CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 515 
shift had taken place. Next comes an ending-sign, and next Tun 17 ending on the 
day 12 Ahau. Assuming that this shift of one in the month-coefficient, 7. ¢., from 
17 to 16, made no corresponding difference in the position of this date in the Long 
Count, it can be shown that there are only two Tuns 17 ending on the day 12 Ahau 
which contained any day Ix, which fell on 17 Pop. These are: 
11.15.17.0.0 12 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, in which tun fell 11.15.16.12.14 10 Ix 17 Pop. 
12. 8.17.0.0 12 Ahau 3 Muan, in which tun fell 12. 8.16. 4.14 6 Ix 17 Pop. 
Of these, only the first is possible here, since the second in the writer’s corre- 
lation represents either the close of 1533 or early in 1534, and in that indicated by V. 
1793. Therefore the missing coefficient of Ix may be restored as Io. 
The inscription on the north side of the west ring (see figure 75, b) begins with 
a day Ix, the coefficient of which is a head-variant numeral, probably ro (note the 
remains of the fleshless lower jaw). Next follows clearly and unmistakably 17 Pop, 
next the same ending-sign as on the opposite ring, and next the 2 dots and first 2 
bars of the coefficient of Tun 17, and then comes the break.!' Although the rest of 
this text is missing, its identity, so far as it goes, with that on the other ring is so evi- 
dent that the date recorded here is almost surely the same as that on the other ring, 
with this one important difference: on the west ring the month-coefficient of Ix is 
given as 17, conforming to the Old Empire usage, whereas on the east ring it is given 
as 16, conforming to the New Empire usage after the shift had taken place. 
This double entry of what appears to be exactly the same date, the writer 
believes, is best to be interpreted as a sort of Maya Rosetta stone, a double record 
of the same date in terms of both the Old and New Empire systems; and further- 
more, since these two dates, save for their month-coefhcients, are otherwise identical, 
it is to be assumed that this change was accomplished without the loss of a single 
day of the tonalamatl (1. ¢., the 260-day period), and that consequently the naming 
of the katuns in the u kahlay katunob underwent no corresponding change, an 
extremely important point. 
If this interpretation is correct, it answers the question as to when this shift 
in the month-coefficients took place, but it gives no hint as to the causes which may 
have brought it about; and to answer this latter question it is first necessary to 
review the subject of the Maya year-bearers. 
Although the positions of the days in the months underwent a shift of but a 
single day, as we have seen, the Maya year-bearers appear to have shifted twice 
during the 15 centuries of Maya history, first 1 day forward from the Ik, Manik, 
Eb, and Caban group to the Akbal, Lamat, Ben, and Eznab group, and second 1 
day forward from the latter group to the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac group, which 
was that in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest. 
As to the use of the first group, although we have no direct evidence that Ik, 
Manik, Eb, and Caban were used as year-bearers during the Old Empire, there is 
ample evidence that the haab during this period could only have begun with one 
of these four day-signs. 
In the most ancient Maya inscription known, the Tuxtla Statuette, what may 
have been the beginning of the 365-day year in those remote times may be recorded 
in the date 8.6.2.4.17 8 Cabano Kankin. In any case this indicates that in the oldest 
text known, the months, and hence also the years, began with one or other of the 
days of this group. 
Again, it has already been suggested (page 101, note 1) that the three dates: 
13 Manik o Yaxkin on a pier in the western court of the Palace Group at Palenque, 
1It is possible that the Tun 17 may be omitted here, and that this may be the 12 of 12 Ahau, the day on 
which this Tun 17 ended, although this hardly appears probable in view of the similarity of the preceding glyphs. 

