518 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
This last group, moreover, is the one which was in use at the time of the Spanish 
Conquest, a fact unanimously agreed upon by all the authorities, Spanish as well as 
native.’ 
The Maya year-bearers therefore appear to have passed through three of the 
five possible groups of day-signs during the course of recorded Maya history: 
(1) The Old Empire year-bearers were Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb. 
(2) The New Empire year-bearers (period of the Codices Dresdensis and Pere- 
sianus) were Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben. 
(3) The New Empire year-bearers (period of the Codex Tro-Cortesianus) were 
Cauac, Kan, Muluc, and Ix. 
Before we can correlate this evidence with that presented by the shift in the 
positions of the days 1 in the months, and suggest a possible explanation for these 
several changes in the Maya chronological system, it is first necessary to touch 
briefly upon a third line of evidence. 
No matter how seriously the archeological and historical (uw kahlay katunob) 
evidence contradicts the correlation of the Long Count and Christian chronology 
indicated on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, the fact remains that such a 
correlation was actually in use at the time of the conquest. Indeed, our only escape 
from this dilemma appears to be to recognize that some sort of a break took place in 
the sequence of the ending-days of the katuns some time between the end of the Old 
Empire and the Spanish Conquest. Practically stated, the archeological and his- 
torical evidence tends to show that Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin ended in 1536, whereas 
page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab indicates that Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended 
in 1539. 
While these two dates are only 1,300 days apart in the Calendar Round, as 
katun-endings they are 13 katuns apart or 256.27 years, which, added to the differ- 
ence of 3 years in the Christian calendar, makes a total difference of 259 years be- 
tween these two correlations, as already stated. 
We have here, then, a double dis- 
agreement, not only as to the partic- Fi. 76.—Inscription on front of column in Temple of the 
Clara 13 Ahau, one correlation High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza. 
giving it as 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, and 
the other as 13 Ahau 8 Xul, 13 katuns (ene 
later, but also a difference of 3 Chris- abi 
tian years in the time when this Katun 
13 Ahau ended, one placing it at the end of 1536 or early in 1537 and 
the other toward the close of 1539. 
The foregoing concludes the presentation of the several changes 
through which the Maya chronological system passed, and there re- 
mains to suggest what appears to be the best explanation of the causes 
giving rise to these phenomena. 
It is evident at the outset that in so far as the monuments are 
concerned, the Old Empire positions of the days in the months re- IZ 
mained intact almost to the end of the New Empire, the latest certain 
date, the Temple of the High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza, 
I1.19.11.0.0 (1350), conforming to the Old Empire system. (See Ce 
figure 76.) In fact, as already noted, the only two inscriptions in s}U0a 
which reflect this change at all are those on the east ring of the Ball Court and on 


*All of the Books of Chilan Balam, Nakuk Pech, the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, Landa (1881, pp. 87-90), 
Cogolludo (1688, p. 186), and Pérez (Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, pp. 434-459), in fact, all the post-Columbian author- 
ities, agree that the only year-bearers in use in Yucatan at the time of the conquest were Kan, Muluc, Ix, and 
Cauac, no others even being mentioned. 
