detail is shown by such reliefs as Fig. 61 (p. 297), but he no longer feared the vacant space, and appreciated its value as a background. The dates on the monuments do not assist us in any way to determine the epoch which saw the rise of Palenque. The initial series in the temples give dates relating to the first cycle or even before, that is to say more than 3000 years b.c., and as such they must be regarded as purely legendary. It is impossible to believe that the site was of early foundation compared with the others. It would be against all experience to suggest that the people who built Palenque could at a subsequent period have adopted the clumsy and unnecessarily laborious architecture of Tikal. On the other hand, the site of Palenque bears a certain similarity to that of Menché, including the presence at both of buildings with underground passages and chambers, though the "' palace" at Palenque is a far more elaborate construction than the analogous building at Menché, being in fact a complex of associated buildings. All the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that Palenque is the latest of the central Maya sites, and that it is most closely associated with Menché. In further proof of the latter supposition I might mention the so-called "crosses," surmounted by birds, held by the figures in more than one of the Menché reliefs, which have their counterparts in the "crosses" of Palenque alone. The significance of these I have already discussed on p. 257.
I think, then, that the various dates found on the monuments may be taken as a fair indication of the relative periods at which the various cities flourished, except of course those at Palenque. Arguments based upon the style of decoration alone are apt to be misleading, especially as far as the lesser sites are concerned, since it is only natural that at these the workmanship should be of an inferior and "provincial" character. Allowance too must be made for the varying capacity
