CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 555 
since he finds only one 13 Ahau in the sixth tun before 9 Imix 19 Zip, and since that 
one was 13 Ahau 8 Xul, he assumes that 8 Xul was the position in the haab on 
which the Katun 13 Ahau referred to in these three passages ended. 
Aside from all the archeological and historical objections to this correlation 
noted in the discussion of page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, which of course 
apply here as well, Goodman’s correlation contradicts, in their larger aspects, the 
very sources upon which his conclusions are based. For example, he states that 
Napot Xiu died in 1545 in Katun 11 Ahau, whereas all of the authorities except 
Cogolludo, as we have seen, give the Christian year as 1536, and III, IV, and IX 
the katun as 13 Ahau, and X as the first tun of 11 Ahau. 
Again, if 1539.830 was the end of Katun 13 Ahau, then the end of Katun 2 
Ahau was 1520.117, which contradicts the entry in I, stating that a katun ended in 
1517. And further, if Katun 13 Ahau ended in 1539.830, then the fifth tun of Katun 
11 Ahau ended in 1544.758, which contradicts the entry in I stating that Merida was 
founded after the fifth tun of Katun 11 Ahau was completed, the actual foundation 
having taken place in 1542.016, as we have already seen. 
Again, if 1539.830 was the end of Katun 13 Ahau, then the sixth tun of Katun 
g Ahau ran from 1564.471 to 1565.457, which contradicts the entry in X to the 
effect that Bishop Toral arrived in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau, the date of his 
arrival actually having taken place between 1562.583 and 1562.622. 
These contradictions are so numerous and so striking that on the face of them 
it appears highly improbable that Goodman’s correlation can be correct. As 
representing Xiu chronology at the time of the Spanish Conquest, however, it may 
be safely accepted in view of its remarkable agreement with page 66 from the 
Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, but as a correlation of Christian and Old Empire chronology 
the writer believes it may be just as surely rejected. 
Joyce reaches a date of 95 B. c. for 9.0.0.0.0, or within one year of the date 
reached by Bowditch for the same cycle-ending: 
“T have tried to show that the buildings at Chichen Itza may be divided into three main 
classes, corresponding in a rather remarkable manner to the principal epochs of Tutul Xiu 
tradition; and I have pointed out that what may be considered the earliest group is dis- 
tinguished by a date in the “long count” characteristic of the central Mayan region. I 
have also explained that there is reason to believe that Chichen was inhabited before the 
arrival of the Tutul Xiu, and the presence of the early Maya in Yucatan is supported by the 
“long count” date at Tuluum.! ... . In any case the essential point on which I would 
lay stress is that the initial date at Chichen belongs to the period before the arrival of the 
Tutul Xiu. Now, the katun expressed in this initial date would be termed in the short count 
‘katun 3. ahau,”? and I think it reasonable to assume that this corresponds with the last 
‘katun 3. ahau’ of the Tutul Xiu chronology before they arrived at Chichen Itza. It may, 
of course, be earlier, but I think this extremely unlikely, having regard to the similarity be- 
tween such buildings as the Monjas group and those of the central Mayan area. If this 
assumption be admitted, then the dates of the monuments can be brought into line with 
historical chronology, as appears in the Appendix.’” 

1As already noted in Chapter V, this early Tuluum date, 9.6.10.0.0 on Stela 1, to which Joyce refers, is not 
the contemporaneous date of that monument, but a date exactly 1 cycle earlier. The contemporaneous date is 
10.6.10.0.0, actually 80 years later than that on the Chichen Itza lintel. (See Morley, 1918a, pp. 274, 275.) 
Joyce, however, uses this early noncontemporaneous date in support of his contention that there were Maya at 
Chichen Itza before the arrival of the first migration thither mentioned in the Books of Chilan Balam (Joyce, 
1914, p- 349). This argument, in so far as it depends upon 9.6.10.0.0 as the date of the Tuluum stela, therefore 
collapses in view of this later reading. mn 
2Joyce is in error here when he states that the katun expressed by the Chichen Itza Initial Series was Katun 
3 Ahau. As already noted, the current katun of that Initial Series was a Katun 1 Ahau (10.3.0.0.0 I Ahau a 
Yaxkin), the previous katun being 3 Ahau (10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Ceh). This error makes no difference in his final 
result, however, since he correlates this Katun 3 Ahau with 10.2.0.0.0, as it should be. 
3Joyce, ibid., pp. 359, 360. Joyce has been included in the American group, since his correlation follows the 
method first proposed by the writer. (See Morley, 19104, and above.) 
