TH0MA8.I THE PEREZ MANUSCRIPT. 197 



with the founding of Chlchen Itza, which, according to my calcukition, 

 would be about 583-606 (the 13th Ahau). It is a little remarkable that 

 the first mention of this city occurs in the close of the third paragraph, 

 exactly where the 13th Ahau must be inserted to fill a hiatus. 



The number of years given and periods mentioned in the first three 

 paragraphs cannot by any possible explanation be made to agree with each 

 other. This part of the history of the Tutul-Xiu race is doubtless made up 

 from a dim tradition in reference to which no chronological statement could 

 be made. As any attempt to determine the length of time they were 

 wandering, from the date of their departure from Tulapan until they settled 

 at Chichen-Itza, would be wholly conjectural, we will, perhaps, be as near 

 right as any other guess, if we assume that the 8th Ahau of the second 

 paragraph is the same as the 8th of the first, in other words, that the num- 

 bers in the second are but a recapitulation of those in the first, and that 

 the 13th in the latter is the one which precedes the 11th in tlie fourth para- 

 graph. Supposing the3' started on liieir travels in the 8th Ahau, this would 

 bring this event between the years 486-510. 



As the author of this manuscript counted twenty years to an Ahau and 

 I count twenty-four, our lists cannot possibly agree. If there are any 

 numbers given, connected with particular and noted events, which numbers 

 wei'e given in the author's data, with these my enumeration, if correct, 

 might coincide. The fall of Mayapan in the 8th Ahau, the appeai'ance of 

 the Spaniards on the coast in the 2d, and the death of Ajpula in the 13th, 

 I think may be relied upon as events correctly dated. 



If we count the years enumerated from the 2d Ahau in the seventh 

 paragraph, where Mayapan is first mentioned, to the 8th, in the eleventh 

 paragraph, when the second destruction of this city occurred, we find the 

 number to be 367; adding in the missing epochs at twenty years eacli, we 

 have 527, which agrees very well with Herrera's statement. But this gives 

 us something over twenty-six of these periods, whereas the correct number 

 would be twenty-two. Tlie exact numbers (of years) given in the ninth 

 and tenth paragraphs render it possible that these were obtained from the 

 author's data. 



