TiioMAs.i METHOD OF NUMBERING THE AHAUES. 47 



If I am correct in the plan of the table given, and the division into 

 Ahaues, it follows that the rest of these periods in the grand cycle would 

 be numbered as shown by the Roman numerals on Table XVII. These 

 numbers agree precisely with the numbers of the first years of the respect- 

 ive Ahaues, and furnish, as heretofore suggested, an explanation of the 

 singular method of enumerating these periods. If we now turn to Table 

 XVI, showing the periods obtained from the dates on Plates XXX and 

 XXXI of the Manuscript, we will see that their position and numbers 

 agree exactly with those given in Table XVII. 



As tending to confirm this conclusion, it will be necessary for me to 

 introduce here a comparison of Maya dates with those of the Christian era. 



As the designated 4 Kan corresponds, according to the manuscript 

 quoted, with the year 1536, the last year of that Ahau (10 Ix) was 1542. 

 Taking this as a starting point, I have given on the table the year of our 

 era corresponding with the first year of each Ahau. Now let us test this 

 result by the two or three additional dates found on record, and which the 

 authorities have failed to make agree with any explanation of the Maya 

 calendar heretofore given. 



Bishop Landa (Relacion de Cosas, § 41) states that "the Indians say, 

 for example, that the Spaniards arrived in the City of Merida in the year 

 of tlie nativity of our Lord and Master, 1541, which was precisely the first 

 year of the 1 1 th Ahau." We may assume as certain that the Indians gave 

 the bishop no such date as 1541, or any other year of the Christian era or 

 Gregorian Calendar, as they were wholly unacquainted with that system; 

 the year given must have been according to their method of designating 

 dates, or by counting back the years. 



As he understood the twenty "counted years" to constitute an Ahau, 

 and supposed one of these periods to follow another without any interven- 

 ing years, he would probably take 9 Muluc of the 13th Ahau as the first of 

 the 11th, which, as will be seen by reference to the table, is 1541, exactly 

 the date required. 



It is evident that either he or the author of the Perez manuscript was 

 mistaken, for according to the latter the 13th Ahau ended with the year 



