50 



A STUDY OF THE MAJIIISCRIPT TEOANO. 



IId Atiau. 



1 Cauac 1464 



2 Kan 1465 



3 Muluc 14G6 



4 Ix 1467 



5 Cauac 1468 



6 Kan 1469 



7 Muluc 1470 



8 Ix 1471 



9 Cauac 1472 



10 Kan 1473 



11 Muluc 1474 



12 Ix 1475 



13 Cauac 1476 



1 Kau 1477 



2 Muluc 1478 



3 Is 1479 



4 Cauac 1480 



5 Kau 14H1 



6 Muluc 1482 



7 Is .....1483 



8 Cauac 1484 



9 Kau 1485 



10 Muluc. 1486 



11 Is 1487 



IXth Ahau. 



8 Cauac 1536 



9 Kan 1537 



10 Muluc 1538 



11 Is 1539 



12 Cauac 1540 



13 Kan 1541 



XIth Ahau. 



10 Cauac 1512 



11 Kau 1513 



12 Muluc 1514 



13 Ix 1515 



1. Cauac 1516 



2 Kan 1517 



3 Muluc 1518 



4 Ix 1519 



5 Cauac 1520 



6 Kau 1521 



7 Muluc 1522 



8 Ix 1523 



9 Cauac 1524 



10 Kan 1525 



11 Muluc 1526 



12 Ix 1527 



13 Cauac 1528 



1 Kan 1529 



2 Muluc 1530 



3 Ix 1531 



4 Cauac 1532 



5 Kan 1533 



6 Muluc 1534 



7 Ix 1535 



Following out this theory we will have to place the taking of Merida 

 by the Spaniards (1541) in the sixth year of the IXth Ahau, instead of the 

 first of the XIth. As Landa went to Yucatan about the year 1549, we are 

 not warranted in supposing that he made an error of thirty years in refer- 

 ence to an event that occurred but a few years before his arrival. 



It is apparent from these facts that, assuming, as Perez does, that the 

 year 1392 was the year 7 Cauac, and the tirst of an Ahau, conflicts with 

 every other date left on record. 



I think we may therefore take for granted that there Avas some error 

 in the calculation by which this author, or those from whom he quotes, 

 obtained this date. As this calculation antedates the death of Ajpula just 

 43 years, let us add that number to 1392: This gives us 1435. If we turn 

 now to Table XVII, made according to my theory, we find that 7 Cauac 



