lai ca binob u pâ ah Vlmil Ahau Ahau they attacked Chief Ulmil, in
tumenel u uahal-uahob yetel ah consequence of his quarrel with
Ytzmal Vlil Ahau; lae oxlahun uuↄ u Ulil, Chief of Yzamal; thirteen
katunilob ca paxob tumen Hunac-eel: divisions of troops he had when he
tumenel u ↄabal u naatob; uac Ahau was routed by Hunac-eel; in the 6th
ca ↄoci: hunkal haab catac can Ahau the war was over, after 34
lahun pizi: lai u habil cu xinbal. years.
34 años. Years 34.
§ 10. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, cabil § 10. In the 6th Ahau, 4th, 2d,
Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, 13th and 11th Ahau, the fortified
chucuc u luumil ich pâ Mayalpan, territory of Mayapan was invaded by
tumenel u pach tulum, tumenel the men of Itza, under their Chief
multepal ich cab Mayalpan, tumenel Ulmil, because they had walls, and
Ytza uinicob yetel ah Vlmil Ahau governed in common the people of
lae; can kaal haab catac oxppel Mayalpan; eighty-three years
haab: yocol buluc Ahau cuchie paxci elapsed after this event, and at
Mayalpan tumenel ahuitzil ↄul, tau the beginning of the 11th Ahau
cah Mayalpan. Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers
of the Uitzes, Highlanders, as was
also Tancaj of Mayalpan.
83 años. Years 83.
§ 11. Vaxac Ahau lay paxci Mayalpan § 11. In the 8th Ahau, Mayalpan was
lai u katunil uac Ahau, can Ahau, destroyed; the epochs of the 6th,
cabil Ahau, lai haab cu ximbal ca 4th and 2d Ahau elapsed, and at
yax mani españoles u yaxilci caa this period the Spaniards for the
luumi Yucatan tzucubte lae, oxkal first time arrived, and gave the
haab pâaxac ich pâ cuchie. name of Yucatan to this province,
sixty years after the destruction
of the fortress.
60 años. Years 60.
§ 12. Oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, § 12. The 13th and 11th Ahau,
uchci mayacimil ich pâ yetel pestilence and small pox were in
nohkakil: oxlahun Ahau cimci the castles. In the 13th Ahau,
Ahpula: uacppel haab u binel ma Chief Ajpula died; six years were
ↄococ u xocol oxlahun Ahau cuchie, wanting to the completion of the
ti yanil u xocol haab ti lakin 13th Ahau; this year was counted
cuchie, canil kan cumlahi pop, tu toward the east of the wheel, and
holhun Zip catac oxppeli, bolon began on the 4th “Kan.” Ajpula died
Ymix u kinil lai cimi Ahpula; on the 18th day of the month Zip,
laitun año cu ximbal cuchi lae ca in the 9th Ymix; and that it may be
oheltabac lay u xoc numeroil años known in numbers, it was the year
lae 1536 años cuchie, oxkal haab 1536, sixty years after the
paaxac ich pâ cuchi lae. destruction of the fortress.
§ 13. Laili ma ↄococ u xocol buluc § 13. Before the termination of the
Ahau lae lai ulci españoles kul 11th Ahau, the Spaniards arrived,
uincob ti lakin u talob ca uliob holy men from the east came with
uay tac luumil lae; bolon Ahau them when they reached the land.
hoppci cristianoil uchci The 9th Ahau was the commencement
caputzihil: laili ichil u katunil of baptism and Christianity; and in
lae ulci yax obispo Toroba u kaba, this year was the arrival of Toroba
heix año cu ximbal uchie. (Toral), the first bishop.
1544 años. 1544 A. D.
NOTE.—This Manuscript has also an introduction and close, which
Señor Perez has not published, because the dates specified occurred
in the Spanish epoch, and consequently were of no interest to the
Maya student.
HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
In the interest of authenticity it is much to be regretted that neither
the name of the author, his residence, nor the date when the Manuscript
was written, are known to us, and we are also ignorant of other matters
of moment; whether the Manuscript is an original or a copy, or how often
copied, or by what family or person it may have been preserved before it
came into the hands of Don Juan Pio Perez. That Yucatecan gentleman had
retired from Mérida, the capital, to the District of Peto, to devote
himself to his favorite studies, the ancient language and the history of
his nation. The unusual interest that he showed in this direction,
united to his influential position as first officer of the district,
enabled him to obtain many small manuscript documents known to have been
written by the natives in their vernacular language, the Maya, soon
after the time of the conquest, which, for the most part, contained
historical reminiscences of the time of the supremacy of their
ancestors. Among these manuscripts there was a so-called _Chilam Balam
Calendar_, which, in the form of an appendix, contained, besides, the
outlines of the primitive history of Yucatan. It was, indeed, but a
brief epitome of historical events, accompanied by the corresponding
dates. But its value consisted in the circumstance that these dates were
catalogued according to successive epochs; and it required only slight
inspection to disclose the fact that they extended back to a period not
very distant from our Christian Era.
This was a discovery to the learned world as welcome as any that could
be made. It was unique in its kind. All attempts, thus far, had vainly
sought to learn something about the history of the builders of those
palaces and temples with whose ruins the peninsula was covered at the
date of the arrival of the Spaniards, and which pointed to a long past
and to the unceasing activity of a numberless population, which, while
it was skilled in the most important branches of art and industry, and
familiar with a luxury such as only ancient Asia and India had
displayed, was yet governed by a despotic and hierarchical power. The
native, when asked whose work the ruins were, would answer nothing but
that they owed their origin to men who, in ancient times, had immigrated
from far distant countries.
The Manuscript disclosed at once the history of these strange
immigrants, showed the progressive march of the conquest, and the
contemporaneous foundation of the largest cities then in ruins, and
furnished in the Maya language the chronology of each event and its
corresponding epoch. By means of his extensive antiquarian knowledge
Señor Perez made an exact translation of this Manuscript into Spanish,
and afterwards undertook a critical interpretation of its contents, and
accompanied the whole with an introductory explanation of the system of
ancient Maya chronology.
In the midst of these labors he was surprised by the arrival of the
celebrated American traveller and archæologist, John Lloyd Stephens, and
was induced to entrust to him a copy of the MSS. and interpretations to
be embodied in his work on Yucatan, in order to bring them more fully
before the world. His wishes were scrupulously complied with, and the
Spanish translation has been rendered into literal English by Mr.
Stephens in “Incidents of Travel in Yucatan,” vol. I., Appendix, pages
434–459, and vol. II., Appendix, pages 465–469.
Mr. Albert Gallatin, who, of all American students, has made himself
most thoroughly acquainted with what remains of the historical elements
of the Nahuatl and Maya people, has brought together the results of his
investigations in a lecture published in the “Transactions of the
American Ethnological Society,” New York, 1858, vol. I., pages 104–114.
The information therein contained attests an entire familiarity with the
method pursued by Señor Perez in his commentary, without, indeed,
undertaking any severe criticism of it. In our opinion Mr. John L.
Stephens and Mr. Gallatin are the only Americans who have recognized
Señor Perez’s merits in an unequivocal manner, and have brought them to
the knowledge of the world.
This is all we could learn about the Manuscript, nor have we been able
to form a supposition, much less to discover in the text itself any clue
to the source from which the unknown Maya author could have drawn his
data. At the end of the Manuscript Señor Perez gives his opinion that
the whole was written from memory, because it must have been done long
after the conquest, and after Bishop Landa had publicly destroyed much
of the historical picture-writing of the Mayas by an _auto-da-fé_, and
because the whole narration is so concise and condensed that it appears
more like an index than a circumstantial description of events.
These opinions of Señor Perez might cast a well grounded suspicion on
the authenticity of the manuscript. We shall try to remove such doubts,
at once, by presenting the following considerations. We do not believe
that Bishop Landa succeeded in burning the entire treasures of Maya
literature at the notorious _auto-da-fé_ in the town of Mani in 1561.
The authorities[32] to which we have access describe the number of the
destroyed objects so precisely that we have every reason to confide in
their correctness. We read of 5,000 idols of different size and form, 13
large altar stones, 22 smaller stones, 197 vessels of every form and
size, and lastly of 27 rolls (_sic_) on deerskin covered with signs and
hieroglyphics, given to destruction at that time and place. We may
believe that the terrorism exercised by Bishop Landa had a powerful
influence on the minds and on the newly converted consciences of the
natives, and the Bishop no doubt used every possible means to get into
his hands as much as he could of what he considered to be “cabalistic
signs and invocations to the devil.” But we can never believe that these
27 rolls represented the entire Maya literature, collected for hundreds
of years with the greatest care and held sacred by the natives. Such a
wholesale destruction would have been an impossibility. We could refer
to a similar occurrence that took place in Mexico; and though Bishop
Zumarraga has the bad reputation of having destroyed all the picture
treasures of the Nahuatls by an _auto-da-fé_, there were notwithstanding
so many of them in existence soon after his time in the possession of
native families that Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and others, were able to
build up their detailed accounts of the primitive history of their
country from these original sources. Possibly numbers of them may have
been preserved among the Maya tribes, for only under such favorable
conditions could Cogolludo, Villagutierre and Lizana have obtained the
valuable information and material which form the chief interest of their
labors and researches, and which enabled also Pio Perez in the year
1835, to discover material from which to interpret so complete a
description of the system of Maya chronology. Nay, even, we have a
suspicion that Bishop Landa may have laid aside the most important part
of these records, or what was the most intelligible to him, for we
cannot comprehend how he would have been able without these pictures
before his eyes to present in his work the symbols for the days so
correctly, and also those for the months, or how otherwise he could have
written his work in Spain, so far removed from all sources of
information and from consultation with the natives.
No reason, therefore, exists why the Maya author should not have
remained in possession of some painting, which exhibited the annals of
his forefathers. If, however, he was compelled to write his “Series of
Katunes” from memory, there is no reason for not relying on the accuracy
of his retentive faculties alone. The noble Indians, and he belonged
undoubtedly to this class, were very particular in training their sons
to learn by heart songs expressing the glorious deeds of their
ancestors. It is a fact attested by the Spanish chroniclers, that these
songs were recited publicly in the temples and on solemn religious
occasions. They were the only kind of positive knowledge with which we
know the brains of the Indian pupils were burdened. In either case,
therefore, the accuracy of the written Maya report needs not be doubted,
at least not on the grounds alleged. Had it been composed in the Spanish
language instead of Maya, we should have viewed this circumstance with a
more critical eye. But as the native under Spanish rule expressed it in
his native language, this kind of loyalty appears to us to give a
certain warranty of dealing with a man who described the traditions of
his oppressed race, and who wished to perpetuate its memory by handing
down to posterity the principal events of the past history of his
nation.
At this place, we should not like to omit pointing out an interesting
suggestion which the clear headed and sagacious author, Señor Eligio
Ancona[33] made in his before mentioned work, that Bishop Landa and the
author of the Manuscript agree so often in their mention of historic
dates, in the manner as well as the matter, as to lead to the idea that
both drew their information from the same source. Whatever be its
origin, we agree with the views of Señor Perez, that, in spite of the
deficiency and breaks occurring in the Manuscript, it deserves critical
attention as the only document thus far discovered that gives
information of the early history of Yucatan.
ELEMENTS OF MAYA CHRONOLOGY.
It is impossible to understand the Manuscript before obtaining a
knowledge of the division of time prevalent in Yucatan before the
Spanish Conquest. Señor Perez has the incontestable merit of having been
the first to lay before the world not only the chief points of the
system but also all the technical details. Before his time but little
was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic works of
Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn only that the Mayas, in
conformity with the Mexicans, held that the solar year was composed of
360 days, and when these were passed they added 5 days more as a
correction. We are told that both nations divided their years into 18
months, and their months into twenty days each. As to the longer periods
of time, however, we hear of certain differences. While the Mexicans had
an epoch of 52 years which they divided into 4 smaller periods, the so
called _Tlapilli_, each of 13 years, the Mayas counted a great epoch of
260 years, the so called _Ahau Katun_, subdivided into 13 smaller
periods each of 20 years, with the simple name _Ahau_. This period of 20
years was according to Cogolludo[34] subdivided again into what he calls
_lustra_ of 5 years each, but he does not give the native name of this
division.
The discovery of the Manuscript, no doubt, induced Señor Perez to make a
systematic and detailed sketch of the early native chronology of his
country. We shall mention only the most interesting and important of his
details and refer the reader for the rest to Stephens’ work already
mentioned. The names of the 20 days in the month are as follows:—
1 Kan.
2 Chicchan.
3 Quimij.
4 Manik.
5 Lamat.
6 Muluc.
7 Oc.
8 Chuen.
9 Eb.
10 Been.
11 Gix.
12 Men.
13 Quib.
^114 Caban.
^215 Edznab.
^316 Cavac.
^417 Ahau.
^518 Ymix.
^619 Yx.
^720 Akbal.
The 18 months were as follows:—
1 Pop (16th of July.)
2 Uoo (5th of August)
3 Zip (25th of August).
4 Zodz (14th of September).
5 Zeec (4th of October).
6 Xal (24th of October).
7 Dze-yaxkin (13th of November).
8 Mol (3d of December).
9 Dchen (23d of December).
10 Yaax (12th of January).
11 Zae (1st of February).
12 Quej (21st of February).
13 Mac (13th of March).
14 Kankin (2d of April).
15 Moan (22d of April).
16 Pax (12th of May).
17 Kayab (1st of June).
18 Cumkū (21st of June).
As the table shows their year began with the first day of the month Pop,
which corresponded to the 16th of July in our calendar, when, as Señor
Perez observes, the sun was almost vertical over the Peninsula. The day
itself was called _Kin_, Sun, the month _U_, Moon, and the 5 intercalary
days were called nameless days, _Xona-Kaba-Kin_, not-name-Sun.
In the arrangement of their yearly calendar the Mayas proceeded as
follows: Like the Mexicans they used a combination of the numbers 1 to
13, with the names of the 20 days of the month. They called the first
day of the month Pop (our 16 July) 1 Kan, the second 2 Chicchan, the
third 3 Quimij, and so on. The fourteenth day was called 1 Caban, the
fifteenth 2 Edznab, and the last or twentieth day 7 Akbal. The first day
of the second month followed in correct numerical sequence with the name
8 Kan, the second with the name 9 Chicchan. Thus repeating the 20 names
of the days with the above combination of numbers from 1 to 13 they
reached the 360th day with the name 9 Akbal. Then followed the
intercalary week of 5 days bearing the names 10 Kan, 11 Chicchan, 12
Cimij, 13 Manik, and 1 Lamat.
The second year begins with 2 Muluc. In the same manner going on with
the combination the first day of the third year was 3 Hix, then followed
4 Cavac, 9 Kan, 10 Muluc, 11 Hix, 12 Cavac, 13 Kan, 1 Muluc, 2 Hix, and
so on. At the end of the 52d year the above-mentioned combination was
exhausted, for the 53d year began again with the day 1 Kan.
─────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────────┬─────┬──────
Names of │Pop. │Uoo. │Zip. │Zodz.│Zeec.│Xul. │Dze-yaxkin.│Mol. │Dchen.
the │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Months. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Names of │ 1│ 2│ 3│ 4│ 5│ 6│ 7│ 8│ 9
the Days.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───────────┼─────┼──────
Kan, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5
Chicchau,│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6
Quimij, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7
Manik, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8
Lamat, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9
Muluc, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10
Oc, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11
Chuen, │ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12
Eb, │ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13
Been, │ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1
Gix, │ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2
Men, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3
Quib, │ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4
Caban, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5
Edznab, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6
Cavac, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7
Ahau, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8
Ymix, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9
Yk, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10
Akbal, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11
─────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───────────┴─────┴──────
─────────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬───────┬─────┬─────┬──────┬──────
Names of │Yeax.│Zac. │Quej.│Mac. │Kankin.│Moan.│Pax. │Kayab.│Cumkū.
the │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Months. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Names of │ 10│ 11│ 12│ 13│ 14│ 15│ 16│ 17│ 18
the Days.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
─────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼──────
Kan, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3
Chicchau,│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4
Quimij, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5
Manik, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6
Lamat, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7
Muluc, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8
Oc, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9
Chuen, │ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10
Eb, │ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11
Been, │ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12
Gix, │ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13
Men, │ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1
Quib, │ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2
Caban, │ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3
Edznab, │ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4
Cavac, │ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5
Ahau, │ 2│ 9│ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6
Ymix, │ 3│ 10│ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7
Yk, │ 4│ 11│ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8
Akbal, │ 5│ 12│ 6│ 13│ 7│ 1│ 8│ 2│ 9
─────────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴───────┴─────┴─────┴──────┴──────
The following year must begin with 2 Muluc.
Each week had 5 days│Kan 10
│Chicchan 11
│Quimij 12
│Manik 13
│Lamat 1
It is to be observed here that this arrangement of a calendar of epochs
agrees with that in use in the interior of Mexico. There, the numbers
from 1 to 13 were combined with four names, Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli and
Acatl, which they had taken, like the Mayas, from the names for the 20
days of the month; and both calendars represent the first days of their
weeks of five days as occurring upon the 1st, 6th, 11th and 16th days of
the month. From this system Señor Perez arrives at the division into
great epochs of 52 years used in Mexico as well as in Yucatan. This
statement appears hazardous in the highest degree when compared with the
statements made by the before-mentioned authorities. They claim for
Yucatan an epoch of 20 and 260 years respectively; and Landa, who wrote
with the first impressions of the conquest still fresh in his mind, and
whose information came directly from the natives themselves, agrees with
them. Without doubt Señor Perez must have been aware of this
contradiction. After he had developed in §7 the so-called epoch of the
Mayas of 52 years he makes us acquainted with this national Maya epoch,
though, as we shall presently learn, he disagrees with the Maya writers
as to the time of its duration. His statement is: §8. “The Yucatecans,
besides the great cycle of 52 years, employed still another great cycle,
which had reference to certain portions of it, in order to date the main
epoch, and the most notable events of their history. Each of these
cycles contained 13 periods, of 24 years each, making together 312
years. Each period, or _Ahau-Katun_ was divided into two parts. The
first of these parts of 20 years was enclosed in a square (_sic_), and
was called on that account _amaytun_, _lamayte_ or _lamaytun_. The
second part of 4 years formed, so to speak, a pedestal for the first
part, and was called _chek oc Katun_, or _lath oc Katun_, which
signifies a _chair_ or pedestal. These years were considered
intercalary, and were held to be unlucky years. They were called _u yail
Jaab_, and the same was the case with the 5 intercalary days to which
they corresponded. The separation of the 20 years from the following 4
years gave rise to the erroneous idea that the _Ahaues_ consisted of
twenty years only, an error which has prevailed almost universally among
those who have written upon this subject. But if they had counted the
years which compose a period, and had taken notice of the positive
declarations of the manuscript to the effect that the _Ahaues_ consisted
of 24 years divided as above stated, they would not have misled their
readers on this point.”
Señor Perez continues:—
“It is an incontrovertible fact that those Maya periods, epochs or ages,
took their name from _Ahau Katun_, for they began to be counted from the
day which bore the name _Ahau_, the second day of those years, which
began with the name _Cavac_. But as these days and numbers were taken
from years which had run their course, the periods of 24 years could
never maintain an arithmetical order, but succeeded each other according
to the following arrangement of numbers: 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10,
8, 6, 4, 2. As the Indians considered the number 13 the initial number,
it is probable that some remarkable event had happened in that year,
because, when the Spaniards arrived in the Peninsula, the Indians then
counted the 8th as the 1st, that being the date at which their ancestors
came to settle there; and an Indian writer proposed that they should
abandon that order also, and begin counting from the 11th, solely
because the Conquest had happened in that Ahau. Now, if the 13th Ahau
Katun began on a second day of the year, it must be that year which
began on 12 Cavac, and the 12th of the series. The 11th Ahau would
commence in the year of 10 Cavac, which occurred after a period of 24
years, and so on with the rest; taking notice that after the lapse of
years we come to the respective number marked in the course of the
Ahaues which is placed first; proving that they consisted of 24, and
not, as some have believed, of 20 years.”