Chapter IV: Part 4

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.

Of all the dates calculated from the manuscript only that of 1542 is well established from a historical point of view, as that when Mérida was declared the future capital of the conquered country. It is represented by the last year of the 13th Ahau. A second date and event, that of the final destruction of Mayapan, is mentioned by Cogolludo, who places it about the year 1420 A. D., which would give (see table, page 96) a 12th or a 10th _Ahau_ period. But the manuscript in §11 gives _Vaxac Ahau_, or the 8th _Ahau_, which according to our computation represents the years between 1442 and 1462. Landa agrees with this statement (Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, §IX., page 52). “_It is now 120 years since Mayapan was destroyed._” Landa wrote in the year 1566, therefore, in his conception Mayapan was destroyed in 1446, which year falls correctly in the 8th _Ahau_.

Landa’s account agrees also with another event mentioned in the manuscript, the wanderings of the Itzaes 40 years in the wilderness before they settled down at Uxmal and Mayapan, in the 6th and 4th Ahau, which is in our calculation from 942–982 A. D. Landa, however, does not fix the year (Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, §VIII., page 46). In §VIII., page 49, he likewise speaks of a king of the tribes of Cocomes, hostile to the Itzaes, who kept a Mexican garrison in Mayapan. This is an allusion to the seven Mayalpanes mentioned in the manuscript (in §8), all of whom have Mexican (Nahuatl) names. There also the year is not given. However, his confirmation of so early events in Maya history appears to be of high value.

It is fortunate that the manuscript just in the middle of its narration exhibits a long succession of Ahau periods without any gaps at all. We can count through sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, thirty-one _Ahau_ periods or 620 _years_ of uninterrupted history. They represent, according to our calculation, the epochs from the years 682–1302 A. D., or from the taking of Champoton to the first destruction of Mayapan by the assistance of the foreign Uitzes. This compact period of time touches a very remote epoch in the history of the civilized nations of Central America. It reaches backwards to an epoch when in Europe, Pepin D’Heristal and his family laid the foundation to their future ascendancy on the throne of France. If we look still further backward in our table, we notice another long period of time (sections 3 and 4) which represents the sum of eight uninterrupted Ahaues, equal to 160 years. The connection of these two great periods was re-established by the interpolation of the three Ahaues, 8, 10 and 12 in section 5, a correction for which there should be not the least question. Groping our way, we should reach the epochs when Bacalar was founded, with a date as early as between 462 and 482 A. D. At this point we are no longer able to follow the conquerors on their route. The location of Bacalar is well known to us, but that of Chacnouitan and Tulapan has escaped our investigation. Notwithstanding, by the aid of the quoted Ahaues we are able to fix the time for the long rest and residence in Chacnouitan, and for their remote starting from Tulapan. It comprises the epochs backwards from the year 462 to that of 162, and since the text reports that eighty years were spent in the migration, we are entitled to fix the time for the arrival in the peninsula with the year 242 A. D. It is of significance for our purpose, that this settling on the peninsula can be computed with the year 242 A. D. It represents, as will be seen, the 13th Ahau, a date always assumed by the Maya chronologists as one with which they designate the commencement of a new cycle.

The following table contains a chronological translation of the Ahaues as they correspond with the years of our Christian era. Accordingly, the historical events would correspond to the following dates of our Christian era:—

═══════════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTIONS OF│ AHAUES.
THE │
MANUSCRIPT.│
───────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
§ 1 │8, 6, 4, 2. Passed in the migration of the conquerors
│ from Tulapan, = 162, 182, 202, 222.
§ 2 │(13), (11), (9), Their stay in Chacnouitan, = 242, 262,
│ (7), (5), (3), 282, 302, 322, 342, 362, 382, 402, 422,
│ (1), (12), 442.
│ (10), 8, 6.
§ 3 │(4) 2, 13. They take Bacalar, = 462, 482, 502.
§ 4 │11, 9, 7, 5, 3, Settlement at Chichen-Itza and its
│ 1. destruction, = 522, 542, 562, 582, 602,
│ 622.
§ 5 │(12), (10), (8). En route for Champoton, = 642, 662, 682.
do. │6, 4, 2, 13, 11, In Champoton, = 702, 722, 742, 762, 782,
│ 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 802, 822, 842, 862, 882, 902, 922, 942.
│ 12, 10, 8.
§ 6 │6, 4. They lose Champoton twice, = 962, 982.
§ 7 │2, 13, 11, 9, 7, Uxmal, Mayapan and Chichen-Itza in
│ 5, 3, 1, 12, league, = 1002, 1022, 1042, 1062, 1082,
│ 10. 1102, 1122, 1142, 1162, 1182.
§§ 8 and 9 │8. The war between Chichen-Itza and Mayapan,
│ = 1182–1202.
§10 │6, 4, 2, 13, 11. The war continues; the Uitzes help in the
│ destruction of Mayapan, = 1222, 1242,
│ 1262, 1282, 1302.
§11 │(9), (7), (5), Mayapan destroyed again, = 1322, 1342,
│ (3), (1), (12), 1362, 1382, 1402, 1422, 1442, 1462.
│ (10), 8.
do. │6, 4, 2. The Spaniards make their appearance in
│ Yucatan, = 1482, 1502, 1522.
§§ 12 and │13. Beginning of the propagation of
13 │ Christianity, = 1542.
═══════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

It will be noticed that the result obtained by our computation is almost identical with that of Señor Perez. In his conception the manuscript comprises the epoch from 144–1536 A. D.; in ours, that from 142–1542. A coincidence like this may be thought to justify the conclusion that although we differed in our methods of interpretation and reckoning, the agreement of the results appears so much the more satisfactory. We should be pleased to view the subject in so favorable a light, but fear we cannot. For, whilst, on the one hand, we are far from claiming any infallibility for our _modus procedendi_, on the other hand, we cannot help protesting against Señor Perez’s methods of obtaining his results. Besides giving to the Ahau the not admissible duration of 24 years, he further makes an evident mistake in the summing up of the Ahaues quoted in the manuscript, by counting 58 of them instead of 50. He does not seem aware that the Maya author mentions various of these Ahaues twice, and even thrice, a fact which we took care to point out in the course of our discussion. It is only by increasing the length of the Ahau to 24 years, and also by counting 8 Ahaues more than there actually were, that Señor Perez is able to arrive at the date of 144 A. D. for the exodus from Tulapan. If we should indeed incline to make allowance for his choice of the 24–year period, because as it seems to us he was misled by his authorities, he notwithstanding must be held accountable for the mistake made in _counting in_ those eight ill-starred Ahaues. His computation therefore being defective in itself, the favorable impression gained from the fact that two interpreters arrived at an almost identical result, will disappear. Such an agreement would have been very valuable if either of the two interpreters could show that his method stands the test of incontrovertible proof. Therefore, it is only by chance that Señor Perez’s mistakes in reckoning make up very nearly the same number of years that we have obtained; first, by means of the interpolation of 20 more Ahaues; and second, by allowing only 20 years for each Ahau period.

In conclusion it may be proper to make some statements as to the position which this manuscript holds in aboriginal literature, and also as to its value and use as a chronological document. In the first place we are fully convinced of its genuineness. We have not been able to examine the document itself as to the material upon which it was written, nor as to the characters of the text, nor as to external appearance, and we are not informed into whose hands it fell after it left those of its author before it came into the possession of Señor Perez. But we believe that Señor Perez had good reasons for regarding it as a document prepared in the last half of the 16th century, at a time near to that when Yucatan was conquered by the Spaniards. The language and construction belong to that epoch, as we are told. But even if it should not be an original, but a second or third copy, this would not be enough to shake our faith in the authenticity and importance of its contents. For setting aside the fact that its matter has a specific national character, and presupposes a knowledge on the part of its author which only a native could have obtained, the style of its composition indicates its national bearing.

Let us fancy ourselves in the position of the Maya writer while at work. Before him, on the table, stands the wheel for counting the Ahaues, and as he bends over the sheets containing the painted annals, his eye turns alternately from the paper to the wheel, making a careful comparison. Then he pauses and considers in his mind what expressions he must use, and afterwards begins to write. From time to time he cannot forbear, however, casting an occasional glance at the letters of the Spanish alphabet, in order to shape them correctly, for he is still a beginner in this new art. Now, perhaps he wavers for a moment, and then begins anew. The recollection of some ancient Maya song steals in upon his mind, and by the aid of a few significant sentences he incorporates the substance with his text. To interpolations of this kind we may attribute such phrases as “the disrespectful utterances of Chacxibchac against Hunac-eel.” Of the ancient Maya ballads, it is to be regretted, none are known to exist. Yet there is no reason for relinquishing the hope altogether, that some day, at least, a copy of the painted annals, which our Maya writer evidently consulted, may be discovered, while we can willingly dispense with the ballads.

As long as such hopes fail of realization, we must be satisfied with the slight, but yet important, contribution offered us in the manuscript. We may complain of its brevity, yet notwithstanding it is the most complete document we possess of ancient American history. It is all the more important for the reason that it relates to Yucatan, which in our opinion, is the _very cradle_ of early American civilization. It is also pleasant to observe that the manuscript is not at variance with what we have learned from the fragmentary records made by Landa, Lizana and Cogolludo. Notwithstanding its imperfections, it interprets and explains much that had hitherto appeared uncertain and deficient. It is of undoubted authenticity, and forms a firm foundation for the reconstruction of the history of the past, which till now has remained enigmatical, and which is faintly expressed by the crumbling ruins of the peninsula.

The manuscript, finally, affords a guarantee that the long past not only reached back to the remotest epoch of our era, but that more than all, it stands in a near, perhaps in the most intimate, connection with the history of the Nahuatl race. In reference to the homogeneous structure of the Maya and Nahuatl calendars we have already expressed our belief that these two nations were closely related to each other. In the traditions of both occurs the name of Tula or Tulapan, as a fatherland common to each of them.[47] This supposition appears to us still further justified by the circumstance that the chronological annals of both nations revert to the same period of time as a starting point. As regards the Nahuatls, we refer to the circle of signs engraved on the Calendar Stone which gave us the information that the annalists of Anahuac in the year 1479, counted back twelve hundred and forty-eight years to the celebration of their first festival in honor of the sun; that is, they carried back their political or religious record to the year 231 A. D. The Maya manuscript corresponds to this date, as we think, since the year 242 A. D. resulted from our calculation. It was the year in which the ancient conquerors, after wandering 80 years, arrived on the Island of Chacnouitan where they made a permanent settlement. This event happened in the 13th Ahau (see table), which, as we know, is the starting point of Maya chronology, and likewise the first date of that name which the manuscript mentions. The difference of 11 years which appears in the Nahuatl computation cannot be regarded as of much importance.

THE MAYA AHAUES OF THE MSS., BROUGHT INTO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE YEARS
OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA:—

════════════════════╤════════════════
Ahaues Before Christ│
────────────────────┼────────────────
10 118│
8 98│
6 78│
4 58│
2 38│
13 18│
────────────────────┴────────────────

Ahaues Christian Era│
────────────────────┼────────────────
11 2│
9 22│
7 42│
5 62│
3 82│
1 102│
12 122│
10 142│
8 162│
6 182│
4 202│
2 222│
13 242│

11 262│I. Ahau Katun.
9 282│
7 302│
5 322│
3 342│
1 362│
12 382│
10 402│
8 422│
6 442│
4 462│
2 482│
13 502│

11 522│II. Ahau Katun.
9 542│
7 562│
5 582│
3 602│
1 622│
12 642│
10 662│
8 682│
6 702│
4 722│
2 742│
13 762│

11 782│III. Ahau Katun.
9 802│
7 822│
5 842│
3 862│
1 882│
12 902│
10 922│
8 942│
6 962│
4 982│
2 1002│
13 1022│

11 1042│IV. Ahau Katun.
9 1062│
7 1082│
5 1102│
3 1122│
1 1142│
12 1162│
10 1182│
8 1202│
6 1222│
4 1242│
2 1262│
13 1282│

11 1302│V. Ahau Katun.
9 1322│
7 1342│
5 1362│
3 1382│
1 1402│
12 1422│
10 1442│
3 1462│
6 1482│
4 1502│
2 1522│
13 1542│
════════════════════╧════════════════

If, however, it should seem desirable to examine chronological parallels we shall refer our readers to a second chapter on Central American chronology which is hereafter to appear, in which we propose to undertake the task of illustrating and explaining still further the parallelism of Maya and Nahuatl dates. It will then be proved that in this written and still existing Nahuatl chronology, supported by the date 231 A. D., found on the Calendar Stone, a still earlier date designated as _X Calli_ can be found, which represents the year 137 A. D. In this year, according to the annals, a great eclipse of the sun took place, with the remarkable statement that it occurred exactly at the end of a year at 12 o’clock noon. In our manuscript we find the first date preceding the settlement of Chacnouitan designated with the 8th Ahau, the date of the setting out from Tulapan, which we have already stated to be the years 142–162 A. D. Another agreement is that the Nahuatl records show that 166 years before the occurrence of the above mentioned eclipse of the sun in the year 1 _Tecpatl_, a congress of astrologers to amend the calendar of the nation took place at a town called Huehuetlapallan, and by reckoning back we find that this year corresponds with the year 29 B. C. If we then follow a hint which Señor Perez has very ingeniously furnished that the manuscript strangely begins with an 8th Ahau instead of a 13th Ahau, and that the Maya chronology could be dated back to such a 13th Ahau as a proper beginning connected with some interesting event, we find by reckoning back from the 8th to the 13th Ahau the corresponding date to be the years 18–38 B. C.

Now, the results gained in this line of investigation, can be formulated as follows:—

1. That the conquerors and settlers of the Yucatan peninsula, as well as those of the Anahuac lakes, were joint participants in a correction of their national calendar about the year 29 B. C.

2. That about the year 137 A. D., when a total eclipse of the sun took place, the ancestors of both nations set out from their common fatherland, Tula or Tulapan.

3. That about the year 231 A. D., both nations made their appearance on the coast of Central America, and succeeded in conquering a large portion of the peninsula.

It is true that we have only documentary evidence to substantiate the theory just referred to. But, if we do not possess the desirable evidence of monumental inscriptions, it behooves us to examine and to weigh carefully that which still remains. In this connection we should also remember that the sculptor, in carving his records, was not guided by his memory alone, but that he copied the symbols from the sacred books of his race; and that on the other hand, our learned Maya writer, when translating these latter into written phonetic language, drew his text, as did the sculptor from similar sources.

If therefore with the help of written records we can build up hypotheses partially satisfactory, and not altogether improbable, we have accomplished all that could be expected for the present, at least, and have perhaps excited an interest in a branch of history which has hitherto been held as dead and unproductive.

In conclusion, we would express the hope that the Maya manuscript may be submitted to a rigid critical and linguistic examination, and that the publication of the work may be appended to a heliotype copy of the original in order to exhibit to students a document of so great importance, and to ensure its preservation.

-----

Footnote 26:

S. Salisbury, Jr., Esq.

Footnote 27:

Col. John D. Washburn.

Footnote 28:

The Hon. Isaac Davis.

Footnote 29:

The Palenque Tablet, in the U. S. National Museum. By Charles Rau,
1879.

Footnote 30:

The North Americans of Antiquity, their origin, migrations, and type
of civilization considered. By John T. Short, 1880.

Footnote 31:

Historia de Yucatan. By Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page 95,
note 1.

Footnote 32:

Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. II., page 78.

Footnote 33:

Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page 156.
“Landa in Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, § viii., also speaks of
the tranquillity and good harmony which reigned among the chiefs of
those cities, and we notice that concerning the epochs referred to,
his report is in accordance, in many details, with that of the
anonymous author of the ‘Maya Epochs.’”

Footnote 34:

_Diego Lopez de Cogolludo_, Historia de Yuacathan. Madrid, 1683, Lib.
IV., Cap. 5. “The count they kept in their books was by 20 to 20
years, and also by _lustros_ of 4 to 4 years. When five of these
lustros had passed, or twenty years elapsed, they called this time
_Katun_, and set one hewn stone (_piedra labrada_) upon another, well
cemented by lime and sand. This can be noticed in their temples and
ecclesiastical buildings, and especially on some ancient walls of our
convent in Mérida, upon which the cells have been built.”

The expression Katun, mentioned in this passage, and to which we have
assigned a place in our title, requires a few words of explanation. As
far as we know, it occurs only three times in our Central American
authors; in Cogolludo, Landa, and in our manuscript. The first gives
Katun the meaning of a period of twenty years. The second (§ XLI.),
uses the following phraseology: “Contando XIII. veyntes con una de las
XX. letras de los meses que llaman Ahau, sin orden, sino
retruecandolos como pareceran en las siguiente raya redonda, llaman
les a estos en su lengua Katunes.” This phraseology is somewhat
obscure, nevertheless it will be admitted that his intention was to
state that each of the images of the thirteen Ahaues, depicted on the
surface of the wheel, represented twenty years, this being a period
which they also called Katunes. We arrive at this definite conclusion
by the consideration that if Landa says that the period of twenty
years was called _Ahau_, and another one, that of 260 years, _Katun_,
he would have stated the latter fact in expressive words; the occasion
for doing so being too urgent to let it pass. The third author uses
the word _Katun_ in his introductory lines, without giving it any
numerical value. But it will be noticed that in the text which
follows, the expression _Katun_ is used interchangeably with that of
Ahau for a period of 20 years. This concordance of the three authors
allows us to conclude that whenever the word _Katun_ is employed, the
short period of 20 years was meant. In this connection a question
arises: How is it that no author has made mention of the long period
of 260 years, with which we become acquainted in Señor Perez’s
chronological essay. It is probable he found it mentioned in some Maya
manuscripts in which this long period appeared under the name of _Ahau
Katun_. Though this fact of itself may be considered of no importance,
still, as it would bring to light another of the many numerical
combinations (13×20=260) in which those people indulged, with the
fundamental figures of their calendar system, we must feel a great
interest in the asserted fact, hoping it will turn out to be a correct
statement. Our researches have been directed for a long time towards
the discovery of the symbols which the Maya annalists or sculptors
would have employed for their chronological periods. It was in
connection with these studies that we discovered the Nahuatl symbols
for the same, of which we gave account in our discussion on the
Calendar Stone. Yet while this discovery only corroborates the
suspicion long entertained that a certain set of Maya symbols
represented the lustra of 5, and another the period of 20 years, we
have not yet been able to recognize a Maya symbol for the period of
260 years.

The word Katun is a compound of _Kat_, to ask, to consult, and _tun_,
stone; hence the stone, which when asked, gives account. Thus it was
also understood by Cogolludo, who, when mentioning the word _Katun_
(see above), was referring to the square stones incrusted into walls,
upon which the convent was built. What traditions he followed in this
is still better illustrated by the words in continuation of this
passage: “In a place called Tixualahtun, which means a spot where one
hewn stone is set upon another one, the Archives of the Indians are
said to have existed, to which they resorted for all questions of
historical interest (recurso de todos los acaecimientos), as we should
do to Simancas, in Spain.” The stone columns found on the spot named,
can be seen pictured in J. L. Stephens’ Incidents of travel in
Yucatan, Vol. II., page 318.

Footnote 35:

Señor Orozco y Berra, the learned and laborious author of the “Carta
ethnografica de México, México, 1864,” has made this matter a subject
of special investigation in “Anales del Museo Nacional de México,”
1879, Tom. I., Entrega 7, page 305.

Footnote 36:

Las cosas de Yucatan. Diego de Landa. Edition B. de Bourbourg. Paris,
1864. Page 315, § XL.

Footnote 37:

A specimen of such an instrument with a surface inscribed as the cut
shows would hardly have been preserved. We think that the box enclosed
a round disk turning on a pivot; this contrivance, evidently served as
an aid to the memory in enumerating the alternating Ahaues. To-day, we
should obtain the same result by writing the Ahaues in a horizontal or
vertical line, but the Nahuatls and Mayas, having solely a symbolical
or pictorial manner of representation, made use of this ingenious
arrangement by painting the series of the Ahaues on the circumference
of a circle. Thus the idea of an uninterrupted sequence of time and
the connection of the 2d Ahau with the 13th were brought to notice.

Footnote 38:

Ahau translated means: sovereign, king, august, principal. See page 3
of Juan Pio Perez’s “Diccionario de la lengua Maya,” published in
Mérida in 1877, by the friends and faithful executors of the last will
of the defunct scholar. This valuable work comprises the whole of the
linguistical stock of the Maya language, the words collected exceeding
the number of 20,000, on 437 pages, quarto. It may be purchased from
Dr. George E. Shiels, 896 Broadway, New York.

Footnote 39:

Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society, April 24, 1878, page 16, in an
article on the Mexican Calendar Stone, by Ph. J. J. Valentini, in
which mention was made of this singular kind of notation from the
right to the left hand. A. v. Humboldt, in “Vue des Cordilléres,” page
186, remarks: “Le cercle intérieur offre les vingt signes du jour: en
se souvenant que Cipactli est le premier et Xochitl le dernier, on
voit qu’gu’ici, _comme partout ailleurs_, les Mexicains ont rangé les
hiéroglyphes de droite à gauche.” The great scholar has clothed in the
form of a proven statement that which at the beginning of this century
was an opinion generally prevalent among Americanists, and which does
not bear the test, when the numerous copies existing of the Mexican
calendar days are examined. They all show the arrangement of the days
from the left to the right. The sculptured calendar is the only
exception.

Footnote 40:

Historia de Yucatan; by Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page
159.

Footnote 41:

Remarks on the Centres of Ancient Civilization in Central America.
Address read before the Amer. Geogr. Society, New York, July 10, 1876,
by Dr. C. Hermann Berendt.

Footnote 42:

Herrera, Decade IV., Lib. X., Chapt. 2, 3 and 4. These three chapters
are a compilation of data concerning the ancient history of Yucatan,
and the adventurous career of the Itza race, which appear to be drawn
from sources unknown at this day, and which are independent of what we
can learn from Landa, from the author of the Maya Manuscript, and from
Cogolludo.

Footnote 43:

Traces of such a migration and succeeding halting places can be
discovered in the Quiché annals, edited by Brasseur de Bourbourg, with
the title of _Popol Vuh_. “Popol Vuh, le livre sacré et les mythes de
l’antiquité centro-Américaine,” Paris, 1861, on pages 83, 235, 241,
and pages 215, 217, 236, in which names are quoted and regions
described which give evidence of a course of migration from northern
to southern Mexico.

Footnote 44:

_E. Ancona, Historia de Yucatan, Vol. I., page 34._ Mérida, 1879.—“The
word Chacnovitan or Chacnouitan first appeared in the Maya MSS. or
series of Maya epochs. Upon examining this document, and observing
that the tribe wandered from Tulapan to Chacnouitan and later to
Bakhalal and from there to Chichen-Itza, etc., it will be understood
that the name in question was given to no other portion of our
peninsula than to that which lies at the south. Brasseur de Bourbourg
supposes, and we think not without reason, that Chacnouitan lay
between Bakhalal and Acallan, s. e. of the Laguna de los Terminos.—See
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Archives de la comission scientifica, Tomo. I,
page 422, note 2.”

Footnote 45:

Señor Perez in his commentary makes his calculation that 1496 was the
year of the death of Chief Ajpulà, and succeeds in giving it a
plausible appearance of correctness. But we observe that in order to
reach this date he was not aware of having altered the words of the
Maya text, and those of his own translation. This translation said
correctly: “There were still six years wanting before the completion
of the 13th Ahau.” In the text of the commentary, however, we find him
starting his count on the supposition that the original text was the
sixth year of the 13th Ahau. Though this change is by no means
allowable, he succeeds, ingeniously enough, in arriving at the year
above quoted, and in stating also the dates of the day and month,
precisely as the annalist had set them down.

Footnote 46:

Eligio Ancona, Historia de Yucatan, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page 333.

Footnote 47:

With reference to the Mayas, consult the Quiché traditions in Brasseur
de Bourbourg’s Popol Vuh, pages 215, 217 and 236, and Brasseur de
Bourbourg’s Memorial of Tecpan Atitlan, page 170, note 3. For the
Nahuatl race, Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Histoire des Nations civilisées
du Mexique, Vol. I., Appendix, page 428, in extracts made from the
Codex Chimalpopoca.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 53, changed “Ahcuitok” to “Ajcuitok”. 2. P. 81, changed “Ajmekut” to “Ajmekat”. 3. P. 94, changed “Mayapanes” to “Mayalpanes”. 4. Footnote 9, changed “de la grau” to “de la gran”. 5. Footnote 39, changed “interieur” to “intérieur” and “hiéroglyphs” to “hiéroglyphes”. 6. Footnote 43, changed “centro-Americaine” to “centro-Américaine”. 7. Silently corrected typographical errors. 8. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed. 9. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.