CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 517 
Ik, the last 13 Akbal; and on page 28, the first 13 are Manik, the last 13 are Lamat. 
It will be perceived that these are the ending-days and beginning-days of a series 
of 52 years (1. ¢., 4 X 13) which began on the days Ben, Eznab, Akbal, and Lamat 
and ended on the days Eb, Caban, Ik, and Manik respectively. The beginning- 
days and the ending-days of each group are repeated 13 times in order that the four 
groups may make a total of §2 or all the year-bearers possible. 
The arrangement of the rest of these pages confirms Thomas’s identification 
here. In the upper third to the right of the column of day-signs are four tiger- 
headed deities, practically the same throughout. The middle thirds are filled 
either with the deities who have presided over the preceding years or those who are 
to preside over the current years, and the bottom thirds with the deities of the 
current years or those of the preceding years, depending upon which those in the 
middle thirds are, which agrees with these ceremonies as described by Landa. 
It is evident from the foregoing that we have on these four pages of the Codex 
Dresdensis a record of the ceremonies which were appropriate to the beginnings of 
the four kinds of Maya years, and further, that some time Jater than the Old Empire, 
but before this manuscript was composed, the year-bearers had shifted forward 
one day, 1. ¢., from the Old Empire group of Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb to the Eznab, 
Akbal, Lamat, and Ben group. 
The Codex Peresianus shows the same condition. On pages Ig and 20 of that 
manuscript a series of 52 year-bearers is recorded, beginning with 1 Lamat! and 
ending with 13 Akbal, the order of reading being in lines from left to right across 
the two pages as though they were but one, and from top to bottom, the series 
being continuous, the first year-bearer on page 19, 1 Lamat, following immediately 
after the last on page 20, 13 Akbal. ‘The arrangement of the year-bearers is again 
such that all the Lamat years fall in the first column, all the Ben years in the second 
column, all the Eznab years in the third column, and all the Akbal years in the last 
column, the ceremonies appropriate to each being depicted in wider columns im- 
mediately following the corresponding column of year-bearers in each case; and the 
conclusion is again unescapable that, like the Dresden Manuscript, the years in the 
Codex Peresianus also began with the Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben group. 
When we come to the remaining Maya codex, the Tro-Cortesianus, however, 
we find another shift in the year-bearers had taken place before it was composed. 
On pages 34 to 37 of this manuscript there is a series of 52 year-bearers beginning 
with 10 Cauac and ending with 9 Ix. These follow exactly the same arrangement 
as in the Codex Peresianus, the order of reading being from left to right across all 
four pages as one, and from top to bottom, all the Cauac years falling on the first 
page, all the Kan years on the second, all the Muluc years on the third,” and all the 
Ix years on the last. Again the ceremonies appropriate to each year appear to the 
right of the corresponding column of year-bearers, one group to each page. 
The most fundamental difference between these pages of the Codex Tro- 
Cortesianus and the corresponding pages of the Dresdensis and Peresianus is that 
in the former the year-bearers are Cauac, Kan, Muluc, and Ix, whereas in the two 
latter, we have seen, they are Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben; that is, they have 
again been shifted one day forward, making two shifts since the time of the Old 
Empire. 

1The upper line of year-bearers running across both pages is effaced. It may be restored, however, as having 
been composed of 1 Lamat, 2 Ben, 3 Eznab, and 4 Akbal. ; 
2The Muluc years are somewhat confused, reading 12, 3, 6, 10, I, 5, 9, 13, 4, 8, 2, 7, and 3 instead of 12, 3, 7, II, 
2, 6, 10, I, 5, 9, 13, 4, and 8. As Thomas has pointed out (1882, p. 19), this was probably due only to an error 
of the scribe rather than to any intentional departure from the regular order. 
