CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 521 
order may be taken as a reference to this change—the year-bearers were shifted in 
Yucatan from Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb, one day forward to Eznab, Akbal, La- 
mat, and Ben respectively, without, however, the positions of the days in the months 
suffering any corresponding change (Codices Dresdensis and Peresianus). 
More than six centuries later, and as the writer believes he will be able to show, 
as a result of the fall of Chichen Itza and the introduction of Nahua chronological 
practices in Yucatan after 1182-1201, the year-bearers were again shifted one day 
forward to Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac, but not later than 1210, the latter date being 
fixed by the Chichen Itza lintel just described. Again, this shift was accomplished 
without any corresponding change in the positions of the days in the months in the 
eastern cities (High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza and the Codex Tro-Cortesianus 
from Tuluum), but by a change of one day in the western cities as early as 1219 
(lintel from the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal), also corroborated 
by the Uxmal Ball Court as having taken place as early as 1277. 
This shift of 1 in the month-positions, and the second shift of 1 in the year- 
bearers, the writer believes, was caused by the introduction of the Nahua influence 
into Yucatan after 1182-1201, and more particularly by the attempt to accom- 
modate a chronology kept in terms of elapsed units like the katun and tun to a 
chronology kept in terms of current time-periods like the 365-day Nahua years. 
Here was a fundamental difference in the whole conception of time, and in their 
attempts to readjust themselves to it the Maya shifted both their year-bearers and 
the positions of their days in the months, the former forward, the latter backward. 
It has long been known that the Nahua year-bearers, Tochtli, Acatl, Tecpatl, 
and Calli, corresponded to the Maya year-bearers Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and Akbal 
respectively, 7. ¢., those of the middle group, which, according to the writer’s hypo- 
thesis, were already in use in Yucatan when the Nahua influence first made itself 
felt there. 
The question may well be asked, why then, if the two groups of year-bearers 
were the same, should any change have been made in the Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and 
Akbal group at all? 
With some hesitation the writer offers the following tentative explanation 
of what may have happened. At the close of the twelfth century the Maya appear 
to have been confronted with the following situation: a strong alien people, the 
Nahua, in alliance with one of the native Maya princes, the halach vinic of Mayapan, 
had just achieved a notable victory over the Itza, the oldest branch of the Maya in 
Yucatan. As a result of this victory, in which seven Nahua leaders aided the 
halach vinic of Mayapan,! the Itza capital, Chichen Itza, appears to have been 
given over to the latter’s foreign allies as their share in the spoils of war; certain it 
is that Chichen Itza, more than every other Maya city, shows Nahua influence in 
its sculpture, art, and architecture. 
When the Nahua came to Yucatan in the twelfth century the Maya were 
already naming their year-bearers after the second days of their years, 1. ¢., Lamat, 
Ben, Eznab, and Akbal, although the corresponding month-coefficients of these 
days were still 1. “The Nahua, on the other hand, while naming their year-bearers 
after these same four days, or rather their Nahuan equivalents, really called them 
the first days of their years, a difference of 1 in their positions in the year as com- 
pared with the current Maya usage. 
The Maya, either voluntarily or under compulsion, it matters little which, 
may have sought to overcome this difference in position by making their days 
Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and Akbal conform to the Nahua positions for their corre- 
1Brinton, (1882, p. 102) gives their names as Ah Zinteyut Chan, Tzuntecum, Taxcal, Pantemit, Xuchueuet, 
Ytzcuat, and Kakaltecat. See also ibid., p. 147. 
