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 the Manuscript.Ahaues.
§ 18, 6, 4, 2.Passed in the migration of the conquerors from Tulapan, = 162, 182, 202, 222.
§ 2(13), (11), (9), (7), (5), (3), (1), (12), (10), 8, 6.Their stay in Chacnouitan, = 242, 262, 282, 302, 322, 342, 362, 382, 402, 422, 442.
§ 3(4) 2, 13.They take Bacalar, = 462, 482, 502.
§ 411, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1.Settlement at Chichen-Itza and its destruction, = 522, 542, 562, 582, 602, 622.
§ 5(12), (10), (8).En route for Champoton, = 642, 662, 682.
do.6, 4, 2, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10, 8.In Champoton, = 702, 722, 742, 762, 782, 802, 822, 842, 862, 882, 902, 922, 942.
§ 66, 4.They lose Champoton twice, = 962, 982.
§ 72, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 12, 10.Uxmal, Mayapan and Chichen-Itza in league, = 1002, 1022, 1042, 1062, 1082, 1102, 1122, 1142, 1162, 1182.
§§ 8 and 98.The war between Chichen-Itza and Mayapan, = 1182–1202.
§106, 4, 2, 13, 11.The war continues; the Uitzes help in the destruction of Mayapan, = 1222, 1242, 1262, 1282, 1302.
§11(9), (7), (5), (3), (1), (12), (10), 8.Mayapan destroyed again, = 1322, 1342, 1362, 1382, 1402, 1422, 1442, 1462.
do.6, 4, 2.The Spaniards make their appearance in Yucatan, = 1482, 1502, 1522.
§§ 12 and 1313.Beginning of the propagation of 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.

As long as such hopes fail of realization, we must be satisfied with the slight, but yet important, contribution offered us in the manuscript. We may complain of its brevity, yet notwithstanding it is the most complete document we possess of ancient American history. It is all the more important for the reason that it relates to Yucatan, which in our opinion, is the very cradle of early American civilization. It is also pleasant to observe that the manuscript is not at variance with what we have learned from the fragmentary records made by Landa, Lizana and Cogolludo. Notwithstanding its imperfections, it interprets and explains much that had hitherto appeared uncertain and deficient. It is of undoubted authenticity, and forms a firm foundation for the reconstruction of the history of the past, which till now has remained enigmatical, and which is faintly expressed by the crumbling ruins of the peninsula.

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.