486 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
As regards the Christian year, however, there can be little doubt. Cogolludo’s 
statement that Event C took place in 1541, in spite of the fact that he tells us his 
original source (VII) had 1536, has been shown to be an error; and the incomplete 
date 158 in LX, which may mean anything, can hardly be permitted to weigh 
against the explicit statements of III, IV, V, and VII, especially when the latter 
are all in agreement, and the indirect statements of II and XII. 
As regards the katun in which Event C took place, there is only one dissenting 
source, namely X, which states that it occurred in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau 
instead of in Katun 13 Ahau. It has been explained already that according to 
Event B, the end of Katun 13 Ahau came so near the time when Napot Xiu died 
that confusion as to which katun, whether 13 Ahau or 11 Ahau, he really had died 
in, may very well have existed, which would explain the difference noted above in 
X. A few days only at the right point would make the difference between the 
last tun of Katun 13 Ahau and the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau. 
When we come down to such small divisions as the tun, and the year-bearer, 
however, we encounter contradictions even within the same chronicle which are 
_ irreconcilable. Fortunately, the contradictory evidence as to the tun is confined 
to three sources, III, IV, and LX, of which the first two are probably copies of the 
same original. It must be admitted, however, that these three statements, which 
agree with each other in regard to Event C, are in flat contradiction to the evidence 
supplied by Event B and by X as regards Event C, and that they are the most 
serious obstacles in the way of making all the sources harmonize. 
All three state that when Napot Xiu died, 6 tuns were still lacking before the 
end of Katun 13 Ahau, which would place the end of Katun 13 Ahau in 1541 or 
1542. Bishop Landa also gives some other slight evidence in support of such a 
correlation. As will be seen under Event D, he states that Merida was founded at 
the very beginning of Katun 11 Ahau, the Christian year being 1542. 
The year-bearer 4 Kan mentioned in III, IV, and [X as that of the Maya year 
in which 1536 fell disagrees with the series of year-bearers to which practically all 
the other sources conform, and thus brings further discredit upon these more de- 
tailed statements in these three entries. This evidence as to the year-bearers will 
be presented later, but it may be noted here that all the early sources except III, 
IV, LX, and XII agree in assigning the year-bearer 8 Cauac to the Maya year which 
ran from July 20, 1536, to July 19, 1537.!_ III, IV, and LX, on the other hand, 
assign the year-bearer 4 Kan to this same 365-day period, and XII, the year-bearer 
9 Cauac. 
The nearest occurrence of a year 4 Kan in the usual system to the year 
1536 was 9 years later, from July 18, 1545, to July 17, 1546, a decade after the 
death of Napot Xiu; and of a year 9 Cauac, 12 years earlier, from July 23, 1524, to 
Julywayesas: 
The evidence as to the year-bearers in all the early sources save these four is 
unanimous, as will appear later. ‘This fact, coupled with the contradictions in- 
volved in accepting the statement that the end of Katun 13 Ahau was still 6 tuns off 
in 1536, justifies us fully in rejecting these minor details in regard to Event C in III, 
IV, and IX, which are contradicted so flatly by other sources equally if not more 
reputable, and in accepting only the following more general points upon which the 
greater number agree outright, and the single disagreement therewith in X being 
capable of reduction, perhaps to a matter of a few days. ‘These general points are: 
(1) That Event C took place in the year 1536. 
(2) That Event C took place in a Katun 13 Ahau. 
1Owing to the fact that every fourth year in the Christian calendar was a bissextile year, the beginning of the 
Maya year shifted one day forward in the Christian year for each leap-year. The several correlations of spe- 
cific days of the Christian year with specific days of the Maya haab given here, are based upon Landa’s statement 
that 1 Pop fell on July 16, which the other sources indicate occurred in 1553. The writer has little confidence 
in this correlation as being exact to the day, however. See page 533, note I. 
