well established from a historical point of view, as that when Mérida
was declared the future capital of the conquered country. It is
represented by the last year of the 13th Ahau. A second date and event,
that of the final destruction of Mayapan, is mentioned by Cogolludo, who
places it about the year 1420 A. D., which would give (see table, page
96) a 12th or a 10th _Ahau_ period. But the manuscript in §11 gives
_Vaxac Ahau_, or the 8th _Ahau_, which according to our computation
represents the years between 1442 and 1462. Landa agrees with this
statement (Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, §IX., page 52). “_It is now
120 years since Mayapan was destroyed._” Landa wrote in the year 1566,
therefore, in his conception Mayapan was destroyed in 1446, which year
falls correctly in the 8th _Ahau_.
Landa’s account agrees also with another event mentioned in the
manuscript, the wanderings of the Itzaes 40 years in the wilderness
before they settled down at Uxmal and Mayapan, in the 6th and 4th Ahau,
which is in our calculation from 942–982 A. D. Landa, however, does not
fix the year (Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan, §VIII., page 46). In
§VIII., page 49, he likewise speaks of a king of the tribes of Cocomes,
hostile to the Itzaes, who kept a Mexican garrison in Mayapan. This is
an allusion to the seven Mayalpanes mentioned in the manuscript (in §8),
all of whom have Mexican (Nahuatl) names. There also the year is not
given. However, his confirmation of so early events in Maya history
appears to be of high value.
It is fortunate that the manuscript just in the middle of its narration
exhibits a long succession of Ahau periods without any gaps at all. We
can count through sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, thirty-one _Ahau_
periods or 620 _years_ of uninterrupted history. They represent,
according to our calculation, the epochs from the years 682–1302 A. D.,
or from the taking of Champoton to the first destruction of Mayapan by
the assistance of the foreign Uitzes. This compact period of time
touches a very remote epoch in the history of the civilized nations of
Central America. It reaches backwards to an epoch when in Europe, Pepin
D’Heristal and his family laid the foundation to their future ascendancy
on the throne of France. If we look still further backward in our table,
we notice another long period of time (sections 3 and 4) which
represents the sum of eight uninterrupted Ahaues, equal to 160 years.
The connection of these two great periods was re-established by the
interpolation of the three Ahaues, 8, 10 and 12 in section 5, a
correction for which there should be not the least question. Groping our
way, we should reach the epochs when Bacalar was founded, with a date as
early as between 462 and 482 A. D. At this point we are no longer able
to follow the conquerors on their route. The location of Bacalar is well
known to us, but that of Chacnouitan and Tulapan has escaped our
investigation. Notwithstanding, by the aid of the quoted Ahaues we are
able to fix the time for the long rest and residence in Chacnouitan, and
for their remote starting from Tulapan. It comprises the epochs
backwards from the year 462 to that of 162, and since the text reports
that eighty years were spent in the migration, we are entitled to fix
the time for the arrival in the peninsula with the year 242 A. D. It is
of significance for our purpose, that this settling on the peninsula can
be computed with the year 242 A. D. It represents, as will be seen, the
13th Ahau, a date always assumed by the Maya chronologists as one with
which they designate the commencement of a new cycle.
The following table contains a chronological translation of the Ahaues
as they correspond with the years of our Christian era. Accordingly, the
historical events would correspond to the following dates of our
Christian era:—
═══════════╤═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTIONS OF│ AHAUES.
THE │
MANUSCRIPT.│
───────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
§ 1 │8, 6, 4, 2. Passed in the migration of the conquerors
│ from Tulapan, = 162, 182, 202, 222.
§ 2 │(13), (11), (9), Their stay in Chacnouitan, = 242, 262,
│ (7), (5), (3), 282, 302, 322, 342, 362, 382, 402, 422,
│ (1), (12), 442.
│ (10), 8, 6.
§ 3 │(4) 2, 13. They take Bacalar, = 462, 482, 502.
§ 4 │11, 9, 7, 5, 3, Settlement at Chichen-Itza and its
│ 1. destruction, = 522, 542, 562, 582, 602,
│ 622.
§ 5 │(12), (10), (8). En route for Champoton, = 642, 662, 682.
do. │6, 4, 2, 13, 11, In Champoton, = 702, 722, 742, 762, 782,
│ 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 802, 822, 842, 862, 882, 902, 922, 942.
│ 12, 10, 8.
§ 6 │6, 4. They lose Champoton twice, = 962, 982.
§ 7 │2, 13, 11, 9, 7, Uxmal, Mayapan and Chichen-Itza in
│ 5, 3, 1, 12, league, = 1002, 1022, 1042, 1062, 1082,
│ 10. 1102, 1122, 1142, 1162, 1182.
§§ 8 and 9 │8. The war between Chichen-Itza and Mayapan,
│ = 1182–1202.
§10 │6, 4, 2, 13, 11. The war continues; the Uitzes help in the
│ destruction of Mayapan, = 1222, 1242,
│ 1262, 1282, 1302.
§11 │(9), (7), (5), Mayapan destroyed again, = 1322, 1342,
│ (3), (1), (12), 1362, 1382, 1402, 1422, 1442, 1462.
│ (10), 8.
do. │6, 4, 2. The Spaniards make their appearance in
│ Yucatan, = 1482, 1502, 1522.
§§ 12 and │13. Beginning of the propagation of
13 │ Christianity, = 1542.
═══════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
It will be noticed that the result obtained by our computation is almost
identical with that of Señor Perez. In his conception the manuscript
comprises the epoch from 144–1536 A. D.; in ours, that from 142–1542. A
coincidence like this may be thought to justify the conclusion that
although we differed in our methods of interpretation and reckoning, the
agreement of the results appears so much the more satisfactory. We
should be pleased to view the subject in so favorable a light, but fear
we cannot. For, whilst, on the one hand, we are far from claiming any
infallibility for our _modus procedendi_, on the other hand, we cannot
help protesting against Señor Perez’s methods of obtaining his results.
Besides giving to the Ahau the not admissible duration of 24 years, he
further makes an evident mistake in the summing up of the Ahaues quoted
in the manuscript, by counting 58 of them instead of 50. He does not
seem aware that the Maya author mentions various of these Ahaues twice,
and even thrice, a fact which we took care to point out in the course of
our discussion. It is only by increasing the length of the Ahau to 24
years, and also by counting 8 Ahaues more than there actually were, that
Señor Perez is able to arrive at the date of 144 A. D. for the exodus
from Tulapan. If we should indeed incline to make allowance for his
choice of the 24–year period, because as it seems to us he was misled by
his authorities, he notwithstanding must be held accountable for the
mistake made in _counting in_ those eight ill-starred Ahaues. His
computation therefore being defective in itself, the favorable
impression gained from the fact that two interpreters arrived at an
almost identical result, will disappear. Such an agreement would have
been very valuable if either of the two interpreters could show that his
method stands the test of incontrovertible proof. Therefore, it is only
by chance that Señor Perez’s mistakes in reckoning make up very nearly
the same number of years that we have obtained; first, by means of the
interpolation of 20 more Ahaues; and second, by allowing only 20 years
for each Ahau period.
In conclusion it may be proper to make some statements as to the
position which this manuscript holds in aboriginal literature, and also
as to its value and use as a chronological document. In the first place
we are fully convinced of its genuineness. We have not been able to
examine the document itself as to the material upon which it was
written, nor as to the characters of the text, nor as to external
appearance, and we are not informed into whose hands it fell after it
left those of its author before it came into the possession of Señor
Perez. But we believe that Señor Perez had good reasons for regarding it
as a document prepared in the last half of the 16th century, at a time
near to that when Yucatan was conquered by the Spaniards. The language
and construction belong to that epoch, as we are told. But even if it
should not be an original, but a second or third copy, this would not be
enough to shake our faith in the authenticity and importance of its
contents. For setting aside the fact that its matter has a specific
national character, and presupposes a knowledge on the part of its
author which only a native could have obtained, the style of its
composition indicates its national bearing.
Let us fancy ourselves in the position of the Maya writer while at work.
Before him, on the table, stands the wheel for counting the Ahaues, and
as he bends over the sheets containing the painted annals, his eye turns
alternately from the paper to the wheel, making a careful comparison.
Then he pauses and considers in his mind what expressions he must use,
and afterwards begins to write. From time to time he cannot forbear,
however, casting an occasional glance at the letters of the Spanish
alphabet, in order to shape them correctly, for he is still a beginner
in this new art. Now, perhaps he wavers for a moment, and then begins
anew. The recollection of some ancient Maya song steals in upon his
mind, and by the aid of a few significant sentences he incorporates the
substance with his text. To interpolations of this kind we may attribute
such phrases as “the disrespectful utterances of Chacxibchac against
Hunac-eel.” Of the ancient Maya ballads, it is to be regretted, none are
known to exist. Yet there is no reason for relinquishing the hope
altogether, that some day, at least, a copy of the painted annals, which
our Maya writer evidently consulted, may be discovered, while we can
willingly dispense with the ballads.
As long as such hopes fail of realization, we must be satisfied with the
slight, but yet important, contribution offered us in the manuscript. We
may complain of its brevity, yet notwithstanding it is the most complete
document we possess of ancient American history. It is all the more
important for the reason that it relates to Yucatan, which in our
opinion, is the _very cradle_ of early American civilization. It is also
pleasant to observe that the manuscript is not at variance with what we
have learned from the fragmentary records made by Landa, Lizana and
Cogolludo. Notwithstanding its imperfections, it interprets and explains
much that had hitherto appeared uncertain and deficient. It is of
undoubted authenticity, and forms a firm foundation for the
reconstruction of the history of the past, which till now has remained
enigmatical, and which is faintly expressed by the crumbling ruins of
the peninsula.
The manuscript, finally, affords a guarantee that the long past not only
reached back to the remotest epoch of our era, but that more than all,
it stands in a near, perhaps in the most intimate, connection with the
history of the Nahuatl race. In reference to the homogeneous structure
of the Maya and Nahuatl calendars we have already expressed our belief
that these two nations were closely related to each other. In the
traditions of both occurs the name of Tula or Tulapan, as a fatherland
common to each of them.[47] This supposition appears to us still further
justified by the circumstance that the chronological annals of both
nations revert to the same period of time as a starting point. As
regards the Nahuatls, we refer to the circle of signs engraved on the
Calendar Stone which gave us the information that the annalists of
Anahuac in the year 1479, counted back twelve hundred and forty-eight
years to the celebration of their first festival in honor of the sun;
that is, they carried back their political or religious record to the
year 231 A. D. The Maya manuscript corresponds to this date, as we
think, since the year 242 A. D. resulted from our calculation. It was
the year in which the ancient conquerors, after wandering 80 years,
arrived on the Island of Chacnouitan where they made a permanent
settlement. This event happened in the 13th Ahau (see table), which, as
we know, is the starting point of Maya chronology, and likewise the
first date of that name which the manuscript mentions. The difference of
11 years which appears in the Nahuatl computation cannot be regarded as
of much importance.
THE MAYA AHAUES OF THE MSS., BROUGHT INTO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE YEARS
OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA:—
════════════════════╤════════════════
Ahaues Before Christ│
────────────────────┼────────────────
10 118│
8 98│
6 78│
4 58│
2 38│
13 18│
────────────────────┴────────────────
Ahaues Christian Era│
────────────────────┼────────────────
11 2│
9 22│
7 42│
5 62│
3 82│
1 102│
12 122│
10 142│
8 162│
6 182│
4 202│
2 222│
13 242│
11 262│I. Ahau Katun.
9 282│
7 302│
5 322│
3 342│
1 362│
12 382│
10 402│
8 422│
6 442│
4 462│
2 482│
13 502│
11 522│II. Ahau Katun.
9 542│
7 562│
5 582│
3 602│
1 622│
12 642│
10 662│
8 682│
6 702│
4 722│
2 742│
13 762│
11 782│III. Ahau Katun.
9 802│
7 822│
5 842│
3 862│
1 882│
12 902│
10 922│
8 942│
6 962│
4 982│
2 1002│
13 1022│
11 1042│IV. Ahau Katun.
9 1062│
7 1082│
5 1102│
3 1122│
1 1142│
12 1162│
10 1182│
8 1202│
6 1222│
4 1242│
2 1262│
13 1282│
11 1302│V. Ahau Katun.
9 1322│
7 1342│
5 1362│
3 1382│
1 1402│
12 1422│
10 1442│
3 1462│
6 1482│
4 1502│
2 1522│
13 1542│
════════════════════╧════════════════
If, however, it should seem desirable to examine chronological parallels
we shall refer our readers to a second chapter on Central American
chronology which is hereafter to appear, in which we propose to
undertake the task of illustrating and explaining still further the
parallelism of Maya and Nahuatl dates. It will then be proved that in
this written and still existing Nahuatl chronology, supported by the
date 231 A. D., found on the Calendar Stone, a still earlier date
designated as _X Calli_ can be found, which represents the year 137
A. D. In this year, according to the annals, a great eclipse of the sun
took place, with the remarkable statement that it occurred exactly at
the end of a year at 12 o’clock noon. In our manuscript we find the
first date preceding the settlement of Chacnouitan designated with the
8th Ahau, the date of the setting out from Tulapan, which we have
already stated to be the years 142–162 A. D. Another agreement is that
the Nahuatl records show that 166 years before the occurrence of the
above mentioned eclipse of the sun in the year 1 _Tecpatl_, a congress
of astrologers to amend the calendar of the nation took place at a town
called Huehuetlapallan, and by reckoning back we find that this year
corresponds with the year 29 B. C. If we then follow a hint which Señor
Perez has very ingeniously furnished that the manuscript strangely
begins with an 8th Ahau instead of a 13th Ahau, and that the Maya
chronology could be dated back to such a 13th Ahau as a proper beginning
connected with some interesting event, we find by reckoning back from
the 8th to the 13th Ahau the corresponding date to be the years 18–38
B. C.
Now, the results gained in this line of investigation, can be formulated
as follows:—
1. That the conquerors and settlers of the Yucatan peninsula, as well as
those of the Anahuac lakes, were joint participants in a correction of
their national calendar about the year 29 B. C.
2. That about the year 137 A. D., when a total eclipse of the sun took
place, the ancestors of both nations set out from their common
fatherland, Tula or Tulapan.
3. That about the year 231 A. D., both nations made their appearance on
the coast of Central America, and succeeded in conquering a large
portion of the peninsula.
It is true that we have only documentary evidence to substantiate the
theory just referred to. But, if we do not possess the desirable
evidence of monumental inscriptions, it behooves us to examine and to
weigh carefully that which still remains. In this connection we should
also remember that the sculptor, in carving his records, was not guided
by his memory alone, but that he copied the symbols from the sacred
books of his race; and that on the other hand, our learned Maya writer,
when translating these latter into written phonetic language, drew his
text, as did the sculptor from similar sources.
If therefore with the help of written records we can build up hypotheses
partially satisfactory, and not altogether improbable, we have
accomplished all that could be expected for the present, at least, and
have perhaps excited an interest in a branch of history which has
hitherto been held as dead and unproductive.
In conclusion, we would express the hope that the Maya manuscript may be
submitted to a rigid critical and linguistic examination, and that the
publication of the work may be appended to a heliotype copy of the
original in order to exhibit to students a document of so great
importance, and to ensure its preservation.
-----
Footnote 26:
S. Salisbury, Jr., Esq.
Footnote 27:
Col. John D. Washburn.
Footnote 28:
The Hon. Isaac Davis.
Footnote 29:
The Palenque Tablet, in the U. S. National Museum. By Charles Rau,
1879.
Footnote 30:
The North Americans of Antiquity, their origin, migrations, and type
of civilization considered. By John T. Short, 1880.
Footnote 31:
Historia de Yucatan. By Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page 95,
note 1.
Footnote 32:
Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. II., page 78.
Footnote 33:
Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Mérida, 1879, Vol. I., page 156.
“Landa in Relacion de las cosas de Yucatan, § viii., also speaks of
the tranquillity and good harmony which reigned among the chiefs of
those cities, and we notice that concerning the epochs referred to,
his report is in accordance, in many details, with that of the
anonymous author of the ‘Maya Epochs.’”
Footnote 34:
_Diego Lopez de Cogolludo_, Historia de Yuacathan. Madrid, 1683, Lib.
IV., Cap. 5. “The count they kept in their books was by 20 to 20
years, and also by _lustros_ of 4 to 4 years. When five of these
lustros had passed, or twenty years elapsed, they called this time
_Katun_, and set one hewn stone (_piedra labrada_) upon another, well
cemented by lime and sand. This can be noticed in their temples and
ecclesiastical buildings, and especially on some ancient walls of our
convent in Mérida, upon which the cells have been built.”
The expression Katun, mentioned in this passage, and to which we have
assigned a place in our title, requires a few words of explanation. As
far as we know, it occurs only three times in our Central American
authors; in Cogolludo, Landa, and in our manuscript. The first gives
Katun the meaning of a period of twenty years. The second (§ XLI.),
uses the following phraseology: “Contando XIII. veyntes con una de las
XX. letras de los meses que llaman Ahau, sin orden, sino
retruecandolos como pareceran en las siguiente raya redonda, llaman
les a estos en su lengua Katunes.” This phraseology is somewhat
obscure, nevertheless it will be admitted that his intention was to
state that each of the images of the thirteen Ahaues, depicted on the
surface of the wheel, represented twenty years, this being a period
which they also called Katunes. We arrive at this definite conclusion
by the consideration that if Landa says that the period of twenty
years was called _Ahau_, and another one, that of 260 years, _Katun_,
he would have stated the latter fact in expressive words; the occasion
for doing so being too urgent to let it pass. The third author uses
the word _Katun_ in his introductory lines, without giving it any
numerical value. But it will be noticed that in the text which
follows, the expression _Katun_ is used interchangeably with that of
Ahau for a period of 20 years. This concordance of the three authors
allows us to conclude that whenever the word _Katun_ is employed, the
short period of 20 years was meant. In this connection a question
arises: How is it that no author has made mention of the long period
of 260 years, with which we become acquainted in Señor Perez’s
chronological essay. It is probable he found it mentioned in some Maya
manuscripts in which this long period appeared under the name of _Ahau
Katun_. Though this fact of itself may be considered of no importance,
still, as it would bring to light another of the many numerical
combinations (13×20=260) in which those people indulged, with the
fundamental figures of their calendar system, we must feel a great
interest in the asserted fact, hoping it will turn out to be a correct
statement. Our researches have been directed for a long time towards
the discovery of the symbols which the Maya annalists or sculptors
would have employed for their chronological periods. It was in
connection with these studies that we discovered the Nahuatl symbols
for the same, of which we gave account in our discussion on the
Calendar Stone. Yet while this discovery only corroborates the
suspicion long entertained that a certain set of Maya symbols
represented the lustra of 5, and another the period of 20 years, we
have not yet been able to recognize a Maya symbol for the period of
260 years.
The word Katun is a compound of _Kat_, to ask, to consult, and _tun_,
stone; hence the stone, which when asked, gives account. Thus it was
also understood by Cogolludo, who, when mentioning the word _Katun_
(see above), was referring to the square stones incrusted into walls,
upon which the convent was built. What traditions he followed in this
is still better illustrated by the words in continuation of this
passage: “In a place called Tixualahtun, which means a spot where one
hewn stone is set upon another one, the Archives of the Indians are
said to have existed, to which they resorted for all questions of
historical interest (recurso de todos los acaecimientos), as we should
do to Simancas, in Spain.” The stone columns found on the spot named,
can be seen pictured in J. L. Stephens’ Incidents of travel in
Yucatan, Vol. II., page 318.
Footnote 35:
Señor Orozco y Berra, the learned and laborious author of the “Carta
ethnografica de México, México, 1864,” has made this matter a subject
of special investigation in “Anales del Museo Nacional de México,”
1879, Tom. I., Entrega 7, page 305.
Footnote 36:
Las cosas de Yucatan. Diego de Landa. Edition B. de Bourbourg. Paris,
1864. Page 315, § XL.
Footnote 37:
A specimen of such an instrument with a surface inscribed as the cut
shows would hardly have been preserved. We think that the box enclosed
a round disk turning on a pivot; this contrivance, evidently served as
an aid to the memory in enumerating the alternating Ahaues. To-day, we
should obtain the same result by writing the Ahaues in a horizontal or
vertical line, but the Nahuatls and Mayas, having solely a symbolical
or pictorial manner of representation, made use of this ingenious
arrangement by painting the series of the Ahaues on the circumference
of a circle. Thus the idea of an uninterrupted sequence of time and
the connection of the 2d Ahau with the 13th were brought to notice.
Footnote 38:
Ahau translated means: sovereign, king, august, principal. See page 3
of Juan Pio Perez’s “Diccionario de la lengua Maya,” published in
Mérida in 1877, by the friends and faithful executors of the last will
of the defunct scholar. This valuable work comprises the whole of the
linguistical stock of the Maya language, the words collected exceeding
the number of 20,000, on 437 pages, quarto. It may be purchased from
Dr. George E. Shiels, 896 Broadway, New York.
Footnote 39: