[Transcriber's Note: This map in drastically incomplete because of the folds. The map is intended to show the Entradas of Cortez (1524-1525), Fuensalida and Orbita (1618), Gallegos and Delgado (1675), President Barrios (1694-1695), Padre Cano (1695), and Padre Andres de Avendaño y Loyola (1695, 1696).]
FOOTNOTES
Chapter I.
[Footnote 1.1]: Mr. Bowditch (1901, p. 137) says that the earliest date at Quirigua is that on Stela C: 9.1.0.0.0. and that the latest is that on Stela K: 9.18.15.0.0. According to his reckoning these dates correspond approximately to 75 B.C. and 275 A.D. respectively. Mr. Bowditch informs us that other cities in the south show similar dates, and at the same time he points out that it is possible that these cities were occupied beyond the latest dates shown on the stelae. We see, then, that the difference between Mr. Bowditch's computation and that of Mr. Morley rests solely in this: according to Mr. Bowditch the Golden Age or Old Empire had its beginnings as far back as 75 B.C.; Mr. Morley, on the other hand, believes that up to 200 A.D. there was a wholly indefinite Migratory period which led up to the Golden Age and to the Colonization period (that is, to 700 A.D.). From 700 onward the two systems are the same. Whatever divergence exists between Mr. Bowditch and Mr. Morley on the subject of chronology concerns only the Golden Age or Old Empire cities.
[Footnote 1.2]: Nakum was first studied scientifically by Count Maurice de Perigny (1908). Its importance is exceeded, however, by that of Tikal, which, in addition to being very near Lake Peten, is now well known. Descriptions of this elaborate group of ruins are to be found in Charnay (1887), Maudslay (1883), and in other earlier writers. The most satisfactory work on Tikal is that of Maler and Tozzer (1911). In both Nakum and Tikal the buildings are excellent examples of Old Empire construction, having massive substructures, towering superstructures, and a mass of intricate ornamentation. The dates at Tikal range from 9.2.13.0.0. to 9.15.13.0.0. (about 210-480 A.D.).
[Footnote 1.3]: This documentary history is based on the Books of Chilan Balam. Daniel G. Brinton's translations as given in his Maya Chronicles have been used. For bibliographical purposes the reader is referred to Tozzer, 1917.
[Footnote 1.4]: Although the terms Maya and Itza are used more or less interchangeably, it is to be noted that there is authority for believing them to mean two separate races. Ancona (1878, vol. i, p. 31 ff.) says that the Itzas were the earlier inhabitants of Yucatan. He adds that they worshiped Itzamna and founded Itzamal, Tihoo, and Chichen Itza. The Maya, on the other hand, worshiped Kukulkan, were enemies of the Itzas, and were the founders of Mayapan, Uxmal, and other cities. This distinction, though a fine one and hard to prove correct, deserves to be noted.
[Footnote 1.5]: This name, Cocom, will be brought to our attention later on, and it will be advisable for us to compare now the exceedingly confusing accounts of what the Cocom family was.
Brinton (1882, p. 165), in his introduction to the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, says: "We have no longer to do with the reckoning of the subjects of the Xiu family who ruled at Mani, but with one which emanates from the priests of the Cocomes, who were hereditary masters of Chichen Itza."
According to the Chronicle of Chac Xulub Chac, by Nahau Pech, there was a king named Ixcuat Cocom of Aké, who led the people of Chichen Itza from that place very late in their history, about eight years before the Spaniards touched at Campeche in 1516. (Brinton, 1882, p. 218.)