526 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The most scholarly correlation of this second group of writers was that pro- 
posed by P. J. J. Valentini in his Katwnes of Maya history, also based upon the same 
chronicle as the two preceding: 
“According to this statement the 13th Ahau [7. ¢., Katun 13 Ahau] ended with the year 
1542. Bishop Landa (see section 41 of his Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan) confirms the 
correctness of the above calculation, though he says that the 13th Ahau expired with the 
year 1541. Landa undoubtedly selects this date of June 10, 1541, as that of the last decisive 
victory at T’ho over the Indians, while the author of the manuscript may have had in mind 
the date when Merida was officially incorporated as the capital and a dependency of the 
Spanish crown, which was January 6, 1542. If we subtract the total number of Ahaues 
[7. ¢., katuns] already obtained, and amounting to 1,400 years from the year 1542, we obtain 
for the first epoch named in the manuscript, which is the 8th Ahau [Katun 8 Ahau] or the 
starting of the conquerors from Tulapan, the years 142-162 of our modern Christian Era.””! 
Valentini’s correlation differs from that proposed by the writer by 14 years, 
due to the two following factors: First, Valentini counts a katun as composed of 20 
full years, whereas it is only composed of 19.713 years, which, in the 69 katuns 
between the Katun 13 Ahauin which Napot Xiu died, and the Katun 8 Ahau with 
.which the u kahlay katunob begins, makes a difference of 19.80 years; and second, 
he regards the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s death as having ended in 1542.016 
instead of 1536.982, as the writer believes, 7. ¢., a difference of about 5 years; and 
these two factors, one working forward and ee other backward, make a difference 
of 14 years between the two correlations. 
The correlation suggested by de Rosny is worthless.2, He makes a triple error 
which leads him 25 years astray for the date of the opening entry in the u kahlay 
katunob. In the first place, he follows Pérez in regarding the katuns as 8,760 days 
in length (1. €., 24 years of 365 days each); in the second place, he regards the dates 
given in the u kahlay katunob as the beginning-days of the katuns, instead of their 
ending-days; and in the third place, he assumes Katun 13 Ahau began in 1531 and 
endedin1s55. Under this correlation a date of 151 a.D. is reached for the beginning 
of the u kahlay katunob. 
None of the writers of this group made any attempt to correlate the New 
Empire chronology with that of the Old Empire, and in fact the only one of the five 
u kahlay katunob with which they were familiar was that from the Book of Chilan 
Balam of Mani. They were, however, the first to make a serious attempt at cor- 
relating New Empire and Christian chronology, and their results have been fol- 
lowed by the later Yucatecan historians, Ancona,’ Carrillo y Ancona,‘ and Molina 
Solis.® 
3. THE GERMAN SCHOOL. 
The German School of correlation would bring the period of the Old Empire 
down to a much later date, even as late as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of 
the Christian Era. Sapper was the first German to come forward with a correlation, 
based upon the u kahlay katunob, like those of the preceding school: 
“And it seems to follow from the manuscript (Lelo lai utzolan katunil ti Mayab) supplied 
and translated by Brasseur de Bourbourg in his Diego de Landa, that even in historic time 
(end of the 5th century a.D.) a section of the Mayas from the south settled in southeast 
Yucatan, and gradually pushed northward until they captured Chichenitza (8th century) 
and Champutun (gth century) and thereby caused a migration in a southerly direction of the 
people (Itzaes) living there.’’® 
In this rather vague passage Sapper appears to place the original departure 
from Tulapan at the end of the fifth century; the “capture” of Chichen Itza in the 

1Valentini, 1879, p. 109. 2Rosny, 1883, pp. 33-36. 3See Ancona, 1878-1905. 
4See Carrillo y Ancona, 1871. 5See Molina Solis, 1896. ®Sapper, 1897, p. 400. 
