In the third Book of Chumayel, paragraphs 5 and 6, Brinton translates “Can ahau u katunil” as “The fourth ahau katun” instead of “Katun 4 Ahau.” In paragraph 7 “Uaxac ahau u katunil” is translated “The eighth ahau katun” instead of “Katun 8 Ahau” (note here that this is the same “8 Ahau,” when Chichen Itza was deserted for Champoton). Also “Oxlahun ahau u katunil” is translated “In the thirteenth ahau katun” instead of “Katun 13 Ahau.” Also “Buluc ahau u kaba u katunil” is here translated “it was the eleventh ahau katun,” while in paragraph 3 a similar sentence is translated “4 Ahau was the name of the katun.” Thus an ahau katun is not mentioned in the Books of Chilan Balam in spite of Brinton’s translation, and neither is it mentioned by Landa, in spite of Brasseur de Bourbourg’s insertions. In fact the only evidence of it is the assertion of Don Pio Perez. I do not mean to say that the period of 6 × 52 years = 312 years may not have had a name, nor that “ahau katun” may not be the name of some period, but so far we have no trustworthy contemporary evidence of either of these statements.