468 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
IX. The first u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied in 
1782 by Juan Josef Hoil. 
X. The Gyan u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied 
in 1782 by Juan Josef Hoil. 
XI. The ce u kahlay katunob vate the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied 
in 1782 by Juan Josef H 
XII. Page 85 of the Book of Chilan “Balam of Chumayel, copied in 1782 by Juan Josef 
Hoil.} 
As used hereinafter, these several authorities will be cited under the corre- 
sponding Roman numerals above. 
Concerning the relative merits of these sources, in matters pertaining to the 
native chronology, in general the writer places greater confidence in the statements 
of the native writers than in those of the Spanish historians (II, VI, and VIII), and 
naturally the earlier the authority the more likely he is to be correct. Most trust- 
worthy of all appears tobe I. Nakuk Pech was a member of the noble house of Pech 
of Cumkal, and was himself the hereditary batab or chief of Chacxulubchen. He 
speaks of having been an adult in 1519, and he must have been of mature years 
during the period of the Spanish Conquest, in which he took no small part, aiding 
the Spaniards whenever possible. He thus grew up under the native régime, re- 
ceiving his education, which must have been of the best, since he was to become 
chief one day, at the hands of the Maya priesthood before the Spanish Conquest, 
and therefore while the native institutions were still flourishing. In short, he 
possessed first-hand knowledge of what he wrote, and his statements, especially 
those regarding the native calendar and chronology, are to be accepted with greater 
confidence probably than those of any of the other authorities cited. Even in 
matters relating to Spanish history, such as the first appearance of whites in the 
peninsula (the wrecking of Ger6nimo de Aguilar and his companions on the east 
coast in 1511), the arrival of Cortés at Cozumel on February 28, 1519, the fall of 
Tenochtitlan on August 13, 1521, the first arrival of the Spaniards at Merida in 
1541, and the foundation of the city on January 6, 1542, Pech gives the correct year, 
and in the case of the fall of Tenochtitlan, even the correct day. Such accuracy on 
the part of a native in regard to Spanish events shows that he was an exceedingly 
careful writer, and gives to any statements he may make about his own calendar the 
highest degree of reliability.” 
Of the second source, Bishop Landa’s Relation, little further need be said here, 
his work having already been described in Chapter I (pages 28-30), as being the 
sine qua non of our knowledge of Mayachronology. It was composed prior to 1566,° 
but not before the close of 1561,* although some of the material may have been 

1This is page 85 of the Gordon reproduction of this manuscript (see Gordon, 1913), or the face of folio 46 of 
the original. 
2Unfortunately the original Pech manuscript has disappeared. Gates is of the opinion that the text in Don 
Rafael de Regil’s collection in Merida was only a copy of the original made by Pio Pérez. In 1918 the eminent 
Yucatecan scholar, Don Juan Martinez y Hernandez, found a duplicate chronicle by Ah Naum Pech, mentioned by 
Nakuk Pech as being the head of the family in his time, which he assures the writer is practically a word-for-word 
transcription of the Nakuk Pech chronicle, with only the name of the author changed. See Brinton, 1882, pp. 
189-259, for the text and translation of the Nakuk Pech version. 
3The title of the copy of Landa’s manuscript in the archives of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid 
bears this date: “Relation of the things of Yucatan taken from what Father Diego de Landa of the Order of San 
Francisco wrote. MDLXVI.” 
4Landa mentions in his Relation (1881, pp. 79, 80, 103) that he held an auto da fé at Mani, where many idols, 
hieroglyphic manuscripts, etc., were burned, and Cogolludo fixes the date of this event as having taken place after 
September 13, 1561, and before the early part of August 1562. See Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 308-310 and 322. 
Brinton says this event took place in 1562 (Brinton, 1882, p. 90). Shortly after his quarrel with Bishop Toral in 
1562, Landa returned to Spain, where he was tried in 1565, and it therefore seems most probable that he wrote 
his Relation at some Franciscan establishment in Spain in 1563-1565, while he was waiting for his trial. 
