CHAPTER VIII. 



A DISCUSSION OF DATES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 

 THOSE OF THE PEREZ MANUSCRIPT. • 



As I have heretofore touched i;pon this topic, I must ask the reader to 

 refer to what is there stated, that I may dispense with repeating it here. 

 But it is proper to remind him here that having proven, at least satis- 

 factorily to myself, that the Ahau consisted of twenty-four years, this 

 number is always to be understood whenever this period is mentioned in 

 this discussiofi. In the second place, I start with tlie understanding that a 

 13th Ahau closed with the year 1542. I have already given my reasons, 

 somewhat at length, for this conclusion. I may add that Dr. Valentini, in his 

 article on the Perez Manuscript, arrives at the same conclusion. Brasseur^ 

 also concludes the 13th Ahau with the year 1542, as he gives the following 

 explanation: "Dans le XIII Ahau Katun, cest-a-dire, entre les annees 1518- 

 1542"; thus counting twenty- four years to this period, notwithstanding his 

 repeated statement elsewhere that it contained but twenty. We may there- 

 fore feel assured that we have in these dates — the 24th year of the XIII 

 Ahai;:iiA. D. 1542 — one connecting link between the two chronological 

 systems; and also that the author of the Perez Manuscript was correct in 

 stating that at the period alluded to — the year 1536 — " six years were 

 wanting to the completion of the 13th Ahau." 



In order that the reader may have before him as much of the data 

 bearing upon this point as can be conveniently given here, I insert at this 

 point a copy of the Perez Manuscript in the original, following it with 

 the English translation. 



iHist. des Nat. Civ., II, 594, note 1. 



