CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 477 
only katun which could have ended in 1517 and still agree with these conditions is a 
Katun 2 Ahau.! 
But we may make an even closer correlation from these data than the above. 
As will be seen under Event D, Merida was founded on January 6, 1542, or, ex- 
pressed decimally, in 1542.016. 2 Now, if 5 tuns (4.928 years) of Katun 11 Ahau 
had been placed, 7. ¢., completed, before Merida was founded, which the writer 
believes is the correct interpretation of the second passage above, Katun 13 Ahau 
must have ended some time between 1536.102 and 1537.086 in order to have Event 
D (1542.016), fall in the sixth tun of Katun 11 Ahau at all. 
But, on the other hand, we can not make the ending of Katun 13 Ahau any 
later than 1537.712 or the previous katun-ending will not fall in 1517, as stated in 
the first passage above, but in 1518; and similarly, if we make the ending of Katun 
13 Ahau any earlier than 1536.713, it will not fall in 1517 as stated, but in 1516. 
Combining these two sets of limits, therefore, we will find that Katun 13 Ahau 
can not have ended any earlier than 1536.713 and still agree with the first quotation 
or any later than 1537.086 and still agree with the second quotation, which reduces 
our correlation of the two chronologies under Event B alone to within 5 months, 
which agrees, moreover, with Event A as far as the latter goes. 

1Brinton through a misconception as to the meaning of the word tzuc (here translated division and assumed 
to have been synonymous with tun), was led into a curious error in the second quotation above. He believed 
tzuc was a period composed of 4 years, and on this basis concluded that the Spaniards first arrived at Merida at 
the close of Katun 11 Ahau, 1.¢., 5 4 years=20 years, an event which took place in July 1541, although the 
city was not formally established until 6 months later. On the basis of this conclusion, and the fact that a katun 
is also said to have ended in 1517, he is compelled to assume that a katun was 24 years long. This is, of course, 
incorrect, and Brinton’s error arose through his mistake as to the meaning of the word tzuc in the opening line of 
the chronicle. 
The Motul dictionary gives a number of meanings for this word: “A tuft or queue of hairs; or the mane of a 
horse, or the beard which corn throws up while it is in the ear; and the head which some axes and hammers have 
as opposed to the cutting-edge, and the head of a forked pole, and the clouds rising aloft, and which they say 
denote a tempest of rain. Parts or sections, a counting particle for towns, for parts, paragraphs and articles, 
and many different words.” 
Brinton (1882, p. 55) says the tzuc was called /ustro by the Spaniards and was equal to 4 years, as already 
noted. The passage from Cogolludo (1688, p. 186), which he quotes in support of this statement, contains no 
mention of the word ¢zuc at all, and Brinton’s translation of it as being equivalent to the /ustro, a period of 4 years, 
must be rejected. Indeed, in a passage from XI, precisely this meaning of division is repeatedly indicated as ap- 
plied both to people and to territories: “They went forth in four divisions (cantzuc), which were called the four 
territories (cantzucul cab). One division (huntzuci) came forth from the east of Kin Colah Peten; one division 
(huntzucci) came forth from the north of Nacocob; one division (huntzucci) came forth from the gate of Zuyuua to 
the west; one division (huntzuccie) came forth from the mountains of Canhek, the Nine Mountains as the land 
is called. Katun 4 Ahau; then took place the calling together of the four divisions (can tzuccilob) the four terri- 
tories (cantzuccul cab) as they are called.” (Brinton, op. cit., pp. 180, 181.) 
Gates, in a recent communication to the writer, reaches a similar conclusion: “tzuc is one of the numerous 
Maya numeral counters, and is used where a given number of the parts or sections into which something is divided 
is referred to, as chapters or paragraphs. Ho (5) tzuc here thus refers to the completion of five of the (20) sections 
(tuns) into which a katun is divided, that is, to the hotun period.” 
As used in the opening passage of I, the word tzuc should be translated “division” or “part,” and is used 
as a synonym for tun, o1 the twentieth part of a katun. 
The writer has felt it necessary to go into this matter at some length in order to vindicate the accuracy of 
this chronicle, which Brinton’s translation here jeopardizes. For if tzuc did mean 4 years instead of simply one 
of the 20 divisions of the katun, it forces Nakuk Pech into one of two equally unfavorable positions: eith:r he 
contradicts himself flatly in saying that one katun ended in 1517 and another in 1541, or he makes the katun 24 
years instead of 20 years in length, an obvious error. As translated above, however, he is in perfect agreement 
with himself when he states that one katun ended in 1517, and the fifth division of the next but one ended before 
January 6, 1542. 
2Throughout this Appendix all dates in Christian chronology are expressed decimally as the above. Thus, 
for example, January 6 is Een or 0.016 year, the year chosen here being the tropical year of 365 days 5 hours 
48 minutes and 46.04 seconds, that is, from one tropic or equinox around to the same. ‘This gives a fraction of 
365. 242199+, but as used here this is carried no farther than the second place, the year being regarded as 365.24 
days inlength. On this basis the following equivalents have been used: 1 day=0.00274 year; I tun=0.986 year; 
1 hotun=4.928 years; 1 katun= 19.713 years. 
