us first ascertain what Ahaues were left out between the 2d Ahau, at the
end of the first section, and the 8th Ahau, with which the second
section begins. According to the rule above given on the alternating
Ahaues, the missing ones would be the following: The (13), (11), (9),
(7), (5), (3), (1), (12), and (10th) Ahau. Of these nine Ahaues, or 180
years, the author had nothing in mind to tell us. No event of
significance appears to have taken place. Perhaps the wanderers had to
rest to gather strength before attempting further conquests. Moreover,
this time belongs to the most ancient epochs of Maya history, and
information regarding it was so dim and so obscure that it appeared to
the author as of no account. The chronological sequence thus being
established, let us now turn to the contents of the two section, 2 and
3. They begin with the 8th Ahau and close with the 13th Ahau. As to the
events happening within the 8th, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahau, they indeed
do not appear in the wished for sequence. But the sequence, as will be
shown, can be established without making interpolations. It will be
noticed that in section 2 the 4th Ahau is not mentioned. After having
quoted the 8th and 6th Ahau, the author passes over this 4th Ahau and
mentions the arrival of Ajmekat, belonging to the family of the renowned
Tutul Xiu, who seems to have led in the conquests of Bacalar and
Chichen-Itza, which are recorded in section 3, as happening in the 4th,
2d and 13th Ahau. That these conquests must be counted into the epoch
mentioned with the names 8th, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahau is clearly
expressed by the words, “_in this time_,” so that no mistake can take
place as to the intimate connection with the arrival of Ajmekat. We
learn moreover that the time which the conquerors remained in the
province of Chacnouitan is said to have been 99 years. These 99 or 100
years cover exactly the time represented by the above five Ahaues, and
when reading at the end of the 3d paragraph that they had ruled 60 years
in Ziyan-caan Bacalar, it becomes clear that these 60 years are not
years that follow the 99 years, but that they were the last years of the
99 mentioned. The two sections supplement each other, and from them the
following impression is conveyed, that Chacnouitan was the territory
situated southwest of the shores of the great lagoon of Bacalar. The
wanderers had been waiting during eleven Ahaues, from the 13th to the
4th Ahau, before they made an attack against the possessors of Bacalar.
An attempt to take it appears to have been made during the 8th, 6th and
4th Ahaues, and only accomplished in the 2d Ahau, through the arrival or
help of Ajmekat, who led them further on to the discovery or conquest of
Chichen-Itza, in the 13th Ahau.
The difficulty of interpreting the two sections is removed as soon as we
view them in the light of the reasons given, not as two distinct epochs
of which the one follows the other, as Señor Perez does (see
commentary), but as belonging to one and the same epoch from the 8th to
the 13th Ahau. It must not be so much questioned what the author ought
to have done in order to represent his history in a logical way, _and on
account of his omissions cast a doubt upon the whole record_, as how to
use what he has left to construct a system from these elements, and to
avail ourselves unhesitatingly of the help of the chronological sequence
of Ahaues, which is and will remain the only reliable thread to lead us
through and out of the labyrinth.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ.—“The manuscript informs us that at the
8th Ahau a colony of Toltecs under their leader Holon Chantépeuh,
marched out from the city of Tulapan, and that in their wanderings
they spent 4 Ahaues, 8, 6, 4, 2, till they came to Chacnouitan,
which happened in the first year of the 13th Ahau. To doubt this is
not possible, for this statement is the beginning and foundation of
all later dates. According to my calculation which I will explain
hereafter, it was from the year 144 to 217, which is 97 and not 81
years, as the manuscript reports, for if we _compute_ the Ahaues
with 24 years, as we have shown, and include the first year of the
Ahau following as the time of their arrival, then the account makes
97 years. They stayed in Chacnouitan with Ajmekat Tutul Xiu during
the remaining years of the 13th Ahau, until the 2d Ahau.
These Ahaues, as we have explained, should follow in the order 13,
9, 7, 5, and not 13, 6, 8, 2, for this latter list represents
earlier Ahaues, and as they represent different epochs they can only
be expressed by the same figures after the expiration of 312 years,
thereby clearly showing the error.
It is likewise asserted that they remained 99 years in Chacnouitan,
which could not have been true, for this would have made 119 actual
years, or only 95 years if we reckon only four Ahaues, without the
second, for if we regard the succession we miss the 4th Ahau, which
the manuscript has left out. But the manuscript does not count four
but five Ahaues, as it reckons an Ahau at 20 years, the five
_Ahaues_ less one year make the aforesaid 99 years.”
_§4. The 11th Ahau, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d and 1st Ahau, or 120 years,
they ruled in Chichen-Itza, when it was destroyed, and they
emigrated to Champutun where the Itzaes, holy men, had houses._
_Years 120._
_§5. The 6th Ahau they took possession of the territory of
Champutun, the 4th Ahau, 2d, 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st,
12th, 10th and 8th, Champutun was destroyed or abandoned. The Itzaes
reigned two hundred and sixty years in Champutun when they returned
in search of their homes, and they lived for several Katuns in the
uninhabited mountains._
_Years 260._
_§6. The 6th Ahau, 4th Ahau, after 40 years they returned to their
homes once more and Champutun was lost to them._
_Years 40._
The fourth section, in correct sequence, continues the series from the
13th Ahau when Chichen-Itza was founded. It covers the 11th, 9th, 7th,
5th, 3d, and 1st Ahau, a space of 20 years, in which the wanderers make
the new region of Chichen-Itza their metropolis. Enemies, however, whose
names are not indicated, destroy the place and oblige them to look
elsewhere. They then turn to Champutun (now Champoton, also Potonchan),
situated in a southwesterly direction from Chichen-Itza, on the westerly
shore of the Peninsula.
The fifth section should begin with the 12th Ahau, but instead it
follows the 6th Ahau. Hence the (12th), (10th) and (8th) Ahau are
missing. These 60 years may be supposed to be the time required by the
exiles to recuperate their strength in order to conquer the new
territory of Champoton. In the 6th Ahau then they succeeded in taking
Champoton, and they remained there during the 4th, 2d, 13th, 11th, 9th,
7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 10th and 8th Ahaus, a full _Ahau-Katun_ epoch
of 260 years. They were obliged to leave Champoton in the 8th _Ahau_,
and seemed willing to return to their old home, but determined to
reconquer Champoton. We are told in the sixth section that two Katuns or
40 years, were passed in delays and preparations, correctly figured by
the 6th and 4th Ahau; that they then made an attempt to reconquer
Champoton, failing in which, they were obliged to look about for a new
home.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO THE 4TH, 5TH AND 6TH SECTIONS.—They
remained in Chichen-Itza and ruled there until it was destroyed,
when they betook themselves to Champoton. Here they built their
houses during the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d and 1st Ahaues (_sic_). If
this succession should be stated correctly it would be the 10th,
8th, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahau, or from the year 452 to 576, A. D.,
when the 13th _Ahau_ expired. The Ahaues represented the years 432,
456, 480, 504, 528 and 552 A. D.
§5. In the 6th Ahau they took Champoton and held sway there during
the following twelve Ahaues until it was destroyed. After this they
looked again for a home after they had passed several Katunes in the
mountainous regions, which were the 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st,
12th, 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th, 2d and 13th Ahaues, making a complete
epoch of 312 years. Their coming should not have been stated as the
6th, but the 11th Ahau, according to the explanation.
§6. In the 6th and 4th Ahau they again erected houses after they had
lost Champoton, that is after a lapse of 48 years, which requires a
connection with the 11th and 9th Ahau. This occurred in the years
888 to 936 A. D., for the 11th _Ahau_ began in 888, the 9th in 912,
and ended in the year 936 A. D.
_§7. In this Katun of the 2d Ahau, Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu established
himself in Uxmal; the 2d Ahau, 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st,
12th and 10th Ahau, equal to 200 years, they governed in Uxmal, with
the governors of Chichen-Itza and Mayapan._
The former section closing with the 4th Ahau, this begins with the 2d
and is followed in correct succession by the 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th,
3d, 1st, 12th and 10th, a space of 200 years. In the 2d Ahau, under
their leader Ajcuitok, they settled down in a new region at the town of
Uxmal. It appears that Chichen-Itza had been rebuilt, and Mayapan newly
founded. Rulers resided at both places at peace with the Tutul Xiu at
Uxmal.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTION 7.—In the 2d Ahau Ajcuitok
Tutul Xiu made a settlement in Uxmal, and reigned there with the
Governors of Chichen-Itza and Mayapan during 2d, 13th, 11th, 9th,
7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th and 10th Ahau. A correction of these Ahaues
gives us the 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, 10th, 8th, 6th, 4th and 2d,
and brings them into harmony with the Christian era, to wit: the
years 936, 960, 987, 1008, 1032, 1056, 1080, 1104, 1128 and 1152
A. D. The 2d Ahau ended with the foundation and with the completion
of 240 years in the year 1176, for the foundation took place in the
year 936, when the 7th Ahau just now corrected began.
§8. _These are the Katuns, 11th, 9th and 6th Ahau (sic.) In the 8th the
Governor of Chichen-Itza was deposed because he murmured disrespectfully
against Hunac-eel. This happened to Chacxibchac of Chichen-Itza,
governor of the fortress of Mayalpan. Ninety years had elapsed, but the
tenth year of the 8th Ahau was the year in which he was overthrown by
Ajzinte-yut-chan with Tzunte-cum, Taxcal, Pantemit, Xuch-cuet, Ytzcuat
and Kakaltecat. These are the names of the seven Mayalpanes._
§9. _In the same Katun of the 8th Ahau, they attacked King Ulmil in
consequence of his quarrel with Ulil, King of Yzamal; thirteen divisions
of troops he had when he was routed by Hunac-eel; in the 6th Ahau the
war was over after 34 years._
As the foregoing section 7 closed with the 10th Ahau, we should expect
section 8 to begin with the 8th Ahau. We read, however, 11th, 9th and
6th Ahau. This sequence is evidently incorrect in itself, because the
9th can never be followed by the 6th Ahau. If the period began with the
11th Ahau, the sequence should follow with the 9th and 7th Ahau. The
correct reading of the text, however, will result from the examination
of that which follows immediately after this introductory sentence.
There we read these words: “In the 8th Ahau the governor of Chichen-Itza
was deposed,” etc., and this same 8th Ahau is mentioned again in the
sentence that follows, beginning with “Ninety years,” etc. So also it
reappears for a third time in section 9, at its beginning. Now, as
section 8 was expected to commence with the 8th Ahau, it is more than
probable that the author has blundered in some way. We presume that
instead of 11th, 9th and 6th, he intended to write 10th, 8th and 6th.
The 10th would indicate a reference made to the ending of the last
section. The 8th and 6th are those in which all the events described in
our two sections occur, for the insulted governor Hunac-eel of section 8
is the same who takes revenge in section 9.
This difficulty being removed, another arises, how to interpret the
words “ninety years elapsed, but the tenth year of the 8th Ahau was the
year in which he was overthrown,” etc. This reads as if these ninety
years were predecessors of the 8th Ahau. If this were so, they would
fall in the 10th, 12th, 1st, 3d and the first half of the 5th Ahau. Of
such Ahaues mention is made in the foregoing section 7. But we notice
these Ahaues were passed in peace and not in war, as our passage
evidently suggests. We cannot help thinking that another blunder is
concealed in this phrase, and that the author meant to write nine years.
If we write, _Nine years had elapsed, but the tenth year of the 8th Ahau
was the year in which he was overthrown_, the idea of the author seems
stated correctly. These nine years, then, would have fallen in the 10th
Ahau, with which we proposed to commence section 8, and nine years added
to the twenty years of the 8th Ahau, make twenty-nine years, and five
more years of the 6th Ahau give those thirty-four years, which, at the
end of section 9 are expressly indicated as passed in war. Such is the
sense which we give to these two somewhat perplexing sections.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTIONS 8 AND 9.—The Ahaues 11th, 9th,
6th and 8th passed away, and in the latter the governor Hunac-eel of
Mayapan overthrew Chacxibchac, the governor of Chichen-Itza, because
he had spoken ill of him, and in the 10th year of the last Ahau, the
seven chiefs of Hunac-eel overcame the governor Chacxibchac. If a
correction is to be made it should then stand 13th, 11th, 9th and
7th Ahau, or the years 1176, 1200, 1224 and 1248 to the year 1272
A. D. Hence it was the year 1258, the tenth year of the 7th Ahau
that Chacxibchac was overcome.
During the 8th Ahau occurred the destruction of the power of King
Ulmil, because he had waged war against Ulil of Izamal, and
Hunac-eel at the head of 13 divisions overcame Ulmil in the 6th
Ahau. [We are unable to give the correction of Señor Perez, as we do
not comprehend his text.]
§10. _In the 6th Ahau, 4th Ahau, 2d Ahau, 13th Ahau, 11th Ahau the
fortified territory of Mayapan was invaded by the men of Itza under
their king Ulmil because they had walls, and governed in common the
people of Mayalpan; eighty-three years elapsed after this event, and
at the beginning of the 11th Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed by
strangers of the Uitzes or Highlanders, as was also Tancaj of
Mayalpan._
_Years 83._
_§11. In the 8th Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed; the epochs of the
6th, 4th, 2d elapsed, and at this period the Spaniards, for the
first time arrived, and gave the name of Yucatan to this province,
sixty years after the destruction of the fortress._
_Years 60._
In section 10 the 6th Ahau follows the 8th correctly, and the 4th, 2d,
13th and 11th Ahaues were passed in internal wars between Chichen-Itza
and Mayalpan. In the 11th Ahau a highland people, called Uitze (probably
Quiché), unite with the rulers of Chichen-Itza, and they then succeed in
destroying Mayalpan. In section 11 another destruction of Mayalpan is
reported. As this section begins with the 8th Ahau, and the foregoing
ended with the 11th, a gap was left which represents the (9th), (7th),
(5th), (3d), (1st), (12th) and (10th) Ahau. This gap undoubtedly means a
period of great exhaustion to both contending parties, and as a second
destruction of Mayalpan is reported in the 8th Ahau, we may fairly
assume that this city had recovered, and in making a last effort to
regain supremacy, was finally conquered. We understand the two reported
destructions of this city as the heroic and victorious effort of the
Maya race to exterminate the foreign Nahuatl invader, who, for a long
period succeeded in taking a strong foothold in the country. In the
succeeding epochs of the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahau, exhaustion from the war
and disintegration must have ensued, for such was the condition in which
the Spaniards found the Maya people in the following 13th and 11th
Ahaues, which were the last they were allowed to count.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTIONS 10 AND 11.—In the 6th, 4th, 2d
and 11th Ahaues the fortified land of Mayapan is attacked by the men
of Itza and their king Ulmil, for it had walls, and the people were
governed in a community. The place was destroyed by foreigners from
the Highlands in the 11th Ahau, and Tancaj of Mayapan was also
conquered. The correction of the reckoning gives us the 5th, 3d,
1st, 12th and 10th Ahau. We have stated that the 5th _Ahau_ began in
the year 1272, and the others were consequently 1296, 1320, 1344,
and 1368, and the 8th Ahau ended in the year 1392 A. D.
In the 8th Ahau Mayapan was destroyed, then followed the Katunes of
the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahau, in which latter the Spaniards passed by
and gave to the province the name of Yucatan. Hence, the Ahaues
begin again their regular course, though it is a contradiction to
say in the foregoing section that Mayapan had been destroyed in the
11th Ahau (corrected to the 10th _Ahau_). It would perhaps have been
better to say it had been destroyed for the second time, possibly
for the purpose of rebuilding it. The 8th Ahau began in the year
1392, the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahaues fell in the years 1416, 1440 and
1464, which last ended in the year 1488 A. D.
_§12. The 13th Ahau, 11th Ahau pestilence and small-pox were in the
castles. In the 13th Ahau chief Ajpulà died. Six years were wanting
to complete the 13th Ahau. This year was counted towards the east of
the wheel, and began on the 4th Kan. Ajpulà died on the 18th day of
the month Zip, on the 9th Imix; and that it may be known in numbers
it was the year 1536, sixty years after the demolition of the
fortress._
_§13. Before the termination of the 11th Ahau the Spaniards arrived,
holy men from the East came with them when they reached the land.
The 9th Ahau was the commencement of baptism and Christianity; and
in this year was the arrival of Toroba (Toral), the first bishop,
1544._
After the 11th section had closed with the 2d Ahau, the 12th section
correctly begins with the 13th Ahau, and the 13th and last section
closed the manuscript with the 11th Ahau, when the government of the
Mayas was brought to an end by the arrival of the Spaniards. The
particular details contained in these two sections will be discussed
hereafter.
COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTIONS 12 AND 13.—In the 13th and the
11th Ahaues pestilence and small-pox reigned. In the sixth year,
before the expiration of the 13th _Ahau_, Ajpulà died at the time
when four Katunes were counted on the east of the wheel. His death
happened on the 18th day of the month _Zip_, on the 9th day Imix.
This date is wrong according to my reckoning; for the year 4 _Cavac_
expired at the beginning and not at the end of the epoch, otherwise
it would have been the year 4 _Muluc_. In the first case, the year 4
Cavac was that of 1496, in the other case it would be the year 1506,
and never that of 1536, for in that year the 9th Ahau began.[45]
We give, besides, a recapitulation which Señor Perez himself added to
his commentary, and for which we are indebted to the kindness of the
late Dr. C. Hermann Berendt:—
“From what we have stated it will be seen that by only taking into
account the number of epochs which are mentioned in the manuscript,
and which elapsed between events, and by restoring this nomenclature
according to the progressive series of the Ahaues, it appears that
all indicated facts occur within the space of 58 epochs of 24 years
each, which makes in all 1392 years to the expiration of the 11th
Ahau. If we subtract these years from the year 1536, in which the
11th Ahau expired, 1444 A. D. remains as the year when the Toltecs
seem to have arrived to colonize the country.
But if we allow the epochs and their enumeration to stand as they
are, and in order to integrate the Ahaues in the sequence above
indicated, add those which are missing, we should find that 97
epochs, each of 24 years had passed. The sum of 2328 years,
represented by this count, is a space of time of too great magnitude
to bring into harmony with Mexican history, and would signify that
this country was 40 years older than the foundation of Rome, and 17
years older than the introduction of Greek Olympiads, which is very
improbable.
Should any hypercritical person fail to believe in the list of
epochs because their succession is incorrect, let him remember that
the list has much to render it worthy of belief, though it must be
subjected to corrections. Still less ought any one to refuse belief
in the historical statement of events. The manuscript indicates a
traditional origin common to the history of all primitive nations.
It is noticeable that no traditions exist to contradict the
manuscript, and that it is the only one thus far discovered. The
contents of the manuscript might be thus epitomized:—
1. The Toltecs occupied 4 epochs in going from their home to
Chacnouitan.
144–217 A. D.
2. They arrived there in the first year of the succeeding epoch, and
remained still 4 epochs more with their chieftain, Ajmekat Tutul
Xiu.
218–360 A. D.
3. They discovered Ziyan-Caan or Bacalar and ruled therein 3 epochs,
till they discovered Chichen-Itza.
360–432 A. D.
4. They remained at Chichen-Itza 6 epochs, till they set out to
colonize Champoton.
432–576 A. D.
5. From the discovery of Champoton, which they colonized and ruled
until they lost it, 13 epochs elapsed.
576–888 A. D.
6. They remain 2 epochs in the wilderness till they return again to
Chichen-Itza.
888–936 A. D.
7. In the following epoch Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu colonized Uxmal, and
ruled during 10 epochs in harmony with the governors of Mayapan and
Chichen.
936–1176 A. D.
8. Three other epochs pass, and in the 10th year of the following
epoch Chacxibchac, ruler of Chichen, was defeated by Hunac-eel,
ruler of Mayapan, and his captains.
1176–1258 A. D.
9. In the same epoch of the defeat of the ruler of Chichen they
marched against Ulmil, who was king in the same Chichen, because he
had waged war against Ulil, king of Izamal, which war Hunac-eel,
brought to a close in the following epoch.
1258–1572 A. D.
10. In spite of Ulmil’s defeat this ruler of Chichen planned an
invasion of Mayapan. After the lapse of 2 more epochs, and in the
third year of that which followed, Mayapan was destroyed in the year
1368 by strangers who came from the mountains.
1272–1392 A. D.
11. Besides the three named epochs, and indeed in the last of them,
the Spaniards passed along, who gave to the province the name of
Yucatan.
1392–1488 A. D.
12. In the following epoch an epidemic reigned even in the temples
and fortified places, and in the 6th year Ajpula died on the 11th of
September, 1493.
1488–1512 A. D.
13. In the 11th and last epoch (1536–1576) the conquerors arrived,
to wit: in 1527, and in the following the first Bishop came, in the
year 1541, and the conquest was completed in 1560 A. D.
* * * * *
Thus much I have been able to bring to light in this matter. But
with the help of dates, which I do not possess, and with that of the
travels you have made in our country, the information which you have
gathered must have enlarged your ideas on this subject, and I wish
you would be so kind as to communicate them to your most devoted
F. I. JUAN PIO PEREZ.
_Peto, April 2, 1842._
MR. J. LLOYD STEPHENS.”
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
It will be noticed from the text of the Manuscript, that no events are
commemorated but such as are connected with _war_. In this style also
the Nahuatl annals were drawn up. With both nations _war_ was recognized
as the only fact worthy to be kept in the memory of the coming
generations. Nor does the author state whether the country was ruled by
kings or an emperor. It is rather suggested (section 7) that the tribes
were gathered in groups, with a large town as a centre, and this town
was governed by a priest. The words _halach uinicil_, _holy men_, were
somewhat too freely interpreted with _governor_ by the translator. In
regard to the considerable gaps in the sequence of years in the
manuscript, we will not longer attribute them to a lack of memory on the
part of the author, but to the custom generally observed among the
annalists to be regardless of any work of peace performed by the nation;
and whenever the question shall be discussed, at what epoch the building
of the huge pyramids and temples took place, these dates will contribute
to the answer. Periods of peace certainly began with years of great
exhaustion; but recovery must have ensued, and the unshaken energy of
the people and their leaders must have been directed to the undertaking
of works, in which they could exhibit also their taste for pomp and
architectural achievements. The gaps, therefore, instead of casting a
shadow upon the authority and completeness of the manuscript, may rather
be thought to perform the silent office of throwing light into the
obscure past of the Maya history. As to the method, however, which we
employed in computing the omitted periods of Ahaues, we have only to say
that it grew out from the nature of the Maya enumeration itself. The two
ends of the interrupted series being given, the number of the
intervening Ahaues could be easily supplied.
What now remains is, to discover for the restored and completed series
of Ahaues the corresponding chronological expressions in our era. We
find the total Ahau periods mentioned in the annals were 50. We have
thought it necessary to complete twenty more periods, so that we have
seventy periods (20×70), or 1400 years. As soon therefore as we know in
which year of our era the last or 13th Ahau mentioned in the manuscript
fell, we can, by reckoning backward, find the years date of the first
Ahau mentioned, to wit: the 8th Ahau, and also determine the dates and
events of each of all the other intervening Ahaues. The manuscript
fortunately affords us the necessary material for determining with
incontestable certainty the years date of the last 13th Ahau. It is the
following: we read in the 12th section that Chief Ajpulà died in a year
when there were still six years wanting before the expiration of the
13th Ahau, and that the year of his decease was 1536 A. D.
According to this statement the 13th Ahau ended with the year 1542.
Bishop Landa (see §41 of his Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan) confirms
the correctness of the above calculation, though he says that the 13th
Ahau expired with the year 1541. Landa undoubtedly selects this date of
June 10th, 1541, as that of the last decisive victory at T’ho over the
Indians, while the author of the manuscript may have had in mind the
date when Mérida was officially incorporated as the capital, and a
dependency of the Spanish crown, which was January 6, 1542.[46] If we
subtract the total number of Ahaues already obtained, and amounting to
1400 years, from the year 1542, we obtain for the first epoch named in
the manuscript which is the 8th Ahau, or the starting of the conquerors
from Tulapan, the years 142–162 of our modern Christian era.