CHRONOLOGY, CALENDAR SYSTEMS AND RELIGIOUS ANALOGIES.
No Mound-builder Chronology known — Maya Calendar — Landa on
the Calendar — Maya Days — Maya Months — The Katun — The
Ahau Katun or Great Cycle — The Maya System Adjusted to our
Chronology — The Adjustment by Perez — Intercalary Days — The
Nahua Calendar — The Sources — Divisions of Mexican Calendar
— The Aztec Year — The Nemontemi — Aztec Months — Aztec Days
— Nahua Ritual Calendar — Mexican Calendar Stone — Sources
of Interpretation — History of the Stone — Interpretation of
the Stone — Date of the Origin of the Calendar Stone — Date
of the Nahua Migration — Analogies with the Nahua Calendar —
Religious Analogies — Jewish Analogies — Deluge Traditions —
Supposed Parallels in Jewish and Mexican History — Analogies of
Doctrine — Analogies of Ceremonial Law — Yucatanic Trinity Myth
— Mexican and Asiatic Analogies — Buddhism in the New World —
Scandinavian Analogies — Mexican and Greek Analogies — Brasseur
de Bourbourg’s Comparisons.
_Chronology and Calendar Systems._—No tablet or relic of Mound-builder
origin has yet been discovered, which can be said to give any clue to
the system of chronology employed by that people. Several supposed
calendar stones have been found, such, for instance, as the Cincinnati
Tablet referred to in Chapter I, and the Tablet from Mississippi in
the possession of Wm. Marshall Anderson, Esq., of Circleville, Ohio.
However, their character is only a matter of conjecture, since no
progress whatever has been made toward evolving any system from them.
Farther south, on the soil where a higher civilization flourished, we
meet with two calendar systems, which, while they have several points
of resemblance, are quite distinct from each other.
The first of these, the Maya, is probably the most ancient. Bishop
Landa is our chief authority in this field, though Don Juan Pio Perez,
a more recent writer, also familiar with the Maya language, has
furnished us some material.[624] Bishop Landa informs us that the Mayas
had a year of 365 days and 6 hours divided into months (a month being
called a _U_) in two ways, first into months of thirty days each, and
second, into eighteen months of twenty days each. As the Bishop makes
no explanation of the former statement, we are unable to determine
whether the months of thirty days each were employed in Yucatan prior
to the conquest, or not, but we are rather inclined to the opinion that
they were not.
[Illustration: The Maya Days.]
The month of twenty days was called the _Uinal-Hun-ekeh_, and might
commence on any of the days represented by the hieroglyphics in the
left-hand column of the table of days. These months were eighteen in
number, thus making a year of 360 days. The Mayas, however, corrected
the error by adding five intercalary days and six hours to the 360
days; and once every four years, Landa informs us, they counted 366
days a year. The five supplementary days were considered unlucky, and
were known as the “nameless days” because they were never called by
any particular designation. The accompanying cut is a photographic
reproduction of Landa’s plate, and shows accurately the Maya days in
their proper order.[625] (Page 436.)
[Illustration: The Maya Months.]
Though the intercalary days were “nameless” and characterized as
the “bed or chamber of the year,” “the mother of the year,” “bed of
creation,” “travail of the year,” “lying days,” or “bad days,” etc.,
still five of the above twenty were reckoned for them in regular order.
The year began on a day corresponding to our 16th of July—“a date,” as
Mr. Bancroft observes, “which varies only forty-four hours from the
time when the sun passes the zenith—an approximation as accurate as
could be expected from observation made without instruments.”[626]
The Maya months as figured in Landa’s work are shown in the
accompanying photo-engraving. (Page 437.)
The translation of the names of the days and months is somewhat
uncertain. The following equivalents are the same as those given by
Señor Perez, except in a few instances where Brasseur and Rosny have
made corrections.
TRANSLATION OF THE DAYS.
1. _Kan_, “string of twisted hemp” (yellow).
2. _Chicchan_, signification unknown.
3. _Cimi_, preterit of _cimil_, to kill = “dead.”
4. _Manik_, “wind that passes” (??)
5. _Lamat_, signification unknown.
6. _Muluc_, “reunion” (??)
7. _Oc_, “that which may be held in the palm of the hand.”
8. _Chuen_, “board” (??)
9. _Eb_, “ladder.”
10. _Ben_, “to distribute with economy” (??)
11. _Ix_, “fish-skin” (Rosny), “witch, witchcraft” (Brasseur),
“roughness” (Perez).
12. _Men_, “builder.”
13. _Cib_, “gum copal.”
14. _Caban_, “heaped up” (Brasseur).
15. _Ezanab_, “flint” (Brasseur).
16. _Cauac_, signification unknown.
17. _Ahau_, “king, or period of twenty-four years.”
18. _Ymix_, signification unknown. “Corn” (??)
19. _Ik_, “wind,” “spirit,” according to Rosny, one of the symbols of
Kukulcan or Quetzalcoatl.
20. _Akbal_, “approach of night” (Brasseur).
TRANSLATION OF THE MONTHS.
1. _Pop_, “mat of cane.”
2. _Uo_, “frog.”
3. _Zip_, “a tree” (Perez), “fault, error” (Brasseur).
4. _Tzoz_, “a bat.”
5. _Tzec_, signification unknown.
6. _Xul_, “end or conclusion.”
7. _Yaxkin_, signification unknown. “Summer” (??)
8. _Mol_, “to re-unite, to recover.”
9. _Chen_, “a well.”
10. _Yax_, “first,” or _Yaax_, “blue.”
11. _Zac_, “white.”
12. _Ceh_, “a deer.”
13. _Mac_, “a lid or cover.”
14. _Kankin_, “yellow sun,” “because in this month of April the
atmosphere is charged with smoke,” owing to the work of
clearing the soil.
15. _Muan_, “cloudy weather” (Brasseur).
16. _Pax_, “musical instrument.”
17. _Kayab_, “singing.”
18. _Cumhu_, “thunder-clap,” “detonation.”[627]
Though these translations may seem uninteresting by themselves, they
are of great value when taken in connection with Landa’s alphabet and
M. de Rosny’s interpretations. They must ever be important factors in
attempts to translate the inscriptions and codices.
Another division of time among the Mayas of a complicated character
was the Katun or Cycle of 52 years. The Katun was composed of four
periods (indictions or weeks) of 13 years each, enumerated by a system
of reckoning kept simultaneously with the current reckoning of days,
months and years. The mode of computing the Katunes was, according
to Landa and Perez, briefly as follows:[628] The year was divided
into twenty-eight periods of thirteen days each. These periods for
convenience have been called weeks, and the number of days of which
each is composed may have been suggested by the number of days embraced
in the moon’s _increase_, and _decrease_, twenty-six days constituting
about the actual time in which the moon is seen above the horizon
during each lunation.[629] The weeks were divided off by counting
thirteen days from the beginning of the list of days shown on page
436, Kan constituting the first day of the first week and according to
usage applying its name to the weeks. The week was consequently called
by the name of the day on which it began. Caban being the fourteenth
day of the current month, became the first day of another week; but
as not enough days remain to complete it, the enumeration is begun
again and continued down to Muluc, the sixth day of the next month.
Oc, the seventh day, then becomes the starting point for another week,
which assumes its name, and thus the computation is carried on _ad
infinitum_. A numeral preceded each day designating its position in
the week. The people of Yucatan painted a small circle in which they
placed the four hieroglyphics of the initial days which constitute
the left-hand column of signs given on page 436. Kan was placed in
the east, Muluc in the north, Ix in the west and Cauac in the south.
These signs were termed the “carriers of the years” because no month or
year could begin on any of the twenty days, but on one of these. Since
twenty days constitute a current month, it is apparent that every month
in a given year must begin with the same day. However, the introduction
of the five intercalary days at the end of the year, changed the
initial day on which the months of the different years began. In
reckoning the Katun it is further observed that the numeral which
indicates the day of the week (of thirteen days) which falls upon the
first of a given month, varies. Supposing the month to begin on Kan and
the numeral of the first day to be 1, the numerals indicative of the
days of the week (composed of thirteen days) falling on Kan throughout
the eighteen months, would be, 8, 9, 3, 10, 4, 11, 5, 12, 6, 13, 7, 1,
8, 2, 9, 3.
The Katun year consisted, as we have seen, of twenty-eight weeks of
thirteen days each, and _one additional day_, making in all 365 days.
If the year commenced with number one of the week, the additional day
(the 365th) caused it to end on the same number. The ensuing year would
then begin with number two, and so on through the thirteen numbers of
the week, as follows: 1. Kan, 2. Muluc, 3. Ix, 4. Cauac, 5. Kan, 6.
Muluc, 7. Ix, 8. Cauac, 9. Kan, 10. Muluc, 11. Ix, 12. Cauac, 13. Kan,
thus completing an indiction or week of years. The same combination
of names and numerals can only occur after the lapse of the Katun or
cycle comprising four of these indictions or fifty-two years. Not only
the years of the week, but also the indictions themselves were named
by the four initial symbols. The first indiction of each Katun being
named Kan, the second Muluc, the third Ix, and the fourth Cauac. The
completion of a Katun or fifty-two years was celebrated with feasts
and rejoicings as an event of great moment. A monument was reared as a
memorial of the event. It is not impossible that the great number of
pillars, observed by Stephens at Chichen-Itza were of this character,
serving as landmarks to Maya chronology.[630]
A third division of time employed by the Mayas was the great cycle of
312 years, composed, according to Señor Perez,[631] of thirteen periods
of time, each embracing twenty-four years. Each of these thirteen
periods was called an Ahau Katun, and was divided into two parts.
The first part, embracing twenty years, was enclosed in a square and
called _Amaytum lamayte_, or _lamaytum_; and the other part of four
years, which formed as it were a pedestal for the first, was called
_Chek oc Katun_, or _lath oc Katun_, meaning “stool” or “pedestal.” He
affirms that the latter were intercalated, therefore believed to be
unfortunate as were the five supplementary days of the year. This may
account for their not being reckoned with the Ahau Katun by any other
writer. Just here lies the discrepancy which has created most of the
confusion in the investigation of this subject. However, if we accept
the statement of Señor Perez, that the Ahau Katun embraced twenty-four
years instead of the testimony of every other writer that it included
but twenty years, we shall have moderately fair sailing until we split
upon the rock of his inaccuracies as to dates. He tells us that these
periods took their name from Ahau, the second of those years that began
in Cauac, and from the order of the numerals accompanying those days
would succeed each other according to the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3,
1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. The Indians established the number 13 Ahau as
the first, because some great event happened in that year. If the 13
Ahau Katun began on a second day of the year, it must have been the
year which began on 12 Cauac, and the 12th of the indiction. The next
or the 11 Ahau would commence in the year 10 Cauac, which combination
in its rotation would happen after a lapse of twenty-four years. The
third or 9 Ahau would begin in 8 Cauac twenty-four years later, in
illustration of which we follow out the rotation of the four names of
the years, Kan, Muluc, Ix and Cauac, through the indictions of thirteen
years each, until we have noted the numerals accompanying them during
twenty-four years. Our starting point will be the commencement of the
second Ahau Katun on the second day of 10 Cauac.
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
| _Year of | | _Year of |
| 13 Year |_Name of Year._| Period of |
|Indiction._| | 24 Years._ |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
| 10 | Cauac | 1 |
| 11 | Kan | 2 |
| 12 | Muluc | 3 |
| 13 | Ix | 4 |
| 1 | Cauac | 5 |
| 2 | Kan | 6 |
| 3 | Muluc | 7 |
| 4 | Ix | 8 |
| 5 | Cauac | 9 |
| 6 | Kan | 10 |
| 7 | Muluc | 11 |
| 8 | Ix | 12 |
| 9 | Cauac | 13 |
| 10 | Kan | 14 |
| 11 | Muluc | 15 |
| 12 | Ix | 16 |
| 13 | Cauac | 17 |
| 1 | Kan | 18 |
| 2 | Muluc | 19 |
| 3 | Ix | 20 |
| 4 | Cauac | 21 |
| 5 | Kan | 22 |
| 6 | Muluc | 23 |
| 7 | Ix | 24 |
| 8 | Cauac | 1st of a new |
| | | period. |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
As above stated the new Ahau Katun begins in the year 8 Cauac, and as
it invariably began on the second day of the year, that day would be
9 Ahau, as Ahau is the next letter in the alphabet after Cauac. An
extension of the table will show that the next period will begin in 6
Cauac on 7 Ahau, and so on in the order of the numerals given above.
Thirteen Ahau Katunes, as previously stated, constituted a great cycle
of three hundred and twelve years. Sr. Perez states that according to
all sources of information, confirmed by the testimony of Don Cosme
de Burgos, one of the conquerors and a writer (but whose observations
have been lost), the year 1392 A. D. corresponded to the Maya year 7
Cauac, and as the second day of that year was the beginning of an era
of twenty-four years, it must have been 8 Ahau Katun. By dividing off
the time between that date and the beginning of the present century
into periods of twenty-four years each, and extending a table of the
rotation of the four names of the years, the reader will observe
that 13 Ahau will fall in the year 1800; 11 Ahau in 1824; 9 Ahau in
1848; 7 Ahau in 1872, and 5 Ahau in 1896, three hundred and twelve
years intervening before this, and any similar combination of Ahau
Katunes either have occurred or can be repeated. This would be highly
satisfactory if Sr. Perez could be relied upon in this particular,
which is doubtful. We are sorry to say that he is certainly chargeable
with inaccuracies, which impair the value of his whole system. Most
conspicuous of these is one pointed out by Mr. Bancroft, to which we
refer the reader below. Señor Perez sets about the verification of his
system by citing the death of a notable personage named Ahpula. He
states that Ahpula died in the sixth year of 13 Ahau, when the first
day of the year was 4 Kan, on the day 9 Imix, the eighteenth of the
month Zip. It is seen that 13 Ahau is the second day of the year 12
Cauac which falls in the year 1488, also that the year 1493 is the
sixth from the beginning of 13 Ahau, and that its first day is 4 Kan,
which is the title of the year. The day is the eighteenth of the month
Zip, corresponding to the eleventh of September. The statement is also
made that this date fell on 9 Imix. This is tested as follows: The
first month of that year commenced on 4 Kan, which combination names
the year. The number (of the week of thirteen days) is found by adding
seven to the number of the first day of each month successively. The
number of the first day of the first month, Pop, in this case being 4,
the number of the first day of the second month (Uo) would be 4 + 7
= 11, and that of the first day of the third month (Zip) would be 11
+ 7 = 18, but as the week consists of but thirteen days, that number
must be substracted, leaving 5 Kan as the first day of Zip. If Zip
begins on the twenty-fifth of August, the day 9 Imix will be found
to correspond both with the eighteenth of Zip and the eleventh of
September, if the Katun week of thirteen days is counted off regularly,
beginning with 5 Kan. Sr. Perez is correct enough in his calculations,
but unfortunately his system of twenty-four years to the Ahau Katun
or his informant as to the correspondence of the Ahau Katunes with
our chronology (no doubt the latter) is incorrect, since the Maya
manuscript furnished and translated by Perez and published in the works
of Stephens and Landa, states explicitly that Ahpula died in A. D.
1536, instead of 1493 (incorrectly printed 1403 in Bancroft’s work),
a date which is irreconcilable with the system of twenty-four years
to the Ahau, reckoned from 1392 as a starting point. Neither will the
statement of Landa that the year 1541 corresponded with the beginning
of 11 Ahau relieve the difficulty, but rather increases it, since it
will neither harmonize with the date of Ahpula’s death given in the
MS. nor with the system by Perez. Furthermore, while Landa gives the
same succession of numerals for the recurrence of the Ahaus, he states
that they embraced but twenty years each, thus making it impossible
for the combinations of names and numerals to correspond to the order
which he lays down for their succession. Landa is no doubt incorrect
in his statement. Sr. Perez is at least consistent in his adaptation
of the length of the Ahau Katun to the order of numerals given by
Landa and others. Recently, M. Delaporte, a member of the Société
Américaine de France, has, by a series of extended calculations,
vindicated the correctness of the statement of Sr. Perez, that the
Ahau Katun embraced twenty-four years. M. de Rosny agrees with M.
Delaporte in his conclusions. The fault of Perez, probably, lies in
his adaptation of the Ahaus to our chronology, and in carelessness.
Amidst these discrepancies it is impossible to fix accurately the
dates of the Maya history, though they can be approximated.[632] Señor
Perez cites Boturini as stating that the day introduced every four
years to compensate for the annual loss of six hours, was observed by
counting the symbol for the three hundred and sixty-fifth day twice,
as the Romans did with their bissextile days, thus leaving the order
undisturbed.[633]
_The Nahua Calendar_ system closely resembles that of the Mayas, a fact
which adds to the abundant proof that both civilizations had grown up
under nearly the same influences, and that they had largely affected
each other. If the trifling differences of a few writers concerning
some of the details of the Aztec calendar be overlooked, and the best
authorities (together with a little exercise of judgment) be followed,
the system becomes comparatively simple. Sahagun, Leon y Gama,
Humboldt, Veytia, Galatin, McCulloch, Müller, Bancroft, Chavero, and
Prof. Valentini, are the authorities to whom we refer the reader.[634]
_The Mexican Calendar_ contains divisions as follows: The age, called
_huehuetiliztli_, embraced two cycles of fifty-two years each, thus
equalizing one hundred and four years. The cycle of fifty-two years was
named _xiuhmolpilli_, _xiuhmolpia_, and _xiuhtlalpilli_, signifying the
“binding up of the years” and consisted of four periods of thirteen
years each. These periods or indictions were called “knots,” while the
single years were called _xihuitl_ or “new grass,” because anciently,
before the invention of the calendar, the Nahuas were only able to
distinguish the revolution of the years by the annual appearance of
fresh vegetation and new grass. The age was but little used, the
cycle being the common measure for long periods. The years in a given
cycle were designated as among the Mayas, by means of the consecutive
rotation of four signs, each accompanied with a numeral. The signs were
_tochtli_, “rabbit”; _acatl_, “cane”; _tecpatl_, “flint,” and _calli_,
“house.” The following table illustrates the rotation occurring in one
cycle:
-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
1ST TLALPILLI. | 2D TLALPILLI. |
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
| _Names of | | _Names of |
_Names of | Years | _Names of | Years |
Years._ |Translated._| Years._ |Translated._|
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
Ce Tochtli | 1. Rabbit. | Ce Acatl | 1. Cane. |
Ome Acatl | 2. Cane. | Ome Tecpatl | 2. Flint. |
Yey Tecpatl | 3. Flint. | Yey Calli | 3. House. |
Nahui Calli | 4. House. | Nahui Tochtli | 4. Rabbit. |
Macuilli} | 5. Rabbit. | Macuilli} | 5. Cane. |
Tochtli} | | Acatl } | |
Chicoace} | 6. Cane. | Chicoace} | 6. Flint. |
Acatl } | | Tecpatl} | |
Chicome } | 7. Flint. | Chicome } | 7. House. |
Tecpatl} | | Calli } | |
Chico y Calli | 8. House. | Chico y Tochtli | 8. Rabbit. |
Chico Nahui} | 9. Rabbit. | Chico Nahui} | 9. Cane. |
Tochtli } | | Acatl } | |
Matlactli} |10. Cane. | Matlactli} |10. Flint. |
Acatl } | | Tecpatl } | |
Matlactli } |11. Flint. | Matlactli occe } |11. House. |
occe Tecpatl} | | Calli } | |
Matlactli } |12. House. | Matlactli omome} |12. Rabbit. |
omome Calli } | | Tochtli } | |
Matlactli } |13. Rabbit. | Matlactli omey } |13. Cane. |
omey Tochtli} | | Acatl } | |
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
-------------------------------+-------------------------------
3D TLALPILLI. | 4TH TLALPILLI.
------------------+------------+------------------+------------
| _Names of | | _Names of
_Names of | Years | _Names of | Years
Years._ |Translated._| Years._ |Translated._
------------------+------------+------------------+------------
Ce Tecpatl | 1. Flint. | Ce Calli | 1. House.
Ome Calli | 2. House. | Ome Tochtli | 2. Rabbit
Yey Tochtli | 3. Rabbit. | Yey Acatl | 3. Cane.
Nahui Acatl | 4. Cane. | Nahui Tecpatl | 4. Flint.
Macuilli} | 5. Flint. | Macuilli} | 5. House.
Tecpatl} | | Calli } |
Chicoace} | 6. House | Chicoace} | 6. Rabbit.
Calli } | | Tochtli} |
Chicome } | 7. Rabbit. | Chicome } | 7. Cane.
Tochtli} | | Acatl } |
Chico y Acatl | 8. Cane. | Chico y Tecpatl | 8. Flint.
Chico Nahui} | 9. Flint. | Chico Nahui} | 9. House.
Tecpatl } | | Calli } |
Matlactli} |10. House. | Matlactli} |10. Rabbit.
Calli } | | Tochtli } |
Matlactli occe} |11. Rabbit. | Matlactli } |11. Cane.
Tochtli } | | occe Acatl } |
Matlactli omome} |12. Cane. | Matlactli } |12. Flint.
Acatl } | | omome Tecpatl} |
Matlactli omey } |13. Flint. | Matlactli } |13. House.
Tecpatl } | | omey Calli } |
-----------------+------------+------------------+----------
As in the Maya rotation of years no confusion could occur, so with the
Mexican, as the same combination could be made only once in fifty-two
years. The cycles themselves were distinguished by numbers. Confusion
is liable to arise in studying the early writers, since the Toltecs and
Aztecs began their reckoning on different signs, the former on Tecpatl,
and the latter on Tochtli. The year consisted of eighteen months of
twenty days each, to which were added five days called _nemontemi_ or
“unlucky days.” Every superstition seemed to centre in the _nemontemi_,
for no business of importance nor enterprise of the most insignificant
character would be undertaken upon these days. Both the names of the
months and the particular month which served to begin the year, as well
as the date of the first day of the year, have been fruitful subjects
of controversy between authors. Mr. Bancroft has tabulated the names
given by twenty-one writers, and shown the disagreements existing
between them.[635] The dates for the first day of the year range
between the ninth of January and the tenth of April. Gama, Humboldt and
Gallatin, by careful calculations, have shown that the first year of a
Nahua cycle commenced on the thirty-first day of December, old style,
or on the ninth day of January, new style, with the month Titill and
the day Cipactli.[636]
The names and order of the months, together with their etymologies,
as adopted by Mr. Bancroft, are as follows: 1. Titill, meaning “our
mother,” according to Boturini, or “fire,” according to Cabrera; 2.
Itzcalli, translated “regeneration” by Boturini, “skill” by the Codex
Vaticanus, and the “sprouting of the grass” by Veytia; 3. Atlcahualco,
meaning the “abating of the waters.” Another name (Quahuillehua)
applied to this month signified “burning of the mountains,” referring
to the forests; 4. Tlacaxipehualiztli, is translated “the flaying of
the people.” Another name applied to this month, Cohuailhuitl, means
the “feast of the snake”; 5. Tozoztontli is rendered “small fast”
or “penance”; 6. Hueytozoztli, means “great fast” or “penance”; 7.
Toxcatl, a “necklace”; 8. Etzalqualiztli, “bean stew” or “maize gruel”;
9. Tecuilhuitzintli, “small feast of the Lord”; 10. Hueytecuilhuitl,
“great feast of the Lord”; 11. Miccailhuitzintli, translated “small
feast of the dead”; 12. Hueymiccailhuitl, “great feast of the
dead”; 13. Ochpaniztli, “cleaning of the streets”; 14. Teotleco,
“arrival of the gods.” The names Pachtli, “moss hanging from trees,”
and Pachtontli, “humiliation,” were often applied to this month;
15. Hueypachtli, “great feast of humiliation,” sometimes called
Tepeilhuitl, “feast of the mountains”; 16. Quecholli, “peacock”; 17.
Panquetzuliztli, “the raising of flags and banners”; 18. Atemoztli,
means the “drying up of the waters.”
The month, consisting of twenty days, was divided into four weeks
of five days each. Mr. Bancroft states that each of the weeks began
with one of the four signs—Tochtli, Calli, Tecpatl or Acatl, used
to designate the years; but his own engraving of the Aztec month,
and the order of the days on the Calendar-Stone, contradict this
statement.[637] The following are the days in their proper order, with
their translations affixed: 1. Cipactli, “sea-animal,” “sword-fish,”
or “serpent with harpoons.” 2. Ehacatl, “wind.” 3. Calli, “house.” 4.
Cuetzpalin, “lizard.” 5. Coatl, “snake.” 6. Miquiztli, “death.” 7.
Mazatl, “deer.” 8. Tochtli, “rabbit.” 9. Atl, “water.” 10. Itzcuintli,
“dog.” 11. Ozomatli, “monkey.” 12. Mollinalli, “brushwood” or “tangled
grass.” 13. Acatl, “cane.” 14. Ocelotl, “tiger.” 15. Quanhtli, “eagle.”
16. Cozcaquauhtli, “vulture.” 17. Ollin, “movement.” 18. Tecpatl,
“flint.” 19. Quahuitl, “rain.” 20. Xochitl, “flower.”
The day was divided into sixteen hours.[638] Sahagun and several
authors state that the loss of six hours in each Aztec year was
counterbalanced by the addition of a day every four years. Gama
demonstrates this to be a mistake, and states that they added twelve
and a half days at the close of every cycle of fifty-two years. Mr.
Bancroft cites this fact, and states the time added to have been
thirteen days.[639]
The Nahuas had also a ritual calendar, for the purpose of reckoning
their religious feasts, which was altogether different from the civil
system, except that it employed the twenty days, the year of 365 days,
and at the end of a cycle added the thirteen days to compensate for the
time lost during that period.[640] The year consisted of two parts, the
first composed of twenty weeks of thirteen days each (for there were no
months in the ritual year) making 260 altogether. This portion of the
year was called _Meztli pohualli_ or the “lunar computation,” from the
fact that half of the time during which the moon is visible is thirteen
days. The smaller part, composed of 105 days reckoned by a continuation
of the periods of thirteen days, was called _Toualpohualli_ or “solar
computation.”[641] The days were numbered from one up to thirteen, the
fourteenth day of the first solar month being counted the first of
another lunar week, and thus the reckoning continued. However, it will
be observed that the same number would fall twice on one name in the
course of a year; accordingly accompanying signs were provided for the
regular names of days. The duplication could not occur if the second
division embraced 104 days instead of 105.
The distinguishing signs were nine in number, called _quecholli_,
“lords of the night.” They were as follows: Tletl, “fire”; Tecpatl,
“flint”; Xochitl, “flower”; Centeotl, “goddess of maize”; Miquiztli,
“death”; Atl, “water”; Tlazolteotl, “goddess of love”; Tepeyollotli, “a
mountain deity”; Quiahuitl, “rain,” the god Tlaloc. The lords of the
night, though reckoned from the first of the year, were not mentioned
except in connection with the 105 days of the second division.
The reader will more clearly understand the relation of the two
systems to each other by constructing a table of four parallel columns.
In the left-hand column place the months of one year, numbering the
days of each month in order, but beginning on the ninth day of January.
In the second column place the names of the Mexican months, numbering
the days of each month from one to twenty in regular order. In the
third column place the _names_ of the Mexican days, twenty in number,
repeating them in their regular rotation throughout the year, but
in addition prefix to the names such numerals as will fall opposite
to each in the process of dividing them off into thirteens. These
divisions into thirteens represent the ritual weeks. Acatl being the
13th day of the month will end the first week of the year, and Ocelotl
being the 14th day of the month will constitute the 1st day of the
second week. In the fourth column place the nine signs of the “lords
of the night” in regular order. Divide the year into periods of nines,
and it will be found that the same combination of days of the month
(twenty days), of days of the week (thirteen days), and the “lords of
the night,” will not recur for a considerable period.
The most remarkable embodiment of this complex system is found in the
symbols and concentric zones graven upon the face of the Calendar
Stone, described in the last chapter. The interpretation of its
mysterious disk was partly accomplished by the learned antiquarian
Leon y Gama; Gallatin, and after him Bancroft presented those
investigations to the public. In 1875 (Nov.), Don Alfredo Chevero, of
the Liceo Hidalgo of Mexico, published his _Calendario Azteca_, in
which it was shown that many of Gama’s interpretations would have to be
abandoned. It was proven that the “Calendar Stone” was a sun-disk or
stone of sacrifice, and that Gama had pursued his investigations with
a mistaken view of its character. Chevero’s account of the history of
the stone is full and satisfactory, Duran being the authority cited. An
interpretation of some of the concentric zones, two in particular, is
attempted with a result somewhat different from that obtained by any
other investigator. Recently, Prof. Ph. Valentini, by the light of his
extensive researches into Nahua literature, has compelled the sun-disk
to give up its secrets. The illustration on the preceding page is a
reproduction of a pen-and-ink drawing made by the Professor from the
most recent and correct photograph which has been made of the Calendar
Stone. It was kindly furnished for this work. The same conclusion
concerning the character of the stone was reached independently by
both Chevero and Valentini. The latter’s account of the stone and
its history is drawn from Tezozomoc, and though agreeing in the main
facts with Duran’s account as rendered by Chevero, bears the evidence
upon its face of independent research.[642] The originality of Prof.
Valentini is vindicated in his masterly interpretation of all the zones
of the Calendar Stone. Whether the interpretation will ever give way to
some other is a question of the future, though it is probable that it
will not.
[Illustration: The Mexican Calendar Stone.]
We are indebted to Professor Valentini for a communication on the
History of the Calendar Stone, condensed from his unpublished MS.
_Description and Interpretation of the Mexican Calendar Stone_. An
extract from the communication is as follows: “King Axayacatl of
Mexico, 1466–1480, the builder of the large pyramid, at the approach of
the last year of the national cycle (1479), ordered the altar standing
on the platform of the pyramid to be covered with a stone disk, the
surface of which was to be sculptured with the image of the Sun-god,
and, as the text says, ‘to be surrounded by all the national deities’
(see Alvaro de Tezozomoc, 1598, _Chronica Mexicana_, Ternaux-Compans,
vol. i, chap. xlvii, pp. 249 _et seq._). A large slab, carried for the
purpose from the quarries of Cuyoacan, when rolled over the bridge
of Xoloc, crushed this structure, fell to the bottom of the lake and
remained there. Another slab was broken and a new bridge built, and
50,000 Indians succeeded in transporting the slab to the foot of the
pyramid, where the sculptor accomplished his task to the satisfaction
of the king. The cyclical festival of the sun (1479) was celebrated,
and on the disk which now had been inserted into the surface of the
sacrificial altar, thousands of captives were slaughtered. The king is
said to have overworked himself, slaying one hundred of the victims,
and feasting upon their flesh and blood—that very soon after he died
in consequence of these exertions. In the year 1512, Montezuma II, for
reasons unknown, expressed the wish to replace the altar cover, which
his father had consecrated, by a new and still larger one. The people,
horrified and out of patience with the bloody proceedings connected
with these consecration festivals of sacrificial disks, contrived to
let the slab, brought expressly for the purpose, fall into the lake
again, pretending as an excuse, that the stone had spoken and said
that it was to go back to the quarry. Montezuma, superstitious as
he was, took the accident for a bad augury, desisted from his plan,
and left the stone in its place. We may thus infer that it was _our_
disk on which, in the year 1520, those Spaniards of Cortes’ troops
which were made captives had been immolated, and the screams and
cries of whom reached the ears of their comrades, and as Bernal Diaz
narrates, ‘filled their hearts with the most awful forebodings.’
Cortez demolished the pyramid, and with its débris filled the canals
of the city. The disk was preserved, for we know from Duran, who
wrote a _Historia de la N. España_, 1588, that he and many of his
fellow-citizens had often been standing before this disk admiring it,
until the Archbishop Montufar, scandalized by the existence of such a
barbarous relic, caused it to be buried in the immediate neighborhood
of the Metropolitan cathedral in the year 1551. This procedure was
forgotten; so much so, that when this disk was disinterred in the year
1790, even Gama the archæologist and its later interpreter, had not the
remotest idea what purpose it could have served, for the manuscript
chronicles of Duran and Tezozomoc still slumbered in the dust of the
archives. The viceroy, Reviellagigedo, ordered the disk to be fitted
into the outer wall of one of the towers of the cathedral. There it is
to this day.”
We now ask your attention to the stone itself. The central circle
contains the face of the Sun-god bedecked with ornaments, earrings,
and jeweled lip. In the next zone we observe four large parallelograms
containing hieroglyphic signs: Nahui Ocelotl, Nahui Ehecatl, Nahui
Quahuitl and Nahui Atl. Between the upper and lower enclosures on both
sides of the central disk are circular figures containing hieroglyphics
resembling claws, said to represent two ancient astrologers, man and
wife, who, according to the early writers, invented the calendar.
These four signs are identical with the days on which, according to
the traditions, the world was destroyed at four different times.
These destructions mark four ages represented by the signs of the day
on which they occurred. These ages were also called suns. The first
destruction occurred in Ce Acatl, and is represented by the sign
Nahui Ocelotl, or 4 Tigre, seen in the upper right-hand tablet. The
small figure above and towards the left is the sign for 1. Tecpatl, a
feast-day kept by the Aztecs in memory of the first destruction. The
second tablet bears the symbol for Ehecatl or Wind, in memory of the
destruction of the world by hurricane, which occurred in the year Ce
Tecpatl or Nahui (4) Ehecatl. Between the tablet and the triangular
figure to the right is a sculpture in which a broken wall with
towers appears. The sign 1. Calli is associated with it, indicating
a ritualistic feast-day kept on that sign. The third tablet bears
the symbol of the rain-god Tlaloc, in memory of the destruction of
the world from frequent rains. The last tablet represents the fourth
destruction by a flood on Nahui Atl in the year Ce Calli.
The faces of Cox-Cox, the Mexican Noah, and his wife are delineated in
the picture. The symbol for water is seen immediately below the faces.
Between the two lower tablets, two small quadrilateral enclosures
will be observed, each containing five round points, supposed to mean
10 Ollin (the sun being called _ollin tonatiuh_). Below the lower
tablets and almost in contact with the next concentric circle are the
hieroglyphics 1. Quiahuitl and 2. Ozomatli. The first, namely 10 Ollin,
corresponds with our twenty-second of September in the first year of
a cycle, and its hieroglyphic on this astronomical disk represents
the autumnal equinox. At the extreme top of the Calendar Stone is a
central figure, well known to be the hieroglyphic for 13 Acatl. This
fact known, the interpretation of the two remaining symbols is easy.
In the year 13 Acatl, the day 1. Quiahuitl would correspond to our
twenty-second of March, and represent the vernal equinox. In the same
year 2. Ozomatli would correspond with our twenty-second of June, or
summer solstice. Thus it is that the stone speaks and testifies to
the astronomical knowledge of the Aztecs, the accuracy of which casts
into the shade the imperfect Julian Calendar in use by Europeans at
the time of the conquest. In the next zone, encircling that which
contains the tablets of the cosmological ages, are twenty enclosures,
containing the symbols of the twenty days. The triangular pointer
which extends upwards from the crest of the sun-face indicates the
dividing line between the first and last days of the month. Cipactli,
whose hieroglyphic stands at the left of the pointer is unquestionably
distinguished as the first day of the month. The second symbol to the
left is that of the second day Ehecatl, wind, the third Calli, house,
the fourth Cuetzpalin, lizard, the fifth snake, and so on to the end
of the list. In the next zone we find a succession of small squares,
each enclosing five round points. The circle is divided into four parts
by four large triangular pointers or gnomons. In each division of the
zone are ten squares containing five points each, or in the four,
we have 200 points. Gama states that the space for sixty additional
points is occupied by the feet or curves of the large indices. By
experiment it is found that the mean of the space occupied by the
feet of the pointers is equal to the width of one and a half of the
square enclosures. Eight times this space gives us twelve squares with
sixty points. Thus we have the ritualistic division or lunar reckoning
(Metzli pohualli) of 260 days. In the next zone the symbols of the
remaining 105 days or solar reckoning of the ritualistic year is found.
Eight pointers divide the circle; the six upper divisions of which
contain each ten figures resembling a grain of maize, while the two
lower divisions have but five figures in each. This gives us seventy
figures. Under each limb of the pointers is space for one and a half of
the figures, giving twenty-four more or ninety-four in all. The space
of ten additional figures is occupied by the helm-plumes of the heads
which are figured at the lower margin of the stone. This gives us 104
figures, or one less than the required number. It will be remembered
that the five intercalary days called the nemontemi, or unlucky
days, though reckoned in regular order at the close of each year,
were considered separate and apart from it. The artist who executed
the Calendar Stone has carried out this custom in placing the figures
of the nemontemi between the tablets of the two last destructions of
nature, where they will be found by themselves. It will be observed
that four of the signs correspond to those wanting under the lower
pointer and the adjacent plumes, with this further departure from the
general plan of the design, that the central figure or maize grain
corresponds to the space between the limbs of the great pointer below.
Here, then, we have the missing symbol, and are able to find the 105
hieroglyphics of days for the lesser division of the year. The two
zones consequently represent the complete year of 365 days.
The most conspicuous of the remaining zones is the outer, and last of
all. The attention is asked to one of the twenty-four quadrangular
figures composing it. The Mexican Codices in the Kingsborough
collection furnish similar symbols for the cycle of 52 years.[643] The
ancient Mexicans had a superstition that in the last night of the 52d
year of their cycle the sun would destroy the world. Consequently, at
every recurrence of the eventful night, all fires were extinguished,
the people clothed themselves in mourning, and forming a long
procession, repaired to a neighboring mountain, where at midnight a
priest sacrificed a man in their presence. A second priest placed a
round block of dry wood over the ghastly wound from which the heart
had been torn; while a third, kneeling over the corpse, rested a hard
shaft or stick upon the block, revolving it between his two hands
with pressure until the friction produced fire. This was considered
a promise from the god that the destruction of the world would be
postponed until another cycle had elapsed.[644] A moment’s observation
will disclose the fire symbol in the hieroglyphics for the cycle
as delineated on the stone; the perpendicular shaft with handles,
surrounded by flames and smoke, rising from a hole below. In the same
zone, above, we have two groups of pleats or bow-like figures, which
are clearly proven to be the symbol for the binding of two 52-year
cycles into an age.[645]
The zone immediately within the one we have been considering, contains
the symbols of the rain-god Tlaloc. No writer has as yet given a
satisfactory explanation of the plumed head at the bottom of the stone.
It will be readily seen that the two serpent heads, plumed, and with
extended jaws, armed above and below with great fangs, enclose two
human faces. These are but the heads of the serpents whose bodies
constitute the outer zone of the disk and terminate in the triangular
points above.
If the reader will but turn to our cut of the serpent temple at Uxmal
(p. 394), the same symbol of Cukulcan or Quetzalcoatl, the feathered
serpent, will be seen. Dr. Le Plongeon, in his recent researches, is
convinced that Uxmal was built, or more properly rebuilt, by Nahua
invaders, who afterwards became amalgamated with the Mayas.[646] Most
of the Mexican historians represent Quetzalcoatl as the founder of
the Nahua civilization. Torquemada states that he was their leader
when they first arrived in Mexico.[647] If the “Feathered Serpent”
was the founder of their institutions, it was not inappropriate for
the Aztec artist to place the hero’s face at the bottom of the stone,
and represent the symbols of the cycles as huge scales upon his body,
since the influence of the civilization which he established had been
felt throughout their entire history. To return to Prof. Valentini’s
investigations, it will be observed that there are twenty-four of the
cycle symbols, two of which are nearly hidden under the helm-plumes.
The product of 24 and 52 gives us a period of 1248 years. But what have
we to do with this result? The triangular-shaped figures which point to
the central tablet cut at the top of the stone, indicate that we must
make a calculation, and it remains for us to interpret that symbol. It
is recognizable as the sign Acatl accompanied by the number thirteen; a
year which, according to the authentic tables of reduction, corresponds
to the year 1479 A. D.; a date which is confirmed as being the year in
which the Calendar Stone was finished and set up in the great pyramid
of Mexico by the statement of the native writer Tezozomoc, that its
author, King Axayacatl, became ill from his exertions at the tragic
celebrations of the completion of the temple and lived scarcely a year,
at the same time fixing the date of his death in 1480. If we subtract
1248 years from the known date 1479 A. D., we have the year 231 A. D.;
a date which no doubt marks the beginning of the national era of the
Nahuas, and probably designates the year of their arrival in Mexico
by the ports of Tampico, Xicalanco and Bacalar. Thus it is that the
uncertainty of the traditions relating to the obscure events of early
Nahua history is removed, and we are enabled to settle upon the third
century of our era as the period when the great migration took place.
We will say more than Professor Valentini or his predecessor; we
believe this to be the date of the migration from Hue hue Tlapalan, the
country of the Mound-builders of the Mississippi valley, and we further
think we are sustained in this view both by the early writers and by
the condition of the mounds and shell-heaps of the United States. At
first thought, it would seem that the year 231 might be the date in
which the astrologers assembled in Hue hue Tlapalan for the correction
of the calendar (a fact to which we have previously referred), but it
is distinctly stated that the assembly convened in the year 1 Tecpatl;
a date which, according to the received reduction tables, corresponds
to the year 29 B. C.
Humboldt by an elaborate discussion has satisfactorily shown the
relative likeness of the Nahua Calendar to that of Asia. He cites the
fact that the Chinese, Japanese, Calmouks, Mongols, Mantchoux and
other hordes of Tartars have cycles of sixty years duration, divided
into five brief periods of twelve years each. The method of citing
a date by means of signs and numbers is quite similar with Asiatics
and Mexicans.[648] He further shows satisfactorily that the majority
of the names of the twenty days employed by the Aztecs are those of
a zodiac used since the most remote antiquity among the peoples of
Eastern Asia.[649] Cabrera thinks he finds analogies between the
Mexican and Egyptian calendars. Adopting the view of several writers
(Acosta, Clavigero and others) that the Mexican year began on the 26th
of February, he finds the date to correspond to the beginning of the
Egyptian year. He also observes that both peoples intercalated five
days at the close of their year.[650] M. Jomard, quoted by Delafield,
denies that the Egyptians intercalated, but believes sufficient
analogies exist to prove a common origin for the Theban and Mexican
calendars;[651] his argument, however, is worthless, as are many others
of a similar character.
_Religious Analogies._—In contrast with the obscure subject of the
calendar requiring such close attention, we present to the reader
a few of the analogies supposed to exist between Mexican and other
religious systems. The majority of our references will be made more
with a view to satisfying curiosity than for the establishment of
a theory. Argument from analogy is at best unscientific—it proves
nothing. It is a matter of surprise how much has been written to
establish the theory that the Mexicans were descendants of the Jews
both in race and religion. Mr. Bancroft has collected many of Lord
Kingsborough’s arguments in proof of the theory to which he devoted
his fortune and sacrificed his life. We have done a similar work with
a somewhat different arrangement, and call the attention of the reader
to some of the fanciful and we must add mirth-provoking analogies to
which the great Americanist attached so much importance. “The Mexicans
spoke of their god as the _invisible and incorporeal Unity_, and they
furthermore believed man to be created in his image.”[652] He states
further that the doctrine of the trinity was also held by them.[653] He
considers that Eden and the temptation were portrayed by the American
artists. “The Toltecs had paintings of a garden with a single tree
standing in the midst, one especially drawn on coarse paper of the
Aloe, round the root of which tree is entwined a serpent, whose head
appearing above the foliage displays the features and countenance of a
woman. * * * Torquemada admits the existence of this tradition amongst
them, and agrees with the Indian historians who affirm this was the
first woman in the world who had children, and from whom all mankind
are descended.”[654]
Lord Kingsborough is no doubt warranted in holding that the Nahuas
were of old world origin at a very remote period prior to their having
developed any special tribal characteristics, because of their singular
and we think certain knowledge of the Mosaic deluge; but he is not
justified in claiming for them any particular relationship to the
Jewish or any Shemitic people.[655]
In a preceding chapter we have given the deluge tradition from
Ixtlilxochitl, who states that the waters rose _fifteen cubits_
(caxtolmoletltli) above the highest mountains, and that a few escaped
in a close chest (toptlipetlacali), and after men had multiplied, they
erected a very high _zacuali_ or tower, in order to take refuge in it
should the world be again destroyed. He further states that then their
speech was confused, so that they could not understand each other, and
that they dispersed to different parts of the earth.[656] Whether the
native historian of Tezcuco who gives us this account, so remarkable
for its similarity to the Mosaic, was influenced by Spanish priests
and warped from the truth, we are not prepared to affirm at this
distant day, since such an assumption would strike the very keystone
from the arch upon which all historical evidence rests. Much of the
aversion to the view that the Mexican deluge legends are authentic
and of old world origin, has been generated by the unscientific and
presumptuous style of most of its advocates. Lord Kingsborough himself
is ever ready to catch at a straw, and out of customs the most remote
to evolve an analogy. Nevertheless, we are not at liberty to reject
the Mexican deluge legend as a fable without assuming the burden of
proof.[657] Remarkable parallels (?) in the history of both Jews and
Mexicans are thought to be discovered by the sanguine Kingsborough.
Of a number, two or three specimens will suffice. Hue hue Tlapalan is
claimed to have been situated on the Californian coast since the Gulf
of California until a late period was called the _red river_ or _gulf_,
a name they brought with them.[658] Again: “As the Israelites were
conducted from Egypt by Moses and Aaron who were accompanied by their
sister Miriam, so the Aztecs departed from Aztlan under the guidance
of Huitziton and Tecpalzin, the former of whom is named by Acosta and
Herrera, Mixi, attended likewise by their sister Quilaztli, or as she
is otherwise named Chimalman or Malinatli, both of which names have
some resemblance to Miriam as Mixi has to Moses.”[659] “The destruction
of the rebellious Kohra (Gen. xvi) is repeated after the arrival of
the Mexicans at Tulan, who, enchanted with the land, were unwilling
to go further in search of their promised land. They murmured at
Huitzilopochtli, and suffered a dreadful punishment at his hands that
night by the death of every one who had rebelled against his will.”[660]
Lord Kingsborough discovers in a Mexican painting in the Bodleian
library, a symbol resembling the jaw-bone of an ass, from the side
of which water flows forth. This, of course, commemorated the story
of Sampson.[661] Among the conspicuous doctrines held by both Jews
and Mexicans, we note that the latter believed their children to be
the gift of Tezcatlipoca as the former ascribed them to the favor
of Jehovah.[662] The doctrine of sin and atonement was held by
the Mexicans. Confession and sacrifice of atonement were common,
for “half the offerings represented in the Mexican paintings were
trespass-offerings, or sacrifices for the commission of sins.”[663]
“The Mexicans, like the Jews, were accustomed to do penance by sitting
on the ground, in which posture their priests are often represented
in the Mexican paintings.”[664] “The Mexicans were as punctilious
about washings and ablutions as the Jews.”[665] Baptism was considered
the means of regeneration in Yucatan,[666] and was practised by the
Mexicans as a religious ceremony.[667] Both peoples had devils and the
leprosy,[668] both considered women who died in child-bed as worthy
of honor as soldiers who fall in battle.[669] The doctrine of hell,
according to the most orthodox theology, was held by the Mexicans.[670]
Both Jews and Mexicans believed in the resurrection of the body and the
immortality of the soul.[671] The latter people sprinkled the face of
a corpse with water as a baptism after death.[672] Numerous analogies
are found to exist between the Mosaic and the religious code of the
Mexicans, as in profanity, sabbath-keeping, disobedience to parents,
the smiting of a servant to death, and in the punishment by stoning of
persons guilty of fornication and adultery.[673] Kingsborough maintains
that circumcision was performed on the eighth day, declaring it to
have “prevailed thousands of leagues along the coast of the Atlantic,
amongst nations very remote from each other, and who spoke very
different languages.”[674] Both peoples had a mutual disgust for swine
flesh, and refused to eat the blood of any animal.[675] The latter
statement is altogether unwarranted in fact. The ceremonial of both
peoples have many features in common. As the Jews killed the paschal
lamb in the evening, so the Mexicans offered up their sacrifices at
night.[676] The Jews in Mexico substituted llamas for sheep in their
sacrifices.[677] Both Jews and Mexicans worshipped toward the east,
or toward their chief temples, and both called the _south_ by the
designation of “right-hand of the world.”[678] Both burned incense
toward the four corners of the earth.[679] As David leaped and danced
before the ark of the Lord, so did the Mexican monarchs before their
idols.[680] Both peoples had an ark, and Duran states that in the ark
of the Aztecs which figured so prominently in their migration, was
the image of their invisible god.[681] Numerous analogies relating
to astrology, omens, witchcraft, dreams, etc., are recorded.[682]
References to prophecy are not wanting: Quetzalcoatl predicted the
destruction of the temple of Cholula, furnishing a parallel to Christ’s
prophecy of the destruction of the temple.[683] In the Mexican
mythology, by means of an active imagination, he finds an allusion to
the “stone which was carved without hands.”[684] A tiger represented
in the Bologna MS. he supposes to be the lion of the tribe of Juda—the
Jews of the New World having metamorphosed it into a tiger.[685]
Kingsborough supposes that the crosses found in Mexico may have been
carried there by Irish monks, “especially,” he adds, “as M. de Humboldt
informs us that the first Spanish monks and missionaries gravely
discussed the question of whether Quetzalcoatl was an Irishman.”[686]
The fanaticism of the eminent Americanist, however, reaches its
culmination in his supposed discovery of analogies to Christ in Mexican
mythology. The story of the virgin, the annunciation, and the identity
of Christ and Quetzalcoatl, are clearly discernible to his practised
eye.[687] Christ stilled the tempest, and, like Quetzalcoatl, was god
of the air.[688] In Yucatan, in the priestly fable of Bacab, he finds a
complete and true account of the trinity.[689] It is hardly necessary
for us to remark that these ingenious comparisons, tinged with a
coloring of fanaticism and yet so full of interest, are useless to the
cause of science and prove nothing. With the single exception of the
remarkable tradition of the deluge and its literal correspondence in
detail to the Mosaic account, we must dismiss the multitude of supposed
analogies between Mexican and Hebrew traditions, customs and religion,
which Kingsborough and others have discovered, as either imaginary or
accidental.[690]
The hypothesis that the Nahua religion may have received some of its
characteristics from India is altogether plausible and not without
support in resemblances. The cosmological conception of the egg and
serpent is found, as previously stated, on Brush Creek, in Adams
County, Ohio. It certainly comes to us from Asiatic India. Serpent
worship, not only among the people of the mounds but especially of
Mexico, is the most patent fact revealed to us in ancient American
sculpture. “Humboldt thinks he sees in the snake cut in pieces, the
famous serpent Kaliya or Kalinaga, conquered by Vishnu, when he took
the form of Krishna, and in the Mexican Toua-tiuh, the Hindu Krushna,
sung of in the Bhagavata-Purana.”[691] Count Stolberg and Tschudi have
both made arguments in favor of this view.[692] Humboldt characterizes
Quetzalcoatl as the Buddha of the Mexicans, the founder of the monastic
establishments resembling those of Thibet and Western Asia.[693] He
further considers the flood of which they speak, identical with that
of which traditions are preserved by the Hindoos, the Chinese, and the
Shemitic peoples.
Advocates of Scandinavian analogies in religion are not wanting.
Although Viollet-le-Duc finds parallels existing between the
Brahmanistic ideas of divinity and passages of the _Popol Vuh_, still
he is of the opinion that the strongest resemblances have been found
to exist between the religious customs of the Scandinavians and those
recorded in the _Popol Vuh_.[694] Humboldt remarks, “we have fixed the
special attention of our readers upon this Votan or Wodan, an American
who appears of the same family with the Wods or Odins of the Goths
and of the peoples of Celtic origin. Since, according to the learned
researches of Sir William Jones, Odin and Buddha are probably the same
person, it is curious to see the names of _Bondvar_, _Wodansdag_ and
_Votan_ designating in India, Scandinavia, and in Mexico, the day of a
brief period.”[695]
Lafitau, in his _Mœurs des Sauvages_, is as enthusiastic in his
advocacy of the theory that the ancient Americans derived their
religion from the Greeks, as Kingsborough is certain that it was of
Jewish origin. He devotes his fourth chapter, and furnishes numerous
illustrations, in support of his view.[696] Our limited space precludes
the possibility of presenting in full the analogies discovered
by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg between the Mexican deities and
those of Greece and Egypt. If we hesitate sometimes in accepting his
conclusions, we cannot but wonder at his erudition and his zeal in
research. He calls attention to the fact that the cult of Pan and
Hermes were identical in Greece, and refers to Maia, a personification
of the earth, and the mother of the Hermes having been the consort
of Zeus or Pan himself. So in Mexico he finds Pan in the person of
_Cipactoual_, who, under the name of _Cuextecatl_, has for his consort
_Maia_ or _Maiaoel_. This god was adored in all parts of Mexico and
Central America, and at _Panuco_ or _Panco_, literally _Panopolis_, the
Spaniards found upon their entrance into Mexico, superb temples and
images of Pan.[697] The names of both Pan and Maia enter extensively
into the Maya vocabulary, _Maia_ being the same as _Maya_, the
principal name of the peninsula, and _pan_, making Mayapan, the ancient
capital. In the Nahua language _pan_ or _pani_ signifies “equality to
that which is above,” and _Pantecatl_ was the progenitor of all beings.
The Abbé has little difficulty in proving the identity of Zamna,
Hunab-ku and other Maya deities, with the gods of Greece.[698] In the
name of the Egyptian god Horus, he finds the significance of hurricane,
or in the dialects of the Antilles, _huracan_ or _urogan_, the god
Hurakan of the Quichés. Also in the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol which
Salvolini found equivalent to the phonetic K, namely, the singular
reptile _Uraeus_, which resembles a serpent in an erect position
with an enlarged body, and employed extensively as a decoration in
hair of the Egyptian deities and the Pharaohs; he sees the emblem of
Quetzalcoatl (Ketzalcohuatl) the feathered-serpent, called Gukumatz
in Quiché, and Kukulcan in Maya. The same symbol is represented on
the Egyptian monuments with a feather rising from the serpent’s
crest.[699] It would be easy to pursue these ingenious comparisons
through a number of pages, but we question their value in throwing any
light on the subject in hand. The reader will find them scattered in
profusion through the voluminous writings of the learned Abbé. It is
sufficient to say that most of the seeming analogies between the new
and old world religions cannot be other than accidental, since it is
probable that the aborigines entered our continent at a very remote
antiquity, long before the religions with which theirs have been so
persistently compared, took on their distinctive features. If after
they were separated from the rest of the world by seas and mountains,
the Americans developed religious systems presenting analogies to
those of other lands, it furnishes us but another proof of the common
parentage and brotherhood of the race, of the universal outgoing of the
human mind after the deity, and the sameness of mental operations and
processes under the same given conditions.[700]