520 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The other ruins along the east coast of Yucatan which the writer has visited, 
Espiritu Santo Bay, Chac Mool, Playa Carmen, Cancuen, El Mecco, and Isla de 
Mugeres, are all of similar type, small, practically devoid of sculptured decoration, 
and of cruder workmanship than the cities of the interior. Indeed, it appears prob- 
able that they are of comparatively recent origin, certainly after the fall of Chichen 
Itza in Katun 8 Ahau (1182-1201), and possibly after the fall of Mayapan in Katun 
8 Ahau (1438-1458). And since the Codex Tro-Cortesianus surely emanates from 
this general region, it too must date from after 1182-1201. Finally, if we may 
trust the evidence supplied by the single Calendar Round date in this manuscript, 
13 Ahau 13 Cumhu, even this second shift of the year-bearers did not affect the 
positions of the days in the months, at least in the eastern cities. 
That the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac year-bearers were introduced after the 
fall of Chichen Itza some time in Katun 8 Ahau, 1182-1201, is indicated by a painted 
lintel at Chichen Itza, which is shown in figure 77.1. This was excavated by Thomp- 
son from a small chamber in a group of buildings some distance east of the casa 
principal on the south side of the road leading to the Grotto. ‘The upper band of 
the inscription is composed of 7 glyphs, of which only the third and fourth concern 
us here. The former is very clearly 6 Kan, the latter equally clearly Tun 9. 
IND || 

Fic. 77.—Part of inscription on capstone from a small chamber in a structure east of the 
casa principal at Chichen Itza. 
The meaning here seems to be that a haab or 365-day year, whose year-bearer 
was the day 6 Kan, fell in some Tun 9. If we admit the truth of this assumption, 
we may fill in the missing month part of the beginning: day of this year as 2 Pop 
on the ground that in the east, 7.¢., at Chichen Itza, Tuluum, etc., we have no ground 
for believing that the position of the days in the months ever changed from the Old 
Empire system. 
This Calendar Round date did not occur at all in any Tun 9 of either Cycle 9 
or Cycle 12 and in only one Tun g of Cycles 10 and 11 each, as follows: 
10. 3.8.14.4 6 Kan 2 Pop. 
11.12.8.13.4°6 Kan 2 Pop. 
Of these, only the latter is hi-torically possible here, since the Kan, Muluc, Ix, 
and Cauac group of year-bearers had not come into use as early as 10.3.8.14.4. 
Indeed, so far as the writer is aware, this is the earliest example of the use of this 
group of year-bearers known (1210 A. D.). 
This lintel also tends to disprove the correlation indicated by the Oxkutzcab 
chronicle, since if 11.16.0.0.0 1s 1539, then 11.12.8.13.4 will be 1469, some 20 to 30 
years after Chichen Itza had been abandoned and the Itza had left Yucatan; or 
using the earlier value, if 10.3.8.14.4 be accepted for 6 Kan 2 Pop, under the Oxkutz- 
cab correlation it will give 897 A. D. for this lintel, far too early for a Kan year-bearer 
to have been used. 
Correlating all the foregoing evidence as to the year-bearers, it appears probable 
that shortly after Chichen Itza was founded, in 9.17.0.0.0—if the setting of Pop in 
1The inscription on this lintel was drawn by Mr. John Held, jr., in 1918. 
