CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 527 
eighth century, and the “‘capture”’ of Champutun (Chakanputan) in the ninth cen- 
tury, whereas the dates for these events in the correlation suggested here are176a.D., 
531 A. D., and 709 A. D., respectively, each about three centuries earlier. 
His slseuie statement that this movement northward into Yucatan caused the 
people then living there, the Itza, to move south is utterly without foundation. On 
the contrary, it was the Itza themselves who first movedinto Yucatan at this time 
and in all probability found the country absolutely devoid of earlier inhabitants. 
Sapper seems to have made no attempt to correlate the Old Empire chronology with 
the Christian Era, and even for the u kahlay katunob his results are highly unsatisfac- 
tory, although they are the best of all the German correlations, placing the dates 
of these events several centuries earlier than any of the other German authorities. 
Forstemann represents the other extreme, his final correlation making the 
majority of the Old Empire cities so recent as to have been occupied down almost 
to the discovery of America, and some sites even as late as 1577. His earlier cor- 
relation was even more improbable For example, he says the important date 
9.9.16.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu on page 24 of the Dresden Codex may refer to the de- 
struction of Mayapan, which he places in 1436.” If this correlation were correct, 
it would place the date of Stela 2 at Quen Santo, which is 10.2.10.0.0, 250 years 
later, or in 1686, actually more than a century after the Spaniards had conquered 
and occupied the region where this monument was found (see plate 1); and it would 
make the Great Period of the Old Empire begin in 1538, that is, actually 14 years 
after the conquest of Guatemala by Pedro de Alvarado in 1524, and finally, it would 
make the whole period coincident with the first century of the Spanish occupation. 
This result was so fanciful that Fo6rstemann later placed his correlation 104 years 
earlier. He says in this connection: 
“First the tenth cycle [1. ¢., 9.0.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0] should not be placed too early, for 
the civilization of the Mayas in historic time is exactly the same as that displayed on the 
monuments. Second, it should not be placed too late, for it is creditably reported that 
upon their arrival the Spaniards found the principal places containing monuments, such as 
Palenque, Copan, and Quirigua, in ruins.’’ 
He then proceeds to correlate a number of the monuments of Copan and 
Quirigua with what he believes were their corresponding equivalents in Christian 
chronology. Thus for Stela N at Copan, 9.16.10.0.0, he proposes the year 1459 A. D. 
And on this basis his date for 9.0.0.0.0 would be 325 years earlier or 1134 A. D. 
These even still entirely too recent dates for the Old Empire cities force him to 
reject the Chichen Itza lintel, the Initial Series of which is 10.2.9.1.9, as question- 
able, and possibly inaccurately deciphered, since even in his amended correlation 
10.2.9.1.9 fell in the year 1576 and 10.2.10.0.0 (Stela 2 at Quen Santo) in 1577. 
In a still later passage he apparently contradicts his previous correlation: 
“Tf it is correct we have the day VIII 4 [7.¢.,8 Manik]; 10 4 [7. ¢., 10 Zotz] (in the year) 
5 Cauac, which in my opinion falls in the year 1496, the beginning year of [Katun] 2 Ahau, 
and to which the day number [2. ¢., the Initial Series number] 1,426,507 [7. ¢., 9.18.2.9.7] 
would belong; see my treatise “The Tenth Cycle of the Mayas,’ in Globus, vol. 82, No. 9.’’4 
But this is surely an error, for if he correlates 9.16.10.0.0 with 1459 as above, 
then 9.18.2.9.7 8 Manik 10 Zotz will fall in 1491, or at best 1492, whereas he gives 
it in this last passage as falling in 1496. This can not be true, since the difference 
between 9.16.10.0.0 and 9.18.2.9.7 is only 32.05 years, not 37 years, and 1459+32.05 
= 1491.05. 
Even his amended correlation is historically impossible. For example, 
makes the Spanish Conquest of Guatemala in 1524 actually precede the closing 


1See Mercer, 1896, p. 167. 2FOrstemann, I9O], p. 51. 3[bid., 1902, p. 141. 4Tbid., 19044, p. 361. 
