Mexican Copper Tools: The Use of Copper by the Mexicans Before the Conquest; and the Katunes of Maya History, a Chapter in the Early History of Central America, With Special Reference to the Pio Perez Manuscript.

by Philipp J. J. Valentini

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.