474 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Chichen Itza (said to have taken place in a Katun 6 Ahau), down to a Katun 3 
Ahau, nearly a century after the Spanish Conquest, and thus it presents an un- 
broken section of New Empire history for more than 12 centuries.! 
Although it does not reach as far back as the Mani and Tizimin u kahlay 
katunob by something like 275 years, it nevertheless begins with the earliest event of 
New Empire history, the discovery of Chichen Itza (some time between 432 to 452 
A.D. in the correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology suggested 
here), and unlike the other four, once started it continues without a break right 
down to and past the time of the Spanish Conquest. 
This chronicle is our most trustworthy authority for New Empire history, and 
it has proved of invaluable aid in checking up the lacunz and repetitions in III and 
IV, and in bringing them into agreement with it. It is not quite so detailed as III 
and IV, but its chief value lies in the continuity of its sequence of katuns, and it is 
no exaggeration to say that without it there would be no single u kahlay katunob 
in which entire confidence could be placed. It is preceded by the following heading: 
“This is the record of the count of the katuns from when took place the discovery of 
* Chichen Itza; this is written for the town in order that it may be known by whoever wishes 
to know as to the counting of the katuns.’” 
In spite of the fact that it emanates from Xiu territory (Chumayel), it is 
clearly an Itza chronicle, beginning with the discovery of the site of the Itza capital, 
and mentioning “the men of the Itza” or “those of Itza”’ five different times, and the 
Xiu only once, and that at the very end, 7. ¢., in the entry recording the death of 
their ruler Napot Xiu in 1536. 
In comparing the relative value of this u kahlay katunob with the others, the 
writer gives it most weight of all. It lacks the mythological opening entry of III. 
It makes no mention of the Xiu, who probably did not reach Yucatan until 500 
years after the discovery of Chichen Itza. And finally it presents an unbroken 
history of the first-comers into the peninsula, namely, the Itza, down to the time 
of the Spanish Conquest. In short, as noted above, it is our most reliable original 
source for the reconstruction of New Empire history. 
The second u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel is 
again an Itza record. It is prefaced with the following title: 
“The Record of the Katuns by the men of Itza called the Maya Katuns.’’ 
It does not begin so early even as IX, and, moreover, is confused in the order 
and position of the earlier events; for example, ascribing the plot of Hunnac Ceel 
to a Katun 5 Ahau instead of a Katun 8 Ahau, and placing the abandonment of 
Chakanputun a century after the plot of Hunnac Ceel, whereas III, IV, and IX 
all agree that this event took place two and a half centuries before that plot. 
It has, however, a peculiar value not possessed by any of the others. It gives 
not only the katuns in which Napot Xiu died, the Spaniards arrived, and Bishop 
Toral arrived, but also the particular tuns as well. If these are correct, or, as the 
writer believes, not more than a year out of the way, they constitute an invaluable 
check on the correlation of the two chronologies, limiting the margin of error, when 
taken into consideration with the other events to be described, to less than one year. 
1By a curious error, Brinton omits the Katun 8 Ahau in which Chichen Itza was first abandoned, assigning 
that event to the katun next preceding, Katun ro Ahau (1882, p. 153). Gordon, in his reproduction of the text, 
corrects this error in his preface (1913, pp. 8, 9), and reference to plate 74 of that reproduction will show that the 
original manuscript has the Katun 8 Ahau which Brinton omits. 
*Brinton, 1882, p. 158. The translations from the u kahlay katunob in this Appendix are chiefly those of 
Brinton, but many minor changes have been made and a few interpolations introduced to clarify the sense of 
the original Maya. The corresponding Brinton references are given in all cases. 
8] bid., p. 169. 
