498 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The foregoing analysis of the year-bearers shows a remarkable agreement, 
twelve different sources, written between 1562 and 1782, giving year-bearers 
scattered over a period of more than four centuries, all of which conform to the 
same system of correlation. 
Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, written 
as late as the latter half of the eighteenth century, agree with the system of year- 
bearers in use more than two centuries earlier, at the time of the Spanish Conquest. 
All these agreements can not be the result of chance alone, and we may there- 
fore accept Nakuk Pech’s statement that Merida was founded in the Maya year 
13 Kan (i. ¢., July 1541, to July 1542) without any further reservation, and utilize 
this point of contact for our correlation of the Maya year-bearers with Christian 
chronology. 
Finally, the whole question of the proper alinement of the u kahlay katunob 
with Christian chronology may be summed up as follows: 
(1) Practically all of the sources, Spanish as well as native, agree with Nakuk Pech in 
placing the end of Katun 2 Ahau as falling some time in 1517. 
(2) The great bulk of the evidence tends to show further that this katun ended very 
early in 1517, 7. ¢., between 1517.243 and 1517.373, and that the following katun, 
Katun 13 Ahau, ended between 1536.956 and 1537.086. 
With the evidence now available it appears unwise to attempt to make a closer 
correlation than the foregoing, which restricts the maximum margin of error to 
49 days. However, in order to have a single Christian date for each katun-ending 
in the accompanying table of equivalents, December 24, 1536, 1. ¢., 1536.982 has 
been arbitrarily selected as the day upon which Katun 13 Ahau ended for the fol- 
lowing reason: Goodman gives this same day as that upon which Katun 13 Ahau 
ended according to the Itza, Cocom, and Chel chronicles, although he does not 
describe the data upon which this correlation is based.!. This date lies between the 
two limits reached in the foregoing pages, for which reason it has been followed 
here, and in any case it can not be more than 39 days earlier or 9 days later than 
the true date. 
On the basis of this point of contact, the corresponding equivalents in Christian 
chronology for the several katuns of the u kahlay katunob found in the Books of 
Chilan Balam as set forth by Brinton,’ are given in the table on page 499. 
Before going further with our correlation, it is necessary to point out several 
special features of this table. In the first place, the Christian years given cor- 
respond to the ends of the katuns with which they are correlated and not their 
beginnings. Again, Brinton’s arrangement of the earlier katuns prior to Katun 6 
Ahau (452.767 A. D.) has been followed exactly. In this connection it should be 
borne in mind that the first chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel 
presents an unbroken succession of the katuns from Katun 3 Ahau (1635.547 A. D.) 
back to the discovery of Chichen Itza in Katun 6 Ahau (452.767 A. D.), a period of 
nearly 1,200 years, and more than 1,100 years before the Spanish Conquest. 
The first Chumayel chronicle begins with the discovery of Chichen Itza, but the 
Mani and Tizimin chronicles go back 14 katuns earlier to a legendary departure 
from the probably mythological land of Tulapan and the house, Nonoual. To be 
sure, there are repetitions and omissions in both these records among these earliest 
14 katuns, but the arrangement suggested by Brinton appears to the writer to be 
correct, and, as we shall presently see, its use gives rise to a remarkable condition, 
which in itself strongly tends to authenticate its own accuracy. 

1What Goodman really says is that “the 11 Ahau katun [i. ¢., Katun 11 Ahau] of the Itzas, Cocoms, and 
Chels began December 25, 1536” (1905, p. 645), that is, the following day. 
*Brinton, 1882, pp. 87, 88. 
ale AR 
_——_— A 
