532 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Joyce’s correlation follows the same method of procedure as that first sug- 
gested by the writer in 1910, and would have reached the same result had he not 
made the obviously unlikely assumption that the Chichen Itza lintel dates from the 
Katun 1 Ahau before the city is first said to have been discovered in the u kahlay 
katunob, instead of the first Katun 1 Ahau after that entry. He overcomes the 
resulting anachronism, which, if left unexplained, is fatal both to his correlation 
and that of Bowditch, by assuming that the site had been previously colonized by 
earlier migrations of the Maya not noted in the u kahlay katunob, and that the 
Initial Series lintel was made by these earlier unmentioned inhabitants of the city. 
Indeed, according to his correlation-table! the Itza? did not reach Chichen Itza 
until 10.10.0.0.0, some I50 years after the contemporaneous date of the Initial 
Series lintel. This assumption, however, is not borne out by the archzological 
evidence he cites,’ and moreover, his hypothesis is contradicted by the chronicles 
themselves, which use such expressions as “‘in these years that they ruled Bakhalal 
it occurred then that Chichen Itza was discovered,’ “Sit occurred that Chichen Itza 
was learned about,’’® “in Katun 6 Ahau took place the discovery of Chichen Itza,’ 
in describing this event. 
Joyce follows Brinton here in believing that Chichen Itza was already in exist- 
ence when the first migration recorded in the u kahlay katunob reached there.’ 
This is unnecessary, as the verb chicpahci is properly rendered discovered, and as 
used in this connection doubtless refers to the discovery of the two great natural 
wells or cenotes around which the city of Chichen Itza (literally “the mouths of the 
wells of the Itza’’) later grew up. 
To postulate a settlement there prior to the discovery of the site in 9.14.0.0.0 
6 Ahau 13 Muan is contrary not only to the best interpretation of the archeological 
and documentary evidence, but also to the historical probabilities of the case, and 
this correlation also may therefore probably be dismissed. 
Spinden in his first correlation® assigns the date 160 A. D. to 9.0.0.0.0, but 
recently he has brought forward another for which he claims accuracy to the day.?® 
Under the latter he reaches March 31, 304 A. D. (N. S.), for 9.6.10.0.0 and February 
3, 176 A. D., for 9.0.0.0.0._ His method is composed of the same two steps as those 
mentioned on page 467, and indeed for his second step, the correlation of the u 
kahlay katunob with Old Empire chronology, he accepts the writer’s correlation, 
first announced a decade ago. His method in the first step differs only in the fact 
that he has brought to bear on this phase of the problem the current Aztec chro- 
nology of the early sixteenth century, which was contemporaneous with the close 
of the New Empire in Yucatan, an interesting and new contribution, although 
hardly to be trusted as conclusive evidence in the Maya correlation problem. 



1See Joyce, 1914, Appendix ITI. 
Joyce (ibid., p. 359) states that it was the Tutul Xiu who arrived at Chichen Itza on this migration, but the 
chronicles themselves clearly state that it is the Itza whose movements are being described. (See Brinton, 1882, 
pp. IOI, 145, 159, and 169.) 
3Joyce, ibid., p. 349. It is true there are three distinct architectural periods at Chichen Itza, as stated by 
Joyce: the first period from which dates the Initial Series lintel here under discussion, and that part of the city 
known as Old Chichen Itza; the second or Renaissance period, exemplified by such buildings as the Monjas and 
associated structures, the Red House, etc.; and the third or Nahua period, from which date by far the greater 
number of the buildings now standing, the Castillo, the Ball Court, the High Priest’s Grave, and probably all 
that great architectural complex known as the Court of the Columns. Where Joyce appears to the writer to fall 
into error is in believing the first period at Chichen Itza was prior to its discovery as recorded in the Books of 
Chilan Balam, rather than after it. Mercer clearly demonstrated there was no earlier occupation of Yucatan 
than that of the Maya, and to presuppose the Maya were there before their own chronicles say the country was 
discovered is indeed piling up imaginary obstacles in the way of a simple logical solution of this question. 
4Brinton, 1882, p. Io1. 5Tbid., p. 144. 6Tbid., p. 158. "Ibid, p. 124. 8Spinden, 1913, table 2. 
°This latter correlation was announced in a paper read before the American Anthropological Association 
at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1919. 
