Chapter XIII: History of the Mayas in Yucatan (1)

Aboriginal Names of Yucatan -- The Primitive Inhabitants
from the East and West -- Zamná, the Pontiff-King -- The
Itzas at Chichen -- Rule of Cukulcan at Chichen and Mayapan
-- His Disappearance on the Gulf Coast -- The Cocome Rule
at Mayapan -- Appearance of the Tutul Xius -- Translation
of the Maya Record by Perez and Brasseur -- Migration from
Tulan -- Conquest of Bacalar and Chichen -- Itza Annals --
Tutul Xius at Uxmal -- Overthrow of the Cocome Dynasty -- The
Confederacy, or Empire, of Tutul Xius, Itzas, and Cheles --
Fable of the Dwarf -- Overthrow of the Tutul Xius -- Final
Period of Civil Wars.

Respecting the original name of Yucatan, Bishop Landa tells us that it was called Ulumil Cuz and Etel Ceh, 'land of turkeys and deer.' Padre Lizana writes the name U Luumil Cutz and U Luumil Ceb. Malte-Brun claims to have found a tradition to the effect that in the early time the interior plains of the peninsula were submerged, forming lakes, and the people lived in isolated groups by fishing and hunting. Landa also applies the name Peten, 'isle,' thinking that the natives believed their country to be surrounded with water. The Perez manuscript terms the peninsula Chacnouitan, which Gallatin believes to have been its true name; while Brasseur regards this as the ancient name of only the southern portion of the country. There is no doubt that the native name of Yucatan at the coming of Europeans and afterwards was Maya. Several authors define this as 'land without water,' a most appropriate name for this region. Brasseur in one place derives the name from Mai, that of an ancient priest; Cogolludo says the country was named from its capital or chief city thus differing at each successive epoch, being in ancient times Mayapan, but in the time of the writer, Campeche. Ternaux-Compans declares that from the fall of Mayapan to the coming of the Spaniards the country had no general name. All agree that the name Yucatan originated from a misunderstanding by the Spaniards of the words first pronounced by the natives when questioned about the name of their country.[XIII-1]

[Sidenote: MIGRATION FROM THE EAST.]

The earliest inhabitants are supposed to have come from the east. As they fled before their enemies their god had opened a path for them through the sea.[XIII-2] Lizana believes these first inhabitants came from Cuba, which may have been connected with the peninsula in those primitive times; while Orozco y Berra seems to favor the idea that they came to Cuba from Florida.[XIII-3] From this original population, few in numbers, is supposed to have come the ancient name _cenial_, or 'little descent,' applied by the inhabitants to the east; while the name _nohenial_, 'great descent' by which the west was called, originated from a larger migration from that direction. Cogolludo, it is true, claims that the eastern colony was the more numerous of the two, yet, this is not tradition, but his theory, based on the prevalence of the Maya language in connection with the unfounded assumption that those who came from the west must have spoken Aztec.[XIII-4] All that can be learned from these traditions is the existence among the Mayas of a vague idea that their ancestors came originally from opposite directions. Their idea of the most primitive period of their history, like the idea entertained by other nations whose annals have been presented, was connected with the arrival of a small band from across the ocean. This was the 'little descent'; by this first band and their descendants the country was peopled and the Maya institutions established. The 'great descent' referred to the coming of strangers from the south-west, probably at different times, and at a much later period.

To account for the fact that but one language is spoken in Yucatan, and that closely related to those of Tabasco and Guatemala, Orozco y Berra supposes that the Mayas destroyed or banished the former inhabitants. They were evidently barbarians, as shown by their abandonment of the ruins; perhaps they were the same tribes that destroyed Palenque.[XIII-5] But the reader already knows that the builders of the cities were found in possession of the country, and the unity of language is exactly what might be expected, if the traditional colony from the east peopled not only Yucatan, but the adjoining countries, and the subsequent returning colonies from the west came from the countries thus peopled. We learn from Boturini that the Olmecs, Xicalancas, and Zapotecs, of the eastern region of Mexico, fled at the approach of the Toltecs and settled in Yucatan. Veytia shows that if any of these peoples settled in Yucatan, it was from choice, not necessity; Torquemada and others add the Chichimecs and Acolhuas to the peoples that settled Yucatan. Cogolludo and Fancourt include the Teo-Chichimecs,[XIII-6] while most modern writers favor the theory that the Toltecs occupied Yucatan after their expulsion from Anáhuac in the eleventh century, erecting the cities that have since been found there in so great numbers.[XIII-7]

[Sidenote: TOLTEC THEORY.]

The conjectures of the preceding paragraph and many others of a similar nature, are a part of the theory, so often noted in this work, of a general migration of American nations from north to south, a theory which has amounted almost to a mania for dispatching every ancient northern tribe southward, and for searching in the north for the origin of every ancient southern people. It was not enough that the people of Yucatan and Guatemala migrated from the far north-west; but it was necessary to find in each of these states traces of every nation whose presence in Mexico during the past ages has been recorded by tradition. After what has been said on this subject in this and preceding volumes, it is needless to repeat here the arguments against a Mexican origin for the people and monuments of Yucatan. No people in America show less indications of a past intermixture with foreign tribes; the similarity between the monuments and those farther north is sufficiently accounted for by the historical events to be recorded in this chapter; and the conjectures in question are not only unfounded, but wholly uncalled for, serving only to complicate a record which without them is comparatively clear if not very complete.

* * * * *

The Yucatec culture-hero was Zamná, or Ytzamná, who according to the traditions was the first temporal and religious leader, the civilizer, high-priest, and law-giver, who introduced the Maya institutions, divided the country into provinces, and named all the localities in Yucatan. He was accompanied, like other culture-heroes, by a band of priests, artizans, and even warriors. Ruling the country from his capital of Mayapan, he gave the government of the provinces to his companions, reserving the best positions naturally for chieftains of his own blood. Zamná was the reported inventor of the Maya hieroglyphic art, and it is conjectured that the Cocomes, the oldest royal family in Yucatan, were the descendants of this first ruler. He died at an advanced age and was interred at Izamal, supposed to have been at that time near the sea shore, a city which was named for him, and probably founded by him, where his successors erected a sacred temple in honor of his memory, which was for many centuries a favorite shrine for Yucatec pilgrims. Another personage, Kinich Kakmo, is prominent in the Maya mythology, and may probably have been identical with Zamná, or one of his companions.[XIII-8]

Zamná may best be connected with the first colony, the 'little descent,' the first introduction of Maya institutions into the country, although it is not expressly stated that he was at the head of that colony; and both the colony and its leader may be identified most naturally with the introduction of the Votanic civilization and the establishment of the Xibalban empire already narrated from the traditions of the nations. Whether Zamná was a companion or disciple of Votan, or even identical with that personage, it is, of course, impossible to determine; and it is not by any means necessary to accept literally the arrival of either colony or leader. But the rôle played by Zamná was the same as that of Votan, and the same events at the same epoch may be reasonably supposed to have originated the Yucatec as well as the Tzendal, Quiché, and Toltec traditions of this primitive historic period. The statement of Ordoñez, already referred to, that Mayapan was one of the allied capitals which with Palenque, Tulan, and Copan, constituted the Xibalban, or Votanic, empire, is not improbable, although its truth cannot be fully substantiated.

[Sidenote: THE ITZAOB AT CHICHEN.]

The next event in the annals of the peninsula is the rule of the Itzaob, three most holy men, at Chichen Itza, over the people also called Itzas. Closely connected with these rulers, and perhaps one of the three, was Cukulcan, or Quetzalcoatl, the 'plumed serpent.' Torquemada tells us that in very remote times, at the time of Quetzalcoatl's disappearance from Mexico, Cukulcan appeared from the west with nineteen followers, all with long beards, and dressed in long robes and sandals, but bare-headed. This author identifies him with Quetzalcoatl. Cogolludo in one place briefly refers to Cukulcan as a great captain and a god; and elsewhere speaks of the coming of Cozas with nineteen followers, introducing the rites of confession and otherwise modifying the religious institutions of the country. Landa speaks of Cukulcan as having afterwards been regarded as a god in Mexico, whence he had come to Yucatan, under the name of Cezalcouati (Quetzalcoatl). Herrera gives him two brothers, and states that the three collected a large population and reigned together in peace for many years over the Itzas at Chichen, where they erected many magnificent temples in honor of their gods. The three brothers lived a most holy and continent life, neither marrying nor associating carnally with women; but at last one of them, Cukulcan, for most of the authorities agree that he was one of them, left his companions and adopted Mayapan as his capital. Landa says on this subject: "It is the opinion of the natives that with the Itzas who settled Chichen Itza there reigned a great lord named Cukulcan, which is shown to be true by the principal edifice called Cukulcan. They say that he entered the country from the west, but they differ as to whether he came before, with, or after the Itzas; and they say he was very moral, having neither wife nor children." In another place the same author speaks of the three brothers also as having come from the west, reigning at Chichen, agreeing in life and character with Cukulcan, until one of the number died, or at least abandoned his companions and left the country.

After the departure or death of Cukulcan, the two remaining lords gradually gave themselves up to an irregular and dissolute life, and their conduct finally moved their subjects to revolt, to kill the two princes, and to abandon the city. Cukulcan in the meantime devoted his attention to building up, beautifying, and fortifying his new capital, erecting grand temples for the gods and palaces for his subordinate lords, among whom he divided the surrounding country and towns. He ruled here most wisely and prosperously for several years, but at last after fully establishing the government, and instructing his followers respecting their duties and the proper means of ruling the country peacefully, he determined, for some motive not revealed, to abandon the city and the peninsula. He tarried awhile, however, at Champoton on the western coast, where a temple was erected in commemoration of his stay. According to Herrera it was erected by himself.[XIII-9]

[Sidenote: CUKULCAN AND THE COCOMES.]

It is evident enough that Cukulcan was the same as Quetzalcoatl, but to determine with _which_ Quetzalcoatl--the Nahua culture-hero or the Toltec king--is a difficult matter. We have seen what complications in Mexican history arise from the fact that the Spanish writers failed to make any distinction between the two, most of them entirely ignoring the latter. Cogolludo dates the departure of Cukulcan in the middle of the twelfth century; Herrera makes it precede by about five hundred and sixty years the coming of the Spaniards; and Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his history, implies that Cukulcan was Acxitl Quetzalcoatl, thus placing his stay in Yucatan in or after the eleventh century. Yet most of the traditions seem to point to the Itzaob and to Cukulcan as preceding the Tutul Xius. The Itzas seem to have been among the most ancient nations in the country, and their name is best derived from that of Ytzamná. Even Brasseur de Bourbourg, in a later work,[XIII-10] offers the conjectures that the Itzas were Xibalbans who fled from Chiapas after the overthrow of their empire by the Nahuas, and that Cukulcan "was the same as the more or less mythologic personage of whom Sahagun speaks, the leader of the Nahua race to Tamoanchan, who seems identical with the Quetzalcoatl of the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, and the Gucumatz of the _Popol Vuh_."

There is no reason for bringing the Itza people from Chiapas, since they appear to have been like the Cocomes, descendants, or followers, of Zamná, whose history from the death of their great ruler down to Cukulcan's coming, is unknown. But it is certainly most consistent to identify Cukulcan with the first Quetzalcoatl and with Gucumatz, to regard his appearance and the rule of the three 'holy princes' at Chichen and Mayapan as the first introduction of the Nahua influence in Yucatan, and to date it within the first two centuries of the Christian era, while the Nahua power was beginning to rival that of the ancient Xibalba in Chiapas, and while the Olmecs and Xicalancas were becoming established in Vera Cruz and Puebla. Malte-Brun and some others deem Cukulcan and Zamná the same without any apparent reason, although the lives and deeds of both these pontiff-rulers are recorded only in the vaguest manner.[XIII-11]

It is probable that Cukulcan abandoned Chichen and its people, among whom he at first attempted to establish his peculiar reforms, because his teachings were not so favorably received or so permanent in their effects as he desired, and because he had reason to expect more favorable results among the Cocomes, whom he now adopted as his chosen people. Both 'listeners' and 'serpents' are given as the signification of the name Cocomes; the first may be referred to the fact that they were the first to 'listen' to Cukulcan's teachings; the second may arise from their relationship to the Votanic race of Chanes, or 'serpents.' Torquemada speaks of the Cocomes as the descendants of Cukulcan, but to regard them rather as disciples would be more consistent with the celibate life and chastity attributed to the great teacher. After the Plumed Serpent's departure the lords of Mayapan, raised to the highest power in the state the chief of the Cocome family, as Landa says, "either because this family was the most ancient or the richest, or because he who was at its head was a very valiant chief." Many of the aboriginal institutions of this country, as described in a preceding volume, are derived from traditions of this period of Cocome rule, one of the most prosperous in Maya history. The family names of rulers are often used as personal names in the annals of these nations, and thus we find the ruler at Mayapan spoken of as Cocom.[XIII-12]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: MIGRATION OF TUTUL XIUS.]

Respecting the ensuing period of Cocome rule, we have no record until at a subsequent but undetermined date a new people, the Tutul Xius, appeared from the southern region where they had wandered long and suffered great privations, and settled in the vicinity of Mayapan, being kindly received by the Cocomes. All agree that they came from the south; Herrera brings them from the Lacandon mountains, and speaks of them as having entered Mayapan, where they lived in great peace together with the former inhabitants. Landa judges from linguistic and monumental resemblances that they came from Chiapas. Morelet suggests that they were a band from Palenque.[XIII-13] I have already shown that the Tutul Xius were probably, like the Quichés and Toltecs, among the tribes that migrated from Tulan in Chiapas at some time between the third and fifth centuries.[XIII-14] They were not like the Toltecs a purely Nahua nation, that is, they did not speak the Nahua language; but they were, like the Quichés, a branch of the ancient Maya, or Xibalban, people, which had in Chiapas been subjected to Nahua influences and had adopted to some extent the Nahua institutions. In language they were kindred to the Cocomes, Itzas, and all the aboriginal inhabitants of Yucatan; but like the Cocomes they were also followers of Cukulcan and Quetzalcoatl. Their kind reception is not therefore to be wondered at, and their subsequent prominence in the history of the country accounts for the Nahua analogies observed in Yucatan institutions and monuments.

[Sidenote: THE PEREZ RECORD.]

[Sidenote: CHRONOLOGY OF THE RECORD.]

I now present in full the Perez document which contains nearly all that is known of the Tutul Xiu annals. I quote the version given in Mr. Stephens' work, adding in parentheses the variations and a few explanatory notes from Brasseur's translation.[XIII-15] "This is the series of Katunes, or epochs, that elapsed from the time of their departure from the land and house of Nonoual, in which were the four Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina (probably the Tulan Zuiva of the Popol Vuh) going out of the land of Tulapan (capital of Tulan). Four epochs were spent in traveling before they arrived here with Tolonchantepeuj (Holon-Chan-Tepeuh, in both the Maya text and in Brasseur's translation) and his followers. When they began their journey towards this island (_peten_, meaning literally 'island,' is the word used, but Brasseur tells us that it was applied as well to regions almost surrounded by water, and the Mayas knew very well that their country was a peninsula), it was the 8 Ahau, and the 6 Ahau, the 4 Ahau, and the 2 Ahau[XIII-16] were spent in traveling; because in the first year of 13 Ahau they arrived at this island (peninsula), making together eighty-one years they were traveling between their departure from their country and their arrival at this island peninsula of Chacnouitan. In the 8 Ahau arrived Ahmekat Tutul Xiu (an error perhaps, for 13 Ahau as above, or this may refer to a later arrival of another party), and ninety-nine years they remained in Chacnouitan. Then took place the discovery (conquest) of the province of Ziyan-caan, or Bacalar (Bakhalal, Chectemal at the time of the conquest, probably near the site of Bacalar). The 4 Ahau, the 2 Ahau, and the 13 Ahau, or sixty years, they ruled in Ziyan-caan, when (since) they came here. During these years of their government of the province of Bacalar, occurred the discovery (conquest) of Chichen Itza. The 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, 7 Ahau, 5 Ahau, 3 Ahau, 1 Ahau, or one hundred and twenty years they ruled in Chichen Itza, when it was abandoned and they emigrated to Champoton (Chanputun) where the Itzas, holy men, had houses (had _had_ dwellings). The 6 Ahau they took possession of the territory of Champoton. The 4 Ahau [and so on for twelve epochs to the 8 Ahau] Champoton was destroyed or abandoned (Brasseur has it, "4 Ahau, etc., etc., and in the 8 Ahau Champoton was destroyed"). Two hundred and sixty years reigned (or had reigned at the time when Champoton was destroyed) the Itzas in Champoton, when they returned in search of their homes ("after which they started out anew in search of homes," according to Brasseur), and then they lived for several epochs under the uninhabited mountains ("for several epochs the Itzas wandered, sleeping in the forests, among rocks and wild plants, suffering great privations," as Brasseur has it, noting an omission of a part of the text in Perez' translation). The 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, after forty years they returned to their homes once more, and Champoton was lost to them. (The French version is entirely different; "6 Ahau, 4 Ahau"--they wandered as above--"after which they--the Itzas--had again fixed homes, after they had lost Champoton"). In this Katun of 2 Ahau, Acuitok Tutul Xiu established himself in Uxmal; the 2 Ahau [and so on in regular order for ten epochs to 10 Ahau] equal to two hundred years, they governed and reigned in Uxmal with the governors (powerful lords) of Chichen Itza, and Mayapan. After the lapse of the Ahau Katunes of 11, 9, 6 Ahau, (Brasseur says 7 instead of 6 Ahau, as indeed it must be in order to preserve the order) in the 8 Ahau the governor (the powerful lords) of Chichen Itza was (were) deposed (ruined) because he murmured disrespectfully against Tunac-eel (Hunac Eel); this happened to Chacxibchac of Chichen Itza, who had spoken against Tunac-eel, governor of the fortress of Mayalpan (Mayapan). Ninety years had elapsed, but the tenth of the 8 Ahau was the year in which he was overthrown by Ajzinte-yutchan (Ah-Tzinteyut-Chan) with Tzuntecum, Taxcal, Pantemit, Xuch-ucuet (Xuchu-Cuet), Ytzcuat, and Kakaltecat; these are the names of the seven Mayalpans (lords of Mayapan). In this same period, or Katun, of the 8 Ahau, they attacked king Ulmil (king of the Ulmil) in consequence of his quarrel (festivities) with Ulil, king of Izamal (Ytzmal); thirteen divisions of troops had he when he was routed by Tunac-eel (Hunac Eel, 'he who gives intelligence'); in the 6 Ahau the war was over, after thirty-four years. In the 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau (Brasseur says in the 8 Ahau), the fortified territory of Mayalpan 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 11 Ahau, Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers of the Uitzes, (perhaps Quichés) or Highlanders, as was also Tancaj (Tancah) of Mayalpan. In the 6 Ahau (8 Ahau according to original text and Brasseur), Mayalpan was destroyed (finally abandoned). The epochs of 6 Ahau, 4 Ahau, and 2 Ahau, 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. The 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, pestilence and small-pox were in the castles. In the 13 Ahau, Ajpula (Ahpulá) died; six years were wanting to the completion of the 13 Ahau; this year was counted toward the east of the wheel, and began on the 4 Kan (the 4 Kan began the month Pop). Ajpula died on the eighteenth day of the month Zip, in the 9 Ymix (in the third month Zip, and on the ninth day Ymix); and that it may be known in numbers, it was the year 1536, sixty years after the demolition of the fortress. Before the termination of the 11 Ahau, the Spaniards arrived; holy men from the east came with them when they reached this land. The 9 Ahau was the commencement of Christianity; and in this year was the arrival of Toral, the first (new) bishop."

Such is our chief authority on the aboriginal history of Yucatan. It is, as Perez remarks, "rather a list than a circumstantial detail of the events," was doubtless written from memory of the original records after the Spaniards came, and may be inaccurate at some points. Perez claims to interpret its chronology according to his theory that the Ahau Katun was a period of twenty-four years;[XIII-17] while Brasseur, following most of the Spanish writers, reckons an Ahau Katun as only twenty years. I do not propose to enter into any further discussion on this point, but it should be noted that while Perez adduces strong arguments in favor of his general theory of the length of these periods, neither his translation of the document in question nor his comments thereon are at all consistent with his own theory. The document states clearly that Ahpula died in 1536, six years before the end of 13 Ahau, which must have closed in 1541. An accurate calculation, reckoning twenty-four years to an epoch, would make the 8 Ahau in which the Tutul Xius left their ancient home, begin with the year 173, A.D.,[XIII-18] instead of 144 as Perez gives it. If we compute the epochs at twenty years each, we have 401 as the date when the migration began. I have not attempted to fix the date of the migration from Chiapas, of which this forms a part, further than to place it before the fifth and probably after the second century; but the date 401 agrees better than that of 173 with the general tenor of the authorities, I therefore follow this system in forming the following résumé, although I give in notes the dates of the other system, together with some of Perez' dates.

The Tutul Xius left their ancient home in Chiapas in 401, wandering for eighty-one years before their arrival in 482 at Chacnouitan, or the southern part of the peninsula, under the command of, or together with, Holon Chan Tepeuh.[XIII-19] Ahmecat Tutul Xiu arrived with them or at a later period,[XIII-20] and they remained ninety-nine years in Chacnouitan, down to 581.[XIII-21] Then took place the conquest of Bacalar, where they ruled for sixty years, or from 581 to 641; but at the same time the 4 Ahau, 2 Ahau, 13 Ahau, of this period, correspond to the years 701 to 761, leaving the years 641 to 701 unaccounted for.[XIII-22] During this rule at Bacalar, or at its end, they took possession of Chichen Itza, where they remained for six epochs, or one hundred and twenty years, from 761 to 881.[XIII-23] Then they went to Champoton where the Itzas had been, taking that country in 941,[XIII-24] nothing being said of them during the three epochs from 881 to 941. The Itzas had ruled in Champoton for two hundred and sixty years, from 4 (or better 6) Ahau to 8 Ahau, or from 681, when they were probably driven from Chichen,[XIII-25] to 941 when they were driven out by the Tutul Xius.[XIII-26] The Itzas wandered for two epochs, from 941 to 981, suffering great hardships, and then again obtained fixed homes. Where they settled the record fails to state.[XIII-27]

[Sidenote: TUTUL XIU ANNALS.]

Returning to the annals of the Tutul Xius, in 2 Ahau, 981, Ahcuitok Tutul Xiu settled at Uxmal, where his people ruled conjointly with the kings of Chichen and Mayapan for two hundred years, from 981 to 1181.[XIII-28] In the tenth year of 8 Ahau, or 1191, Chac Xib Chac, and other lords of Chichen, were deposed for some offence against Hunac Eel, the ruler of Mayapan. In the same epoch the Cocome king attacked and defeated the Itza king Ulmil. This war lasted thirty-four years, and was ended before 1221, by the Itzas invading Mayapan.[XIII-29]

Eighty-three years passed, and then in 11 Ahau, between 1281 and 1301, Mayapan was conquered by the Uitzes, or mountaineers; and Mayapan was finally abandoned in 8 Ahau, between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-30] After three epochs more, the Spaniards came for the first time, between 1501 and 1521, sixty years after the destruction of Mayapan.[XIII-31] Between 1521 and 1561, the small-pox ravaged the country, and among its victims was Ahpulá, who died in 1536.[XIII-32] Before 1561 came the Spaniards; and in the next epoch Christianity was introduced, and Bishop Toral arrived.

The first event narrated by the preceding document which seems to have any connection with those taken from other authorities is the establishment of the Tutul Xius at Uxmal, where they ruled during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries with the monarchs of Mayapan and Chichen Itza. All authorities agree on the prosperity attending the reign of the Cocome monarchs in conjunction with the Tutul Xius at Uxmal. It was perhaps in this period that were built a large proportion of the magnificent structures which as ruins have excited the wonder of the world, and have been fully described in a preceding volume;[XIII-33] although there is no reason to doubt that some of the cities date back to the Xibalban period, to the time of Zamná and his earliest successors. Uxmal and the many cities in its vicinity may be attributed to the Tutul Xius.

The first king of Mayapan after the departure of Cukulcan is generally called Cocom, or Ahcocom, but we know nothing of his successors for some centuries, save Brasseur's conjecture that the four Bacab mentioned by Cogolludo as gods should be reckoned among the number.[XIII-34] At last, probably during the twelfth century, Landa and the other Spanish writers agree that the monarchs at Mayapan began to neglect the interests of their subjects, and to become exceedingly avaricious, oppressing the people by excessive taxation. The first to follow this course of conduct is called by Brasseur Ahtubtun, a name selected from Cogolludo's list of gods for no other apparent reason than that his name signified 'spitter of precious stones,' certainly an indication of extravagance. To his successor this author applies the name Aban and the title Kinehahau. This monarch was even more oppressive than his predecessor, and loud murmurs of discontent began to be heard, but none were strong enough to make any opposition save the Tutul Xius. Either this king or a successor introduced into the country a force of foreign soldiers from Tabasco and southern Vera Cruz, and also established slavery, hitherto unknown in Yucatan.

[Sidenote: OVERTHROW OF THE COCOMES.]

The Tutul Xius began their opposition to the Cocomes by sheltering their oppressed subjects. The third of the tyrants, probably identical with the Hunac Eel of the Perez record, was even more oppressive than those that preceded him, and brought in more foreign soldiers. In 1191 the monarch of Chichen Itza, Chac Xib Chac, was deposed by the tyrant and the deposition enforced by the aid of his foreign auxiliaries. Less than ten years later Hunac Eel with his allies marched again against Chichen, now ruled by a new monarch, Ulmil, and defeated him after a long campaign. The end of the trouble is briefly if not very clearly expressed by the author of the Maya record in the statement that Ulmil before 1221 invaded Mayapan.[XIII-35]

Landa and Herrera relate that the tyranny of the Cocome monarch at last became insupportable, and his subjects with the aid of the Tutul Xius revolted, captured and sacked Mayapan, and put to death the king with all his family, except one son, who chanced to be absent. The king of Uxmal naturally acquired by this overthrow of the Cocome dynasty the supreme power. Ulmil, the Itza king who led the attack against the Cocomes, seems to have received the second place, while the head of the family of Cheles, before high-priest at Mayapan, was given the third rank as king of Izamal. Nearly all the authorities state that Mayapan was destroyed and abandoned at this time; but the dates they give with the fact that this city is mentioned by the Maya record at a much later period, show that it was still inhabited, though deprived of its ancient power.[XIII-36]

The Tutul Xius on their accession to the supreme power, strengthened their popularity by a liberal policy toward all classes, and by restoring those who had been enslaved or exiled by the Cocomes to their former positions. They also permitted the Xicalanca troops introduced by Hunac Eel and his predecessors to remain in the country, and gave them the province of Canul, or Ahcanul, between Uxmal and Campeche, where they soon became a powerful nation.[XIII-37] The son of the Cocome tyrant, who by his absence from Mayapan at the time of the revolt escaped the fate of his family, on his return was permitted to settle with his friends in the province of Zotuta, where he is said to have built Tibulon, and several other towns. Thus was perpetuated with the ancient Cocome family the mortal hatred which that family continued to feel towards their successful rivals.[XIII-38]

[Sidenote: FABLE OF THE DWARF.]

The reign of the Tutul Xius at Uxmal was doubtless the most glorious period of Maya history, but in addition to what has been said we have respecting it only a single tradition which seems to refer to the last king and the overthrow of the dynasty.[XIII-39] An old sorceress lived at Kabah, rarely leaving her chimney corner. Her grandson, a dwarf, by making a hole in her water-jar, kept her a long time at the well one day, and by removing the hearth-stone found the treasure she had so carefully guarded, a silver _tunkul_ and _zoot_, native instruments. The music produced by the dwarf was heard in all the cities, and the king at Uxmal trembled, for an old prophecy declared that when such music should be heard the monarch must give up his throne to the musician. A peculiar duel was agreed upon between the two, each to have four baskets of _cocoyoles_, or palm-nuts, broken on his head. The Dwarf was victorious and took the dead king's place, having the Casa del Adivino built for his palace, and the Casa de la Vieja for his grandmother.[XIII-40] The old sorceress soon died, and the new king, freed from all restraint, plunged into all manner of wickedness, until his gods, or idols, abandoned him in anger. But after several attempts the Dwarf made a new god of clay which came to life and was worshiped by the people, who by this worship of an evil spirit soon brought upon themselves destruction at the hands of the outraged deities, and Uxmal was abandoned.

For this tradition we have only Brasseur's conjectural, but not improbable, interpretation to the effect that the Tutul Xiu throne at Uxmal, in the earlier part of the thirteenth century perhaps, was usurped by a chief of another family, known in tradition as the Dwarf, or the Sorcerer. It is not unlikely that the usurping king was of the Cocome family and that he succeeded in his attempt by the aid of the priesthood. Whoever may have been at its head, the new dynasty was in its turn overthrown apparently by religious strife, and Uxmal ceased to be a capital or centre of temporal power in Yucatan, although its temples may still have been occupied by the priesthood. From the fact that the Maya record, or Perez document, speaks only of Mayapan after this period, it is not unlikely that the Tutul Xiu power was transferred to that ancient capital, after the downfall of its representative at Uxmal. Near the end of the thirteenth century Mayapan was conquered by a foreign army of Uitzes, or mountaineers, the reference being perhaps to a raid of one of the earlier Quiché emperors from Utatlan. For a century and a half, a period of contention between rival dynasties and tribes, we have, besides a few reported predictions of coming disaster, only one definite event, the flight of a band of Itzas under Canek, and their settlement on the islands in Lake Peten, where they were found, a most flourishing community, by the Spaniards. No definite date is given to their migration--or elopement, for a lady was at the bottom of the affair, as some say--except by Villagutierre, who places it in 8 Ahau, or between 1441 and 1461.[XIII-41]

Also between 1441 and 1461, Mayapan was finally ruined in the contentions of the factions, and abandoned at the death of a monarch called by some authors Mochan Xiu; the Tutul Xius then seem to have retired to Mani, which was their capital down to the Conquest.[XIII-42] For twenty years after the final destruction of Mayapan the tribes are said to have remained at peace and independent of each other; but the remaining century, down to 1561, was one of almost continual inter-tribal strife, of which there is no detailed record, but which, with hurricanes, famine, deadly pestilence, and constantly recurring omens and predictions of final disaster, so desolated and depopulated the country, that the Spaniards found the Mayas but a mere wreck of what they once had been, fighting bravely, but not unitedly, against the invaders.[XIII-43]

FOOTNOTES:

[XIII-1] On the name of this country see:--_Landa_, _Relacion_, and _Brasseur_, in _Id._, pp. 6, 8, 42-3; _Lizana_, in _Id._, p. 348; _Perez MS._, in _Id._, pp. 421, 429; _Id._, in _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 465, 467; see also vol. i., pp. 139-40; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 60-1, 178-9; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p. 28; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 30-1; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 14-15; _Gomara_, _Hist. Ind._, fol. 60.

[XIII-2] _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 28; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.

[XIII-3] _Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 354; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geografía_, p. 128. Cogolludo, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 178, quotes this from Lizana.

[XIII-4] _Lizana_ and _Cogolludo_, as above. Ternaux-Compans, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., p. 32, also reverses the statement of the tradition respecting the relative numbers of the respective colonies.

[XIII-5] _Orozco y Berra_, _Geografía_, p. 129.

[XIII-6] _Veytia_, tom. i., p. 237; _Torquemada_, tom. i., p. 269; _Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 354; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 178; _Fancourt's Hist. Yuc._, p. 115.

[XIII-7] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 304-8, 342-3, 453-4; _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 201-2; _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 270-1; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 44-5; _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. i., pp. 99-100; _Wappäus_, _Geog. u. Stat._, pp. 33, 142; _Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., p. 346; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 31-2.

[XIII-8] On Zamná, see:--vol. iii., pp. 462-5 of this work; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 178, 192, 196-7; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 328-30; _Lizana_, in _Id._, p. 356; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. i., pp. 78-80; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 23; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-17.

[XIII-9] On Cukulcan and the Itzas, see:--_Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; _Torquemada_, tom. ii., p. 52, tom. iii., p. 133; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 190, 196-7; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 34-9, 340-2; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 10-13; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-16; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 140-1.

[XIII-10] In a note to _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 35, 39; _Orozco y Berra_, _Geografía_, pp. 155-6.

[XIII-11] Vol. iii., p. 465; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-16.

[XIII-12] _Torquemada_, tom. ii., p. 52; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 38-45, 54-6; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 179-80; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii.; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., p. 34; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 15-6.

[XIII-13] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 44-8. 'Le nom des _Tutul-Xiu_ paraît d'origine nahuatl; il serait dérivé de _totol_, _tototl_, oiseau, et de _xíuitl_, ou _xíhuitl_, herbe, etc. En ceci il n'y aurait rien d'extraordinaire, puisqu'ils sortaient de _Tula_ ou _Tulapan_, cité qui aurait été la capitale des Nahuas ou Toltèques après leur victoire sur Xibalba.' _Brasseur_, in _Id._, p. 47. See also _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; _Torquemada_, tom. iii., p. 132; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 178, 182; _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., p. 271; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., p. 171; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 34-5.

[XIII-14] This volume, pp. 227-8. Additional study of the subject has caused me to modify considerably in this chapter some of the statements on Maya history contained in vol. ii., pp. 118-20.

[XIII-15] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., pp. 465-9; _Brasseur_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 420-9.

[XIII-16] For an account of this system of Ahau Katunes and the order of their succession, see vol. ii., pp. 762-5.

[XIII-17] See vol. ii., pp. 762-5.

[XIII-18] In his _Hist. Nat. Civ._, Brasseur follows this system and repeatedly gives 174 (171 on p. 228 of this volume is a misprint) as the date of this migration, using it indeed to fix the date of the migration of the Toltecs and Quichés from Tulan; but he adopts the other theory in his notes to Landa's work.

[XIII-19] Reckoning an epoch as 24 years, the migration lasted from 173 to 270, or 97 years instead of 81, as in the text. Perez has it from 144 to 217, or 73 years, which agrees neither with the text nor with his own theory.

[XIII-20] As late as 661 or 485, if Perez' statement of 8 Ahau be accepted, which is inconsistent with the whole record.

[XIII-21] From 218 to 360, according to Perez; or according to his statement that four epochs elapsed, from 270 to 366.

[XIII-22] 360 to 432, _Perez_; 533 to 605, on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.

[XIII-23] 432 to 576, _Perez_; 605 to 725 on the basis of 24 years to an epoch.

[XIII-24] Or 821 according to the other system.

[XIII-25] We have seen above that there is some confusion about the date of the Tutul Xius taking Chichen.

[XIII-26] In his commentary, Perez applies this stay of 13 epochs to the Tutul Xius, although the text seems to state the contrary, making them live in Champoton from 576 to 888; or if he had added simply the 260 years of the text, 576 to 836; or if he had correctly adapted his chronology to his own theory, from 821 to 1133. On a basis of 24 years to a Katun the stay of the Itzas at Champoton, as given in the text, was from 533 to 821.

[XIII-27] 888-936, _Perez_; 821-869, on the basis of 24 years. Perez, applying this wandering to the Tutul Xius, makes them settle again at Chichen.

[XIII-28] 936-1176, _Perez_; 869-1109, on basis of 24 years, but this of course would not agree with the two hundred years of the text.

[XIII-29] Perez makes these events, which he seems to regard as two or three distinct wars, fill the time from 1176 to 1258. From 1119 to 1157, on a basis of 24 years.

[XIII-30] 1258 to 1368, _Perez_; 1229 to 1445, on the basis of 24 years. Perez admits in his commentary only one destruction of Mayapan in 1308.

[XIII-31] Or, on a basis of 24 years to a Katun, between 1493 and 1517. Either of these dates agrees very well with the facts, since Córdova reached the coast of Yucatan in 1517, and Gerónimo de Aguilar was wrecked there, probably some years earlier. But Perez dates their arrival between 1392 and 1488, before America was discovered!

[XIII-32] Perez directly contradicts the text in placing this death in 1493.

[XIII-33] Vol. iv., pp. 140-285.

[XIII-34] _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 197.

[XIII-35] It seems to me very probable that there is an error or omission by the copyist or translator in this part of the document.

[XIII-36] On this revolution see:--_Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 48-52, 56. This author calls the Chel prince Achchel, and calls him the son-in-law of a venerable priest in Mayapan. _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 60, 178-9; _Lizana_, in _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 350; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p. 28; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 32-40, 48-9. This author calls him Ahalin Chel, and their province Cicontun. _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 31, 35; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 172-3; _Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., p. 347; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, pp. 20-1; _Stephens' Yuc._, vol. i., pp. 140-1.

[XIII-37] Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 41-2, tells us that their province was called Calkini, and the people, from their ruler, took the name of Ahcanuls; and also that they built or enlarged the cities of Sabacché, Labná, and Pokboc. (See vol. iv., pp. 211-8) The only authority for the latter statement is probably the location of these ruins in a general southern direction from Uxmal. Cogolludo says the natives of Conil and Choàca, called Kupules, were the most warlike in Yucatan. _Hist. Yuc._, p. 143; see also _Landa_, _Relacion_, p. 54; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.

[XIII-38] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 54-5; _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; _Brasseur_, _Hist._, tom. ii., p. 42; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 143; _Malte-Brun_, _Yucatan_, p. 20.

[XIII-39] _Registro Yuc._, tom. ii., pp. 261-72. The tradition is given in the form of a dialogue between a visitor to the ruins and a native of extraordinary intelligence, who claimed to be well acquainted with the historical traditions of his race. Brasseur, _Hist._, tom. ii., pp. 578-88, gives what is probably an extended translation of the article referred to. Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., pp. 423-5, obtained from a native a tradition similar in some respects, so far as it goes, which is translated by Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 369-71.

[XIII-40] See vol. iv., pp. 172, 192-7.

[XIII-41] _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 507-8; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 29-31, 401-2, 488-91; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 24, 36, 41; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., p. 200; _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist. Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 98; _Ternaux-Compans_, in _Nouvelles Annales_, tom. xcvii., pp. 51-2; _Squier's Cent. Amer._, pp. 547, 550-1.

[XIII-42] _Herrera_, dec. iv., lib. x., cap. ii., iii.; _Torquemada_, tom. iii., p. 132; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 100, 179; _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 50-2, 62; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, p. 28; _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 140-1; _Gallatin_, in _Amer. Ethno. Soc., Transact._, vol. i., pp. 172-3. Landa makes the date 100 years before the Conquest, that is 1446. Villagutierre and Cogolludo say 1420. Herrera says 70 years before the arrival of the Spaniards, and 500 years after its foundation. Gallatin makes it 1517 or 1536.

[XIII-43] _Landa_, _Relacion_, pp. 58-64; _Herrera_, dec. ii., lib. iii., cap. i., dec. iv., lib. x., cap. iii.; _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 97-100, 185; _Gomara_, _Hist. Ind._, fol. 63; _Villagutierre_, _Hist. Conq. Itza_, pp. 35-7; _Torquemada_, tom. iii., pp. 132-3; _Alcedo_, _Dicc._, tom. iii., p. 473; _Remesal_, _Hist. Chyapa_, pp. 245-6.

INDEX.

The Index refers alphabetically to each of the ten or twelve thousand subjects mentioned in the five volumes of the work, with numerous cross-references to and from such headings as are at all confused by reason of variations in orthography or from other causes. In describing aboriginal manners and customs, the tribes are grouped in families, and each family, instead of each tribe, has been described separately; consequently, after each tribal name in the Index is a reference to the pages containing a description of the family to which the tribe belongs; there is also an additional reference to such pages as contain any 'special mention' of the tribe. For example, information is sought about the Ahts. In the Index is found 'Ahts, tribe of Nootkas, i., 175-208; special mention, i., 177, 180-1,' etc. All the matter relating to the Nootka family on pp. 175-208, is supposed to apply to the Ahts as well as to the other tribes of the family, except such differences as may be noted on pp. 177, 180-1, etc. If information is sought respecting the burial rites or any particular custom of the Ahts, a more direct reference to the exact pages will be found under 'Nootkas,' where the matter relating to that family is subdivided. The matter in the last three chapters of vol. v. is referred to in the earlier letters of the Index by chapters instead of pages. No table of abbreviations used is believed to be needed.

A

Aba, iii., 354, see Aoa.

Abah (Abagh), Tzendal day, ii., 767; name for Atitlan, v., chap.
xi.

Abajo Val., Hond., antiq., iv., 70.

Aban, Mayapan ruler, v., chap. xiii.

Abbato-tinneh, Kutchin dialect, iii., 587.

Abchuy Kak, Maya god, iii., 467.

Abiquiu, locality of Utahs, i., 465.

Abmoctacs, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.

Abó, New Mex., antiq., iv., 663.

Abortion, i., 169, 197, 242, 279, 390, 634, 773; ii., 183, 269,
469-70.

Abrevadero, Jalisco, antiq., iv., 577.

Ac, herb, Yucatan, ii., 698.

Acacebastla, locality, Cent. Amer., iii., 760.

Acachinanco, locality, Mexico, iii., 298; v., 507.

Acagchemems, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, iii., 162;
myth., iii., 162-9, 525.

Acagnikakh, Aleut 1st man, iii., 104.

Acahualcingo (Acahualtzinco, Tlalixco), Aztec station, v., 323.

Acala, city, Chiapas, i., 681.

Acalan, city, Guatemala, ii., 650; v., 347.

Acalli, canoes, ii., 398.

Acamapichtli I. king of Culhuacan, v., 341-54.

Acamapichtli II., king of Mexico, v., 354-62, 492.

Acanum, Maya god, ii., 698.

Acapichtzin, Toltec hero, v., 213, 246.

Acapipioltzin, a Chichimec prince, v., 428, 450-1.

Acaponeta, province in Jalisco, i., 609, 671; v., 509.

Acapulco, city in Guerrero, i., 678, ii., 109.

Acat, Maya god, iii., 467.

Acatentehua, a Tlascaltec chief, v., 497.

Acatic, town, Jalisco, i., 672.

Acatl, Nahua calendar-sign, ii., 505; iii., 57, Toltec chief, v.,
243.

Acatlan, suburb of Mex., ii., 560; v., chap. x.

Acatomatl, a Chichimec chief, v., 293.

Acatonal, a Xochimilca chief, v., 309.

Acatzingo, city, Puebla, v., 420.

Acatzintitlan, locality, Mex., v., 345.

Acaucalli, Aztec chapel, iii., 346.

Acauhtzin (Achcauhtzin, Axcauhtzin), Chichimec king, v., 285,
290-1.

Acaxées (Acaxas), North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i.,
572; special mention, i., 585, 589-90; location, i., 614;
language, iii., 718-19.

Acayetl, Nahua pipe, ii., 231, 287.

Acayucan, town, Oajaca, i., 646.

Acchioc, Mosquito drink, i., 739.

Accouchement, see Women.

Acequias, see Canals and Irrigation.

Acexcoch, name of Tezcatlipoca, iii., 246.

Achastliens (Achastliés, Achastliers), Cent. Cal. tribe, i.,
363-401; location, i., 363; lang., iii., 653-4.

Achcacauhti, Aztec old men, ii., 137.

Achcacauhtzin, Tezcucan ambassadors, ii., 422.

Achcauhtin, Nahua military order, ii., 403.

Achcauhtli, Nahua priestly order, ii., 313.

Achcauhtzin, v., 245, 290, see Achcuhtzin and Icauhtzin.

Acheto-tena, i., 149, see Daho-tena.

Achi, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 787; lang.,
iii., 760.

Achihab, Quiché nobles, ii., 639; v., chap. xi.

Achilla, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.

Achillimo, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-422; location, i., 459.

Achiotl (Achiolt), dye-plant, i., 724; ii., 486.

Achitometl I., Culhua king, v., 256, 303, 316-20, 330-1.

Achitometl II., Culhua king, v., 354.

Achiuhtla, city in Oajaca, conquest of, v., 461; chap. x.

Achnutschik, Koniaga male concubine, i., 82.

Achote, food, South Mex., i., 652, 654.

Acla, Isthmian tribe, i., 747-85; location, i., 795; language,
iii., 794.

Acnagis, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 452.

Acoahunotl, ii., 436, see Quauhnochtli.

Acoculco, locality, Mexico, v., 339.

Acolhuacan (Aculhuacan), Nahua kingdom, i., 676; hist., v., 323,
333-482.

Acolhuas (Aculhuas), Nahua nation, i., 617-44; ii., 133-629;
loc., i., 676; spec. mention, ii., 92, 104, 125, 491-2, 134-6,
162-3, 231, 246-7, 367, 569, 589; myth., iii., 63, 195; lang.,
iii., 724-5; hist., v., 303-20, 359-494; see also Culhuas, with
whom they are often confounded.

Acolhuatl, name of Chichimecatl, iii., 250.

Acolhua-tlalli, war lands of Acolhuacan, ii., 225.

Acolman (Aculma), city of Mexico, ii., 441; iii., 63; v., 20,
380, 388, 395, 476.

Acolmiztli, name for Nezahualcoyotl, v., 372; lord of Cuitlahuac,
v., 409.

Acolnahuac, station, Aztec migration, v., 323, 324.

Acolnahuacatl, Tepanec king, v., 330-41, 365-6.

Acoloa, Nahua god, iii., 418.

Acoltas, tribe of Haidahs, i., 156-174; special mention, i., 174.

Acoma, town and tribe of Pueblos, i., 526-556; location, i., 600;
special mention, i., 527; language, iii., 681-2; antiq., iv.,
665-6.

Aconchi, town, Sonora, i., 606.

Aconite, Koniaga poison, i., 79.

Acopilco, locality, Mexico, v., 339.

Acorns, food in California, i., 339, 373-5, 406.

Acotelulco, ward of Tlascala city, v., 503.

Acoti, town of Pueblos, i., 527.

Acotoch, v., 317, see Ocotox.

Actopan, Mex., antiq., iv., 545.

Acuco, New Mex., antiq., iv., 674.

Acuecuejotl, name of Chalchihuitlicue, iii., 367.

Acul, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; hist., v., chap. xi.

Aculhua, Tepanec king, v., 320.

Aculhuacan, i., 676, see Acolhuacan.

Aculhuas, ii., 125, see Acolhuas.

Aculhua Tecuhtli, name for Quanez, v., 491.

Aculma, iii., 63; v., 20, see Acolman.

Aculmaitl, Tezcucan 1st man, iii., 63.

Aculnaoacatl, name of Mictlantecutli, iii., 396.

Acul Vinak, Maya nation, i., 687-711; ii., 630-803; special
mention, v., chap. xi.

Acuragua, South Cal. tribe, i., 402-22; location, i., 460.

Acus, town of Pueblos, i., 527.

Acutee, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789.

Acweek, Nootka title, i., 194.

Acxiquat, Zutugil king, v., chap. xi.

Acxitl (Meconetzin), Toltec king, v., 270-86, chap. xi.

Acxopal (Acxopil), Quiché king, v., chap. xi.

Acxopal, a Toltec noble, v., 297.

Acxoquauh (Acxocuauh, Acxoquauhtli, Acxiquat), a Toltec prince
and Culhua king, v., 299-300, 358; a Zutugil ruler, v., chapter
xi.

Acxotecas, tribe of Teotenancas, v., 280.

Acyums, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 463-401; location, i., 452.

Adacs, Lower Cal. tribe, i., 556-71; location, i., 603.

Addresses, see Speeches.

Adams County, Mississippi Valley, antiq., iv., 771.

Adkayom, sacrificer, Guat., iii., 488.

Admiralty Inlet, i., 208, 298, 302.

Admiralty Island, i., 143.

Adobe, building material, i., 535-6, 575, 624, 651, 692; ii.,
557-73; iv., 473, 607, 626-83, 718-42, see also Earth.

Adultery, i., 350-1, 390, 412, 509-10, 660, 728-9, 770; ii.,
464-6, 658, 673-5, see also Fornication.

Adze, Koniaga and Nootka implement, i., 80, 189.

Aé, Acagchemem 1st woman, iii., 164.

Aestaca, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.

Affats-tena, tribe of Nehannes, i., 149.

Agaab, Guatemala tribe, i., 687-711; location, i., 789; special
mention, v., chap. xi.

Agalta Valley, Hond., antiq., iv., 70.

Agaraits, North Cal. tribe, i., 327-61; location, i., 445.

Agate, i., 343, 495; ii., 164, 751; iv., 469, 479, 554, 678, 715.

Agave, see Maguey.

Ages of the World, Nahua myth., ii., 504-5; iii., 64-5.

Aggitikkahs, tribe of Shoshones, i., 422-42; location, i., 463.

Aghual, Chiapan day, ii., 767.

Aglegmutes (Aglegmjuten, Agolegmüten, Oglemutes), tribe of
Koniagas, i., 70-87; loc., i., 70, 139-40.

Agrazenuqua, tribe of Isthmians, i., 747-85; location, i., 795.

Agriculture, Hyperboreans, i., 107; Columbians, i., 162, 234,
267; Californians, i., 323-5, 430; iv., 696; New Mexicans,
i., 487-9, 501, 538-9, 543; iv., 619, 623, 632, 636, 676-7;
Mexicans, i., 24, 576, 578, 625, 630, 652-3; ii., 343-50, 480;
iii., 274; iv., 429-431, 442; Cent. Americans, i., 694, 719,
758-9; ii., 653, 701, 717-20; iv., 21.

Agtism, Cent. Cal. tribe, i., 363-401; location, i., 454.

Aguacateca, lang., Guat., iii., 760.

Aguaceros, North Mex. tribe, i., 572-91; location, i., 612.