524 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Goodman appears to have reached a similar conclusion when he states that 
“the 11 Ahau katun of the Itzas, Cocoms, and Chels began December 25, 1536,’ 
although he gives no authority for this statement. 
Indeed, a survey of all the foregoing evidence indicates that toward the very 
end of the New Empire two different systems of naming the katuns may have been 
in use at the same time, both agreeing as to the day of the terminal date, but dis- 
agreeing as to its position in the year. 
The Itza in the east retained the Old Empire system intact, whereas the Xiu in 
the west who were nearer the region from which these Nahua waves were flowing 
into Yucatan lost contact with the Old Empire count and substituted another, 
retaining the same ending-days for their katuns as the Itza, but assigning to them 
different positions in the year. ‘This explains why practically all of the sources 
agree as to the names of the katuns, that is, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, etc., in which 
the different events in the sixteenth century occurred, but disagree when they 
attempt to fix any day to its corresponding position in the haab. 
Although the point escapes actual proof at this time, the writer believes that 
_ the most serious of all the discrepancies, the difference of 205 positions in the Maya 
year and of 3 Christian years, causing a corresponding apparent difference of 259 
years between his correlation and that indicated on page 66 of the Chronicle of 
Oxkutzcab, 7.e., between the Xiu and Itza records, did not arise until after the fall 
of Mayapan in Katun 8 Ahau (1438-1458) and the subsequent removal of the Xiu 
from Uxmal to Mani. It was during these troubled times that this hiatus probably 
arose, and that the old continuity of the sequence, at least in the Xiu records, was 
broken for the first time. 
That the Katun 13 Ahau, which ended in 1536 or 1539, was thought to be Katun 
13 Ahau 8 Xul instead of Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin at the time of the Spanish con- 
quest, the writer is ready to admit on the evidence supplied by page 66 from the Chro- 
nicle of Oxkutzcab alone, but that this difference extended back more than 5 katuns 
appears highly improbable, and more than 14 katuns impossible (11.15.16.12.14). 
Thus, as an instrument for correlating Christian chronology with the Long Count 
of the Old Empire, this source must be regarded as unserviceable, and the correla- 
tion to which it gives rise must be rejected. 
OTHER SYSTEMS OF CORRELATION. 
Before closing this Appendix it appears advisable to review, as briefly as may 
be, the correlations of Maya and Christian chronology proposed by other writers, 
which differ greatly not only from one and another, but in a few cases, notably 
those of the German school, from that suggested in the foregoing pages. 
These several authorities may be divided into four schools or groups, not only on 
national lines but also in methods of approach, results obtained, and chronological 
sequence, as follows: 
(1) The Guatemalan school: Fuentes y Guzman (1689), Juarros (1808), and 
Galindo (1834). 
(2) The French cat Pérez (1842), Brasseur de Bourbourg (1858), Valentini 
(1879), and de Rosny (1883). 
(3) The German school: Sapper (1897), Forstemann (1902), Seler (1902), and 
Lehmann (1910). 
(4) The American school: Bowditch (1901), Goodman (1905), Morley (1910), 
Joyce (1914), and Spinden (1913 and 1919). 
1Goodman, 1905, p. 645. 
