396 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.47, No. 2, 19821 A LATE FORMATIVE PERIOD STELA IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS Norman Hammond A plain stela has been identified at the site of Cuello, Belize. On the basis of stratigraphy and the accompany- ing cache vessels it has been dated to the latter part of the Late Formative, ca. A.D. 100. This date is approx- imately 200 years older than the earliest Initial Series dated stela so far known in the Maya lowlands, and com- parable with some early dated monuments in the Pacific piedmont zone. Stela erection in the lowlands may antedate the secondary use of such monuments as vehicles for dynastic propaganda. The tripartite division of Maya culture history into Preclassic (Formative), Classic, and Postclassic was predicated on the appearance at the beginning, and cessation at the end, of the Classic period of public monuments bearing dated hieroglyphic inscriptions. The Long Count in which these were expressed was precise to the day and has been correlated with the Christian calendar; the 11.16.0.0.0. or Goodman-Martinez-Thompson correlation, which is the most widely accepted, places the Classic period between approximately A.D. 250 and 900. The earliest dated monument currently known is Tikal Stela 29, with an Initial Series of 8.12.14.8.15, (A.D. 292), and the latest certain Initial Series is of 10.4.0.0.0. (A.D. 909), from Tonina. Apart from the introduction of dated monuments, the beginning of the Classic was also often held to be marked by the appearance of polychrome pottery and vaulted architecture, but recent research has demonstrated that both are found in contexts which, on other grounds, are formally Late Formative. It may be questioned whether any Formative: Classic boundary in terms of either precise calendar years or cultural markers is still feasible (Thompson 1966:57), particularly since Late Formative Maya society is a complex organism that has most, if not all, of the major traits of a civilization. The purpose of this report is not, however, to argue the point, but to suggest that the developed nature of the earliest known Classic monuments indicates still earlier antecedents for both the hieroglyphic script and the stela form in the Maya lowlands, and to advance some evidence in support of the latter contention. Of the existence of earlier hieroglyphic inscriptions there is little doubt; several sites in the Pacific piedmont and continental divide have yielded inscribed and dated monuments of the sec- ond century A.D. or earlier, including Chiapa de Corzo, El Baul, and Abaj Takalik. The date in the third century B.C. for Abaj Takalik is the lower limit of justifiable speculation so far (John A. Graham 1977, and personal communications). Kaminaljuyu and Izapa have numerous monuments which, although lacking inscribed dates, are undoubtedly of Late Formative age. Other monuments using bar/dot place-notation dates which, it has been argued, counted from the same 3114 B.C. base as the Maya Long Count, come from as far west as Tres Zapotes. In this perspec- tive the absence of Late Formative monuments from the Maya lowlands is striking. The void is not absolute: Polol Altar 1 has long been recognized as stylistically early (Pro- skouriakoff 1950:110, Figure 36d); it is similar in design to the upper part of Abaj Takalik Stela 5, dating to A.D. 126. The inscription has recently been read by John A. Graham (personal com- munication) and Gary Pahl (personal communication) as being in Baktun 7, although examination of a plaster cast sent to me by courtesy of Pahl leaves me unconvinced. El Mirador Stela 2 and El Tintal Stela 1 are also both possibly earlier, on stylistic grounds, than Tikal Stela 29 (Ian Graham, personal communication). More plausible is the date of ca. 25 B.C. advanced by William R. Coe (1965:19) for the painted figures on the exterior of Structure 5D-Sub. 10-lst at Tikal: Figure d bears an Akbal glyph in its Norman Hammond, Archaeology Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology 0002-7316/82/020396-08$1.30/1