CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 535 
given for them are the dates they assign to the opening entry of the u kaklay katunob, 
which in the writer’s correlation, however, is seen to have had the Initial Revies 
g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh; thus equivalents in Christian chronology for the same Maya 
date are given for all at them. 
In conclusion, the several points which, in the writer’s opinion, make the cor- 
relation suggested here more plausible than, and preferable to any of the others 
described, have been recapitulated below: 
(1) It is based only upon general statements concerning which there is almost 
perfect unanimity of opinion in the original sources. 
(2) It does not aim at correlation to the day, and therefore does not have to 
depend upon the few doubtful passages which purport to give the exact day of a 
certain event, the latter data being flatly contradicted by the bulk of the source 
material and even by statements to the contrary within themselves. 
(3) It agrees better with the archzological and historical evidence, and gives 
rise to a more logical sequence of events than any of the other correlations described. 
It brings about no anachronisms, which in some of the others may be avoided only 
by improbable assumptions, or forced interpretations of the original sources. 
(4) Finally, it develops the astonishing fact, hardly to be explained as a mere 
coincidence, that the opening entry in the u kahlay katunob, which is admittedly of a 
mythological character, fell on the date 9.0.0.0.0 of the Maya Era, a round number 
in their chronological system and the beginning of the period which witnessed their 
first great cultural florescence, a date which ever afterward must have been associ- 
ated in the Maya mind with the beginning of their Golden Age. 
