clear, every year, large mountains of woods, in order to prepare them
for the reception of the seed corn, as is the custom in the whole
province of Vera-paz; and before they got the iron axes they had to
work hard because they felled the trees with copper axes and often
spent an entire day in cutting one single tree, though of inferior
size; and if the tree was larger three and four days, those axes being
very apt to break; and having experienced the strength of iron, they
appreciate all tools made of it, and thus they held our axes and
machetes in great esteem.” _Cogolludo_, _Hist. d. Yucatan, Lib. IV.,
Cap. 3_, mentions axes as an article of trade in Yucatan: “Copper
axes, brought from Mexico, which they exchanged for other
merchandize.” _Documentos ineditos, Madrid, 1864, Vol. I., pag. 470_:
“The Captain, Gil Gonzales de Avila, arrived here in Sto. Domingo
(from Nicaragua) and sends to His Majesty 14,000 pesos de oro and
15,000 pesos, proceeding from axes which they said contained gold, and
6150 pesos de oro proceeding from bells which they also said contained
gold. All this he said he was presented with during his discoveries
which he was making in the Province of the South sea.” _Petrus
Martyr_, _Dec. VI., Chapt. 2 and 3_, states the same fact on the
authority of Gil Gonzales’ treasurer, Cereceda.
Footnote 18:
The absolute absence of mines in Yucatan is a fact that needs no
further corroboration. It might, however, be of interest to hear the
language used by Landa, Rel. d. las cosas de Yucatan: 1. c. § 5 “There
exist many beautiful structures of masonry in Yucatan, all of them
built of stone and showing the finest workmanship, the most
astonishing that ever were discovered in the Indies; and we cannot
wonder at it enough because there is not any class of metal in this
country by which such works could be accomplished.”
Footnote 19:
[Illustration: From Oviedo.]
_Herrera_ (_Dec. III., Lib. 4, Cap. 5_) having the original reports
before his eyes, represents this scene as follows: “Multitudes of
Indians flocked along the ways, astonished to see the beards and the
dressing of the Spaniards. The chief person they met was Dirianjeu,
the warlike cacique, who came attended by five hundred men and
seventeen women, covered with gold plates, all drawn up in order, but
without arms and with ten banners and trumpets, after their fashion.
When they came near, the banners were displayed and the cacique
touched Gonzales’ hand, as did all the five hundred, everyone giving
him a turkey. Yet each of the women gave him twenty axes of gold
(veinte hachas de oro) fourteen carats fine, each weighing eighteen
pesos and some more.” We find in _Oviedo_ (_Gonzalo Fernandez de_),
_Historia gen. y nat. de las Indias_, at the end of Vol. IV., five
folio quarto pages with illustrations referring to the chapter he
wrote on Nicaragua, and we learn from his text that he made the
sketches himself during his sojourn in Nicaragua (1524). They
represent views of the volcano of Masaya, gymnastic sports of the
Indians, a plan of the town of Tecoatega, and three Indian arms, an
_estorica_, a _porra_ and an _alabarda_. Each of the drawings is
provided with a number which correctly corresponds to that written in
the text, except those three drawings of the arms, for which we could
not find the text. Upon closer examination we discovered a suggestion
made (on page 81) that some ancient copyist or editor must have
revised Oviedo’s original manuscript, who was supposed to have dropped
the inscription to which the drawings of the three arms belong,
perhaps, only on account of the illegibility of Oviedo’s handwriting.
On the other hand, we cannot help expressing our doubts as to the fact
that these three kinds of arms should have been in use with the
Nicoyans or Nicaraguans. Notwithstanding we give the cut of the
alabarda, which has the shape of a genuine mediæval battle-axe.
Footnote 20:
Sahagun (Bernardino de), Historia de la N. España, Ed. Carlos M. de
Bustamante, 3 Vol., Mexico, 1830.
Footnote 21:
The following notice of three prehistoric nails is given for what it
is worth. Torquemada, Lib. VI., Cap. 23: Under the reign of
Nezahualpilli of Tezcuco, the statue of the God of Rain, Tlaloc,
having been found to be timeworn and corroded, a new one was made and
located on the mountain of Matlalcueye, the ancient site of this
statue. “When this idol of Tlaloc was replaced by the new one, it
happened that one of its arms broke off. They put it on again and
fastened it with three gold nails. Later, when the new faith was
introduced in their countries, this diabolical image was brought down
from the hills, at the time of the first Bishop Zummaraga, and was
broken to pieces in his presence, but not before removing the three
gold nails spoken of.”
Footnote 22:
Dupaix, Antiquités Mexicaines, Paris, 1834, Vol. II., Planche 26, fig.
75, and text in Vol. I., page 21, No. 75.
Footnote 23:
With our first glance at the picture of _Tepozcolula_ we were induced
to believe that we had found therein a representation of the
instrument which Petrus Martyr called a “_dolabra_,” and Sahagun
“_azuela_.” The translation of the one is, pick or hoe, and of the
other, cooper’s adze. Both of these, therefore, would have been
instruments in which the blade and its edge are at right angles to
their handle, and the management of which requires both hands of the
workman. This supposition is refuted by the picture of the carpenter
(cut 10), who is distinctly seen to hold the piece of wood in the left
and the tool in his right hand.
Footnote 24:
Dupaix, l. c., Vol. II., Planche 26, fig. 74, and text Vol. I., page
21.
Footnote 25:
Torquemada, Mon. Ind., Lib.—, Chap.—: “They also used certain copper
coins, almost in the shape of a Greek Tau, Τ, its width about three or
four fingers. It was a thin piece of plate of an uncertain size, and
contained much gold.” Clavigero, The History of Mexico, Ed. Ch.
Cullen, London, 1807, Vol. VII., Sect. 36, page 386, evidently copies
the sentence when he says: “Their fourth species of money, which most
resembled coined money, was made of pieces of copper, in the form of a
T, and was employed in purchases of little value.”
THE KATUNES OF MAYA HISTORY.
BY PHILIPP J. J. VALENTINI, PH.D.
[_Translated from the German, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr._]
[From Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society, October 21, 1879.]
NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.
The Publishing Committee are glad of the opportunity to print another
paper from the pen of Professor Valentini. His previous contributions
have been favorably received by some of the most competent judges. He is
always ingenious and suggestive, taking care to sustain his views by
adequate collateral information, and leaving an impression of
earnestness and thoroughness, even though the reader should not be able
always to see the way through his bold inferences to the important
conclusions deduced from them.
It seems apparent that new phases of opinion respecting the position in
the world’s history held by the races occupying the central portions of
the American Continent may be looked for in the near future. Or rather,
perhaps, it may be claimed that vestiges of ancient and independent
culture, of revolutions, conquests, and changing dynasties, extending
back to a remote period of time, which have hitherto simply excited and
bewildered travellers and explorers, bid fair to be subjected to tests
and comparisons derived from wider and closer observation, for which the
means are accumulating, and from which definite results are anticipated.
It is remarkable how one tidal wave of investigation after another has,
at different eras, invaded and receded from these regions, carrying from
them more or less of the fragments of their architectural, monumental,
and pictorial records—the sources of doubtful and unsatisfactory
interpretation. The Spanish chroniclers; the scientists of the period of
Humboldt and his contemporaries; the French government and the learned
societies of France, uniting their efforts to render effective the
honest but undisciplined enthusiasm of Brasseur de Bourbourg; all have
experienced a subsidence of interest arising mainly from a want of
success in yielding a sufficiently plausible solution of a mysterious
subject. The death of Brasseur, the fall of Maximilian, and the
political distractions of the French government and people, are not
alone the causes of suspended action on the part of the learned bodies
of France. They deemed it prudent to discredit the judgment and
correctness of their own agent. One at least of Brasseur’s Commission
publicly disavowed responsibility for his opinions; and his attempt to
interpret the Codex Troano by means of the alphabet of Bishop Landa was
pronounced by themselves to be a failure.
How signally the explorations of Del Rio, of Dupaix, of Galindo, and of
De Waldeck, failed to make a permanent impression on the public mind!
How soon the illustrated narrative of Stephens became in a measure
disregarded, and even his reliableness questioned! How completely the
nine ponderous folios of Lord Kingsborough’s extensive collection fell
dead from the press, until the great work to which he had devoted his
life and his entire fortune sold in the market for less than a single
useless production of Increase or Cotton Mather! We have seen the
elaborate and learned essays of Gallatin upon Mexican civilization
slumbering with the long sleep of the Ethnological Society; the
Geographical Society cautious about travelling out of the routes of
regular expeditions; even the sardonic “Nation,” assumed arbiter in
literature, politics, and science, and always ready for caustic
criticism, hesitating to venture far beneath the surface of these
important inquiries. The ill-fated Berendt has perished in the midst of
his unfinished labors; and, lastly, one of the most purely philosophical
investigators of Indian habits and history reasons in a direction
opposed to the antiquity and extent of aboriginal civilization.
If there is to be a renewal of interest in Mexican archæology, and a
revived consciousness of something more to be gained from the relics of
culture among the early races of this continent (a meaning in its
mystical remains that has not been developed), our Society may claim its
share in the re-kindling or fostering of the newly excited impulse. In
saying this we do not overlook the preparation which recent studies of
the general condition of prehistoric races has created for such
investigations; but, in this particular field, it has had the fortune to
draw special attention to certain regions and opportunities of research.
This has been due to the earnest and liberal exertions of one of its
members, who, some years since, passed a winter in Yucatan, and has kept
up a correspondence with friends and acquaintances there.[26] He
embodied his observations and experiences in a report on behalf of the
Council rendered in 1876. He has since endeavored to promote the
operations of Dr. and Mrs. Le Plongeon in the actual field, and has
assisted in preparing the papers of Professor Valentini for our
publications, providing illustrations in all cases when practicable. The
Report of the Council in the present number of “Proceedings” is largely
devoted to an account, by the writer[27] of a visit to the city of
Mexico, and his observations upon the country and its history. More than
twelve years ago, in January, 1868, a generous member of the Society[28]
had the forethought to establish a department of the library composed of
books relating to Spanish America, beginning with the gift of Lord
Kingsborough’s mammoth publication, and others, for the specialty of
antiquities, and accompanied by a pecuniary foundation for future
growth. The importance of a provision for this particular purpose
becomes daily more conspicuous as attention is directed to that portion
of the continent.
It is gratifying to perceive that such movements, with the greater
activity in publishing its “Anales” on the part of the Museo Naçional de
México, and the issue of such publications as that of Prof. Rau by the
Smithsonian Institution,[29] and the private work of Mr. Short,[30] are
not without their influence.
The scheme, which, although not fully matured, we have reason to believe
a real one, of sending an expedition to some of the original Mexican
provinces for a thorough exploration, at the cost of a wealthy citizen
of New York, the results to be printed in the North American Review, may
be regarded as one of the fruits of the “_Renaissance_.”
S. F. HAVEN,
_For the Committee_.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
In the ensuing discussion an attempt is made to explain the so-called
“Katunes of Maya history.”
The Manuscript which bears this name is written in the Maya language,
and its discovery is of comparatively recent date. At its first
publication in 1841 it could not fail to attract the attention of all
those who were engaged in the study of ancient American history, because
it unveiled a portion of the history of Yucatan, which had been till
then entirely unknown and seriously missed. At that date only a scanty
number of data, loosely described, and referring to an epoch removed
from the Spanish conquest of the Peninsula by only a few decades, had
appeared as the sole representatives of a long past, in which the
builders of the ruined cities undoubtedly must have lived an eventful
life, not to be counted by a few generations, but by a long and hardly
calculable number of centuries. This vacuum of time the manuscript
promised to fill out. Though it did not offer a history conceived in the
common acceptation of the word, the brief epitome of events which it
presented, began by telling us of the arrival of foreigners from distant
lands, who, step by step succeeded in conquering the Maya soil and who
were brought into significant connection with the name as well as the
fall of cities now lying in ruins over the whole country.
As to the authenticity of the events reported, they have been received
by many students with a confidence and faith rarely manifested when
discoveries of such importance are brought to light. As to the form in
which they were presented, the author seemed to exhibit neither the
skill of a professional nor the clumsiness of an occasional forger. If
on the one hand the gaps he left betrayed a defective memory, this
circumstance should be held rather as an indication of his credibility.
The material from which his information was derived, we might add, was
extensive, and much of it was probably lost when he gave the account at
a later period of his life.
The events communicated being in themselves of the highest interest,
rose in importance from the fact that they were arranged in successive
epochs. A chance was thereby given to calculate the long space of time
that intervened between the arrival of the ancient and of the modern
conquerors. This difficult task was attempted by the fortunate
discoverer himself, Señor Juan Pio Perez, of Yucatan, accompanied by a
learned discussion on ancient Maya chronology. His calculation furnishes
the sum of 1392 years, the first initial date to be assigned to the year
144 A. D., and the last to 1536 A. D.
When, some years ago we undertook to examine the argument of Señor Perez
we were not at all astonished by the great antiquity of the date he had
drawn from the Maya Manuscript. For, nearly at the same time, we had
reached similar results in an attempt made to utilize certain records
which Ixtlilxochitl (1590), and Veytia (1760), (Kingsborough Collection,
Vols. 8 and 9), have left regarding the earliest chronology of the
Nahuatl tribes. By adopting a more rational method of computation than
these Mexican writers had followed, we were unable to withstand the
conclusion, that the Nahuatl people who were immediate territorial
neighbors of the Mayas, considered the year 258 A. D. the earliest date
of their arrival on and occupancy of the Mexican soil. Thus we had
reached in this line of investigation very nearly the same results with
the Nahuatl as Señor Perez with the Maya chronology, and the suspicion
began to dawn upon us that these two neighboring people might, possibly,
have stood in a still closer than a mere territorial connection.
These results, however, were only of a very problematical nature. They
were derived from written reports, which, after all, could not be
regarded as unquestionable authority. But they received a strong
confirmation from a discovery we made later on the so-called Mexican
Calendar Stone. In our discussion of this monument we believe that we
have given ample proof of the fact, that its principal zone contains a
sculptured record, showing a series of numerical symbols, from the
computation of which the year 231 A. D. resulted as that which the
Nahuatls had accepted as the first date of their national era.
Records presented in stone and compiled by the nation whose history they
convey, must always be considered the most authentic evidence of
historical truth. Now, were we also so fortunate as to possess some Maya
monument, similar to the Mexican Calendar Stone, and were we also able
to decipher it, we should thereby have the means for determining whether
Maya chronology extended back to an epoch different from that of the
Nahuatl, or to one identical with it. That such a monument once existed
we have no doubt. That it may still exist, we have no reasonable grounds
for denying the possibility. It remains, however, still to be discovered
and to be interpreted. But since the fortunate discovery has not yet
been made, we must rest satisfied for the present with conclusions
derived from extant written records. The only manuscript of this
character thus far brought to light, is that said to have been found at
Mani,[31] which was translated by Señor Perez from the Maya language,
and accompanied by a very valuable chronological interpretation.
Since the close revision we undertook of the latter, brought out very
striking coincidences of early Maya dates with those of the Nahuatl, and
especially with that indicated on the Calendar Stone, we thought it
worth while to reprint the manuscript, to discuss its contents again,
and to arrange them under new points of view. Regarded by itself, the
manuscript, indeed, might seem of only doubtful value in settling an
important chronological question. But the comparison of its earliest
date with that of the Nahuatl monument will enhance the value of each of
them, because they may be considered as corroborative of each other.
THE MAYA MANUSCRIPT.
_Maya._ _Translation._
Lai u tzolan Katun lukci ti cab ti This is the series of “Katunes”
yotoch Nonoual cante anilo Tutul that elapsed from the time of their
Xiu ti chikin Zuiua; u luumil u departure from the land and house
talelob Tulapan chiconahthan. of Nonoual, in which were the four
Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of
Zuina, going out of the country of
Tulapan.
§1. Cante bin ti Katun lic u §1. Four epochs were spent in
ximbalob ca uliob uaye yetel Holon travelling, before they arrived
Chantepeuh yetel u cuchulob: ca here with Holonchantepeuh and his
hokiob ti petene uaxac Ahau bin yan followers. When they began their
cuchi, uac Ahau, can Ahau cabil journey toward this island, it was
Ahau, cankal haab catac hunppel the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th and
haab; tumen hun piztun oxlahun Ahau 2d were spent in travelling;
cuchie ca uliob uay ti petene because in the year of the 13th
caukal haab catac hunppel haab tu Ahau they arrived at this island,
pakteil yetel cu ximbalob lukci tu making together eighty-one years
luumilob ca talob uay ti petene they were travelling, between their
Chacnouitan lae, u añoil lae 81. departure from their country and
their arrival at this island of
Chacnouitan.
81 años. Years 81.
§ 2. Vaxac Ahau, uac Ahau, cabil § 2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th Ahau; in
Ajau kuchci Chacnouitan Ahmekat the 2d Ahau arrived Ajmekat Tutul
Tutul Xiu hunppel haab minan ti Xiu, and ninety-nine years they
hokal haab cuchi yanob Chacnouitan remained in Chacnouitan.
lae: lai u habil lae.
99 años. Years 99.
§ 3. Laitun uchci u chicpahal § 3. In this time also took place
tzucubte Ziyan-caan lae Bakhalal, the discovery of the province of
can Ahau, cabil Ahau, oxlahun Ahau Ziyan-caan or Bacalar, the 4th Ahau
oxkal haab cu tepalob Ziyan-caan ca and 2d Ahau, or sixty years, they
emob uay lac: lai u haabil cu had ruled in Ziyan-caan when they
tepalob Bakhalal chuulte laitun came here. During these years of
chicpahci Chichen Itza lae. their government of the province of
Bacalar occurred the discovery of
Chichen-Itza.
60 años. Years 60.
§ 4. Buluc Ahau, bolon Ahau, uuc § 4. The 11th Ahau, the 9th, 7th,
Ahau, ho Ahau ox Ahau, hun Ahau uac 5th, 3d and 1st Ahau, or 120 years,
kal haab cu tepalob Chichen Itza ca they ruled in Chichen-Itza, when it
paxi Chichen Itza, ca binob cahtal was destroyed, and they emigrated
Champutun ti yanhi u yotochob ah to Champoton, where the Itzaes holy
Ytzoab kuyen uincob lae. men, had houses.
120 años. Years 120.
§ 5. Vac Ahau, chucuc u luumil § 5. The 6th Ahau they took
Chanputun, can Ahau, cabil Ahau, possession of the territory of
oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, bolon Champoton; the 4th Ahau, 2d, 13th,
Ahau, uuc Ahau, ho Ahau, ox Ahau, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th,
hun Ahau, lahca Ahau, lahun Ajau, 10th and 8th, Champoton was
uaxac Ahau, paxci Chanputun, destroyed or abandoned. Two hundred
oxlahun kaal haab cu tepalob and sixty years the Itzaes reigned
Chanputun tumenel Ytza uincob ca in Champoton, when they returned in
talob u tzaclé u yotochob tu caten, search of their homes, and they
laix tun u katunil binciob ah lived for several katunes under the
Ytzaob yalan che yalan aban yalan uninhabited mountains.
ak ti numyaob lae; lai u habil
cuchinbal lae.
260 años. Years 260.
§ 6. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, ca kal § 6. The 6th Ahau, 4th Ahau, after
haabcatalob u heↄob yotoch tu caten 40 years, they returned to their
ca tu zatahob Chakanputun: lay u homes once more and Champoton was
habil lae. lost to them.
40 años. Years 40.
§ 7. Lai u katunil cabil Ahau. u § 7. In this Katun of the 2d Ahau,
heↄci cab Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu Vxmal. Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu established
Cabil Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, buluc himself in Uxmal; the 2d Ahau, the
Ahau, bolon Ahau, uuc Ahau, ho 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st,
Ahau, ox Ahau, hun Ahau, lahca the 12th and 10th Ahau, equal to
Ahau, lahun Ahau, lahun kal haab cu 200 years, they governed in Uxmal,
tepalob yetel u halach uinicil with the governors of Chichen Itza
Chichen Itza yetel Mayalpan: lay u and of Mayapan.
habil lae.
200 años. Years 200.
§ 8. Lai u katunil buluc Ahau, § 8. These are the Katunes 11th,
bolon Ahau, uac Ahau, uaxac Ahau, 9th and 6th Ahau (_sic_). In the
paxci u halach uinicil Chichen Itza 8th Ahau the governor of
tumenel u kebanthan Hunac-eel, ca Chichen-Itza was deposed, because
uch ti Chacxib chac Chichen Itza tu he murmured disrespectfully against
kebanthan Hunac-eel u halach Hunac-eel. This happened to
uinicil Mayalpan ichpac. Cankal Chacxibchac of Chichen-Itza,
haab catac lahun piz haab, tu lahun governor of the fortress of
tun uaxac Ahau cuchie; lai u haabil Mayapan. Ninety years had elapsed,
paxci tumenel Ahzinteyutchan yetel but the 10th year of the 8th Ahau
Tzunte-cum, yetel Taxcal, yetel was the year in which he was
Pantemit, Xuchu-cuet, yetel overthrown by Ajzinte-yut-chan,
Ytzcuat, yetel Kakaltecat lay u with Tzunte-cum, Taxcal, Pantemit,
kaba uinicilob: lae muctulob Xuch-ueuet, Ytzcuat and Kakaltecat;
ahmayal panob lae. these are the names of the seven
Mayalpanes.
90 años. Years 90.