1881.] Zhe Maya Calendar and the Age of MS. Troano. 771 
We see from this that when the Maya calendar is properly ex- 
plained, and the manifest errors of the various authorities cor- 
rected, the dates can be reconciled, and in fact furnish strong 
evidence of the correctness of what I have advanced in reference 
to the proper position and numbers of the Ahaues in the grand 
cycle. 
The theory advanced by Perez that the Ahaues were numbered 
from the second day of the Cauac years, is simply a supposition 
based upon the name “ Ahau,” and the fact that the numbers of 
these periods, as usually given, can be found in this way, and is 
really the basis of all his calculations. 
But we can find the same numbers, and in the order given, 
Without resorting to this theory, as will be seen by reference to 
the table. Dividing the series into periods of 24 years will neces- 
sarily give these numbers as the first years, no matter where we 
commence the division. As will be seen by reference to the 
table, the Ahau in which the year 1536 falls, and which the 
Perez manuscript states was the 13th, commences with the year 
13 Cauac, the next with 11 Cauac, and so on, precisely as given 
by all authorities. The only foundation, therefore, for the theory 
advanced by Perez, was the name “ Ahau,” which was doubtless 
applied to these periods on account of their importance in calcu- 
lations of time and in giving dates. 
Is there anything in the manuscript itself indicating the date 
at which it, or the original from which the one discovered was 
copied, was written ? 
The period embraced by the four plates xx—xx111, which can be 
located in the series of years with reasonable if not absolute cer- 
tainty, is evidently peculiar and not a part of the Maya calendar 
*ystem. If, as I have given strong reasons for believing, it marks 
the close of one great cycle and the commencement of another, it 
Will be located as shown by the heavy waved line on the table. 
Why was this peculiar period given? My answer is that it 
atid marks the time during which the author lived, and 
‘nce was written during the latter half of the fourteenth 
century, 
That exactly the same combinations may be found by going 
sty One grand cycle, or 312 years, is true, but the internal as 
c as the external evidence, which I cannot undertake to discuss 
“, Will not, in my opinion, allow us to carry it back to such a 
