Part 5
§1. Cante bin ti Katun lic u §1. Four epochs were spent in ximbalob ca uliob uaye yetel Holon travelling, before they arrived Chantepeuh yetel u cuchulob: ca here with Holonchantepeuh and his hokiob ti petene uaxac Ahau bin yan followers. When they began their cuchi, uac Ahau, can Ahau cabil journey toward this island, it was Ahau, cankal haab catac hunppel the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th and haab; tumen hun piztun oxlahun Ahau 2d were spent in travelling; cuchie ca uliob uay ti petene because in the year of the 13th caukal haab catac hunppel haab tu Ahau they arrived at this island, pakteil yetel cu ximbalob lukci tu making together eighty-one years luumilob ca talob uay ti petene they were travelling, between their Chacnouitan lae, u añoil lae 81. departure from their country and their arrival at this island of Chacnouitan. 81 años. Years 81.
§ 2. Vaxac Ahau, uac Ahau, cabil § 2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th Ahau; in Ajau kuchci Chacnouitan Ahmekat the 2d Ahau arrived Ajmekat Tutul Tutul Xiu hunppel haab minan ti Xiu, and ninety-nine years they hokal haab cuchi yanob Chacnouitan remained in Chacnouitan. lae: lai u habil lae. 99 años. Years 99.
§ 3. Laitun uchci u chicpahal § 3. In this time also took place tzucubte Ziyan-caan lae Bakhalal, the discovery of the province of can Ahau, cabil Ahau, oxlahun Ahau Ziyan-caan or Bacalar, the 4th Ahau oxkal haab cu tepalob Ziyan-caan ca and 2d Ahau, or sixty years, they emob uay lac: lai u haabil cu had ruled in Ziyan-caan when they tepalob Bakhalal chuulte laitun came here. During these years of chicpahci Chichen Itza lae. their government of the province of Bacalar occurred the discovery of Chichen-Itza. 60 años. Years 60.
§ 4. Buluc Ahau, bolon Ahau, uuc § 4. The 11th Ahau, the 9th, 7th, Ahau, ho Ahau ox Ahau, hun Ahau uac 5th, 3d and 1st Ahau, or 120 years, kal haab cu tepalob Chichen Itza ca they ruled in Chichen-Itza, when it paxi Chichen Itza, ca binob cahtal was destroyed, and they emigrated Champutun ti yanhi u yotochob ah to Champoton, where the Itzaes holy Ytzoab kuyen uincob lae. men, had houses. 120 años. Years 120.
§ 5. Vac Ahau, chucuc u luumil § 5. The 6th Ahau they took Chanputun, can Ahau, cabil Ahau, possession of the territory of oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, bolon Champoton; the 4th Ahau, 2d, 13th, Ahau, uuc Ahau, ho Ahau, ox Ahau, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th, hun Ahau, lahca Ahau, lahun Ajau, 10th and 8th, Champoton was uaxac Ahau, paxci Chanputun, destroyed or abandoned. Two hundred oxlahun kaal haab cu tepalob and sixty years the Itzaes reigned Chanputun tumenel Ytza uincob ca in Champoton, when they returned in talob u tzaclé u yotochob tu caten, search of their homes, and they laix tun u katunil binciob ah lived for several katunes under the Ytzaob yalan che yalan aban yalan uninhabited mountains. ak ti numyaob lae; lai u habil cuchinbal lae. 260 años. Years 260.
§ 6. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, ca kal § 6. The 6th Ahau, 4th Ahau, after haabcatalob u heↄob yotoch tu caten 40 years, they returned to their ca tu zatahob Chakanputun: lay u homes once more and Champoton was habil lae. lost to them. 40 años. Years 40.
§ 7. Lai u katunil cabil Ahau. u § 7. In this Katun of the 2d Ahau, heↄci cab Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu Vxmal. Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu established Cabil Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, buluc himself in Uxmal; the 2d Ahau, the Ahau, bolon Ahau, uuc Ahau, ho 13th, 11th, 9th, 7th, 5th, 3d, 1st, Ahau, ox Ahau, hun Ahau, lahca the 12th and 10th Ahau, equal to Ahau, lahun Ahau, lahun kal haab cu 200 years, they governed in Uxmal, tepalob yetel u halach uinicil with the governors of Chichen Itza Chichen Itza yetel Mayalpan: lay u and of Mayapan. habil lae. 200 años. Years 200.
§ 8. Lai u katunil buluc Ahau, § 8. These are the Katunes 11th, bolon Ahau, uac Ahau, uaxac Ahau, 9th and 6th Ahau (_sic_). In the paxci u halach uinicil Chichen Itza 8th Ahau the governor of tumenel u kebanthan Hunac-eel, ca Chichen-Itza was deposed, because uch ti Chacxib chac Chichen Itza tu he murmured disrespectfully against kebanthan Hunac-eel u halach Hunac-eel. This happened to uinicil Mayalpan ichpac. Cankal Chacxibchac of Chichen-Itza, haab catac lahun piz haab, tu lahun governor of the fortress of tun uaxac Ahau cuchie; lai u haabil Mayapan. Ninety years had elapsed, paxci tumenel Ahzinteyutchan yetel but the 10th year of the 8th Ahau Tzunte-cum, yetel Taxcal, yetel was the year in which he was Pantemit, Xuchu-cuet, yetel overthrown by Ajzinte-yut-chan, Ytzcuat, yetel Kakaltecat lay u with Tzunte-cum, Taxcal, Pantemit, kaba uinicilob: lae muctulob Xuch-ueuet, Ytzcuat and Kakaltecat; ahmayal panob lae. these are the names of the seven Mayalpanes. 90 años. Years 90.
§ 9. Laili u katunil uaxac Ahau, § 9. In the same Katun of the 8th lai ca binob u pâ ah Vlmil Ahau Ahau they attacked Chief Ulmil, in tumenel u uahal-uahob yetel ah consequence of his quarrel with Ytzmal Vlil Ahau; lae oxlahun uuↄ u Ulil, Chief of Yzamal; thirteen katunilob ca paxob tumen Hunac-eel: divisions of troops he had when he tumenel u ↄabal u naatob; uac Ahau was routed by Hunac-eel; in the 6th ca ↄoci: hunkal haab catac can Ahau the war was over, after 34 lahun pizi: lai u habil cu xinbal. years. 34 años. Years 34.
§ 10. Vac Ahau, can Ahau, cabil § 10. In the 6th Ahau, 4th, 2d, Ahau, oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, 13th and 11th Ahau, the fortified chucuc u luumil ich pâ Mayalpan, territory of Mayapan was invaded by tumenel u pach tulum, tumenel the men of Itza, under their Chief multepal ich cab Mayalpan, tumenel Ulmil, because they had walls, and Ytza uinicob yetel ah Vlmil Ahau governed in common the people of lae; can kaal haab catac oxppel Mayalpan; eighty-three years haab: yocol buluc Ahau cuchie paxci elapsed after this event, and at Mayalpan tumenel ahuitzil ↄul, tau the beginning of the 11th Ahau cah Mayalpan. Mayalpan was destroyed by strangers of the Uitzes, Highlanders, as was also Tancaj of Mayalpan. 83 años. Years 83.
§ 11. Vaxac Ahau lay paxci Mayalpan § 11. In the 8th Ahau, Mayalpan was lai u katunil uac Ahau, can Ahau, destroyed; the epochs of the 6th, cabil Ahau, lai haab cu ximbal ca 4th and 2d Ahau elapsed, and at yax mani españoles u yaxilci caa this period the Spaniards for the luumi Yucatan tzucubte lae, oxkal first time arrived, and gave the haab pâaxac ich pâ cuchie. name of Yucatan to this province, sixty years after the destruction of the fortress. 60 años. Years 60.
§ 12. Oxlahun Ahau, buluc Ahau, § 12. The 13th and 11th Ahau, uchci mayacimil ich pâ yetel pestilence and small pox were in nohkakil: oxlahun Ahau cimci the castles. In the 13th Ahau, Ahpula: uacppel haab u binel ma Chief Ajpula died; six years were ↄococ u xocol oxlahun Ahau cuchie, wanting to the completion of the ti yanil u xocol haab ti lakin 13th Ahau; this year was counted cuchie, canil kan cumlahi pop, tu toward the east of the wheel, and holhun Zip catac oxppeli, bolon began on the 4th “Kan.” Ajpula died Ymix u kinil lai cimi Ahpula; on the 18th day of the month Zip, laitun año cu ximbal cuchi lae ca in the 9th Ymix; and that it may be oheltabac lay u xoc numeroil años known in numbers, it was the year lae 1536 años cuchie, oxkal haab 1536, sixty years after the paaxac ich pâ cuchi lae. destruction of the fortress.
§ 13. Laili ma ↄococ u xocol buluc § 13. Before the termination of the Ahau lae lai ulci españoles kul 11th Ahau, the Spaniards arrived, uincob ti lakin u talob ca uliob holy men from the east came with uay tac luumil lae; bolon Ahau them when they reached the land. hoppci cristianoil uchci The 9th Ahau was the commencement caputzihil: laili ichil u katunil of baptism and Christianity; and in lae ulci yax obispo Toroba u kaba, this year was the arrival of Toroba heix año cu ximbal uchie. (Toral), the first bishop. 1544 años. 1544 A. D.
NOTE.—This Manuscript has also an introduction and close, which Señor Perez has not published, because the dates specified occurred in the Spanish epoch, and consequently were of no interest to the Maya student.
HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
In the interest of authenticity it is much to be regretted that neither the name of the author, his residence, nor the date when the Manuscript was written, are known to us, and we are also ignorant of other matters of moment; whether the Manuscript is an original or a copy, or how often copied, or by what family or person it may have been preserved before it came into the hands of Don Juan Pio Perez. That Yucatecan gentleman had retired from Mérida, the capital, to the District of Peto, to devote himself to his favorite studies, the ancient language and the history of his nation. The unusual interest that he showed in this direction, united to his influential position as first officer of the district, enabled him to obtain many small manuscript documents known to have been written by the natives in their vernacular language, the Maya, soon after the time of the conquest, which, for the most part, contained historical reminiscences of the time of the supremacy of their ancestors. Among these manuscripts there was a so-called _Chilam Balam Calendar_, which, in the form of an appendix, contained, besides, the outlines of the primitive history of Yucatan. It was, indeed, but a brief epitome of historical events, accompanied by the corresponding dates. But its value consisted in the circumstance that these dates were catalogued according to successive epochs; and it required only slight inspection to disclose the fact that they extended back to a period not very distant from our Christian Era.
This was a discovery to the learned world as welcome as any that could be made. It was unique in its kind. All attempts, thus far, had vainly sought to learn something about the history of the builders of those palaces and temples with whose ruins the peninsula was covered at the date of the arrival of the Spaniards, and which pointed to a long past and to the unceasing activity of a numberless population, which, while it was skilled in the most important branches of art and industry, and familiar with a luxury such as only ancient Asia and India had displayed, was yet governed by a despotic and hierarchical power. The native, when asked whose work the ruins were, would answer nothing but that they owed their origin to men who, in ancient times, had immigrated from far distant countries.
The Manuscript disclosed at once the history of these strange immigrants, showed the progressive march of the conquest, and the contemporaneous foundation of the largest cities then in ruins, and furnished in the Maya language the chronology of each event and its corresponding epoch. By means of his extensive antiquarian knowledge Señor Perez made an exact translation of this Manuscript into Spanish, and afterwards undertook a critical interpretation of its contents, and accompanied the whole with an introductory explanation of the system of ancient Maya chronology.
In the midst of these labors he was surprised by the arrival of the celebrated American traveller and archæologist, John Lloyd Stephens, and was induced to entrust to him a copy of the MSS. and interpretations to be embodied in his work on Yucatan, in order to bring them more fully before the world. His wishes were scrupulously complied with, and the Spanish translation has been rendered into literal English by Mr. Stephens in “Incidents of Travel in Yucatan,” vol. I., Appendix, pages 434–459, and vol. II., Appendix, pages 465–469.
Mr. Albert Gallatin, who, of all American students, has made himself most thoroughly acquainted with what remains of the historical elements of the Nahuatl and Maya people, has brought together the results of his investigations in a lecture published in the “Transactions of the American Ethnological Society,” New York, 1858, vol. I., pages 104–114. The information therein contained attests an entire familiarity with the method pursued by Señor Perez in his commentary, without, indeed, undertaking any severe criticism of it. In our opinion Mr. John L. Stephens and Mr. Gallatin are the only Americans who have recognized Señor Perez’s merits in an unequivocal manner, and have brought them to the knowledge of the world.
This is all we could learn about the Manuscript, nor have we been able to form a supposition, much less to discover in the text itself any clue to the source from which the unknown Maya author could have drawn his data. At the end of the Manuscript Señor Perez gives his opinion that the whole was written from memory, because it must have been done long after the conquest, and after Bishop Landa had publicly destroyed much of the historical picture-writing of the Mayas by an _auto-da-fé_, and because the whole narration is so concise and condensed that it appears more like an index than a circumstantial description of events.
These opinions of Señor Perez might cast a well grounded suspicion on the authenticity of the manuscript. We shall try to remove such doubts, at once, by presenting the following considerations. We do not believe that Bishop Landa succeeded in burning the entire treasures of Maya literature at the notorious _auto-da-fé_ in the town of Mani in 1561. The authorities[32] to which we have access describe the number of the destroyed objects so precisely that we have every reason to confide in their correctness. We read of 5,000 idols of different size and form, 13 large altar stones, 22 smaller stones, 197 vessels of every form and size, and lastly of 27 rolls (_sic_) on deerskin covered with signs and hieroglyphics, given to destruction at that time and place. We may believe that the terrorism exercised by Bishop Landa had a powerful influence on the minds and on the newly converted consciences of the natives, and the Bishop no doubt used every possible means to get into his hands as much as he could of what he considered to be “cabalistic signs and invocations to the devil.” But we can never believe that these 27 rolls represented the entire Maya literature, collected for hundreds of years with the greatest care and held sacred by the natives. Such a wholesale destruction would have been an impossibility. We could refer to a similar occurrence that took place in Mexico; and though Bishop Zumarraga has the bad reputation of having destroyed all the picture treasures of the Nahuatls by an _auto-da-fé_, there were notwithstanding so many of them in existence soon after his time in the possession of native families that Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and others, were able to build up their detailed accounts of the primitive history of their country from these original sources. Possibly numbers of them may have been preserved among the Maya tribes, for only under such favorable conditions could Cogolludo, Villagutierre and Lizana have obtained the valuable information and material which form the chief interest of their labors and researches, and which enabled also Pio Perez in the year 1835, to discover material from which to interpret so complete a description of the system of Maya chronology. Nay, even, we have a suspicion that Bishop Landa may have laid aside the most important part of these records, or what was the most intelligible to him, for we cannot comprehend how he would have been able without these pictures before his eyes to present in his work the symbols for the days so correctly, and also those for the months, or how otherwise he could have written his work in Spain, so far removed from all sources of information and from consultation with the natives.
No reason, therefore, exists why the Maya author should not have remained in possession of some painting, which exhibited the annals of his forefathers. If, however, he was compelled to write his “Series of Katunes” from memory, there is no reason for not relying on the accuracy of his retentive faculties alone. The noble Indians, and he belonged undoubtedly to this class, were very particular in training their sons to learn by heart songs expressing the glorious deeds of their ancestors. It is a fact attested by the Spanish chroniclers, that these songs were recited publicly in the temples and on solemn religious occasions. They were the only kind of positive knowledge with which we know the brains of the Indian pupils were burdened. In either case, therefore, the accuracy of the written Maya report needs not be doubted, at least not on the grounds alleged. Had it been composed in the Spanish language instead of Maya, we should have viewed this circumstance with a more critical eye. But as the native under Spanish rule expressed it in his native language, this kind of loyalty appears to us to give a certain warranty of dealing with a man who described the traditions of his oppressed race, and who wished to perpetuate its memory by handing down to posterity the principal events of the past history of his nation.
At this place, we should not like to omit pointing out an interesting suggestion which the clear headed and sagacious author, Señor Eligio Ancona[33] made in his before mentioned work, that Bishop Landa and the author of the Manuscript agree so often in their mention of historic dates, in the manner as well as the matter, as to lead to the idea that both drew their information from the same source. Whatever be its origin, we agree with the views of Señor Perez, that, in spite of the deficiency and breaks occurring in the Manuscript, it deserves critical attention as the only document thus far discovered that gives information of the early history of Yucatan.
ELEMENTS OF MAYA CHRONOLOGY.
It is impossible to understand the Manuscript before obtaining a knowledge of the division of time prevalent in Yucatan before the Spanish Conquest. Señor Perez has the incontestable merit of having been the first to lay before the world not only the chief points of the system but also all the technical details. Before his time but little was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic works of Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn only that the Mayas, in conformity with the Mexicans, held that the solar year was composed of 360 days, and when these were passed they added 5 days more as a correction. We are told that both nations divided their years into 18 months, and their months into twenty days each. As to the longer periods of time, however, we hear of certain differences. While the Mexicans had an epoch of 52 years which they divided into 4 smaller periods, the so called _Tlapilli_, each of 13 years, the Mayas counted a great epoch of 260 years, the so called _Ahau Katun_, subdivided into 13 smaller periods each of 20 years, with the simple name _Ahau_. This period of 20 years was according to Cogolludo[34] subdivided again into what he calls _lustra_ of 5 years each, but he does not give the native name of this division.
The discovery of the Manuscript, no doubt, induced Señor Perez to make a systematic and detailed sketch of the early native chronology of his country. We shall mention only the most interesting and important of his details and refer the reader for the rest to Stephens’ work already mentioned. The names of the 20 days in the month are as follows:—
1 Kan. 2 Chicchan. 3 Quimij. 4 Manik. 5 Lamat. 6 Muluc. 7 Oc. 8 Chuen. 9 Eb. 10 Been. 11 Gix. 12 Men. 13 Quib. ^114 Caban. ^215 Edznab. ^316 Cavac. ^417 Ahau. ^518 Ymix. ^619 Yx. ^720 Akbal.
The 18 months were as follows:—
1 Pop (16th of July.) 2 Uoo (5th of August) 3 Zip (25th of August). 4 Zodz (14th of September). 5 Zeec (4th of October). 6 Xal (24th of October). 7 Dze-yaxkin (13th of November). 8 Mol (3d of December). 9 Dchen (23d of December). 10 Yaax (12th of January). 11 Zae (1st of February). 12 Quej (21st of February). 13 Mac (13th of March). 14 Kankin (2d of April). 15 Moan (22d of April). 16 Pax (12th of May). 17 Kayab (1st of June). 18 Cumkū (21st of June).
As the table shows their year began with the first day of the month Pop, which corresponded to the 16th of July in our calendar, when, as Señor Perez observes, the sun was almost vertical over the Peninsula. The day itself was called _Kin_, Sun, the month _U_, Moon, and the 5 intercalary days were called nameless days, _Xona-Kaba-Kin_, not-name-Sun.
In the arrangement of their yearly calendar the Mayas proceeded as follows: Like the Mexicans they used a combination of the numbers 1 to 13, with the names of the 20 days of the month. They called the first day of the month Pop (our 16 July) 1 Kan, the second 2 Chicchan, the third 3 Quimij, and so on. The fourteenth day was called 1 Caban, the fifteenth 2 Edznab, and the last or twentieth day 7 Akbal. The first day of the second month followed in correct numerical sequence with the name 8 Kan, the second with the name 9 Chicchan. Thus repeating the 20 names of the days with the above combination of numbers from 1 to 13 they reached the 360th day with the name 9 Akbal. Then followed the intercalary week of 5 days bearing the names 10 Kan, 11 Chicchan, 12 Cimij, 13 Manik, and 1 Lamat.
The second year begins with 2 Muluc. In the same manner going on with the combination the first day of the third year was 3 Hix, then followed 4 Cavac, 9 Kan, 10 Muluc, 11 Hix, 12 Cavac, 13 Kan, 1 Muluc, 2 Hix, and so on. At the end of the 52d year the above-mentioned combination was exhausted, for the 53d year began again with the day 1 Kan.