CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 479 
The version of this event in IV is so similar to the preceding that one can not 
escape the conclusion that both were copied from the same original: 
“[Katun] 13 Ahau; the death of the water-bringer took place; it was the sixth year 
when ended the count of Katun 13 Ahau; the count of the year was from the east, (the month) 
Pop passed on 4 Kan, 18 Zip, 9 Imix was the day the water-bringer died; it was the year 
bate, PIV 
The next version of this event, that in V, should be the most credible of all 
our sources, since rt emanates from the family of the murdered man himself, being 
copied by one of his great-great-great-great grandsons from an ancient and pre- 
sumably a Xiu book. It therefore should give an authentic account of the tragedy: 
“1537. 8 Cauac on the first of Pop when there died the water-bringers at Otzmal, namely 
Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu, and Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi,? and Namay Che and Namay Tun and the 
priest (ahmen) Evan * * * * men at Mani they were, water-bringers at Chichen Ytza, 
then; and there escaped Nahau Veeh, Napot Covoh; on to Zip it took place, in 12 Ahau it 
was, the tun on 2 Yaxkin it was, that it may be remembered.’* (V.) 
This passage requires some elucidation. In the first place, the year intended 
to be understood here is not 1537 as actually recorded, but 1536. This is true, 
because the Christian years given on this page of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (see 
figure 72) are those in which fell the ends of the Maya years indicated. Thus, for 
example, in the above quotation, although the year 8 Cauac began in July 1536 
and ended in July 1537, only the year 1537 1s actually recorded. ‘This is proved by a 
lower entry (see page 507) where the foundation of Merida is given as having 
occurred in a year 13 Kan, in the year 1542; that is, this year 13 Kan began in July 
1541 and ended in July 1542, and thus included within its span January 6, 1542. 
According to this version of the story, five men, Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu, Ah Ziyah Napuc 
Chi, Namay Che, Namay Tun, and the priest Evan lost their lives, Nahau Veeh 
and Napot Covoh escaping. 
One other very important point should be noted in connection with this passage. 
The tun in which this event took place is said to have ended on the day 12 Ahau 
2 Yaxkin, which tun-ending does in fact fall in the year 8 Cauac, that is, 12 Ahau 
2 Yaxkin is exactly 121 days later than 8 Cauac 1 Pop. 
Here, indeed, is a significant point, and one which may eventually explain the 
greater part of the existing confusion in the Books of Chilan Balam as to the proper 
alinement of the u kahlay katunob and Old Empire chronology. We see here the 
confusion which inevitably arises when a chronological system expressed in units of 
current time like the Aztec years is grafted upon a system expressed in units of 
elapsed time like the Maya tuns and katuns. For example, the above entry states 
that the death of Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu occurred in a year which began on the day 8 Cauac, 
on a day 10 Zip, 49 days after the beginning of that year, and in a tun 12 Ahau 2 
Yaxkin, 72 days before the end of that tun (7. ¢., 49-+-72=121 days).4 In other 
words, although the year-bearers governed or ushered in current time-periods of 365 
days, the tuns or 360-day periods, as well as the katuns or 7,200-day periods, down 
to the very end of the New Empire were named after their ending-days. ‘Thus, the 
1Brinton, 1882, pp. 148, 149. 
2The names Ahtz’un and Ahziyah both appear as first or given names on the Xiu genealogical tree, although 
both are capable of being translated. Gates reads the former as “the leader,” and Cogolludo (1688, p. 130) the 
latter as ‘the governor-priest.”” The evidence afforded by this tree tends to indicate that they are both used as 
given names here. These same two individuals probably appear as father and son under the names of Nappol 
Chuvat Xiu and Ahziyah Xiu respectively on this tree. 
3The writer’s attention was first called to this passage in 1918 by Don Juan Martinez y Hernandez, and sub- 
sequently by Mr. William Gates, the translation above having been very kindly made for use here by the latter. 
4These figures are based on the assumption that the year began on 1 Pop, and not on 2 Pop asit is necessary to 
assume in order to have the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac group retain their Old Empire month coefficients, 7. ¢., 2 
7, 12, and 17, and to use Goodman’s tables. 
