Katunes_,” as well as of the text just quoted, it is apparent that Señor
Perez intended to establish the fact that the ancient Maya cycles were
composed of 24 and 312 years respectively. He does so in manifest
contradiction to the prevalent opinion that they consisted of 20 and 260
years. We do not understand the reasons why he should have come to this
conclusion. It grew out neither from the facts alleged nor from the
connection into which he wove them together. The peculiar circumstance
of having, in his commentary references, four years intercalated in
succession to the usual cycle of twenty years, and included in a square,
to serve as a “_pedestal_” to the former, is not capable of shedding new
light upon the question and causing us to distrust authorities on which
we were accustomed to rely. The other reason, which stands second in his
order of forming premises for his conclusion, is said to be the
undeniable fact, that those periods took their name of _Ahau Katun_,
because they began to be counted from the day Ahau, which was the second
day of those years that began in _Cavac_. Of this incontrovertible fact
the readers are not elsewhere informed. The information, however, which
we are able to give is that according to all we have been able to gather
on the Maya Calendar, a period, or a single year, commencing with a day
named _Ahau_, has never existed in their system of counting. They always
commenced it with the words _Kan_, _Muluc_, _Hix_, _Cavac_. If there
existed any exceptional ground for changing an old established method of
dating, the reason should have been stated, for it is preposterous to
assume that the first day of a great cyclical period should have taken
its name from any other day of the year’s calendar than from the four
above named. Nor do we understand the reason why, just here, the topic
of the succession of the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4,
2, was introduced. Could it have been with the intention of showing that
this singular enumeration of alternating _Ahaues_, which we shall
hereafter speak of, occurred only in cycles of 24 years, and that
therefrom a proof might be derived for establishing the pretended cycle
of 24 and 312 years? Evidence of this should have been given by a table
showing the series, and by still another table in which should be shown
that such an alternating succession did not occur in cycles composed of
20 years. Not one single fact can be detected in Señor Perez’s text, by
which the long established assumption of a 20 years’ cycle has been
disproved.
Nevertheless, the data which we possess of the ancient Maya Calendar are
not so complete as to disprove emphatically that a cycle of 24 and 312
years respectively was never used by the Maya chronologers.
Without doubt, Yucatan owed its ancient greatness to the success of
uniting a rude and scattered population around a number of theocratical
centres, where similar forms of worship were maintained. Though the
ancient records are wanting, this feature of the Maya system stands out
upon the background of dim traditions with great distinctness. After
this concentration of tribes, and with the view of regulating worship, a
uniform calendar would have been introduced, the main features of which
would probably have been a solar year of 365 days, the division of the
year into 20 months, and a cyclical period of 20 and 260 years
respectively. In the middle of the 11th century great tribal revolutions
took place on the high plateaus of Anahuac, by which the lowlands of
Yucatan were also affected. An adventurous tribe of the Nahuatl stock
possessed itself of one of the principal towns of Yucatan and
established its influence and power. Mayapan became the centre of
Nahuatl worship. The calendar the invaders brought with them must have
been the old honored division of the years into 365 days, with 20
months, and their cyclical period of not 20 but 52 years, and it is also
known that about the year 1450, the political union of the Mayas was
broken into several smaller divisions, some of which presumably would
have held to the ancient cycle of 20 years; others may have adopted the
Nahuatl cycle of 52 years, and possibly, may have introduced the cycle
of 24 years spoken of by Señor Perez. Political schism was likely to
have generated also a hierarchical one, and each newly formed body of
priests, in whose hands the custody and composition of annals fell,
would have sought to distinguish themselves from their predecessors by
innovations, if only of a formal character. Such changes we also observe
among the Nahuatls in Anahuac. The period of 52 years, however, seems to
have constantly prevailed among them, and also the divisions of the 365
days into 18 months of 20 days each.
We find, for instance, that one of the Nahuatl tribes begins its annals
with December 9, another selects December 26, another January 9, and
others January 12, February 4, and February 22. We also know that a
different calculation prevailed among these tribes in beginning their
annals. The State of Colhuacan began its chronology with a year 1
_Calli_, the State of Mexico with 2 _Acatl_, others with 1 _Tochtli_,
and seemingly the most ancient calculation began with the year 1
_Tecpatl_. Thus we have a historical basis for our assertion that the
Nahuatl as well as the Maya tribes did not conform to a uniform rule in
beginning their first year’s date, in their chronological epochs, or in
the division of their cyclical epochs.
In spite of this diversity, so perplexing to modern chronologists, the
Aztecs and the Mayas were both governed by the same general principle in
arranging their calendars. Both nations recognized the fact that in the
past their solar year had numbered only 360 days; and they preserved in
the words nemotemi and xona-kaba-kin, the remembrance of a not to be
forgotten effort exerted by their ancestors to correct the primordial
solar year of 360 days into one of 365 days. Both nations
conscientiously kept on dividing the year into 18 months, and each of
the months into 20 days, and with both the number 13 returns as a basis
governing the calendar of years as well as that of periods.[35]
We notice, moreover, that both nations omit to count the 20 days of the
month in the succession of the figures 1–20, but after the thirteenth
day they again begin with the number 1, and the 20th day therefore was
figured with the number 7, and also that the Mexicans counted their
smallest period with 13 years, the so-called _tlapilli_, and upon its
quadruple the cycle of 52 years was based. The lesser Maya or _Ahau_
period is 20 years, while the greater or _Ahau Katun_ is 260 years or 13
times the smaller. Señor Perez’s lesser period of 24, and the greater
one of 312 years show the same method and calculation (13 × 24 = 312).
This conformity between the early calendars of Central America should
not escape the observation of the future historical enquirer. He will be
compelled to adopt a very remote period of time when both nations,
differing so entirely in their language, dwelt in peace, connected by
the strong bands of a hierarchical power. One of these two nations, it
is clear, must have invented it. Hence the question arises, was it
original with the immigrating Nahuatl tribes who came from the higher
northern countries as is reported, and did they succeed in forming such
a consolidation with the Maya races as to mingle both under the same
hierarchical government, or did the contrary take place? The most
prevalent opinion makes the Nahuas the inventors of the general system
of chronology, but later students begin to express themselves in favor
of its Maya origin. On a more fitting occasion we are desirous to
present our reasons for taking the latter view.
Before passing from these chronological speculations to the discussion
of the Maya Manuscript, we wish to state briefly our idea of the origin
of the system of reckoning by alternating Ahaues. [See page 66]. We
promised to return to this subject, and shall now endeavor to give a
solution to this chronological problem differing from that of Señor
Perez. A passage in Bishop Landa’s work, determined our decision. After
a previous and positive assertion that the lesser Ahau period consisted
of 20 years, Landa continues, ... “The order in which they computed
their dates and made their prophecies by the aid of this computation (of
20 years) was arrived at by having two idols, dedicated to two of these
characters (_Ahaues_). To the first idol, which stands with a cross
marked above the circle, they paid homage by making him offerings and
sacrifices, in order to obtain an immunity from the calamities to come
in these 20 years, but after ten of these years had passed they offered
nothing but incense and worship. When the twenty years of the first were
fully passed they began to occupy themselves with the presages of their
second idol and to offer sacrifices to him, having taken away their
first idol to replace it by the second, in order to worship it in the
coming ten years.”[36]
[Illustration:
AHAU KATUN.
[Above we give a reproduction of a Maya Ahau Katun wheel taken from
that in Landa’s “Las cosas de Yucatan,” § XL., in order that his
explanation may be understood.]
]
“The Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards arrived at the City of
Mérida in the year of the nativity of our Lord and Master 1541, which
was precisely the first year of _Buluc Ahau_ (11 Ahau), the same that we
find placed at the top of the instrument[37] below the cross, and which
also indicates that they arrived in the month _Pop_, which is the first
in their year. Had the Spaniards not come as they did, then they would
have placed the Idol of _Bolon Ahau_ (9 Ahau), offering homage to it,
and continuing to refer to the prognostics of _Buluc Ahau_, till the
year 1561; and then they would take it from the temple and put in its
place that of _Vuc Ahau_ (7 Ahau), all the while continuing to refer to
the prognostics of _Buluc Ahau_, for ten years more, and the same with
the others until the tour was made. In this way they made up their
Katuns of twenty and ten years, worshipping them according to their
superstitions and juggleries, which were in such great numbers that
there were more than enough to deceive that simple people, and there is
reason for astonishment when one knows what kind of things in nature and
experience belong to the Demon.”
Whoever is acquainted with the awkwardness and literary negligence of
Landa’s writing will not be astonished that in his statement he left out
something which a more careful writer would have expressed, and placed
at the head of his explanation. The wanting statement, however, can be
supplied. It will be noticed that Landa in his text only refers to two
Ahau Idols worshipped in the temple. But this number must have been 13,
as is evident from the 3d Idol _Vuc Ahau_, mentioned afterwards in the
statement with which he finished his description, in order not to always
repeat the same thing of the ten other idols which are painted on the
wheel. Let us then take the statement of Landa supplemented by what we
have said above as to the questionable nomenclature of these Ahaues as
they appear in the row of numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6,
4, 2. Landa’s description gives us to understand that the lapse of
twenty years was always required before the new combination of two idols
was presented to the worshippers, and which had not before been seen in
the temple in company with the former Idols. For example: When Idol 3
was placed in the temple, Idol 2 took a first place among the
worshippers. Indeed, Idol 2 was in the temple with Idol 1, but Idol 3
was not with Idol 1, nor Idol 4 with Idol 2. If such a combination
repeating itself after 20 years, represented a space of time familiar to
the Mayas, it is natural that it should receive the name Ahau or period
of the _god_,[38] and that it should receive its name from the number of
the Idol presiding at the expiration of this space of 20 years. If
therefore in the rotation of the circle Idols 2 and 3 passed out of the
temple, the combination, or what is the same, the space of 20 years,
during which they had ornamented the temple will have borne the name 2
_Ahau_, on the ground that Idol 2 had preceded it. The second
combination, then, would follow when the presidency of Idol 4 would have
finished its term, and in this way the row 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 1, 3, 5,
7, 9, 11, 13, may have had its origin.
Now, it is true that the order in which these numbers stand is different
from that transmitted to us, which begins with 13 and is followed by 11
and 9. The reverse of this method of reckoning may possibly be accounted
for in this way: An epoch unknown to us may have occurred when the Maya
chroniclers desired to review past events and bring them into order.
Counting backwards from such a date they would have called the first
period of twenty years not the 13th, nor, according to our above
statement, the 1st, but the 2d Ahau. Consequently the period after the
expiration of the great cycles of 260 years would have been called the
13th Ahau, though properly speaking it should have been the 2d Ahau. An
historical epoch for such reckoning backward is known to have occurred.
It occurred again in the year 1542, when the conquest of Yucatan by the
Spaniards took place. It appears that the Mayas in that year declared
their 13th Ahau period to be at an end, from 1522 to 1542; consequently
a back reckoning, according to this system of the Mayas, gave a 2d Ahau
for the period of 1502–22, a 4th Ahau for that of 1482–1502, and going
on in the same way of reckoning the year 1282 would have represented the
expiration of the 13th _Ahau_.
The circle of Landa exemplifies this manner of counting. He starts from
the 13th Ahau, counting from left to right. But if we count in the
opposite direction we should obtain the row of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, &c.,
as we have shown above. If we refer to the striking discovery on the
Mexican Calendar stone[39] that the days upon that circle are not
counted towards the right but towards the left, and generalize it as a
rule to be adopted also for the chronological cycles of the Mayas, we
should come to the conclusion that the Mayas in some of their former
chronological epochs counted their Ahaues in that natural order. Who
shall say that the reversed counting did not originate from a
misunderstanding on the part of the Spaniards? We do not claim to have
finally disposed of the question. Every new attempt will be a welcome
addition to the cause, for each new investigator is obliged to descend
deeper into the dark mine where Maya history lies buried.
SEÑOR PEREZ’S TRANSLATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
Señor Perez is thus far the only interpreter of the Maya Manuscript, and
his Spanish text found a skilful translator in Mr. John L. Stephens.
Neither the Spanish text nor the special chronological analysis of each
paragraph composed by Señor Perez, have hitherto been made public; we
owe the possession of both these documents to the kindness of our
friend, Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt, lately deceased, who, during his long
residence in Yucatan, was occupied in amassing a large collection of
matters relating to Maya literature and history, in original form or in
authentic copies. In comparing the Spanish with the English
translations, it seems that many things, not clear in the first, had
been made more intelligible in the last. It is evident that Señor Perez
sought to translate the Maya text as literally and faithfully as he
could into the Spanish language, otherwise his text would have been more
fluent and finished. The abruptness of expression, and the frequent
ellipses in the construction of its sentences, show that the Maya idiom
has been faithfully rendered. Such a course increases the interest, and
at the same time it creates confidence in the correctness of the
translation. Dr. Berendt, the profound scholar of the Maya language,
wrote us as follows on March 14, 1873: “I have several times undertaken
to translate this manuscript myself, but have always given up the task.
The manifold doubts which the original text leaves open seem to me
correctly solved by Señor Perez, and it always appeared to me that I
might indeed make another but not a better translation. The small
changes in the text of Stephens, of which you speak, I do not believe
were introduced merely from a love of his own expressions. I believe
that he first came to an understanding with Perez, and sought only to
assist the better comprehension of the manuscript for the benefit of the
public at large.”
It is to be hoped that the differences of translation of the manuscript
spoken of above, and to which Señor Eligio Ancona[40] draws attention,
will be critically investigated and finally decided by the coming
generation of scholars in Yucatan. The sons of the country should be the
born judges of the language and the spirit of the literary relics of the
indigenous race. Recent investigations have shown that this language was
split into sixteen dialects, which were spoken by as many tribes, whose
territories extended far beyond the present area of the Yucatecan
peninsula.[41] Like all languages, these Maya idioms have undergone
changes during the last three or four centuries. To understand and
explain their now obsolete elements, must be left exclusively to the
native scholar.
DISCUSSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
It will now be our task to endeavor to clear away such doubts as may
arise in regard to the chronological interpretation of the Maya
Manuscript. These doubts have reference, first, to the choice of the
method to be pursued in reckoning the Ahaues either at 24 or at 20
years. Second, as to the manner of filling up certain gaps which the
author has left open in the chronological sequence of the Ahau period;
and finally, after building again this chronological structure in its
logical order, we must adapt the dates expressed in Ahaues to the
current language of our Christian chronological era.
In order to avoid troublesome reference to the text of the preceding
pages, we shall repeat the English translation, and for better
convenience, shall present two or more sections together. To demonstrate
Señor Perez’s system and method of counting, we shall give the
translation of the Spanish text, as communicated by Dr. Berendt, without
undertaking to make any special criticisms of it.
_This is the series of Katuns that elapsed from the time of their
separation from the land and house of Nonoual, in which were the
four Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina, going out of the country
of Tulapan._
With these few words the Maya author states his purpose. He wishes to
enumerate the Katuns or periods of time from the beginning of the
history of his nation to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors. He tells
us that his nation lived in a land called Tulapan, which was westerly
from another called Zuina, and that from thence, under the lead of four
chiefs, the Tutul Xiu, they had immigrated into this new country,
Yucatan.
[Illustration:
[Map showing the movement of the Mayas as stated in the Manuscript.]
]
By Tutul Xiu the author evidently means the name of the reigning family,
which, at the arrival of the Spaniards, were considered as the ancient
rulers and hereditary lords of Chichen-Itza.[42] In regard to the
countries referred to by the names Tulapan and Zuina, we can only say
that in Central American traditions the name Tulapan oftentimes returns
under the form of Tulan. Thus, for example, the Quichés and
Cakchiqueles, sister nations of the Mayas, make mention of the above
countries in their annals.[43] Upon a closer examination of the text,
contained in the so-called “Popol Vuh,” we were unable to detect any
grounds for the assumption that these countries or places lay in a
distant orient. They probably will turn out to have been, or by the
annalists were thought to have been, situated on the northern boundaries
of Mexico, on a route of migration ending with the high plateaus of
Guatemala.
_§1. Four epochs were spent in travelling before they arrived here
with Holon Chantepeuh and his followers. When they began their
journey towards this island, it was the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th
and 2d were spent in travelling, because in the 1st year of the 13th
Ahau they arrived at this island, making together eighty-one years
they were travelling between their departure from their country and
their arrival at this island of Chacnouitan. These are 81 years._
We learn that four Ahau periods had passed the 8th, 6th, 4th and 2d
before the wanderers arrived with their leader, Holon Chantepeuh, at the
island of Chacnouitan. In the following 13th Ahau they are said to have
been already settled there. It is of the highest importance to note that
the Maya author here acknowledges that he reckoned each Ahau period as
20 years, and he remains faithful to this method to the end of the
manuscript. By this fact alone, we should be compelled to follow the
division of 20 years thus established, even if in contradiction to the
statements of other chroniclers, which fortunately is not the case.
As the author treats of the affairs of the Tutul Xiu or the so-called
Itza race, and attributes to them the discovery and colonization of
Yucatan, it is highly probable that he made use of the annals of the
Itzaes, and that they were arranged in periods of just 20 years. If we
should be right in this assumption the 20–year period must be regarded
as the most ancient ever used in Yucatan.
We cannot fully agree with Señor Perez and his countrymen that the
author intended to designate the peninsula of Yucatan when he speaks of
the Island of Chacnouitan. This name appears for the first and only time
in this manuscript. It is generally acknowledged that the name had never
previously been heard of.[44] We should state that the words of the text
are always _nay ti petene Chacnouitan_. If in Maya _peten_ meant only a
peninsula, we should take no exceptions. But the fundamental meaning of
_peten_ is an island, and as the demonstrative pronoun _nay_ means as
well “of this place” as “of that place,” the translation could as well
stand for “that distant island.” Whether the island was situated in the
ocean or in any of the many inland lakes, the probabilities seem to lie
with the latter supposition, for they came by land. Had they come by
sea, tradition would have dwelt with some characteristic remark upon
such an exceptional case. From the following paragraph it will become
still more evident that the Chacnouitan discovered by the Itzaes was
neither the whole nor the northern part of Yucatan, but a district
situated in the southwest of the peninsula.
_§2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th Ahau, in the 2d Ahau arrived Ajmekat
Tutul Xiu, and ninety-nine years they remained in Chacnouitan—years
99._
_§3. In this time also took place the discovery of the Province of
Ziyan-caan or Bacalar; the 4th Ahau and the 2d Ahau and the 13th
Ahau, or sixty years they had ruled in Ziyan-caan when_ THEY CAME
HERE. _During these years of their government of the Province of
Bacalar occurred the discovery of the Province of Chichen-Itza.
These are years 60._
As the first section closed with the arrival at Chacnouitan, which took
place upon the 2d Ahau, it was to be expected that the second section
would continue the sequence of Ahaues so as to connect with the
necessarily following 13th Ahau. But we see that it begins with the 8th
Ahau, follows with the 6th and closes with the 2d Ahau.