CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 529 
Assuming that Lehmann is referring to the last half of Cycle 9 (i. €.59.10.0.0.0 
to 10.0.0.0.0, the Middle and Great Periods of the Old Empire) when he speaks of 
the “Golden Age” of Copan and Quirigua, we reach about 700 a. D. for 9.0.0.0.0 in his 
correlation. 
It is apparent from the foregoing quotations, ranging from Sapper’s 490 A. D. 
ca. to Forstemann’s 1134 A. D. for 9.0.0.0.0, that these German correlations all place 
the period of the Old Empire much too late, making its Middle and Great Periods 
approximately contemporaneous with either the Renaissance or Toltec Period of 
the New Empire. 
This is a necessary corollary from their correlations, since no matter what may 
be thought of the correlations of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology 
and of the former with the Long Count (1. ¢., the Initial Series) suggested here, the 
fact remains that the first chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel 
carries Maya history back in an unbroken stretch of 56 katuns, 7. ¢., 1,103.93 years, 
from 1536 A. D. to the discovery of Chichen Itza, which it fixes as having taken place 
some time between 432 and 452 A. D., depending on what part of Katun 6 Ahau the 
discovery was made. And this being true, it would follow from the German corre- 
lations that much of the history of Yucatan was prior to 9.0.0.0.0, and that Copan, 
Palenque, Tikal, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, etc., were actually the contemporaries 
of Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Mayapan, Izamal, etc. ‘This is indeed reductio ad absur- 
dum. It is contrary to every item of archzologic and historic evidence, and these 
four German correlations may be rejected in entirety. 
4. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 
The first American correlation brought forward was that of Bowditch, based 
upon the three passages in III, IV, and IX, describing Event C. By looking for a 
Tun 13 or Tun 14 (depending on whether Napot Xiu died 5 or 6 years before the 
end of the katun) of any Katun 13 Ahau when the day g Imix fell on 18 Zip (1.2., 
1g Zip) and the year-bearer (7. ¢., 2 Pop) was 4 Kan, he finds in Goodman’s tables 
three places, more than 11,200 years apart between the extremes, where these 
several conditions are fulfilled, two of which are so improbable that he rejects them, 
accepting the third as the proper correlation of Maya and Christian chronology: 
“If now we accept the first date of 55.13.2.13.3.1,' as the date of Ahpula’s death, we 
shall have the date of Stela 9 of Copan as a.D. 34 [1.¢., B.C. 94 for 9.0.0.0.0, 128 years earlier], 
since the death occurred in 1536. If we accept the second date, 55.9.17.14.11.1,” as the true 
one, Stela 9 must represent a date of B. c. 3814 [7. ¢., B. C. 3942 for 9.0.0.0.0], and in the case of 
the third date, 57.2.14.13.16.1,? in which the period to elapse to the end of Katun 13 Ahau is 
the nearest to an exact 6 tuns, we should throw back Copan to B. c. 11,250 [1. ¢., B. C. 11,378 
for 9.0.0.0.0]._ It is not probable, however, that either of the last two dates 1s correct, 
both because of the immense time which would have elapsed, and because the monuments 
show signs of no such age. We are, therefore, left to the date a. p. 34 as the probable date 
of the earliest stela of Copan which we know of at present.’’4 
The writer has already given the reasons why he rejects this correlation in 
connection with the discussion of Event C on pages 478-487. Aside from the 
several excellent positive reasons for preferring the correlation here suggested, which 
does not aim at exactness to the day, as does that of Bowditch, his mistrust of the 
year-bearer 4 Kan in these passages, the ambiguity of the expression “6 tuns were 



1According to the writer’s conception of the Long Count, based upon the evidence furnished by Stela 10 at 
Tikal, where the great-cycles, great-great-cycles, great-great-great-cycles, and possibly even the great-great- 
great-great-cycle of an Initial Series appear to be recorded, this date would read:,(1).1.11.19.13.2.13.3-1 9 Imix 
19 Zip. 
2This date the writer would express as (1).1.12.0.2.17.14.11.1 9 Imix 19 Zip. 
8This date the writer believes was (1).1.12,1.1.14.13.16.1 9$Imix¥19:Zip. 
4See Bowditch, 19014, pp. 136, 137. 
