same 
time, as the following brief synopsis of the dates at each will indicate: 
Tikal——Even admitting the accuracy of the readings suggested here for 
Stela 8 and 9, after 9.2.0.0.0 (Stela 9) we do not get another hotun-marker until 
9.14.0.0.0, 240 years later (Stela 16), and after Stela 16 not another until 10.2.0.0.0, 
160 years later (Stela 11); that is, out of the 17 sculptured stelz at this site, only 2, 
or possibly 4, are hotun-markers. But as already noted in Chapter V, there are 51 
plain stelz at Tikal, which probably were painted, and possibly were period-ending 
markers, and if these were erected only at the lahuntun and katun-endings—and 
no first and third hotun-endings have yet been found here—they would largely fill 
this gap, otherwise inexplicable in such an important site as Tikal, no less than 
the largest city of the Old Empire, and indeed of the whole Maya civilization. 
Copan.—The situation here has been fully explained in Chapters II, III, and 
IV. The earliest stele are lahuntun-markers and toward the close of the Early 
Period katun, first and third hotun-markers appear. ‘There are several lacunz in 
the sequence of the monuments at Copan, which it has been shown were probably 
coincidental with corresponding periods of building activity and temple construction. 
Piedras Negras.—This city contains one of the two best series of hotun-markers 
known. Here for a period of nearly 2 centuries probably not a hotun-ending passed 
without the erection of a corresponding monument to commemorate the event. 
This is shown graphically in figure 83, where the map of the city appears with a 
chronological diagram below indicating the dates of the different monuments, 
