484 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
It is dificult to understand how the names of actual historical characters, such 
as Ah Napot Xiu and Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi are known to have been, should ever 
have become associated with specific katuns at all; and even granting the propriety 
of such an association, why Ah Napot Xiu’s name should have been selected for 
association with a katun (3 Ahau) which ended a century after his death is even 
more inexplicable, and yet such is the case in both the Kaua and Mani series. 
There are repeated instances both in the u kahlay katunob and in these 13 
katun-series in the Books of Chilan Balam of Mani, Tizimin, Chumayel, and Kaua, 
where the names of towns are associated with the different katuns, but never those 
of individuals. However, although it is impossible to give a satisfactory explana- 
tion of this unique phenomenon at this time, it really matters little in the present 
connection whether this picture represents a katun-wheel or the Xiu leaders slain 
at Otzmal in 1536, since this source unmistakably associates the year 1536 with Ah 
Napot Xiu’s name, thanks to Cogolludo’s naive attempt in his accompanying 
description to correct that year to 1541, and in Event C this association is the all- 
important point. Therefore VII will be used here only as indicating that Ah Napot 
. Xiu died in 1536. 
Returning to the consideration of this event, the next version of it, that in IX, 
is the first of the u kahlay katunob accounts which gives the name of the water- 
bringer as Napot Xiu. 
“{Katun] 13 Ahau; the water-bringer died the sixth year; the count of the years was 
toward the east. Pop began on 4 Kan to the east, 18 Zip, 9 Imix was the day on which the 
water-bringer Napot Xiu died, in the year of our Lord 158.2. (IX.) 
This account is very like IT and III, except that it gives the year 158. In view 
of the fact that all the other sources agree so unanimously that this event happened 
in 1536, we are doubtless justified in regarding 158 as incorrect, and indeed, as it 
stands, it is incomplete. 
Our next version, that in X, is the only one of all the sources that is in disagree- 
ment as to the katun in which this event took place, III, IV, and IX actually stating 
and I, II, and V implying that the year 1536 fell in a Katun 13 Ahau: 
“(Katun] 11 Ahau. In the time of its beginning the stone of Coloxpeten was taken; 
in this katun died the water-bringer Napot Xiu, in the first tun of [Katun] 11 Ahau.’? (X.) 
The writer believes this discrepancy may be satisfactorily explained without 
violence either to the original or to the credulity of the reader. It will be noted in 
the foregoing passage that this event 1s said to have taken place in the first tun of 
Katun 11 Ahau. 
It will be remembered that under Event B the first tun of this katun could 
have begun no earlier than 1536.716, and no later than 1537.089 (1. ¢., the days fol- 
lowing those between which the preceding katun could have ended). Further, ac- 
cording to III, IV, and LX, Event C took place on the day 18 Zip, and according to 
V on the day 10 Zip. Now, even although Landa wrote between 1561 and 1566, 
we have seen he probably received his information about the calendar in 1553, as 
indicated by the fact that the specimen year he gives is a 12 Kan year, and if 12 
Kan fell on July 16 in 1553, then 18 Zip would have fallen on September 15 in 1536 
and 10 Zip on September 7,° that is 1536.707 and 1536.685 respectively. 

‘Brinton, 1882, pp. 161, 162, translation corrected by the writer. 
2Ibid., p.-171. 
8If the Maya year began on July 16 in 1553, which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of the fact 
that Landa gives 12 Kan as his specimen year, then in 1536, because of the leap years, the beginning would have 
fallen on July 20, and 18 Zip and 10 Zip, the 58th and soth days of the Maya year respectively, assuming it to have 
begun on 1 Pop (7. ¢., with the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac year-bearers), would have fallen on September 15 and 
7 respectively. 
