Part 8

In section 10 the 6th Ahau follows the 8th correctly, and the 4th, 2d, 13th and 11th Ahaues were passed in internal wars between Chichen-Itza and Mayalpan. In the 11th Ahau a highland people, called Uitze (probably Quiché), unite with the rulers of Chichen-Itza, and they then succeed in destroying Mayalpan. In section 11 another destruction of Mayalpan is reported. As this section begins with the 8th Ahau, and the foregoing ended with the 11th, a gap was left which represents the (9th), (7th), (5th), (3d), (1st), (12th) and (10th) Ahau. This gap undoubtedly means a period of great exhaustion to both contending parties, and as a second destruction of Mayalpan is reported in the 8th Ahau, we may fairly assume that this city had recovered, and in making a last effort to regain supremacy, was finally conquered. We understand the two reported destructions of this city as the heroic and victorious effort of the Maya race to exterminate the foreign Nahuatl invader, who, for a long period succeeded in taking a strong foothold in the country. In the succeeding epochs of the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahau, exhaustion from the war and disintegration must have ensued, for such was the condition in which the Spaniards found the Maya people in the following 13th and 11th Ahaues, which were the last they were allowed to count.

COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTIONS 10 AND 11.—In the 6th, 4th, 2d and 11th Ahaues the fortified land of Mayapan is attacked by the men of Itza and their king Ulmil, for it had walls, and the people were governed in a community. The place was destroyed by foreigners from the Highlands in the 11th Ahau, and Tancaj of Mayapan was also conquered. The correction of the reckoning gives us the 5th, 3d, 1st, 12th and 10th Ahau. We have stated that the 5th _Ahau_ began in the year 1272, and the others were consequently 1296, 1320, 1344, and 1368, and the 8th Ahau ended in the year 1392 A. D.

In the 8th Ahau Mayapan was destroyed, then followed the Katunes of the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahau, in which latter the Spaniards passed by and gave to the province the name of Yucatan. Hence, the Ahaues begin again their regular course, though it is a contradiction to say in the foregoing section that Mayapan had been destroyed in the 11th Ahau (corrected to the 10th _Ahau_). It would perhaps have been better to say it had been destroyed for the second time, possibly for the purpose of rebuilding it. The 8th Ahau began in the year 1392, the 6th, 4th and 2d Ahaues fell in the years 1416, 1440 and 1464, which last ended in the year 1488 A. D.

_§12. The 13th Ahau, 11th Ahau pestilence and small-pox were in the castles. In the 13th Ahau chief Ajpulà died. Six years were wanting to complete the 13th Ahau. This year was counted towards the east of the wheel, and began on the 4th Kan. Ajpulà died on the 18th day of the month Zip, on the 9th Imix; and that it may be known in numbers it was the year 1536, sixty years after the demolition of the fortress._

_§13. Before the termination of the 11th Ahau the Spaniards arrived, holy men from the East came with them when they reached the land. The 9th Ahau was the commencement of baptism and Christianity; and in this year was the arrival of Toroba (Toral), the first bishop, 1544._

After the 11th section had closed with the 2d Ahau, the 12th section correctly begins with the 13th Ahau, and the 13th and last section closed the manuscript with the 11th Ahau, when the government of the Mayas was brought to an end by the arrival of the Spaniards. The particular details contained in these two sections will be discussed hereafter.

COMMENTARY OF SEÑOR PEREZ TO SECTIONS 12 AND 13.—In the 13th and the 11th Ahaues pestilence and small-pox reigned. In the sixth year, before the expiration of the 13th _Ahau_, Ajpulà died at the time when four Katunes were counted on the east of the wheel. His death happened on the 18th day of the month _Zip_, on the 9th day Imix. This date is wrong according to my reckoning; for the year 4 _Cavac_ expired at the beginning and not at the end of the epoch, otherwise it would have been the year 4 _Muluc_. In the first case, the year 4 Cavac was that of 1496, in the other case it would be the year 1506, and never that of 1536, for in that year the 9th Ahau began.[45]

We give, besides, a recapitulation which Señor Perez himself added to his commentary, and for which we are indebted to the kindness of the late Dr. C. Hermann Berendt:—

“From what we have stated it will be seen that by only taking into account the number of epochs which are mentioned in the manuscript, and which elapsed between events, and by restoring this nomenclature according to the progressive series of the Ahaues, it appears that all indicated facts occur within the space of 58 epochs of 24 years each, which makes in all 1392 years to the expiration of the 11th Ahau. If we subtract these years from the year 1536, in which the 11th Ahau expired, 1444 A. D. remains as the year when the Toltecs seem to have arrived to colonize the country.

But if we allow the epochs and their enumeration to stand as they are, and in order to integrate the Ahaues in the sequence above indicated, add those which are missing, we should find that 97 epochs, each of 24 years had passed. The sum of 2328 years, represented by this count, is a space of time of too great magnitude to bring into harmony with Mexican history, and would signify that this country was 40 years older than the foundation of Rome, and 17 years older than the introduction of Greek Olympiads, which is very improbable.

Should any hypercritical person fail to believe in the list of epochs because their succession is incorrect, let him remember that the list has much to render it worthy of belief, though it must be subjected to corrections. Still less ought any one to refuse belief in the historical statement of events. The manuscript indicates a traditional origin common to the history of all primitive nations. It is noticeable that no traditions exist to contradict the manuscript, and that it is the only one thus far discovered. The contents of the manuscript might be thus epitomized:—

1. The Toltecs occupied 4 epochs in going from their home to Chacnouitan.

144–217 A. D.

2. They arrived there in the first year of the succeeding epoch, and remained still 4 epochs more with their chieftain, Ajmekat Tutul Xiu.

218–360 A. D.

3. They discovered Ziyan-Caan or Bacalar and ruled therein 3 epochs, till they discovered Chichen-Itza.

360–432 A. D.

4. They remained at Chichen-Itza 6 epochs, till they set out to colonize Champoton.

432–576 A. D.

5. From the discovery of Champoton, which they colonized and ruled until they lost it, 13 epochs elapsed.

576–888 A. D.

6. They remain 2 epochs in the wilderness till they return again to Chichen-Itza.

888–936 A. D.

7. In the following epoch Ajcuitok Tutul Xiu colonized Uxmal, and ruled during 10 epochs in harmony with the governors of Mayapan and Chichen.

936–1176 A. D.

8. Three other epochs pass, and in the 10th year of the following epoch Chacxibchac, ruler of Chichen, was defeated by Hunac-eel, ruler of Mayapan, and his captains.

1176–1258 A. D.

9. In the same epoch of the defeat of the ruler of Chichen they marched against Ulmil, who was king in the same Chichen, because he had waged war against Ulil, king of Izamal, which war Hunac-eel, brought to a close in the following epoch.

1258–1572 A. D.

10. In spite of Ulmil’s defeat this ruler of Chichen planned an invasion of Mayapan. After the lapse of 2 more epochs, and in the third year of that which followed, Mayapan was destroyed in the year 1368 by strangers who came from the mountains.

1272–1392 A. D.

11. Besides the three named epochs, and indeed in the last of them, the Spaniards passed along, who gave to the province the name of Yucatan.

1392–1488 A. D.

12. In the following epoch an epidemic reigned even in the temples and fortified places, and in the 6th year Ajpula died on the 11th of September, 1493.

1488–1512 A. D.

13. In the 11th and last epoch (1536–1576) the conquerors arrived, to wit: in 1527, and in the following the first Bishop came, in the year 1541, and the conquest was completed in 1560 A. D.

* * * * *

Thus much I have been able to bring to light in this matter. But with the help of dates, which I do not possess, and with that of the travels you have made in our country, the information which you have gathered must have enlarged your ideas on this subject, and I wish you would be so kind as to communicate them to your most devoted

F. I. JUAN PIO PEREZ.

_Peto, April 2, 1842._ MR. J. LLOYD STEPHENS.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

It will be noticed from the text of the Manuscript, that no events are commemorated but such as are connected with _war_. In this style also the Nahuatl annals were drawn up. With both nations _war_ was recognized as the only fact worthy to be kept in the memory of the coming generations. Nor does the author state whether the country was ruled by kings or an emperor. It is rather suggested (section 7) that the tribes were gathered in groups, with a large town as a centre, and this town was governed by a priest. The words _halach uinicil_, _holy men_, were somewhat too freely interpreted with _governor_ by the translator. In regard to the considerable gaps in the sequence of years in the manuscript, we will not longer attribute them to a lack of memory on the part of the author, but to the custom generally observed among the annalists to be regardless of any work of peace performed by the nation; and whenever the question shall be discussed, at what epoch the building of the huge pyramids and temples took place, these dates will contribute to the answer. Periods of peace certainly began with years of great exhaustion; but recovery must have ensued, and the unshaken energy of the people and their leaders must have been directed to the undertaking of works, in which they could exhibit also their taste for pomp and architectural achievements. The gaps, therefore, instead of casting a shadow upon the authority and completeness of the manuscript, may rather be thought to perform the silent office of throwing light into the obscure past of the Maya history. As to the method, however, which we employed in computing the omitted periods of Ahaues, we have only to say that it grew out from the nature of the Maya enumeration itself. The two ends of the interrupted series being given, the number of the intervening Ahaues could be easily supplied.

What now remains is, to discover for the restored and completed series of Ahaues the corresponding chronological expressions in our era. We find the total Ahau periods mentioned in the annals were 50. We have thought it necessary to complete twenty more periods, so that we have seventy periods (20×70), or 1400 years. As soon therefore as we know in which year of our era the last or 13th Ahau mentioned in the manuscript fell, we can, by reckoning backward, find the years date of the first Ahau mentioned, to wit: the 8th Ahau, and also determine the dates and events of each of all the other intervening Ahaues. The manuscript fortunately affords us the necessary material for determining with incontestable certainty the years date of the last 13th Ahau. It is the following: we read in the 12th section that Chief Ajpulà died in a year when there were still six years wanting before the expiration of the 13th Ahau, and that the year of his decease was 1536 A. D.

According to this statement the 13th Ahau ended with the year 1542. Bishop Landa (see §41 of his Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan) confirms the correctness of the above calculation, though he says that the 13th Ahau expired with the year 1541. Landa undoubtedly selects this date of June 10th, 1541, as that of the last decisive victory at T’ho over the Indians, while the author of the manuscript may have had in mind the date when Mérida was officially incorporated as the capital, and a dependency of the Spanish crown, which was January 6, 1542.[46] If we subtract the total number of Ahaues already obtained, and amounting to 1400 years, from the year 1542, we obtain for the first epoch named in the manuscript which is the 8th Ahau, or the starting of the conquerors from Tulapan, the years 142–162 of our modern Christian era.

Of all the dates calculated from the manuscript only that of 1542 is 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.