Elements of Maya Chronology.

It is impossible to understand the Manuscript before obtaining a knowledge of the division of time prevalent in Yucatan before the Spanish Conquest. Señor Perez has the incontestable merit of having been the first to lay before the world not only the chief points of the system but also all the technical details. Before his time but little was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic works of Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn only that the Mayas, in conformity with the Mexicans, held that the solar year was composed of 360 days, and when these were passed they added 5 days more as a correction. We are told that both nations divided their years into 18 months, and their months into twenty days each. As to the longer periods of time, however, we hear of certain differences. While the Mexicans had an epoch of 52 years which they divided into 4 smaller periods, the so called Tlapilli, each of 13 years, the Mayas counted a great epoch of 260 years, the so called Ahau Katun, subdivided into 13 smaller periods each of 20 years, with the simple name Ahau. This period of 20 years was according to Cogolludo [^[34]] subdivided again into what he calls lustra of 5 years each, but he does not give the native name of this division.

The discovery of the Manuscript, no doubt, induced Señor Perez to make a systematic and detailed sketch of the early native chronology of his country. We shall mention only the most interesting and important of his details and refer the reader for the rest to Stephens’ work already mentioned. The names of the 20 days in the month are as follows:—

1	Kan.
2	Chicchan.
3	Quimij.
4	Manik.
5	Lamat.
6	Muluc.
7	Oc.
8	Chuen.
9	Eb.
10	Been.
11	Gix.
12	Men.
13	Quib.
¹14	Caban.
²15	Edznab.
³16	Cavac.
⁴17	Ahau.
⁵18	Ymix.
⁶19	Yx.
⁷20	Akbal.

The 18 months were as follows:—

1	Pop (16th of July.)
2	Uoo (5th of August)
3	Zip (25th of August).
4	Zodz (14th of September).
5	Zeec (4th of October).
6	Xal (24th of October).
7	Dze-yaxkin (13th of November).
8	Mol (3d of December).
9	Dchen (23d of December).
10	Yaax (12th of January).
11	Zae (1st of February).
12	Quej (21st of February).
13	Mac (13th of March).
14	Kankin (2d of April).
15	Moan (22d of April).
16	Pax (12th of May).
17	Kayab (1st of June).
18	Cumkū (21st of June).

As the table shows their year began with the first day of the month Pop, which corresponded to the 16th of July in our calendar, when, as Señor Perez observes, the sun was almost vertical over the Peninsula. The day itself was called Kin, Sun, the month U, Moon, and the 5 intercalary days were called nameless days, Xona-Kaba-Kin, not-name-Sun.

In the arrangement of their yearly calendar the Mayas proceeded as follows: Like the Mexicans they used a combination of the numbers 1 to 13, with the names of the 20 days of the month. They called the first day of the month Pop (our 16 July) 1 Kan, the second 2 Chicchan, the third 3 Quimij, and so on. The fourteenth day was called 1 Caban, the fifteenth 2 Edznab, and the last or twentieth day 7 Akbal. The first day of the second month followed in correct numerical sequence with the name 8 Kan, the second with the name 9 Chicchan. Thus repeating the 20 names of the days with the above combination of numbers from 1 to 13 they reached the 360th day with the name 9 Akbal. Then followed the intercalary week of 5 days bearing the names 10 Kan, 11 Chicchan, 12 Cimij, 13 Manik, and 1 Lamat.

The second year begins with 2 Muluc. In the same manner going on with the combination the first day of the third year was 3 Hix, then followed 4 Cavac, 9 Kan, 10 Muluc, 11 Hix, 12 Cavac, 13 Kan, 1 Muluc, 2 Hix, and so on. At the end of the 52d year the above-mentioned combination was exhausted, for the 53d year began again with the day 1 Kan.

Names of the Months.	Pop.	Uoo.	Zip.	Zodz.	Zeec.	Xul.	Dze-yaxkin.	Mol.	Dchen.	Yeax.	Zac.	Quej.	Mac.	Kankin.	Moan.	Pax.	Kayab.	Cumkū.
Names of the Days.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Kan,	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3
Chicchau,	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4
Quimij,	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5
Manik,	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6
Lamat,	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7
Muluc,	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8
Oc,	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9
Chuen,	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10
Eb,	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11
Been,	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12
Gix,	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13
Men,	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1
Quib,	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2
Caban,	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3
Edznab,	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4
Cavac,	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5
Ahau,	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6
Ymix,	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7
Yk,	6	13	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8
Akbal,	7	1	8	2	9	3	10	4	11	5	12	6	13	7	1	8	2	9

The following year must begin with 2 Muluc.

Each week had 5 days	Kan	10
	Chicchan	11
	Quimij	12
	Manik	13
	Lamat	1

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]]

AHAU KATUN.
[Above we give a reproduction of a Maya Ahau Katun wheel taken from that in Landa’s “Las cosas de Yucatan,” § XL., in order that his explanation may be understood.]

“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.