82 BUEEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



such dating, since the statement of the katun did not fix a date any 

 closer than as occurring somewhere withm a certain 20-ycar period. 

 When greater accuracy was desired the particuhi,r tun in which the 

 date occurred was also given, as Tun 13 of Katun 2 Ahau. This 

 fixed a date as falling somewhere within a certain 360 days, which 

 was accurately fixed in a much longer period of time. Very rarely, 

 in the case of an extremely important event, the Calendar-round 

 date was also given as 9 Imix 19 Zip of Tun 9 of Katun 13 Ahau. 

 A date thus described satisfying all the given conditions could not 

 recur until after the lapse of at least 7,000 years. The great major- 

 ity of events, however, recorded by this method are described only 

 as occurrmg in some particular katun, as Katun 2 Ahau, for example, 

 no attempt being made to refer them to any particular division (tun) 

 of this period. Such accuracy doubtless was sufficient for recording 

 the events of tribal history, since in no case could an event be more 

 than 20 years out of the way. 



Aside from this initial error, the accuracy of this method of dat- 

 mg has been challenged on the ground that since there were only 

 thirteen possible numerical coefficients, any given katun, as Katim 

 2 Ahau, for example, in Table IX would recur in the sequence after 

 the lapse of thirteen katuns, or about 256 years, thus paving the way 

 for much confusion. While admitting that every thirteenth katun 

 in the sequence had the same name (see Table IX), the writer 

 believes, nevertheless, that when the sequence of the katuns was 

 carefully kept, and the record of each entered immediately after its 

 completion, so that there could be no chance of confusing it with 

 an earlier katun of the same name in the sequence, accuracy in dating 

 could be secured for as long a period as the sequence remained 

 unbroken. Indeed, the u kahlay katunob ^ from which the synopsis 

 of Maya history given in Chapter I was compiled, accurately fixes 

 the date of events, ignoring the possible initial inaccuracy of 20 years, 

 wathin a period of more than 1,100 years, a remarkable feat for any 

 prmiitive chronology. 



How early tliis method of recording dates was developed is imcer- 

 tain. It has not yet been found (surely) in the inscriptions in either 

 the south or the north; on the other hand, it is so closely connected with 

 the Long Count and Period-endmg dating, which occurs repeatedly 

 throughout the inscriptions, that it seems as though the u kahlay 

 katunob must have been developed while this system was still in use. 



There should be noted here a possible exception to the above state- 

 ment, namely, that the u kahlay katunob has not been found in the 

 inscriptions. ^Mr. Bowditch (1910: pp. 192 et seq.) has pomted out 



1 Theu kahlay katunob on which the historical summary given in Chapter I is based shows an absolutely 

 uninterrupted sequence of katuns for more than 1,100 years. See Brinton (1882 b: pp. 152-lC-l). It is nec- 

 essary to note here a correction on p. 153 of that work. Doctor Brinton has omitted a Katun 8 Ahau from 

 this u kahlay katunob, which is present in the Berendt copy, and he has incorrectly assijmed the abandon- 

 ment of Chichcn Itza to the preceding katun, Katun 10 Ahau, whereas the Berendt copy shows this 

 event took place during the katun omitted, Kaiun 8 Ahau. 



