770 The Maya Calendar and the Age of MS. Troano. [October, 
the year 1420 A. D.” The Perez manuscript locates it in the 8th? 
Ahau—the one following the 1oth—but without giving the year. 
As my calculation places it in the last year of the 1oth, or first of 
the 8th, the agreement is perhaps as close as could be expected. 
Perez states that the year 1392 of our era was the Maya year 
7 Cauac, “according to all sources of information, confirmed by 
the testimony of Don Cosme de Burgos, one of the conquerors 
and a writer (but whose observations have been lost.”’—( Bancroft, 
i, 763). The correctness of this statement has been very ser 
ously questioned because of the apparent impossibility of making 
it agree with the other dates. In the first place Perez started 
wrong by taking for granted that 7 Cauac was the first year of an 
Ahau, a supposition by no means necessary. In the second place 
it is more than probable he arrived at the date 1392 by calcula- 
tion from the data he had before him, and not from the fact that 
the two dates were connected by the authority quoted from. It 
is certain that he or his authority must have reduced the years of 
one system to those of the other to have arrived at this date. 
As he gives, in his calculations, the year 1493 as that on which 
Ajpula died, instead of 1536, as stated by his manuscript, thus 
antedating it by forty-three years, it is probable that this error 
runs through all his calculated dates. Now let us make this cor 
rection on our table by counting from the year 1392, as found 
there, and see what year it brings us to. 
Examining the table, we see that the 12th Ahau closed with 
1398, and that 1392, according to my arrangement, was the year 
3 Kan of this Ahau. Counting from this forward through the 
six remaining years of this Ahau, the 24 of the 1oth to the 13th 
year of the 8th Ahau (43 in all), we reach 7 Cauac ; precisely the 
date required by his authorities. It also falls in the 8th hau, # 
fact which also appears to be demanded by his data; but it is ca 
year 1435 of ourera and not 1392. Is it not more than probable 
that this was the year in which Mayalpan was destroyed ? It 4 
a little strange that Perez should have made the mistake of say : 
ing that Ahau No. 2,in which his manuscript places the a 
appearance of the Spaniards on the coast of Yucatan, ended yeas 
the year 1488, and that Dr. Valentini should have overlooked th! 
error. According to my scheme, this Ahau began with 1495 4 
ended with 1518, covering the correct date. 
’ Brasseur (Relac. des cos. 52 note) says erroneously, “ 6th.” 
