458 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The Tizimin manuscript places this event 20 years earlier: 
“8 Ahau [7. ¢., 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo] it occurred that Chichen Itza was 
learned about; the discovery of Ziyancan took place.’” 
The Chumayel Manuscript agrees with the Mani text as to the date: 
“In 6 Ahau [i. ¢., 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan] took place the discovery of 
Chichen Itza.’”? 
Let us next ascertain the location of the Province of Ziyancaan or 
Bakhalal. The former name has not survived as that of any known locality 
in the Maya area at the present time, but Bacalar, the Hispanicized form 
of the Maya Bakhalal, is the name of the large lagoon in the southeastern 
part of the peninsula, some 80 kilometers northwest of Santa Rita Corozal, 
British Honduras. (See plate 1.) This is the first place-name mentioned in 
the Books of Chilan Balam which still attaches to a definite geographical 
locality; and a glance at plate 1 will show that the region west of Lake 
Bacalar, 1. ¢., the Province of Bakhalal, lies directly in the path of a migra- 
tion from the northeastern corner of Peten, where we have seen the Old 
Empire Maya survived the latest at Uaxactun, Nakum, Ucanal, and Benque 
Viejo (10.1.0.0.0) and Tikal and Flores (10.2.0.0.0) to Chichen Itza, where we 
will find them dedicating a temple as early as 10.2.10.0.0, only to years later 
than the closing dates in the last cities of the Peten region. 
The Peabody Museum Central American Expedition of 1912, under 
Merwin, explored this region, and discovered a number of important new 
sites, Rio Beque, Ramonal, and Porvenir, and although no inscriptions 
were found at any of them, they probably belong to the Transitional Period 
of the New Empire, 10.6.0.0.0 to I1.1.0.0.0.3 
The purely archeological evidence is fully as satisfactory. In 1900, 
Thompson found at Chichen Itza, in that part of the city called Old Chichen 
Itza, a lintel with the Initial Series 10.2.9.1.9 inscribed on its under side, 
which was assumed to have been its contemporaneous date. In 1918, 
however, the writer deciphered on the front of this lintel the lahuntun-ending 
10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen, which conforms with the usual practice of dedi- 
cating monuments, temples, etc., at even hotun-endings and may conse- 
quently be regarded as its contemporaneous date, being in fact less than a 
year later (331 days) than the Initial Series. Now, this date is not only the 
earliest contemporaneous date known at Chichen Itza, but also throughout 
the New Empire, and it is, moreover, only 1 lahuntun later than the closing 
dates of Tikal (Stela 11), Flores (Stela 1), and Seibal (Stela 1). Thus, on the 
chronological side, it becomes evident that the final abandonment of the 
Old Empire was roughly coincident with the growth of the New Empire, and 
it is even possible that the rise of the latter may have been partially responsi- 
ble for the fall of the former. 
1 Brinton, 1882, pp. 138, 144. 2 [bid., pp. 153, 158. 
3 Morley, 19174, pp. 140, 146. The writer understands this important material is now in course of publication. 
