THOMAS] THE AHAU alu 
in the order of 9, 5. 1, 10, 6, 2, 11, 7, 3, 12, 8, 4, 13, 9, 5, 1, and so on—an order of suc- 
cession that Perez quotes from an unnamed manuscript, but whose significance he 
failed to grasp. 
Twenty ahaus constitute a katun. They are numerated: 20, 1, 2, 3, ete, up to 19. 
Finally, in speaking of the katun (p. 24), he says: 
Itis over this period that the battle royal has been fought. The question of 
twenty or twenty-four years has raged undeterminedly for more than half a century. 
As the facts themselves will show the folly of the whole contention, I pass it by 
without awarding to any individual combatant the discredit of his partisanship. 
Twenty years of 365 days make 7,300 days. The katun does not reach that far, 
falling a hundred days short, as a multiplication of its constituent parts will show: 
360 * 20=7,200. 
In consequence of the day Ahau beginning the ahaus, it must also begin the katuns; 
and the ahaus succeeding each other by differences of four, as 9, 5, 1, 10, 6, 2,11, 7, 3, 
12, 8, 4, 13, 9, 5, 1, 10, 6, 2, 11, 7, ete, it results that the order of the katuns, composed as 
they are of twenty ahaus, must be one in which each succeeding katun begins with 
a day number two less than its forerunner—thus: 11, 9, 7,5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 13, 11, 
ete. 
The katuns are numerated in the same manner as the ahaus: 20, 1, 2, 3, etc, up 
to 19. 
Let us examine these expressions so far as they relate to the ahau 
and bear upon the Maya system as developed in the record. 
He says the ahau is a period of 360 days, ‘‘and derives its name 
undoubtedly from the fact that it always begins with the day Ahau.” 
This is undoubtedly the use he makes of it; but was it used by the 
Mayas in this sense? That he has derived this name as applied to 
the period of 360 days from the inscriptions appears nowhere in his 
work. He nowhere asserts or pretends to claim that the symbol 
denoting this period is in any sense phonetic, giving this name. The 
only early native authorities to which we can appeal are the Chronicles. 
To these, therefore, we refer, following Dr Brinton’s translation. 
In the Chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, the ahaus 
are numbered over and over again as containing each twenty years. 
In the thirteenth paragraph (p. 103) it is said ‘‘in the thirteenth ahau 
Ahpula died; for six years the count of the thirteenth ahau will not 
be ended.” It is evident from this, be the count confused and even 
erroneous, that the author considered the ahau as composed of more 
than six years. The Chronicle of Chumayel also speaks of the sixth 
year of the thirteenth ahau, the seventh year of the eighth ahau katun 
(uaxac ahau u katunil), and the first year of the first ahau katun (ahau 
u katunile). Another Chronicle of Chumayel expressly makes ahau 
the equivalent of katun—‘‘the fourth ahau was the name of the 
katun”—and uses ahau, katun, and ahau katun as synonyms (ahau u 
katunil). 
It is evident from these extracts, be the originals trustworthy or 
not, that Mr Goodman could not have found therein evidence for his 
application of the term ahau. Nor can it be obtained from Landa, 
