“The Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards arrived at the City of Mérida in the year of the nativity of our Lord and Master 1541, which was precisely the first year of Buluc Ahau (11 Ahau), the same that we find placed at the top of the instrument^[37] below the cross, and which also indicates that they arrived in the month Pop, which is the first in their year. Had the Spaniards not come as they did, then they would have placed the Idol of Bolon Ahau (9 Ahau), offering homage to it, and continuing to refer to the prognostics of Buluc Ahau, till the year 1561; and then they would take it from the temple and put in its place that of Vuc Ahau (7 Ahau), all the while continuing to refer to the prognostics of Buluc Ahau, for ten years more, and the same with the others until the tour was made. In this way they made up their Katuns of twenty and ten years, worshipping them according to their superstitions and juggleries, which were in such great numbers that there were more than enough to deceive that simple people, and there is reason for astonishment when one knows what kind of things in nature and experience belong to the Demon.”

Whoever is acquainted with the awkwardness and literary negligence of Landa’s writing will not be astonished that in his statement he left out something which a more careful writer would have expressed, and placed at the head of his explanation. The wanting statement, however, can be supplied. It will be noticed that Landa in his text only refers to two Ahau Idols worshipped in the temple. But this number must have been 13, as is evident from the 3d Idol Vuc Ahau, mentioned afterwards in the statement with which he finished his description, in order not to always repeat the same thing of the ten other idols which are painted on the wheel. Let us then take the statement of Landa supplemented by what we have said above as to the questionable nomenclature of these Ahaues as they appear in the row of numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. Landa’s description gives us to understand that the lapse of twenty years was always required before the new combination of two idols was presented to the worshippers, and which had not before been seen in the temple in company with the former Idols. For example: When Idol 3 was placed in the temple, Idol 2 took a first place among the worshippers. Indeed, Idol 2 was in the temple with Idol 1, but Idol 3 was not with Idol 1, nor Idol 4 with Idol 2. If such a combination repeating itself after 20 years, represented a space of time familiar to the Mayas, it is natural that it should receive the name Ahau or period of the god,^[38] and that it should receive its name from the number of the Idol presiding at the expiration of this space of 20 years. If therefore in the rotation of the circle Idols 2 and 3 passed out of the temple, the combination, or what is the same, the space of 20 years, during which they had ornamented the temple will have borne the name 2 Ahau, on the ground that Idol 2 had preceded it. The second combination, then, would follow when the presidency of Idol 4 would have finished its term, and in this way the row 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, may have had its origin.

Now, it is true that the order in which these numbers stand is different from that transmitted to us, which begins with 13 and is followed by 11 and 9. The reverse of this method of reckoning may possibly be accounted for in this way: An epoch unknown to us may have occurred when the Maya chroniclers desired to review past events and bring them into order. Counting backwards from such a date they would have called the first period of twenty years not the 13th, nor, according to our above statement, the 1st, but the 2d Ahau. Consequently the period after the expiration of the great cycles of 260 years would have been called the 13th Ahau, though properly speaking it should have been the 2d Ahau. An historical epoch for such reckoning backward is known to have occurred. It occurred again in the year 1542, when the conquest of Yucatan by the Spaniards took place. It appears that the Mayas in that year declared their 13th Ahau period to be at an end, from 1522 to 1542; consequently a back reckoning, according to this system of the Mayas, gave a 2d Ahau for the period of 1502–22, a 4th Ahau for that of 1482–1502, and going on in the same way of reckoning the year 1282 would have represented the expiration of the 13th Ahau.

The circle of Landa exemplifies this manner of counting. He starts from the 13th Ahau, counting from left to right. But if we count in the opposite direction we should obtain the row of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, &c., as we have shown above. If we refer to the striking discovery on the Mexican Calendar stone^[39] that the days upon that circle are not counted towards the right but towards the left, and generalize it as a rule to be adopted also for the chronological cycles of the Mayas, we should come to the conclusion that the Mayas in some of their former chronological epochs counted their Ahaues in that natural order. Who shall say that the reversed counting did not originate from a misunderstanding on the part of the Spaniards? We do not claim to have finally disposed of the question. Every new attempt will be a welcome addition to the cause, for each new investigator is obliged to descend deeper into the dark mine where Maya history lies buried.

Señor Perez’s Translation of the Manuscript.

Señor Perez is thus far the only interpreter of the Maya Manuscript, and his Spanish text found a skilful translator in Mr. John L. Stephens. Neither the Spanish text nor the special chronological analysis of each paragraph composed by Señor Perez, have hitherto been made public; we owe the possession of both these documents to the kindness of our friend, Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt, lately deceased, who, during his long residence in Yucatan, was occupied in amassing a large collection of matters relating to Maya literature and history, in original form or in authentic copies. In comparing the Spanish with the English translations, it seems that many things, not clear in the first, had been made more intelligible in the last. It is evident that Señor Perez sought to translate the Maya text as literally and faithfully as he could into the Spanish language, otherwise his text would have been more fluent and finished. The abruptness of expression, and the frequent ellipses in the construction of its sentences, show that the Maya idiom has been faithfully rendered. Such a course increases the interest, and at the same time it creates confidence in the correctness of the translation. Dr. Berendt, the profound scholar of the Maya language, wrote us as follows on March 14, 1873: “I have several times undertaken to translate this manuscript myself, but have always given up the task. The manifold doubts which the original text leaves open seem to me correctly solved by Señor Perez, and it always appeared to me that I might indeed make another but not a better translation. The small changes in the text of Stephens, of which you speak, I do not believe were introduced merely from a love of his own expressions. I believe that he first came to an understanding with Perez, and sought only to assist the better comprehension of the manuscript for the benefit of the public at large.”

It is to be hoped that the differences of translation of the manuscript spoken of above, and to which Señor Eligio Ancona^[40] draws attention, will be critically investigated and finally decided by the coming generation of scholars in Yucatan. The sons of the country should be the born judges of the language and the spirit of the literary relics of the indigenous race. Recent investigations have shown that this language was split into sixteen dialects, which were spoken by as many tribes, whose territories extended far beyond the present area of the Yucatecan peninsula.^[41] Like all languages, these Maya idioms have undergone changes during the last three or four centuries. To understand and explain their now obsolete elements, must be left exclusively to the native scholar.

Discussion of the Manuscript.

It will now be our task to endeavor to clear away such doubts as may arise in regard to the chronological interpretation of the Maya Manuscript. These doubts have reference, first, to the choice of the method to be pursued in reckoning the Ahaues either at 24 or at 20 years. Second, as to the manner of filling up certain gaps which the author has left open in the chronological sequence of the Ahau period; and finally, after building again this chronological structure in its logical order, we must adapt the dates expressed in Ahaues to the current language of our Christian chronological era.

In order to avoid troublesome reference to the text of the preceding pages, we shall repeat the English translation, and for better convenience, shall present two or more sections together. To demonstrate Señor Perez’s system and method of counting, we shall give the translation of the Spanish text, as communicated by Dr. Berendt, without undertaking to make any special criticisms of it.

This is the series of Katuns that elapsed from the time of their separation from the land and house of Nonoual, in which were the four Tutul Xiu, lying to the west of Zuina, going out of the country of Tulapan.

With these few words the Maya author states his purpose. He wishes to enumerate the Katuns or periods of time from the beginning of the history of his nation to the arrival of the Spanish conquerors. He tells us that his nation lived in a land called Tulapan, which was westerly from another called Zuina, and that from thence, under the lead of four chiefs, the Tutul Xiu, they had immigrated into this new country, Yucatan.

By Tutul Xiu the author evidently means the name of the reigning family, which, at the arrival of the Spaniards, were considered as the ancient rulers and hereditary lords of Chichen-Itza.^[42] In regard to the countries referred to by the names Tulapan and Zuina, we can only say that in Central American traditions the name Tulapan oftentimes returns under the form of Tulan. Thus, for example, the Quichés and Cakchiqueles, sister nations of the Mayas, make mention of the above countries in their annals.^[43] Upon a closer examination of the text, contained in the so-called “Popol Vuh,” we were unable to detect any grounds for the assumption that these countries or places lay in a distant orient. They probably will turn out to have been, or by the annalists were thought to have been, situated on the northern boundaries of Mexico, on a route of migration ending with the high plateaus of Guatemala.

§1. Four epochs were spent in travelling before they arrived here with Holon Chantepeuh and his followers. When they began their journey towards this island, it was the 8th Ahau, and the 6th, 4th and 2d were spent in travelling, because in the 1st year of the 13th Ahau they arrived at this island, making together eighty-one years they were travelling between their departure from their country and their arrival at this island of Chacnouitan. These are 81 years.

We learn that four Ahau periods had passed the 8th, 6th, 4th and 2d before the wanderers arrived with their leader, Holon Chantepeuh, at the island of Chacnouitan. In the following 13th Ahau they are said to have been already settled there. It is of the highest importance to note that the Maya author here acknowledges that he reckoned each Ahau period as 20 years, and he remains faithful to this method to the end of the manuscript. By this fact alone, we should be compelled to follow the division of 20 years thus established, even if in contradiction to the statements of other chroniclers, which fortunately is not the case.

As the author treats of the affairs of the Tutul Xiu or the so-called Itza race, and attributes to them the discovery and colonization of Yucatan, it is highly probable that he made use of the annals of the Itzaes, and that they were arranged in periods of just 20 years. If we should be right in this assumption the 20–year period must be regarded as the most ancient ever used in Yucatan.

We cannot fully agree with Señor Perez and his countrymen that the author intended to designate the peninsula of Yucatan when he speaks of the Island of Chacnouitan. This name appears for the first and only time in this manuscript. It is generally acknowledged that the name had never previously been heard of.^[44] We should state that the words of the text are always nay ti petene Chacnouitan. If in Maya peten meant only a peninsula, we should take no exceptions. But the fundamental meaning of peten is an island, and as the demonstrative pronoun nay means as well “of this place” as “of that place,” the translation could as well stand for “that distant island.” Whether the island was situated in the ocean or in any of the many inland lakes, the probabilities seem to lie with the latter supposition, for they came by land. Had they come by sea, tradition would have dwelt with some characteristic remark upon such an exceptional case. From the following paragraph it will become still more evident that the Chacnouitan discovered by the Itzaes was neither the whole nor the northern part of Yucatan, but a district situated in the southwest of the peninsula.

§2. The 8th Ahau, the 6th Ahau, in the 2d Ahau arrived Ajmekat Tutul Xiu, and ninety-nine years they remained in Chacnouitan—years 99.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The manuscript, finally, affords a guarantee that the long past not only reached back to the remotest epoch of our era, but that more than all, it stands in a near, perhaps in the most intimate, connection with the history of the Nahuatl race. In reference to the homogeneous structure of the Maya and Nahuatl calendars we have already expressed our belief that these two nations were closely related to each other. In the traditions of both occurs the name of Tula or Tulapan, as a fatherland common to each of them.^[47] This supposition appears to us still further justified by the circumstance that the chronological annals of both nations revert to the same period of time as a starting point. As regards the Nahuatls, we refer to the circle of signs engraved on the Calendar Stone which gave us the information that the annalists of Anahuac in the year 1479, counted back twelve hundred and forty-eight years to the celebration of their first festival in honor of the sun; that is, they carried back their political or religious record to the year 231 A. D. The Maya manuscript corresponds to this date, as we think, since the year 242 A. D. resulted from our calculation. It was the year in which the ancient conquerors, after wandering 80 years, arrived on the Island of Chacnouitan where they made a permanent settlement. This event happened in the 13th Ahau (see table), which, as we know, is the starting point of Maya chronology, and likewise the first date of that name which the manuscript mentions. The difference of 11 years which appears in the Nahuatl computation cannot be regarded as of much importance.

The Maya Ahaues of the MSS., brought into correspondence with the years of the Christian Era:—

If, however, it should seem desirable to examine chronological parallels we shall refer our readers to a second chapter on Central American chronology which is hereafter to appear, in which we propose to undertake the task of illustrating and explaining still further the parallelism of Maya and Nahuatl dates. It will then be proved that in this written and still existing Nahuatl chronology, supported by the date 231 A. D., found on the Calendar Stone, a still earlier date designated as X Calli can be found, which represents the year 137 A. D. In this year, according to the annals, a great eclipse of the sun took place, with the remarkable statement that it occurred exactly at the end of a year at 12 o’clock noon. In our manuscript we find the first date preceding the settlement of Chacnouitan designated with the 8th Ahau, the date of the setting out from Tulapan, which we have already stated to be the years 142–162 A. D. Another agreement is that the Nahuatl records show that 166 years before the occurrence of the above mentioned eclipse of the sun in the year 1 Tecpatl, a congress of astrologers to amend the calendar of the nation took place at a town called Huehuetlapallan, and by reckoning back we find that this year corresponds with the year 29 B. C. If we then follow a hint which Señor Perez has very ingeniously furnished that the manuscript strangely begins with an 8th Ahau instead of a 13th Ahau, and that the Maya chronology could be dated back to such a 13th Ahau as a proper beginning connected with some interesting event, we find by reckoning back from the 8th to the 13th Ahau the corresponding date to be the years 18–38 B. C.

Now, the results gained in this line of investigation, can be formulated as follows:—

1. That the conquerors and settlers of the Yucatan peninsula, as well as those of the Anahuac lakes, were joint participants in a correction of their national calendar about the year 29 B. C.

2. That about the year 137 A. D., when a total eclipse of the sun took place, the ancestors of both nations set out from their common fatherland, Tula or Tulapan.

3. That about the year 231 A. D., both nations made their appearance on the coast of Central America, and succeeded in conquering a large portion of the peninsula.

It is true that we have only documentary evidence to substantiate the theory just referred to. But, if we do not possess the desirable evidence of monumental inscriptions, it behooves us to examine and to weigh carefully that which still remains. In this connection we should also remember that the sculptor, in carving his records, was not guided by his memory alone, but that he copied the symbols from the sacred books of his race; and that on the other hand, our learned Maya writer, when translating these latter into written phonetic language, drew his text, as did the sculptor from similar sources.

If therefore with the help of written records we can build up hypotheses partially satisfactory, and not altogether improbable, we have accomplished all that could be expected for the present, at least, and have perhaps excited an interest in a branch of history which has hitherto been held as dead and unproductive.

In conclusion, we would express the hope that the Maya manuscript may be submitted to a rigid critical and linguistic examination, and that the publication of the work may be appended to a heliotype copy of the original in order to exhibit to students a document of so great importance, and to ensure its preservation.