CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Sil 
date could occur within a range of several hundred thousand years was at 11.12'.17.11.1 
5 Imix 19 Kankin, or 3.2.6.19 earlier than 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, or, according to the 
Oxkutzcab correlation of the two chronologies, in 1478. But by this latter date Uxmal had 
already been abandoned for more than 30 years; hence this correlation flatly contradicts 
the evidence furnished by this lintel. 

Fic. 74.—Inscription on capstone in outer chamber at northern end of East Range of 
Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal. 
(5) The ring on the east wall of the Ball Court at Uxmal presents the following date 
(see figure 75, a) 10? Ix 17 Pop in Tun 17 ending on the day 12 Ahau. The Initial Series 
corresponding to this date is 11.15.16.12.14 10 Ix 17 Pop, or only 3.5.6 earlier than 11.16.0.0.0 
13 Ahau 8 Xul, that is, 1536 in the Oxkutzcab correlation. But by this latter date Uxmal 
had already been abandoned nearly a century, and the Spaniards had already made their 
first unsuccessful attempt to subjugate the country; hence this correlation flatly contradicts 
the evidence furnished by the inscription on this ring. 
(6) Finally, the south column in front of the sanctuary of the High Priest’s Grave at 
Chichen Itza presents the following Period Ending date (see figure 76): 2 Ahau 18 Xul, 
End of Tun 11. The only Tun 11 in a period of 18,707.70 years which ended on this date 
was I1.19.11.0.0 2 Ahau 18 Xul or 3.11.0.0 later than 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, 2. ¢., in 1609. 
But by this latter date Chichen Itza had already been abandoned for more than a century 
and a half, and in fact the whole country had been under the Spanish rule for 67 years. This 
is reductio ad absurdum, and compels the rejection of the Oxkutzcab correlation as the proper 
alinement of the Long Count with Christian Chronology. 
EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CORRELATION INDICATED 
BY THE CHRONICLE OF OXKUTZCAB AND THAT SUGGESTED HERE. 
If, however, the foregoing historical and archeological evidence necessitates 
the rejection of this correlation, we are nevertheless still confronted with the 
equally indisputable fact that such a chronology was actually in use at the time of 
the Spanish Conquest, as clearly proved by page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab. 
Here is a serious difference indeed between equally creditable evidence. The 
Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, as we have seen, is one of our most reliable sources, and the 
page in question was nie by the great-great-great-great-grandson of Napot Xiu, 
a century and a half after the latter’s death, from an ancient book, presumably a 
family possession. Such a source as this can not be overlooked nor disregarded, 
particularly since the year-bearers which it gives agree exactly with those in almost 
all of the other sources. And yet we have just seen that even though this chrono- 
logy seems to have been in use among the Xiu at the time of the conquest, as soon 
as we apply it to the u kahlay katunob and even to Xiu monuments such as the 
Uxmal lintel and ring, it immediately gives rise to impossible conditions. What, 

1The katun coefficient actually recorded is 13, which is correct, since 5 Imix 19 Kankin (11.12.17.11.1), falls 
in the katun ending on 11.13.0.0.0 and not in that ending on 11.12.0.0.0. Similarly the tun coefficient recorded 
is 18, not 17, since 5 Imix 19 Kankin (11.12.17.11.1), falls in the tun ending on 18.0.0 and not in that ending on 
17.0.0. 
2Although the day-sign coefficient is effaced, it will appear later that it could only have been ro. 
3The original has 16, which has been changed to 17 to conform to the Old Empire usage. 
