496 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
(14) A passage on pages 23 and 24 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, giving a 
series of 48 years beginning with the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1752, 
and ending with the Maya year 11 Ix, which began in 1799. ; 
(15) A passage on page 179 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain extracts 
from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 25 years, beginning 
with the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1752, and ending with the Maya 
year 1 Cauac, which began in 1776. 
(16) A passage on page 174 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain extracts 
from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 17 years beginning 
with the Maya year 9 Muluc, which began in 1758, and ending with the Maya 
year 12 Muluc, which began in 1774. Tra de 
(17) A passage on page 24 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, giving a series of 
52 years beginning with the Maya year 1 Kan, which began in 1758, and ending 
with the Maya year 13 Cauac, which began in 1809. 
Before proceeding to compare these several points of contact, we may first 
eliminate the last. This is clearly nothing more than a series of the 52 year-bearers 
divided into four divisions of 13 each, the first division, beginning with 1 Kan, 
being referred to the east, the second, beginning with 1 Muluc, being referred to the 
_north, the third, beginning with 1 Ix, being referred to the west, and the last, 
beginning with 1 Cauac, being referred to the south. 
It assigns the year-bearer 1 Kan to 1758, thereby disagreeing not only with 
the year-bearer for that year given in No. 14 (9 Muluc), a series which just precedes 
it in the Tizimin manuscript, but also with all the other sources given above, while No. 
14, on the other hand, agrees with all the other sources except Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7. 
No. 17 is obviously not an attempt to correlate the Maya year-bearers with 
the corresponding Christian years in which they fell, as is No. 14, but is only an 
arrangement of the 52 year-bearers beginning with 1 Kan in 1758, possibly because 
that may have been the year the series was written. It has, therefore, no value 
in the present connection, and may be eliminated from further consideration. 
We have, then, 16 different passages upon which to base our correlation cover- 
ing a range of more than 4 centuries, 1392 (No. 1) to 1799 (No. 14). In order to 
bring all the above year-bearers within the range of a single century and to expedite 
comparison, 1548, the third recurrence of 7 Cauac after 1392 (1. €., 1392 + (3 X 52) = 
1548) will be used in No. 1; 1528, the fourth recurrence of 13 Cauac before 1736 
(7. e., 1736 — (4 X §2) = 1528), in No. 13; 1544, the fourth recurrence of 3 Cauac 
before 1752 (1. ¢., 1752 — (4 X 52) = 1544) in No. 14. 1544 will also be substituted 
for 1752 in No. 15; and 1550, the fourth recurrence of 9 Muluc before 1758 (1. ¢., 
1758—(4 X 52) =1550) will be used in No. 16. 
Tabulating the Christian years from 1525 to 1593, inclusive, with their cor- 
responding year-bearers, we will have the table of equivalents given on page 497. 
It will be noted that this one system of correlation harmonizes 12 of our 16 
sources, Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7 being the only ones which do not conform to it; and even 
of these, No. 7 states that 1537 was in a year 9 Cauac, 1. ¢., the coefficient being 
correct but the day-sign being Cauac, that of the preceding year, instead of Kan. 
The nearest occurrence of 9 Cauac to 9 Kan (1537) according to the above 
system is in 1524, but the context of this passage in No. 7 (XII) shows that it was 
the date of an event which took place some time after the death of Napot Xiu; 
indeed, that it was a conference held at Mani because of his death, and after the 
Spaniards had arrived at Champoton in 1537. If this conference was held before 
July 1537, it was in the same Maya year as Napot Xiu’s death, 7. ¢., 8 Cauac, and 
only the coefhcient is wrong, being a g for an 8; but if held after July 1537, the 
coefhcient g is correct and the day-sign is wrong, being Cauac for Kan. In either 
event the correction is slight, and this probably explains the existing disagreement. 

