The Publishing Committee are glad of the opportunity to print another paper from the pen of Professor Valentini. His previous contributions have been favorably received by some of the most competent judges. He is always ingenious and suggestive, taking care to sustain his views by adequate collateral information, and leaving an impression of earnestness and thoroughness, even though the reader should not be able always to see the way through his bold inferences to the important conclusions deduced from them.

It seems apparent that new phases of opinion respecting the position in the world’s history held by the races occupying the central portions of the American Continent may be looked for in the near future. Or rather, perhaps, it may be claimed that vestiges of ancient and independent culture, of revolutions, conquests, and changing dynasties, extending back to a remote period of time, which have hitherto simply excited and bewildered travellers and explorers, bid fair to be subjected to tests and comparisons derived from wider and closer observation, for which the means are accumulating, and from which definite results are anticipated.

It is remarkable how one tidal wave of investigation after another has, at different eras, invaded and receded from these regions, carrying from them more or less of the fragments of their architectural, monumental, and pictorial records—the sources of doubtful and unsatisfactory interpretation. The Spanish chroniclers; the scientists of the period of Humboldt and his contemporaries; the French government and the learned societies of France, uniting their efforts to render effective the honest but undisciplined enthusiasm of Brasseur de Bourbourg; all have experienced a subsidence of interest arising mainly from a want of success in yielding a sufficiently plausible solution of a mysterious subject. The death of Brasseur, the fall of Maximilian, and the political distractions of the French government and people, are not alone the causes of suspended action on the part of the learned bodies of France. They deemed it prudent to discredit the judgment and correctness of their own agent. One at least of Brasseur’s Commission publicly disavowed responsibility for his opinions; and his attempt to interpret the Codex Troano by means of the alphabet of Bishop Landa was pronounced by themselves to be a failure.

How signally the explorations of Del Rio, of Dupaix, of Galindo, and of De Waldeck, failed to make a permanent impression on the public mind! How soon the illustrated narrative of Stephens became in a measure disregarded, and even his reliableness questioned! How completely the nine ponderous folios of Lord Kingsborough’s extensive collection fell dead from the press, until the great work to which he had devoted his life and his entire fortune sold in the market for less than a single useless production of Increase or Cotton Mather! We have seen the elaborate and learned essays of Gallatin upon Mexican civilization slumbering with the long sleep of the Ethnological Society; the Geographical Society cautious about travelling out of the routes of regular expeditions; even the sardonic “Nation,” assumed arbiter in literature, politics, and science, and always ready for caustic criticism, hesitating to venture far beneath the surface of these important inquiries. The ill-fated Berendt has perished in the midst of his unfinished labors; and, lastly, one of the most purely philosophical investigators of Indian habits and history reasons in a direction opposed to the antiquity and extent of aboriginal civilization.

If there is to be a renewal of interest in Mexican archæology, and a revived consciousness of something more to be gained from the relics of culture among the early races of this continent (a meaning in its mystical remains that has not been developed), our Society may claim its share in the re-kindling or fostering of the newly excited impulse. In saying this we do not overlook the preparation which recent studies of the general condition of prehistoric races has created for such investigations; but, in this particular field, it has had the fortune to draw special attention to certain regions and opportunities of research. This has been due to the earnest and liberal exertions of one of its members, who, some years since, passed a winter in Yucatan, and has kept up a correspondence with friends and acquaintances there.^[26] He embodied his observations and experiences in a report on behalf of the Council rendered in 1876. He has since endeavored to promote the operations of Dr. and Mrs. Le Plongeon in the actual field, and has assisted in preparing the papers of Professor Valentini for our publications, providing illustrations in all cases when practicable. The Report of the Council in the present number of “Proceedings” is largely devoted to an account, by the writer^[27] of a visit to the city of Mexico, and his observations upon the country and its history. More than twelve years ago, in January, 1868, a generous member of the Society^[28] had the forethought to establish a department of the library composed of books relating to Spanish America, beginning with the gift of Lord Kingsborough’s mammoth publication, and others, for the specialty of antiquities, and accompanied by a pecuniary foundation for future growth. The importance of a provision for this particular purpose becomes daily more conspicuous as attention is directed to that portion of the continent.

It is gratifying to perceive that such movements, with the greater activity in publishing its “Anales” on the part of the Museo Naçional de México, and the issue of such publications as that of Prof. Rau by the Smithsonian Institution,^[29] and the private work of Mr. Short,^[30] are not without their influence.

The scheme, which, although not fully matured, we have reason to believe a real one, of sending an expedition to some of the original Mexican provinces for a thorough exploration, at the cost of a wealthy citizen of New York, the results to be printed in the North American Review, may be regarded as one of the fruits of the “Renaissance.”

Introductory Remarks.

In the ensuing discussion an attempt is made to explain the so-called “Katunes of Maya history.”

The Manuscript which bears this name is written in the Maya language, and its discovery is of comparatively recent date. At its first publication in 1841 it could not fail to attract the attention of all those who were engaged in the study of ancient American history, because it unveiled a portion of the history of Yucatan, which had been till then entirely unknown and seriously missed. At that date only a scanty number of data, loosely described, and referring to an epoch removed from the Spanish conquest of the Peninsula by only a few decades, had appeared as the sole representatives of a long past, in which the builders of the ruined cities undoubtedly must have lived an eventful life, not to be counted by a few generations, but by a long and hardly calculable number of centuries. This vacuum of time the manuscript promised to fill out. Though it did not offer a history conceived in the common acceptation of the word, the brief epitome of events which it presented, began by telling us of the arrival of foreigners from distant lands, who, step by step succeeded in conquering the Maya soil and who were brought into significant connection with the name as well as the fall of cities now lying in ruins over the whole country.

As to the authenticity of the events reported, they have been received by many students with a confidence and faith rarely manifested when discoveries of such importance are brought to light. As to the form in which they were presented, the author seemed to exhibit neither the skill of a professional nor the clumsiness of an occasional forger. If on the one hand the gaps he left betrayed a defective memory, this circumstance should be held rather as an indication of his credibility. The material from which his information was derived, we might add, was extensive, and much of it was probably lost when he gave the account at a later period of his life.

The events communicated being in themselves of the highest interest, rose in importance from the fact that they were arranged in successive epochs. A chance was thereby given to calculate the long space of time that intervened between the arrival of the ancient and of the modern conquerors. This difficult task was attempted by the fortunate discoverer himself, Señor Juan Pio Perez, of Yucatan, accompanied by a learned discussion on ancient Maya chronology. His calculation furnishes the sum of 1392 years, the first initial date to be assigned to the year 144 A. D., and the last to 1536 A. D.

When, some years ago we undertook to examine the argument of Señor Perez we were not at all astonished by the great antiquity of the date he had drawn from the Maya Manuscript. For, nearly at the same time, we had reached similar results in an attempt made to utilize certain records which Ixtlilxochitl (1590), and Veytia (1760), (Kingsborough Collection, Vols. 8 and 9), have left regarding the earliest chronology of the Nahuatl tribes. By adopting a more rational method of computation than these Mexican writers had followed, we were unable to withstand the conclusion, that the Nahuatl people who were immediate territorial neighbors of the Mayas, considered the year 258 A. D. the earliest date of their arrival on and occupancy of the Mexican soil. Thus we had reached in this line of investigation very nearly the same results with the Nahuatl as Señor Perez with the Maya chronology, and the suspicion began to dawn upon us that these two neighboring people might, possibly, have stood in a still closer than a mere territorial connection.

These results, however, were only of a very problematical nature. They were derived from written reports, which, after all, could not be regarded as unquestionable authority. But they received a strong confirmation from a discovery we made later on the so-called Mexican Calendar Stone. In our discussion of this monument we believe that we have given ample proof of the fact, that its principal zone contains a sculptured record, showing a series of numerical symbols, from the computation of which the year 231 A. D. resulted as that which the Nahuatls had accepted as the first date of their national era.

Records presented in stone and compiled by the nation whose history they convey, must always be considered the most authentic evidence of historical truth. Now, were we also so fortunate as to possess some Maya monument, similar to the Mexican Calendar Stone, and were we also able to decipher it, we should thereby have the means for determining whether Maya chronology extended back to an epoch different from that of the Nahuatl, or to one identical with it. That such a monument once existed we have no doubt. That it may still exist, we have no reasonable grounds for denying the possibility. It remains, however, still to be discovered and to be interpreted. But since the fortunate discovery has not yet been made, we must rest satisfied for the present with conclusions derived from extant written records. The only manuscript of this character thus far brought to light, is that said to have been found at Mani,^[31] which was translated by Señor Perez from the Maya language, and accompanied by a very valuable chronological interpretation.

Since the close revision we undertook of the latter, brought out very striking coincidences of early Maya dates with those of the Nahuatl, and especially with that indicated on the Calendar Stone, we thought it worth while to reprint the manuscript, to discuss its contents again, and to arrange them under new points of view. Regarded by itself, the manuscript, indeed, might seem of only doubtful value in settling an important chronological question. But the comparison of its earliest date with that of the Nahuatl monument will enhance the value of each of them, because they may be considered as corroborative of each other.

THE MAYA MANUSCRIPT.

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:—

The 18 months were as follows:—

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.

The following year must begin with 2 Muluc.

It is to be observed here that this arrangement of a calendar of epochs agrees with that in use in the interior of Mexico. There, the numbers from 1 to 13 were combined with four names, Tecpatl, Calli, Tochtli and Acatl, which they had taken, like the Mayas, from the names for the 20 days of the month; and both calendars represent the first days of their weeks of five days as occurring upon the 1st, 6th, 11th and 16th days of the month. From this system Señor Perez arrives at the division into great epochs of 52 years used in Mexico as well as in Yucatan. This statement appears hazardous in the highest degree when compared with the statements made by the before-mentioned authorities. They claim for Yucatan an epoch of 20 and 260 years respectively; and Landa, who wrote with the first impressions of the conquest still fresh in his mind, and whose information came directly from the natives themselves, agrees with them. Without doubt Señor Perez must have been aware of this contradiction. After he had developed in §7 the so-called epoch of the Mayas of 52 years he makes us acquainted with this national Maya epoch, though, as we shall presently learn, he disagrees with the Maya writers as to the time of its duration. His statement is: §8. “The Yucatecans, besides the great cycle of 52 years, employed still another great cycle, which had reference to certain portions of it, in order to date the main epoch, and the most notable events of their history. Each of these cycles contained 13 periods, of 24 years each, making together 312 years. Each period, or Ahau-Katun was divided into two parts. The first of these parts of 20 years was enclosed in a square (sic), and was called on that account amaytun, lamayte or lamaytun. The second part of 4 years formed, so to speak, a pedestal for the first part, and was called chek oc Katun, or lath oc Katun, which signifies a chair or pedestal. These years were considered intercalary, and were held to be unlucky years. They were called u yail Jaab, and the same was the case with the 5 intercalary days to which they corresponded. The separation of the 20 years from the following 4 years gave rise to the erroneous idea that the Ahaues consisted of twenty years only, an error which has prevailed almost universally among those who have written upon this subject. But if they had counted the years which compose a period, and had taken notice of the positive declarations of the manuscript to the effect that the Ahaues consisted of 24 years divided as above stated, they would not have misled their readers on this point.”

Señor Perez continues:—

“It is an incontrovertible fact that those Maya periods, epochs or ages, took their name from Ahau Katun, for they began to be counted from the day which bore the name Ahau, the second day of those years, which began with the name Cavac. But as these days and numbers were taken from years which had run their course, the periods of 24 years could never maintain an arithmetical order, but succeeded each other according to the following arrangement of numbers: 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. As the Indians considered the number 13 the initial number, it is probable that some remarkable event had happened in that year, because, when the Spaniards arrived in the Peninsula, the Indians then counted the 8th as the 1st, that being the date at which their ancestors came to settle there; and an Indian writer proposed that they should abandon that order also, and begin counting from the 11th, solely because the Conquest had happened in that Ahau. Now, if the 13th Ahau Katun began on a second day of the year, it must be that year which began on 12 Cavac, and the 12th of the series. The 11th Ahau would commence in the year of 10 Cavac, which occurred after a period of 24 years, and so on with the rest; taking notice that after the lapse of years we come to the respective number marked in the course of the Ahaues which is placed first; proving that they consisted of 24, and not, as some have believed, of 20 years.”

From the heading (§8), “Of the Great Cycle of 312 years, or Ahau Katunes,” as well as of the text just quoted, it is apparent that Señor Perez intended to establish the fact that the ancient Maya cycles were composed of 24 and 312 years respectively. He does so in manifest contradiction to the prevalent opinion that they consisted of 20 and 260 years. We do not understand the reasons why he should have come to this conclusion. It grew out neither from the facts alleged nor from the connection into which he wove them together. The peculiar circumstance of having, in his commentary references, four years intercalated in succession to the usual cycle of twenty years, and included in a square, to serve as a “pedestal” to the former, is not capable of shedding new light upon the question and causing us to distrust authorities on which we were accustomed to rely. The other reason, which stands second in his order of forming premises for his conclusion, is said to be the undeniable fact, that those periods took their name of Ahau Katun, because they began to be counted from the day Ahau, which was the second day of those years that began in Cavac. Of this incontrovertible fact the readers are not elsewhere informed. The information, however, which we are able to give is that according to all we have been able to gather on the Maya Calendar, a period, or a single year, commencing with a day named Ahau, has never existed in their system of counting. They always commenced it with the words Kan, Muluc, Hix, Cavac. If there existed any exceptional ground for changing an old established method of dating, the reason should have been stated, for it is preposterous to assume that the first day of a great cyclical period should have taken its name from any other day of the year’s calendar than from the four above named. Nor do we understand the reason why, just here, the topic of the succession of the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, was introduced. Could it have been with the intention of showing that this singular enumeration of alternating Ahaues, which we shall hereafter speak of, occurred only in cycles of 24 years, and that therefrom a proof might be derived for establishing the pretended cycle of 24 and 312 years? Evidence of this should have been given by a table showing the series, and by still another table in which should be shown that such an alternating succession did not occur in cycles composed of 20 years. Not one single fact can be detected in Señor Perez’s text, by which the long established assumption of a 20 years’ cycle has been disproved.

Nevertheless, the data which we possess of the ancient Maya Calendar are not so complete as to disprove emphatically that a cycle of 24 and 312 years respectively was never used by the Maya chronologers.

Without doubt, Yucatan owed its ancient greatness to the success of uniting a rude and scattered population around a number of theocratical centres, where similar forms of worship were maintained. Though the ancient records are wanting, this feature of the Maya system stands out upon the background of dim traditions with great distinctness. After this concentration of tribes, and with the view of regulating worship, a uniform calendar would have been introduced, the main features of which would probably have been a solar year of 365 days, the division of the year into 20 months, and a cyclical period of 20 and 260 years respectively. In the middle of the 11th century great tribal revolutions took place on the high plateaus of Anahuac, by which the lowlands of Yucatan were also affected. An adventurous tribe of the Nahuatl stock possessed itself of one of the principal towns of Yucatan and established its influence and power. Mayapan became the centre of Nahuatl worship. The calendar the invaders brought with them must have been the old honored division of the years into 365 days, with 20 months, and their cyclical period of not 20 but 52 years, and it is also known that about the year 1450, the political union of the Mayas was broken into several smaller divisions, some of which presumably would have held to the ancient cycle of 20 years; others may have adopted the Nahuatl cycle of 52 years, and possibly, may have introduced the cycle of 24 years spoken of by Señor Perez. Political schism was likely to have generated also a hierarchical one, and each newly formed body of priests, in whose hands the custody and composition of annals fell, would have sought to distinguish themselves from their predecessors by innovations, if only of a formal character. Such changes we also observe among the Nahuatls in Anahuac. The period of 52 years, however, seems to have constantly prevailed among them, and also the divisions of the 365 days into 18 months of 20 days each.

We find, for instance, that one of the Nahuatl tribes begins its annals with December 9, another selects December 26, another January 9, and others January 12, February 4, and February 22. We also know that a different calculation prevailed among these tribes in beginning their annals. The State of Colhuacan began its chronology with a year 1 Calli, the State of Mexico with 2 Acatl, others with 1 Tochtli, and seemingly the most ancient calculation began with the year 1 Tecpatl. Thus we have a historical basis for our assertion that the Nahuatl as well as the Maya tribes did not conform to a uniform rule in beginning their first year’s date, in their chronological epochs, or in the division of their cyclical epochs.

In spite of this diversity, so perplexing to modern chronologists, the Aztecs and the Mayas were both governed by the same general principle in arranging their calendars. Both nations recognized the fact that in the past their solar year had numbered only 360 days; and they preserved in the words nemotemi and xona-kaba-kin, the remembrance of a not to be forgotten effort exerted by their ancestors to correct the primordial solar year of 360 days into one of 365 days. Both nations conscientiously kept on dividing the year into 18 months, and each of the months into 20 days, and with both the number 13 returns as a basis governing the calendar of years as well as that of periods.^[35]

We notice, moreover, that both nations omit to count the 20 days of the month in the succession of the figures 1–20, but after the thirteenth day they again begin with the number 1, and the 20th day therefore was figured with the number 7, and also that the Mexicans counted their smallest period with 13 years, the so-called tlapilli, and upon its quadruple the cycle of 52 years was based. The lesser Maya or Ahau period is 20 years, while the greater or Ahau Katun is 260 years or 13 times the smaller. Señor Perez’s lesser period of 24, and the greater one of 312 years show the same method and calculation (13 × 24 = 312).

This conformity between the early calendars of Central America should not escape the observation of the future historical enquirer. He will be compelled to adopt a very remote period of time when both nations, differing so entirely in their language, dwelt in peace, connected by the strong bands of a hierarchical power. One of these two nations, it is clear, must have invented it. Hence the question arises, was it original with the immigrating Nahuatl tribes who came from the higher northern countries as is reported, and did they succeed in forming such a consolidation with the Maya races as to mingle both under the same hierarchical government, or did the contrary take place? The most prevalent opinion makes the Nahuas the inventors of the general system of chronology, but later students begin to express themselves in favor of its Maya origin. On a more fitting occasion we are desirous to present our reasons for taking the latter view.

Before passing from these chronological speculations to the discussion of the Maya Manuscript, we wish to state briefly our idea of the origin of the system of reckoning by alternating Ahaues. [See page 66]. We promised to return to this subject, and shall now endeavor to give a solution to this chronological problem differing from that of Señor Perez. A passage in Bishop Landa’s work, determined our decision. After a previous and positive assertion that the lesser Ahau period consisted of 20 years, Landa continues, ... “The order in which they computed their dates and made their prophecies by the aid of this computation (of 20 years) was arrived at by having two idols, dedicated to two of these characters (Ahaues). To the first idol, which stands with a cross marked above the circle, they paid homage by making him offerings and sacrifices, in order to obtain an immunity from the calamities to come in these 20 years, but after ten of these years had passed they offered nothing but incense and worship. When the twenty years of the first were fully passed they began to occupy themselves with the presages of their second idol and to offer sacrifices to him, having taken away their first idol to replace it by the second, in order to worship it in the coming ten years.”^[36]