506 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
In utilizing the foregoing table it should be noted that the closing period of the 
Old Empire (i. ¢., the Great Period) was practically contemporaneous with the 
opening period of the New Empire (1. ¢., the Colonization Period), that 1s, the 
latter covers the time during which Yucatan was being colonized from the Old 
Empire cities, the decline and extinction of the one being coincident with the 
rise of the other; and further that the two main epochs of Maya history, the Old 
and the New Empires are not only chronological subdivisions but also that the area 
covered by each corresponds to a definite geographical unit as well, the former 
being restricted to the southern half of the Maya region, and the latter to the 
northern half, the Peninsula of Yucatan. Finally, that the several periods into 
which each is divided agree closely, not only with the archzological evidence—the 
monuments, architecture and art—but also with the documentary evidence—the 
u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam. 
CORRELATION OF THE U KAHLAY KATUNOB AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY 
INDICATED BY PAGE 66 OF THE CHRONICLE OF OXKUTZCAB. 
In the seven events upon which the writer’s correlation of Christian chronology 
and the u kahlay katunob is based, it will be noted that the native authorities pay 
no attention to the month-days on which the corresponding katuns ended. Thus 
all agree that Merida was founded in a Katun 11 Ahau, but what particular Katun 
11 Ahau it was, 1. ¢., what was its corresponding month-part, not one specifies. 
Again, all agree that Bishop Toral arrived in a Katun 9 Ahau and that Bishop 
Landa died in a Katun 7 Ahau, but when it comes to the month-days of these two 
katun-endings, all the authorities are again silent. It is because these month-days 
are wanting that it was necessary to devise some other method of correlating the 
u kahlay katunob with the Initial Series, as, for example, the use of the Chichen Itza 
lintel already described. 
It must be remembered that as described in the u kahlay katunob, 1.e., without 
its corresponding Initial Series number and month-day, any given katun can recur 
after an interval of 256.27 years, but if its corresponding month-day is given, even 
though its Initial Series number be omitted, it can not recur until after a lapse of 
949 katuns or 18,707.70 years. ‘Therefore, had the month-days of the katuns in 
which these several events are said to have occurred also been recorded, assuming 
the record to be correct, a direct correlation between the u kahlay katunob and the 
Initial Series could have been easily effected. 
Unfortunately such was not the custom in the wu kahlay katunob, and in the single 
event, the death of Napot Xiu, where the month-position is also given, there is 
disagreement as to what it was, III, IV, and IX (?) giving 9 Imix 18 Zip, and V 
10 Zip, although by restoring the word waxac the last could be made to agree with the 
first three. But even granting this change in V, accepting the statements of III, 
IV, and IX that Napot Xiu died on a day g Imix 19 Zip which fell in a year 4 Kan, 
this event could not have taken place in 1536, as stated in III and IV, but in 1545 
instead, unless indeed we throw over the great preponderance of the evidence, which, 
save for these three passages, agrees that the latter part of 1536 was in a year 8 
Cauac, and not ina year 4 Kan. 
To do this would be to violate too many authorities, and it may be accepted as 
certain that Napot Xiu did not die either in a year 4 Kan or on a day g Imix 19 
Zip. In fact, the only consistent feature of these three passages is that 9 Imix 
1g Zip did occur in a year 4 Kan; but association of this year with the Christian 
year 1536 and with a Katun 13 Ahau must be rejected as impossible in the light of 
practically all the other evidence. 
