CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 495 
__ If the foregoing correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology 
is correct, we will have the following table of equivalents for the seven katuns here 
under examination: 
End of Katun 2 Ahau from 1517.243 to 1517.373. 
End of Katun 13 Ahau from 1536.956 to 1537.086. 
End of Katun 11 Ahau from 1556.669 to 1556.799. 
End of Katun 9g Ahau from 1576.382 to 1576.512. 
End of Katun 7 Ahau from 1596.095 to 1596.225. 
End of Katun 5 Ahau from 1615.808 to 1615.938. 
End of Katun 3 Ahau from 1635.521 to 1635.651. 
Before proceeding to select a single date between these two limits upon which 
to base a table of equivalents for the katun-endings in Christian chronology, it is 
first necessary to examine the question of the year-bearers. 
Distrust has already been expressed of the passages in ITI, IV, and IX, which 
give the year-bearer of the Maya year in which Event C fell as 4 Kan, and it will 
appear from the following presentation of the year-bearers that this can not possibly 
have been the case unless we again reject the preponderance of the evidence. 
The writer finds the following 17 passages in the several sources, in which Maya 
year-bearers are associated with specific years of Christian chronology: 
(1) The statement of Pio Pérez that the Maya year 7 Cauac began in 1392, based, he 
says, upon “‘all sources of information, confirmed by the testimony of Cosme 
de Burgos, one of the conquerors and a writer (but whose observations have 
been lost).’”! 
(2) An entry quoted by Brinton? from an unnamed Maya manuscript in his possession 
stating that the Maya year in which the Spaniards first arrived at Chichen 
Itza was 11 Muluc, the Christian year being either late in 1526 or early in 
1527; in either case in the Maya year 11 Muluc, which began in July 1526, and 
ended in July 1527. 
(3) An entry in III stating that the Maya year 4 Kan began in 1536. 
(4) An entry in IV stating that the Maya year 4 Kan began in 1536. 
(5) An entry in IX stating that the Maya year in which Napot Xiu died was 4 Kan, 
which event, we have seen, took place in the latter part of 1536. 
(6) A passage on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (V), giving a series of 13 years, 
beginning with the Maya year 4 Cauac, which began in 1532, and ending with 
the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1544. 
(7) An entry in XII stating that the Maya year 9 Cauac began in 1537. 
(8) An entry in I stating that the Maya year 13 Kan began in 1541. 
(9) An entry on page 115 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, stating that 11 Chuen 
18 Zac fell on February 15, 1544, making the current Maya year 2 Ix begin in 
1543. 
(10) An entry on page 8 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, stating that 11 Chuen 
18 Zac fell on February 15, 1544, making the current Maya year 2 Ix begin in 
1543. 
(11) An entry on page 1o1 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, stating that the Maya 
year 13 Kan began in 1593. 
(12) An entry on page 1 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, stating that the 
Maya year 13 Kan began in 1593. 
(13) A passage on pages 168 to 170 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain 
extracts from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 53 years 
beginning with the Maya year 13 Cauac, which began in 1736, and ending with 
the same Maya year, which began again in 1788. 

1Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, p. 442. Pio Pérez derived this information in part from a passage in the Book of 
Chilan Balam of Mani, extracts from which appear in Berendt’s copy of the Pio Pérez copy of that manuscript. 
On page 176 of the Berendt copy, now in the library of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (catalogue 
number: Br. 498.21 MB 456.5), under entries from page 67 of the Pio Pérez copy, the year 1392 is assigned the 
year-bearer 7 Cauac as follows: “1392 Uaxac Ahau lae 7 Cauac,” although the 8 Ahau can be neither a tun-ending 
nor a katun-ending in that year. 
2Brinton, 1882, p. 251. 
