TiioMAB] METHOD OF NUMBERmO THE AHAUES, 51 



of the 8tli Ahau is the year 1435, and that by adding the 43 years — the 

 number Perez has antedated the death of Ajpula — all the dates agree sub- 

 stantially, and also drop into their proper places in the Maya Calendar. 



As the authorities to whom Perez refers obtained their information 

 from the Indians, the date was as a matter of course given according to the 

 Maya method of reckoning time; hence the "year 7 Cauac and 8th Ahau" 

 are most likely to be correct. It is very probable this was the date of some 

 notable event in the history of that people, and as it gives when corrected 

 the year 1435, 1 am of the opinion it relates to the destruction of Mayapan, 

 which, according to the manuscript translated by Stephens, occurred in the 

 8th Ahau. 



■ Another error arising from this mistake on the part of Perez was that he 

 was forced to place the death of Ajpula in the 6th year of the 13tli Ahau, 

 instead of in the 1 8th as given by his manuscript, in order to get it in 4 Kan. 

 An examination of Tables No. XVIII and XIX, which are constructed 

 according to his theory, will show that there is no Ahau but number I, in 

 which 4 Kan is the 18th year. This is true no matter where we com- 

 mence dividing the grand cycle, according to his idea. 



As Table XVIII commences the division with the last year of a grand 

 cycle, I have given at the same place another (XIX) on his j^lan, commenc- 

 ing with the fourth year of this period, in order to illusti'ate the above 

 statement. 



Taking into consideration all the evidence I can obtain bearing upon 

 the points now under consideration I am forced to the following conclusions: 



1st. That the series of years began with Cauac. 



2d. That the first year of a grand cycle was also the first year of an 

 Ahau. 



3d. That the thirteen Ahaues of a grand cycle were numbered as 

 shown in Table XVII. 



4th. That thej' were numbered according to the number of their first 

 years respectively. 



But it is best perhaps for me to call attention here to the following facts 

 in reference to the numbering of these periods. 



First. That the division of the grand cycle according to the plan I 



