534 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
The most remarkable point brought to light by Spinden (but, as already noted, 
unfortunately one which can not be relied upon in correlating the Long Count 
with Christian chronology, as shown by the above disagreements with the native 
sources to which his correlation gives rise) is the fact that at the time of the Spanish 
Conquest the New Empire year-bearers were only 1 day behind the Aztec day- 
count if 12 Kan 2 Pop really was equal to July 16, 1553 (0. s.). 
The point of contact between Aztec chronology and the Christian Era is the 
statement, generally admitted, that Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) fell on August 13, 
1521, or as Spinden uses all his dates in New Style, August 23, 1521, in a year 3 
Calli, on the day 1 Coatl 3 Xocouetzi. On this basis he finds that the Maya year 
6 Kan began on August 3, 1521 (N. s.), while the corresponding Aztec day 6 Cuez- 
palin was 1 day earlier, August 2, 1521. ‘This is a striking coincidence to say the 
least, but even if it were due to a former direct correlation, it only goes to prove 
the writer’s contention that the chronology in current use in Yucatan at the time 
of the Spanish Conquest had been powerfully affected by Aztec chronology, even to 
the point of losing its most fundamental characteristic, the conception of time as a 
succession of elapsed units. And most important of all, it can not be relied upon to 
establish a day-for-day correlation between Christian and Old Empire chronology. 
The writer has already expressed his distrust of these so-called exact corre- 
lations. Eventually, by means of astronomical data indubitably present in the 
inscriptions, it is hoped that such an exact alinement of the two chronologies may be 
effected, but with the data now available for this purpose in the early Spanish and 
native writings no such accuracy can be achieved, nor indeed should such be 
sought. ‘The original sources are too inexact to warrant such close reading. More- 
over, in the case of Spinden’s correlation, aside from this general criticism of his 
method, several specific examples of disagreement with the u kahlay katunob and 
Nakuk Pech have been cited, which are sufficient in themselves to cause its re- 
jection as a day-for-day alinement of the two calendars. 
The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology according to different authorities. 
Date in Date in 
Christian Era Christian Era 
Authority. corresponding Authority. corresponding 
to 9.0.0.0.0 tog.0.0.0.0 
of Maya Era. of Maya Era. 

A. D. 
176} 
176 
435 
ca. 490 
ca. 700 
ca. 1007 
1134 

The above table gives the equivalents in Christian chronology for the Initial 
Series 9.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh according to the several systems of correlation 
described, those of the Guatemalan group alone being omitted as too indefinite 
for inclusion in a table of this sort. Authorities marked with an asterisk (*) do not 
give a correlation of the Initial Series and the u kahlay katunob, and the equivalents 
1Spinden’s year for 9.0.0.0.0, 176 A. D., agrees with that suggested here, for the reason that he agrees with the 
writer in accepting 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin as the katun which ended in 1536, although he places Napot 
Xiu’s death 9 years later. 
