CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 48I 
“Their barbarous cruelty did not pardon even the survivor, though they spared his life, 
for they put out his eyes with an arrow, and then four captains of Nachi Cocom conducted 
him to the territory of Tutul Xiu, where they left him with all prudence, and returned to 
their own country. The miserable man, thus left alone, gave loud cries that perchance 
someone might hear him and come to his relief. It so fell out that some Indians heard him 
and discovered Ah Kin Chi in the lamentable condition referred to; and being brought to 
the presence of Tutul Xiu he gave the news of the grievous tragedy which had befallen his 
ambassadors.’ (VI.) 
Mention of Otzmal as the place where the massacre occurred, which is the 
same name as that given in the Xiu family papers to the place where the Xiu ruler 
was killed in 1536, serves further to establish Cogolludo’s mistake, not only as to the 
motive of this embassy, but also as to the date upon which it took place. And 
finally, the identity of the persons who he states visited Montejo in 1541, with those 
who, he says, were slain at Otzmal in 1536, as given in VII, proves his error. 
Compare the following list of the alleged visitors to Montejo on January 23 
1541, with the names of the slain Xiu chieftains as given in our source VII (see 
figure 73), and the two groups of men will be found to be identical: 
“Accompanying Tutul Xiu came other chieftains (Caziques) his vassals, whose names I 
find in a relation written by an Indian [presumably the drawing he publishes, see figure 73], 
which are the following: Ah Na Poot Xiu, son of Tutul Xiu, Ah Ziyah Governor Priest, 
Ah Kin Chi [probably the same as Ah-Ziyah Napuc Chi in V]: these they say were the lieu- 
tenants of Tutul Xiu in the capital of Mani. Yi Ban Can, Governor of the town of Tekit; 
Pacab, Governor of Oxcutzcab; Kan Caba [governor] of that of Panabchen, which today is 
depopulated; Kupul of Zacalum; Nauat of Teab; Vluac Chan Cauich, it is not said where; 
Zon Ceh of Pencuyut; Ahau Tuyu of Muna; Xul Cumche of Tipi Kal, Tucuch of Mama, Zit 
Couat of Chumayel.’? (VI.) 
There are just 13 individuals enumerated here, and a comparison of these 
names (without the addition of their corresponding towns) with those in figure 73, 
will show that the two lists are identical, and Cogolludo’s naive admission that the 
Indian painting actually had on it the year 1536 instead of 1541, to which date he 
believed it referred, establishes beyond all doubt his twofold error in this matter. 
Cogolludo also appears to be responsible for introducing the anecdote of the 
blinded Ah Kin Chi into the story of the Otzmal tragedy, probably through confus- 
ing it with the blinding of the three Xiu envoys to Nachi Cocom by Ah Cuat Cocom 
some time after January 1541. ‘The latter incident is given by [ as follows: 
“Thus the Spaniards passed and arrived at Mani, to Tutulxiu, and then were appointed 
the chief Ikeb, the chief Caixicum and the chief Chuc to go to invite Ah Cuat Cocom. They 
were at first taken and placed in a cave by his followers: then their eyes were put out in that 
great cave of weasels, and there was not one who did not have his eyes put out in the cave 
of weasels; their eyes were put out and they were given the road to go groping to the Ade- 
lantado at Mani; and thus returned those who were cast out of the town of Cuat Cocom. 
Then Ah Naum Pech rose up with both of them and came to Ah Cuat Cocom; when they 
arrived he [probably Nachi Cocom] said to Ah Naum Pech that he had not seen nor heard of 
it; he said he had gone to Chichen Itza, and he came promptly to the towns with the Pechs, 
and they arrived at Mani to deliver up promptly (the offenders); and the Cocom said he 
had not witnessed what had happened in his village, and he would give permission that they 
should be taken who had done it.’” 
So far as the writer has been able to ascertain, the above incident 1s the only 
other reference to blinded envoys anywhere in the early authorities, either native or 

1Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 131, 132. *Jbid., pp. 130, 131. 
aBrinton, 1882, pp. 237, 238. Brinton (ibid, p. 258) was the first to point out that Cogolludo may have been 
confused as to the details of this incident; and subsequently he suggests that the natives, who explained source VII 
to the Bishop as a representation of the Otzmal massacre, deceived him as to its true meaning, which is that it 
represents a katun-wheel. See Brinton, 1882), p. 15 of the reprint by the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of 
Philadelphia. 
