510 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The next question is, which if any of these 13 tun-endings was a katun-ending 
as well. We have seen that the only katun which could possibly have ended be- 
tween the years 1532 and 1544 according to any of our sources was a Katun 13 Ahau, 
and looking for a twn of this same name in the above table, we find that Tun 13 
Ahau 8 Xul in the year 11 Ix ended in 1539; that is to say, under this assumption 
Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended in 1539. 
Turning next to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that such a katun occurred 
in 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, and further, that a Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul could not 
recur either before or after that date until after a lapse of 18,707.70 years. ‘There- 
fore, if these data and assumptions are correct, the Katun 13 Ahau for which the 
writer has suggested the Initial Series 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin is not that at all, 
but is 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul instead, and further, it did not end in 1536 but in 
1539. Under this correlation, therefore, the dates in the foregoing tables of equiva- 
lents would all be 259 years later. ‘This point should be clearly borne in mind, for 
if the data given in V are correct, and represent a section of an unbroken sequence 
of the tuns straight back to the period of the Old Empire, then this correlation 
rests on firmer ground than that suggested in the foregoing pages. As will appear 
later, however, after the archeological evidence has been presented, this is almost 
certainly not the case, and the correlation indicated by V must be rejected on the 
grounds of archzologic and historic improbability. 
The principal point at issue here is whether the Katun 13 Ahau in which Napot 
Xiu died was 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, as the writer believes, or 13 Ahau 8 Xul, as V 
apparently is to be interpreted as indicating, and it will now be shown that the 
historical evidence presented by the u kahlay katunob themselves precludes the 
latter possibility: 
(1) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death in the u kahlay katunob on page 499, it will be found that the katun of the Chichen 
Itza lintel, namely, 10.3.0.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, will fall some 2 centuries after Chichen Itza 
is definitely stated to have been abandoned, and after the Itza had moved to Chakanputun, 
and a century before Chakanputun is stated to have been abandoned and the Itza had 
returned to Chichen Itza and established themselves there a second time. In short, this 
correlation would make the Chichen Itza lintel date from a Katun 1 Ahau, in which the city 
is definitely stated to have been unoccupied. 
(2) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death, then Chichen Itza was discovered in 9.1.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, a date actually prior 
to the earliest date at Copan, and earlier than all the Old Empire dates save only the very 
earliest at Uaxactun and Tikal, clearly an impossible condition from the historic point of 
view, since it makes Chichen Itza the contemporary of Tikal, Copan, and the other Old 
Empire cities, instead of subsequent to them, as was actually the case. 
(3) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death, then the opening entry of the u kahlay katunob on page 499 occurred in 8.7.0.0.0, at 
which time it may well be doubted whether the Maya had yet reached their historic habitat 
during the Old Empire, since the earliest date in that region, 8.14.10.13.15 on Stela g at 
Uaxactun, is a century and a half later. 
But in addition to the several anachronisms which this correlation develops 
in the wu kahlay katunob, there are others in the monuments equally if not more 
serious. 
(4) The central capstone of the outer chamber of the East Range of the Monjas Quad- 
rangle at Uxmal presents the following date (see figure 74): 5 Imix 19! Kankin falling in a 
Tun 18 of a Katun 13, the first two glyphs in the upper line recording the date, and the first 
two in the lower line the tun and katun in which it occurred. The only place where this 
1The original appears to have 18, which has been changed to 1g here in order to conform with the Old Empire 
chronology. 
