494 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
than 4 years. For if Katun 2 Ahau is made to end any later than 1520.186, Event 
F (1579.326) can not fall in Katun 7 Ahau; and if Katun 2 Ahau is made to end any 
earlier than 1516.287, Event C (1536) can not fall in Katun 13 Ahau. Thus, with- 
out the aid of Nakuk Pech’s important statement, the other sources give a corre- 
lation correct to within 4 years. 
Coming down to the tuns, we reach our first discrepancies. These divide 
themselves into three groups, as follows: 
GRoupP I. 
1517 fell in the last tun of Katun 2 Ahau (I). 
1536 fell in the last tun of Katun 13 Ahau (I). 
1536 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (X), possibly only a few days later than I. 
1542 fell in the sixth tun of Katun 11 Ahau (I). 
1542 fell in the seventh tun of Katun 11 Ahau (X), one tun later than I. 
1562 fell in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau (X), agrees with I. 
GROUP 2. 
1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (III). 
1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (IV). 
1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (IX). 
1542 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (II). 
1542 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (XII). 
GROUP 3. 
1539 fell in the last tun of Katun 13 Ahau (V). 
But we have just seen that without the evidence of I in regard to Event B, if 
we make the end of Katun 2 Ahau any later than 1520.186, and consequently the 
end of Katun 13 Ahau any later than 1539.899, Event F can not fall in Katun 7 
Ahau at all, the katun given for it in III, IV, XI, and X. Therefore, in Group 2 the 
entries in III, IV, and LX, giving 1536 as 6 tuns before the end of Katun 13 Ahau, 
flatly contradict the entries in these same sources which give Event F as in Katun 7 
Ahau. ‘They are mutually exclusive, and one passage or the other must be rejected. 
When we come to examine the year-bearers, we will find that although III, 
IV, and IX agree that the year-bearer of Event C was 4 Kan, they disagree with 
every other correlation of year-bearers and Christian years known. The isolation 
of these three entries as regards these two different points, the tun in which Event 
C took place, as well as the corresponding year-bearer, and the fact that all three 
contradict other of their own statements, strongly indicates that they are incorrect, 
and should not be trusted for purposes of exact correlation. 
The third group stands by itself; moreover, as will be shown later, it makes 
Katun 13 Ahau end on 1539.841 (November 3) or only 21.2 days before the last day 
which will permit Event F to have taken place in Katun 7 Ahau. While it is of 
course true that Bishop Landa may have died in the first 22 days of Katun 7 Ahau, 
it appears unlikely that he did so, and when all the satisfactory agreements in Group 
I are taken into consideration (with which this single unsupported statement as 
to the tun in Group 3 disagrees), it appears probable that the tun arrangement in 
Group 3 as well as that in Group 2 may be rejected. 
Following the tun arrangement in Group 1, and utilizing the data given by I 
as to Events B and D and by X in regard to Event E, we reach a correlation wherein 
the margin of error is reduced to 49 days, 1. ¢., the ending of Katun 13 Ahau falling 
between December 15, 1536, and February 1, 1537 inclusive. To attempt a closer 
correlation than this appears unsafe in view of the character of the evidence with 
which we are dealing, but this far we may go in safety without violence to any of our 
sources save only those which contain contradictory statements within themselves. 
A nipeee 
