If I am correct in the plan of the table given, and the division into Ahaues, it follows that the rest of these periods in the grand cycle would be numbered as shown by the Roman numerals on Table XVII. These numbers agree precisely with the numbers of the first years of the respective Ahaues, and furnish, as heretofore suggested, an explanation of the singular method of enumerating these periods. If we now turn to Table XVI, showing the periods obtained from the dates on Plates XXX and XXXI of the Manuscript, we will see that their position and numbers agree exactly with those given in Table XVII.
As tending to confirm this conclusion, it will be necessary for me to introduce here a comparison of Maya dates with those of the Christian era.
As the designated 4 Kan corresponds, according to the manuscript quoted, with the year 1536, the last year of that Ahau (10 Ix) was 1542. Taking this as a stalling point, I have given on the table the year of our era corresponding with the first "year of each Ahau. Now let us test this result by the two or three additional dates found on record, and which the authorities have failed to make agree with any explanation of the Maya calendar heretofore given.
Bishop Landa (Relacion de Cosas, § 41) states that "the Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards arrived in the City of Merida in the year of the nativity of our Lord and Master, 1541, which was precisely the first year of the 11th Ahau." We may assume as certain that the Indians gave the bishop no such date as 1541, or any other year of the Christian era or Gregorian Calendar, as they were wholly unacquainted with that system; the year given must have been according to their method of designating dates, or by counting back the years.
As he understood the twenty "counted years" to constitute an Ahau, and supposed one of these periods to follow another without any intervening years, he would probably take 9 Muluc of the 13th Ahau as the first of the 11th, which, as will be seen by reference to the table, is 1541, exactly the date required.
It is evident that either he or the author of the Perez manuscript was mistaken, for according to the latter the 13th Ahau ended with the year
