CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 469 
gathered as early as 1553.) One of his chief informants, he tells us,2 was that 
Nachi Cocom, halach vinic of Sotuta, who figures so sanguinarily in connection with 
the murder of Napot Xiu at Otzmal in 1536, to be described later (Event C). Un- 
fortunately, Landa gives little information as to the correlation of the two chronolo- 
gies, and even his single statement bearing upon this point is probably incorrect. 
He does, however, give the correct version of Event C, as will appear later, which 
indeed must have been a matter of common knowledge at that time, having hap- 
pened only 13 years before he first came to Yucatan in 1549.° 
The third source, the u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, 
was compiled not later than 1595, according to internal evidence in the text. This 
chronicle and the other four u kahlay katunob (IV, LX, X, and XJ), the writer be- 
lieves were copied by native Maya, perhaps directly from Maya historical codices, 
which have since been either lost or destroyed. 
In spite of the fact that both III and IV have several lacunz in their series of 
the katuns, in essential points they agree remarkably with IX and X, and occasion- 
ally even with XI, the least complete of them all; and they constitute, in the writer’s 
opinion, perfectly reliable sources for the reconstruction of the main aspects of New 
Empire history. 
The fourth source, the u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of 
Tizimin, so closely resembles III, not only in phraseology but also in the positions 
and lengths of its several lacunz, as to indicate that both must have been copied 
from the same original, and, as already noted, probably about the same time.® This 
close similarity is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that III is said to have 
come from Mani,® in northwestern Yucatan, to which the Xiu removed after the 
abandonment of Uxmal in the middle of the fifteenth century, and IV from Tizimin 
in northeastern Yucatan, in the territory of the Itza. 
There h'as been some attempt in IV to fill the later lacunz in its series, since 
this chronicle agrees closely with III down to the fall of Chichen Itza and the end 
of the League of Mayapan, but after these events several katuns have been 
interpolated, which make a duplication in its series, some sections being recorded 
twice. A case in point is the interpolation of 13 katuns (from Katun 11 Ahau to 
Katun 11 Ahau), after the Katun 2 Ahau in which the Spaniards are said to have 
1The specimen Maya year which Landa gives (1881, pp. 90-102) begins with the day 12 Kan (ibid., p. 97) 
which fell in 1553, according to almost all the early sources. See pages 495-497. 
2Landa, 1881, p. 76. 
3Cogolludo, 1688, p. 268. 
4See Brinton, 1882, p. 70. 
5See ibid., p. 136. 
®6The Mani manuscript is first mentioned by Stephens, who says Pio Pérez furnished him with a copy of “a 
fragment of a Maya manuscript, written from memory by an Indian, at some time not designated, and entitled: 
Principal epochs of the ancient history of Yucatan.” (1841, vol. 11, pp. 278-280.) Brinton, who had access to 
Berendt’s notes, says the latter states that the u kahlay katunob published by Stephens was from a manuscript 
in the possession of a native schoolmaster of Mani named Balam. He quotes Berendt as follows on this point: 
“The historical data which Stephens published in the Appendix of his work were extracted from such a book of 
Chilan Balam in the possession of an Indian of Mani, master of the school, who, because he had the same name 
Balam, pretended to be a descendant of the priest of the Maya, who gave his name to this class of writings.” 
(Chilan Balam, Articulos y Fragmentos en Lengua Maya. MSS. Advertencia, p. vu. See Brinton, 1882, p. 91, 
note I. 
ei Brinton gives an extract from the Codice Pérez, a mass of material copied by Pio Pérez from various 
sources, among others this u kahlay katunob, which states that this chronicle was in the possession of the master 
of the chapel at Mani: “ Here ends the book entitled Chilambalam [from which III was extracted] which is preserved 
in the town of Mani in the possession of the master of the chapel.”’ (Jbid, same page and note.) 
Unfortunately, this most important manuscript has not been seen or heard of since the War of the Castes, 
which devastated Yucatan in 1847 and 1848, and the writer greatly fears it was destroyed at that time. It is not 
known surely whether a copy of it may be in existence or not. 
