192 A STUDY OF THE MANUSCEIPT TROANO. 



As I have already shown, the important event alluded to by Perez as 

 occurring in the year 7 Cauac of the 8th Ahau, which he fixes in 1393, 

 really happened in 1435, as we see by correcting the manifest error of his 

 calculation. This event, I believe, was the destruction of Mayapan, which 

 this manuscript asserts took place in the 8th Ahau. 



The two statements in this document — first (in the 11th paragraph), 

 that the first arrival of the Spaniards, at the close of the 2d Ahau (1518), 

 was 60 years after the fall of Mayapan; second (12th paragraj)h), that the 

 year 1536 was 60 years after this event — cannot both be correct; one or the 

 other, or both, must be erroneous. Rejecting the latter, and counting three 

 Ahaues, the number the author gives, at 24 years each, instead of 20 (the 

 length at which he estimates them), we have 72 years, which, deducted, 

 carries us back to 1446. This corresponds exactly with Landa's computa- 

 tion. Herrera' says that this happened, "according to the reckoning of the 

 Indians, about seventy years heiore the Spaniards came into Yucatan," which 

 would place it in 1448. According to the tables I have given, the 8th Ahau 

 included the years 1423-1446, which agrees exactly with Brasseur's calcu- 

 lation (Hist des Nat. Civ?), in which work he appears to have adopted 24 

 years as the number to an Ahau, instead of 20, as in his notes to Landa and 

 the Perez Manuscript. As I was not aware of this fact until after the preced- 

 ing part of this paper was delivered for publication, I call attention to it now, 

 as it is apparent from this that his comparison of the dates of the two systems 

 must agree throughout precisely with what is given in m}^ Table XVII. 



If we are correct in counting 24 years to an Ahau, then it is certain 

 the 8th must have included from 1423 to 1446; and ifthe document referred 

 to by Perez (wliich unfortunately was lost) was right in stating that 7 Cauac 

 was the year of the destruction, it occurred in 1435. 



We learn from Herrera (loc. cit.) that this city was destroyed five hundred 

 years after it was built. As a matter of course, this is given in round num- 

 bers, and cannot be considered as exact; yet it will aff'ord some aid in our 

 comparison. Deducting 500 from 1435 gives us the year 935 as the date 

 of the founding of the city, which may be considered as at least approxi- 

 mately correct. Counting back by Ahaues, we ascertain that this would fall 

 in the 11th of the preceding grand cycle. 



1 Dec. Ill, lib. vi, cap. 3. ni, 593. 



