Chapter III: Part 3

This is all we could learn about the Manuscript, nor have we been able to form a supposition, much less to discover in the text itself any clue to the source from which the unknown Maya author could have drawn his data. At the end of the Manuscript Señor Perez gives his opinion that the whole was written from memory, because it must have been done long after the conquest, and after Bishop Landa had publicly destroyed much of the historical picture-writing of the Mayas by an _auto-da-fé_, and because the whole narration is so concise and condensed that it appears more like an index than a circumstantial description of events.

These opinions of Señor Perez might cast a well grounded suspicion on the authenticity of the manuscript. We shall try to remove such doubts, at once, by presenting the following considerations. We do not believe that Bishop Landa succeeded in burning the entire treasures of Maya literature at the notorious _auto-da-fé_ in the town of Mani in 1561. The authorities[32] to which we have access describe the number of the destroyed objects so precisely that we have every reason to confide in their correctness. We read of 5,000 idols of different size and form, 13 large altar stones, 22 smaller stones, 197 vessels of every form and size, and lastly of 27 rolls (_sic_) on deerskin covered with signs and hieroglyphics, given to destruction at that time and place. We may believe that the terrorism exercised by Bishop Landa had a powerful influence on the minds and on the newly converted consciences of the natives, and the Bishop no doubt used every possible means to get into his hands as much as he could of what he considered to be “cabalistic signs and invocations to the devil.” But we can never believe that these 27 rolls represented the entire Maya literature, collected for hundreds of years with the greatest care and held sacred by the natives. Such a wholesale destruction would have been an impossibility. We could refer to a similar occurrence that took place in Mexico; and though Bishop Zumarraga has the bad reputation of having destroyed all the picture treasures of the Nahuatls by an _auto-da-fé_, there were notwithstanding so many of them in existence soon after his time in the possession of native families that Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and others, were able to build up their detailed accounts of the primitive history of their country from these original sources. Possibly numbers of them may have been preserved among the Maya tribes, for only under such favorable conditions could Cogolludo, Villagutierre and Lizana have obtained the valuable information and material which form the chief interest of their labors and researches, and which enabled also Pio Perez in the year 1835, to discover material from which to interpret so complete a description of the system of Maya chronology. Nay, even, we have a suspicion that Bishop Landa may have laid aside the most important part of these records, or what was the most intelligible to him, for we cannot comprehend how he would have been able without these pictures before his eyes to present in his work the symbols for the days so correctly, and also those for the months, or how otherwise he could have written his work in Spain, so far removed from all sources of information and from consultation with the natives.

No reason, therefore, exists why the Maya author should not have remained in possession of some painting, which exhibited the annals of his forefathers. If, however, he was compelled to write his “Series of Katunes” from memory, there is no reason for not relying on the accuracy of his retentive faculties alone. The noble Indians, and he belonged undoubtedly to this class, were very particular in training their sons to learn by heart songs expressing the glorious deeds of their ancestors. It is a fact attested by the Spanish chroniclers, that these songs were recited publicly in the temples and on solemn religious occasions. They were the only kind of positive knowledge with which we know the brains of the Indian pupils were burdened. In either case, therefore, the accuracy of the written Maya report needs not be doubted, at least not on the grounds alleged. Had it been composed in the Spanish language instead of Maya, we should have viewed this circumstance with a more critical eye. But as the native under Spanish rule expressed it in his native language, this kind of loyalty appears to us to give a certain warranty of dealing with a man who described the traditions of his oppressed race, and who wished to perpetuate its memory by handing down to posterity the principal events of the past history of his nation.

At this place, we should not like to omit pointing out an interesting suggestion which the clear headed and sagacious author, Señor Eligio Ancona[33] made in his before mentioned work, that Bishop Landa and the author of the Manuscript agree so often in their mention of historic dates, in the manner as well as the matter, as to lead to the idea that both drew their information from the same source. Whatever be its origin, we agree with the views of Señor Perez, that, in spite of the deficiency and breaks occurring in the Manuscript, it deserves critical attention as the only document thus far discovered that gives information of the early history of Yucatan.

ELEMENTS OF MAYA CHRONOLOGY.

It is impossible to understand the Manuscript before obtaining a knowledge of the division of time prevalent in Yucatan before the Spanish Conquest. Señor Perez has the incontestable merit of having been the first to lay before the world not only the chief points of the system but also all the technical details. Before his time but little was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic works of Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn only that the Mayas, in conformity with the Mexicans, held that the solar year was composed of 360 days, and when these were passed they added 5 days more as a correction. We are told that both nations divided their years into 18 months, and their months into twenty days each. As to the longer periods of time, however, we hear of certain differences. While the Mexicans had an epoch of 52 years which they divided into 4 smaller periods, the so called _Tlapilli_, each of 13 years, the Mayas counted a great epoch of 260 years, the so called _Ahau Katun_, subdivided into 13 smaller periods each of 20 years, with the simple name _Ahau_. This period of 20 years was according to Cogolludo[34] subdivided again into what he calls _lustra_ of 5 years each, but he does not give the native name of this division.

The discovery of the Manuscript, no doubt, induced Señor Perez to make a systematic and detailed sketch of the early native chronology of his country. We shall mention only the most interesting and important of his details and refer the reader for the rest to Stephens’ work already mentioned. The names of the 20 days in the month are as follows:—

1 Kan.
2 Chicchan.
3 Quimij.
4 Manik.
5 Lamat.
6 Muluc.
7 Oc.
8 Chuen.
9 Eb.
10 Been.
11 Gix.
12 Men.
13 Quib.
^114 Caban.
^215 Edznab.
^316 Cavac.
^417 Ahau.
^518 Ymix.
^619 Yx.
^720 Akbal.

The 18 months were as follows:—

1 Pop (16th of July.)
2 Uoo (5th of August)
3 Zip (25th of August).
4 Zodz (14th of September).
5 Zeec (4th of October).
6 Xal (24th of October).
7 Dze-yaxkin (13th of November).
8 Mol (3d of December).
9 Dchen (23d of December).
10 Yaax (12th of January).
11 Zae (1st of February).
12 Quej (21st of February).
13 Mac (13th of March).
14 Kankin (2d of April).
15 Moan (22d of April).
16 Pax (12th of May).
17 Kayab (1st of June).
18 Cumkū (21st of June).

As the table shows their year began with the first day of the month Pop, which corresponded to the 16th of July in our calendar, when, as Señor Perez observes, the sun was almost vertical over the Peninsula. The day itself was called _Kin_, Sun, the month _U_, Moon, and the 5 intercalary days were called nameless days, _Xona-Kaba-Kin_, not-name-Sun.

In the arrangement of their yearly calendar the Mayas proceeded as follows: Like the Mexicans they used a combination of the numbers 1 to 13, with the names of the 20 days of the month. They called the first day of the month Pop (our 16 July) 1 Kan, the second 2 Chicchan, the third 3 Quimij, and so on. The fourteenth day was called 1 Caban, the fifteenth 2 Edznab, and the last or twentieth day 7 Akbal. The first day of the second month followed in correct numerical sequence with the name 8 Kan, the second with the name 9 Chicchan. Thus repeating the 20 names of the days with the above combination of numbers from 1 to 13 they reached the 360th day with the name 9 Akbal. Then followed the intercalary week of 5 days bearing the names 10 Kan, 11 Chicchan, 12 Cimij, 13 Manik, and 1 Lamat.

The second year begins with 2 Muluc. In the same manner going on with the combination the first day of the third year was 3 Hix, then followed 4 Cavac, 9 Kan, 10 Muluc, 11 Hix, 12 Cavac, 13 Kan, 1 Muluc, 2 Hix, and so on. At the end of the 52d year the above-mentioned combination was exhausted, for the 53d year began again with the day 1 Kan.

─────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────────┬─────┬────── Names of │Pop. │Uoo. │Zip. │Zodz.│Zeec.│Xul. │Dze-yaxkin.│Mol. │Dchen. the │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Months. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Names of │ 1│ 2│ 3│ 4│ 5│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9 the Days.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───────────┼─────┼────── Kan, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5 Chicchau,│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6 Quimij, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7 Manik, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8 Lamat, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9 Muluc, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10 Oc, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11 Chuen, │ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12 Eb, │ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13 Been, │ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1 Gix, │ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2 Men, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3 Quib, │ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4 Caban, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5 Edznab, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6 Cavac, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7 Ahau, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8 Ymix, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9 Yk, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10 Akbal, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11 ─────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───────────┴─────┴──────

─────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────┬─────┬─────┬──────┬────── Names of │Yeax.│Zac. │Quej.│Mac. │Kankin.│Moan.│Pax. │Kayab.│Cumkū. the │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Months. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Names of │ 10│ 11│ 12│ 13│ 14│ 15│ 16│ 17│ 18 the Days.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼────── Kan, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3 Chicchau,│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4 Quimij, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5 Manik, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6 Lamat, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7 Muluc, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8 Oc, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9 Chuen, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10 Eb, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11 Been, │ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12 Gix, │ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13 Men, │ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1 Quib, │ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2 Caban, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3 Edznab, │ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4 Cavac, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5 Ahau, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6 Ymix, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7 Yk, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8 Akbal, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9 ─────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───────┴─────┴─────┴──────┴──────

The following year must begin with 2 Muluc.

Each week had 5 days│Kan 10
│Chicchan 11
│Quimij 12
│Manik 13
│Lamat 1

It is to be observed here that this arrangement of a calendar of epochs agrees with that in use in the interior of Mexico. There, the numbers from 1 to 13 were combined with four names, Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli and Acatl, which they had taken, like the Mayas, from the names for the 20 days of the month; and both calendars represent the first days of their weeks of five days as occurring upon the 1st, 6th, 11th and 16th days of the month. From this system Señor Perez arrives at the division into great epochs of 52 years used in Mexico as well as in Yucatan. This statement appears hazardous in the highest degree when compared with the statements made by the before-mentioned authorities. They claim for Yucatan an epoch of 20 and 260 years respectively; and Landa, who wrote with the first impressions of the conquest still fresh in his mind, and whose information came directly from the natives themselves, agrees with them. Without doubt Señor Perez must have been aware of this contradiction. After he had developed in §7 the so-called epoch of the Mayas of 52 years he makes us acquainted with this national Maya epoch, though, as we shall presently learn, he disagrees with the Maya writers as to the time of its duration. His statement is: §8. “The Yucatecans, besides the great cycle of 52 years, employed still another great cycle, which had reference to certain portions of it, in order to date the main epoch, and the most notable events of their history. Each of these cycles contained 13 periods, of 24 years each, making together 312 years. Each period, or _Ahau-Katun_ was divided into two parts. The first of these parts of 20 years was enclosed in a square (_sic_), and was called on that account _amaytun_, _lamayte_ or _lamaytun_. The second part of 4 years formed, so to speak, a pedestal for the first part, and was called _chek oc Katun_, or _lath oc Katun_, which signifies a _chair_ or pedestal. These years were considered intercalary, and were held to be unlucky years. They were called _u yail Jaab_, and the same was the case with the 5 intercalary days to which they corresponded. The separation of the 20 years from the following 4 years gave rise to the erroneous idea that the _Ahaues_ consisted of twenty years only, an error which has prevailed almost universally among those who have written upon this subject. But if they had counted the years which compose a period, and had taken notice of the positive declarations of the manuscript to the effect that the _Ahaues_ consisted of 24 years divided as above stated, they would not have misled their readers on this point.”

Señor Perez continues:—

“It is an incontrovertible fact that those Maya periods, epochs or ages, took their name from _Ahau Katun_, for they began to be counted from the day which bore the name _Ahau_, the second day of those years, which began with the name _Cavac_. But as these days and numbers were taken from years which had run their course, the periods of 24 years could never maintain an arithmetical order, but succeeded each other according to the following arrangement of numbers: 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. As the Indians considered the number 13 the initial number, it is probable that some remarkable event had happened in that year, because, when the Spaniards arrived in the Peninsula, the Indians then counted the 8th as the 1st, that being the date at which their ancestors came to settle there; and an Indian writer proposed that they should abandon that order also, and begin counting from the 11th, solely because the Conquest had happened in that Ahau. Now, if the 13th Ahau Katun began on a second day of the year, it must be that year which began on 12 Cavac, and the 12th of the series. The 11th Ahau would commence in the year of 10 Cavac, which occurred after a period of 24 years, and so on with the rest; taking notice that after the lapse of years we come to the respective number marked in the course of the Ahaues which is placed first; proving that they consisted of 24, and not, as some have believed, of 20 years.”

From the heading (§8), “_Of the Great Cycle of 312 years, or Ahau Katunes_,” as well as of the text just quoted, it is apparent that Señor Perez intended to establish the fact that the ancient Maya cycles were composed of 24 and 312 years respectively. He does so in manifest contradiction to the prevalent opinion that they consisted of 20 and 260 years. We do not understand the reasons why he should have come to this conclusion. It grew out neither from the facts alleged nor from the connection into which he wove them together. The peculiar circumstance of having, in his commentary references, four years intercalated in succession to the usual cycle of twenty years, and included in a square, to serve as a “_pedestal_” to the former, is not capable of shedding new light upon the question and causing us to distrust authorities on which we were accustomed to rely. The other reason, which stands second in his order of forming premises for his conclusion, is said to be the undeniable fact, that those periods took their name of _Ahau Katun_, because they began to be counted from the day Ahau, which was the second day of those years that began in _Cavac_. Of this incontrovertible fact the readers are not elsewhere informed. The information, however, which we are able to give is that according to all we have been able to gather on the Maya Calendar, a period, or a single year, commencing with a day named _Ahau_, has never existed in their system of counting. They always commenced it with the words _Kan_, _Muluc_, _Hix_, _Cavac_. If there existed any exceptional ground for changing an old established method of dating, the reason should have been stated, for it is preposterous to assume that the first day of a great cyclical period should have taken its name from any other day of the year’s calendar than from the four above named. Nor do we understand the reason why, just here, the topic of the succession of the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, was introduced. Could it have been with the intention of showing that this singular enumeration of alternating _Ahaues_, which we shall hereafter speak of, occurred only in cycles of 24 years, and that therefrom a proof might be derived for establishing the pretended cycle of 24 and 312 years? Evidence of this should have been given by a table showing the series, and by still another table in which should be shown that such an alternating succession did not occur in cycles composed of 20 years. Not one single fact can be detected in Señor Perez’s text, by which the long established assumption of a 20 years’ cycle has been disproved.

Nevertheless, the data which we possess of the ancient Maya Calendar are not so complete as to disprove emphatically that a cycle of 24 and 312 years respectively was never used by the Maya chronologers.

Without doubt, Yucatan owed its ancient greatness to the success of uniting a rude and scattered population around a number of theocratical centres, where similar forms of worship were maintained. Though the ancient records are wanting, this feature of the Maya system stands out upon the background of dim traditions with great distinctness. After this concentration of tribes, and with the view of regulating worship, a uniform calendar would have been introduced, the main features of which would probably have been a solar year of 365 days, the division of the year into 20 months, and a cyclical period of 20 and 260 years respectively. In the middle of the 11th century great tribal revolutions took place on the high plateaus of Anahuac, by which the lowlands of Yucatan were also affected. An adventurous tribe of the Nahuatl stock possessed itself of one of the principal towns of Yucatan and established its influence and power. Mayapan became the centre of Nahuatl worship. The calendar the invaders brought with them must have been the old honored division of the years into 365 days, with 20 months, and their cyclical period of not 20 but 52 years, and it is also known that about the year 1450, the political union of the Mayas was broken into several smaller divisions, some of which presumably would have held to the ancient cycle of 20 years; others may have adopted the Nahuatl cycle of 52 years, and possibly, may have introduced the cycle of 24 years spoken of by Señor Perez. Political schism was likely to have generated also a hierarchical one, and each newly formed body of priests, in whose hands the custody and composition of annals fell, would have sought to distinguish themselves from their predecessors by innovations, if only of a formal character. Such changes we also observe among the Nahuatls in Anahuac. The period of 52 years, however, seems to have constantly prevailed among them, and also the divisions of the 365 days into 18 months of 20 days each.

We find, for instance, that one of the Nahuatl tribes begins its annals with December 9, another selects December 26, another January 9, and others January 12, February 4, and February 22. We also know that a different calculation prevailed among these tribes in beginning their annals. The State of Colhuacan began its chronology with a year 1 _Calli_, the State of Mexico with 2 _Acatl_, others with 1 _Tochtli_, and seemingly the most ancient calculation began with the year 1 _Tecpatl_. Thus we have a historical basis for our assertion that the Nahuatl as well as the Maya tribes did not conform to a uniform rule in beginning their first year’s date, in their chronological epochs, or in the division of their cyclical epochs.

In spite of this diversity, so perplexing to modern chronologists, the Aztecs and the Mayas were both governed by the same general principle in arranging their calendars. Both nations recognized the fact that in the past their solar year had numbered only 360 days; and they preserved in the words nemotemi and xona-kaba-kin, the remembrance of a not to be forgotten effort exerted by their ancestors to correct the primordial solar year of 360 days into one of 365 days. Both nations conscientiously kept on dividing the year into 18 months, and each of the months into 20 days, and with both the number 13 returns as a basis governing the calendar of years as well as that of periods.[35]

We notice, moreover, that both nations omit to count the 20 days of the month in the succession of the figures 1–20, but after the thirteenth day they again begin with the number 1, and the 20th day therefore was figured with the number 7, and also that the Mexicans counted their smallest period with 13 years, the so-called _tlapilli_, and upon its quadruple the cycle of 52 years was based. The lesser Maya or _Ahau_ period is 20 years, while the greater or _Ahau Katun_ is 260 years or 13 times the smaller. Señor Perez’s lesser period of 24, and the greater one of 312 years show the same method and calculation (13 × 24 = 312).

This conformity between the early calendars of Central America should not escape the observation of the future historical enquirer. He will be compelled to adopt a very remote period of time when both nations, differing so entirely in their language, dwelt in peace, connected by the strong bands of a hierarchical power. One of these two nations, it is clear, must have invented it. Hence the question arises, was it original with the immigrating Nahuatl tribes who came from the higher northern countries as is reported, and did they succeed in forming such a consolidation with the Maya races as to mingle both under the same hierarchical government, or did the contrary take place? The most prevalent opinion makes the Nahuas the inventors of the general system of chronology, but later students begin to express themselves in favor of its Maya origin. On a more fitting occasion we are desirous to present our reasons for taking the latter view.

Before passing from these chronological speculations to the discussion of the Maya Manuscript, we wish to state briefly our idea of the origin of the system of reckoning by alternating Ahaues. [See page 66]. We promised to return to this subject, and shall now endeavor to give a solution to this chronological problem differing from that of Señor Perez. A passage in Bishop Landa’s work, determined our decision. After a previous and positive assertion that the lesser Ahau period consisted of 20 years, Landa continues, ... “The order in which they computed their dates and made their prophecies by the aid of this computation (of 20 years) was arrived at by having two idols, dedicated to two of these characters (_Ahaues_). To the first idol, which stands with a cross marked above the circle, they paid homage by making him offerings and sacrifices, in order to obtain an immunity from the calamities to come in these 20 years, but after ten of these years had passed they offered nothing but incense and worship. When the twenty years of the first were fully passed they began to occupy themselves with the presages of their second idol and to offer sacrifices to him, having taken away their first idol to replace it by the second, in order to worship it in the coming ten years.”[36]

AHAU KATUN.

[Above we give a reproduction of a Maya Ahau Katun wheel taken from
that in Landa’s “Las cosas de Yucatan,” § XL., in order that his
explanation may be understood.]
]

“The Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards arrived at the City of Mérida in the year of the nativity of our Lord and Master 1541, which was precisely the first year of _Buluc Ahau_ (11 Ahau), the same that we find placed at the top of the instrument[37] below the cross, and which also indicates that they arrived in the month _Pop_, which is the first in their year. Had the Spaniards not come as they did, then they would have placed the Idol of _Bolon Ahau_ (9 Ahau), offering homage to it, and continuing to refer to the prognostics of _Buluc Ahau_, till the year 1561; and then they would take it from the temple and put in its place that of _Vuc Ahau_ (7 Ahau), all the while continuing to refer to the prognostics of _Buluc Ahau_, for ten years more, and the same with the others until the tour was made. In this way they made up their Katuns of twenty and ten years, worshipping them according to their superstitions and juggleries, which were in such great numbers that there were more than enough to deceive that simple people, and there is reason for astonishment when one knows what kind of things in nature and experience belong to the Demon.”

Whoever is acquainted with the awkwardness and literary negligence of Landa’s writing will not be astonished that in his statement he left out something which a more careful writer would have expressed, and placed at the head of his explanation. The wanting statement, however, can be supplied. It will be noticed that Landa in his text only refers to two Ahau Idols worshipped in the temple. But this number must have been 13, as is evident from the 3d Idol _Vuc Ahau_, mentioned afterwards in the statement with which he finished his description, in order not to always repeat the same thing of the ten other idols which are painted on the wheel. Let us then take the statement of Landa supplemented by what we have said above as to the questionable nomenclature of these Ahaues as they appear in the row of numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. Landa’s description gives us to understand that the lapse of twenty years was always required before the new combination of two idols was presented to the worshippers, and which had not before been seen in the temple in company with the former Idols. For example: When Idol 3 was placed in the temple, Idol 2 took a first place among the worshippers. Indeed, Idol 2 was in the temple with Idol 1, but Idol 3 was not with Idol 1, nor Idol 4 with Idol 2. If such a combination repeating itself after 20 years, represented a space of time familiar to the Mayas, it is natural that it should receive the name Ahau or period of the _god_,[38] and that it should receive its name from the number of the Idol presiding at the expiration of this space of 20 years. If therefore in the rotation of the circle Idols 2 and 3 passed out of the temple, the combination, or what is the same, the space of 20 years, during which they had ornamented the temple will have borne the name 2 _Ahau_, on the ground that Idol 2 had preceded it. The second combination, then, would follow when the presidency of Idol 4 would have finished its term, and in this way the row 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, may have had its origin.

Now, it is true that the order in which these numbers stand is different from that transmitted to us, which begins with 13 and is followed by 11 and 9. The reverse of this method of reckoning may possibly be accounted for in this way: An epoch unknown to us may have occurred when the Maya chroniclers desired to review past events and bring them into order. Counting backwards from such a date they would have called the first period of twenty years not the 13th, nor, according to our above statement, the 1st, but the 2d Ahau. Consequently the period after the expiration of the great cycles of 260 years would have been called the 13th Ahau, though properly speaking it should have been the 2d Ahau. An historical epoch for such reckoning backward is known to have occurred. It occurred again in the year 1542, when the conquest of Yucatan by the Spaniards took place. It appears that the Mayas in that year declared their 13th Ahau period to be at an end, from 1522 to 1542; consequently a back reckoning, according to this system of the Mayas, gave a 2d Ahau for the period of 1502–22, a 4th Ahau for that of 1482–1502, and going on in the same way of reckoning the year 1282 would have represented the expiration of the 13th _Ahau_.

The circle of Landa exemplifies this manner of counting. He starts from the 13th Ahau, counting from left to right. But if we count in the opposite direction we should obtain the row of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, &c., as we have shown above. If we refer to the striking discovery on the Mexican Calendar stone[39] that the days upon that circle are not counted towards the right but towards the left, and generalize it as a rule to be adopted also for the chronological cycles of the Mayas, we should come to the conclusion that the Mayas in some of their former chronological epochs counted their Ahaues in that natural order. Who shall say that the reversed counting did not originate from a misunderstanding on the part of the Spaniards? We do not claim to have finally disposed of the question. Every new attempt will be a welcome addition to the cause, for each new investigator is obliged to descend deeper into the dark mine where Maya history lies buried.

SEÑOR PEREZ’S TRANSLATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

Señor Perez is thus far the only interpreter of the Maya Manuscript, and his Spanish text found a skilful translator in Mr. John L. Stephens. Neither the Spanish text nor the special chronological analysis of each paragraph composed by Señor Perez, have hitherto been made public; we owe the possession of both these documents to the kindness of our friend, Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt, lately deceased, who, during his long residence in Yucatan, was occupied in amassing a large collection of matters relating to Maya literature and history, in original form or in authentic copies. In comparing the Spanish with the English translations, it seems that many things, not clear in the first, had been made more intelligible in the last. It is evident that Señor Perez sought to translate the Maya text as literally and faithfully as he could into the Spanish language, otherwise his text would have been more fluent and finished. The abruptness of expression, and the frequent ellipses in the construction of its sentences, show that the Maya idiom has been faithfully rendered. Such a course increases the interest, and at the same time it creates confidence in the correctness of the translation. Dr. Berendt, the profound scholar of the Maya language, wrote us as follows on March 14, 1873: “I have several times undertaken to translate this manuscript myself, but have always given up the task. The manifold doubts which the original text leaves open seem to me correctly solved by Señor Perez, and it always appeared to me that I might indeed make another but not a better translation. The small changes in the text of Stephens, of which you speak, I do not believe were introduced merely from a love of his own expressions. I believe that he first came to an understanding with Perez, and sought only to assist the better comprehension of the manuscript for the benefit of the public at large.”

It is to be hoped that the differences of translation of the manuscript spoken of above, and to which Señor Eligio Ancona[40] draws attention, will be critically investigated and finally decided by the coming generation of scholars in Yucatan. The sons of the country should be the born judges of the language and the spirit of the literary relics of the indigenous race. Recent investigations have shown that this language was split into sixteen dialects, which were spoken by as many tribes, whose territories extended far beyond the present area of the Yucatecan peninsula.[41] Like all languages, these Maya idioms have undergone changes during the last three or four centuries. To understand and explain their now obsolete elements, must be left exclusively to the native scholar.

DISCUSSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

It will now be our task to endeavor to clear away such doubts as may arise in regard to the chronological interpretation of the Maya Manuscript. These doubts have reference, first, to the choice of the method to be pursued in reckoning the Ahaues either at 24 or at 20 years. Second, as to the manner of filling up certain gaps which the author has left open in the chronological sequence of the Ahau period; and finally, after building again this chronological structure in its logical order, we must adapt the dates expressed in Ahaues to the current language of our Christian chronological era.

In order to avoid troublesome reference to the text of the preceding pages, we shall repeat the English translation, and for better convenience, shall present two or more sections together. To demonstrate Señor Perez’s system and method of counting, we shall give the translation of the Spanish text, as communicated by Dr. Berendt, without undertaking to make any special criticisms of it.

_This is the series of Katuns that elapsed from the time of their
separation from the land and house of Nonoual, in which were the
four Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina, going out of the country
of Tulapan._

With these few words the Maya author states his purpose. He wishes to enumerate the Katuns or periods of time from the beginning of the history of his nation to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors. He tells us that his nation lived in a land called Tulapan, which was westerly from another called Zuina, and that from thence, under the lead of four chiefs, the Tutul Xiu, they had immigrated into this new country, Yucatan.

[Map showing the movement of the Mayas as stated in the Manuscript.]
]

By Tutul Xiu the author evidently means the name of the reigning family, which, at the arrival of the Spaniards, were considered as the ancient rulers and hereditary lords of Chichen-Itza.[42] In regard to the countries referred to by the names Tulapan and Zuina, we can only say that in Central American traditions the name Tulapan oftentimes returns under the form of Tulan. Thus, for example, the Quichés and Cakchiqueles, sister nations of the Mayas, make mention of the above countries in their annals.[43] Upon a closer examination of the text, contained in the so-called “Popol Vuh,” we were unable to detect any grounds for the assumption that these countries or places lay in a distant orient. They probably will turn out to have been, or by the annalists were thought to have been, situated on the northern boundaries of Mexico, on a route of migration ending with the high plateaus of Guatemala.

_§1. Four epochs were spent in travelling before they arrived here
with Holon Chantepeuh and his followers. When they began their
journey towards this island, it was the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th
and 2d were spent in travelling, because in the 1st year of the 13th
Ahau they arrived at this island, making together eighty-one years
they were travelling between their departure from their country and
their arrival at this island of Chacnouitan. These are 81 years._

We learn that four Ahau periods had passed the 8th, 6th, 4th and 2d before the wanderers arrived with their leader, Holon Chantepeuh, at the island of Chacnouitan. In the following 13th Ahau they are said to have been already settled there. It is of the highest importance to note that the Maya author here acknowledges that he reckoned each Ahau period as 20 years, and he remains faithful to this method to the end of the manuscript. By this fact alone, we should be compelled to follow the division of 20 years thus established, even if in contradiction to the statements of other chroniclers, which fortunately is not the case.

As the author treats of the affairs of the Tutul Xiu or the so-called Itza race, and attributes to them the discovery and colonization of Yucatan, it is highly probable that he made use of the annals of the Itzaes, and that they were arranged in periods of just 20 years. If we should be right in this assumption the 20–year period must be regarded as the most ancient ever used in Yucatan.

We cannot fully agree with Señor Perez and his countrymen that the author intended to designate the peninsula of Yucatan when he speaks of the Island of Chacnouitan. This name appears for the first and only time in this manuscript. It is generally acknowledged that the name had never previously been heard of.[44] We should state that the words of the text are always _nay ti petene Chacnouitan_. If in Maya _peten_ meant only a peninsula, we should take no exceptions. But the fundamental meaning of _peten_ is an island, and as the demonstrative pronoun _nay_ means as well “of this place” as “of that place,” the translation could as well stand for “that distant island.” Whether the island was situated in the ocean or in any of the many inland lakes, the probabilities seem to lie with the latter supposition, for they came by land. Had they come by sea, tradition would have dwelt with some characteristic remark upon such an exceptional case. From the following paragraph it will become still more evident that the Chacnouitan discovered by the Itzaes was neither the whole nor the northern part of Yucatan, but a district situated in the southwest of the peninsula.

_§2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th Ahau, in the 2d Ahau arrived Ajmekat
Tutul Xiu, and ninety-nine years they remained in Chacnouitan—years
99._

_§3. In this time also took place the discovery of the Province of
Ziyan-caan or Bacalar; the 4th Ahau and the 2d Ahau and the 13th
Ahau, or sixty years they had ruled in Ziyan-caan when_ THEY CAME
HERE. _During these years of their government of the Province of
Bacalar occurred the discovery of the Province of Chichen-Itza.
These are years 60._

As the first section closed with the arrival at Chacnouitan, which took place upon the 2d Ahau, it was to be expected that the second section would continue the sequence of Ahaues so as to connect with the necessarily following 13th Ahau. But we see that it begins with the 8th Ahau, follows with the 6th and closes with the 2d Ahau.

Before taking notice of the accounts given in these two paragraphs let 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._