There will be found considerable repetition in these different versions, as must necessarily be from their character, if they have a claim to be authentic records; but it is also fair to add that details will be found in each which are omitted in the others, and hence, that all are valuable.
This similarity may be explained by two suppositions; either they are copies from a common original, or they present the facts they narrate in general formulæ which had been widely adopted by the priests for committing to memory their ancient history. The differences which we find in them preclude the former hypothesis except as it may apply to the first two. The similarities in the others I believe are no more than would occur in relating the same incidents which had been learned through fixed forms of narration.
The division into sections I have made for convenience of reference. The variants I have given at the bottom of the page are readings which I think are preferable to those in the text, or corrections of manifest errors; but I have endeavored to give the text, just as it is in the best MSS. I have, errors and all.
It is not my purpose to enter into a critical historical analysis of these chronicles. But a few remarks may be made to facilitate their examination.
Making the necessary omissions in No. II, which I point out in the prefatory note to it, it will be found that all five agree tolerably well in the length of time they embrace. Nos. III and IV begin at a later date than the others, but coincide as far as they go.
The total period of time, from the earliest date given, to the settlement of the country by the Spaniards, is 71 katuns. If the katun is estimated at twenty years, this equals 1420 years; if at twenty-four years, then we have 1704 years.
All the native writers agree, and I think, in spite of the contrary statement of Bishop Landa, that we may look upon it as beyond doubt, that the last day of the 11th katun was July 15th, 1541. Therefore the one of the above calculations would carry us back to A. D. 121, the other to B. C. 173.
The chief possibility of error in the reckoning would be from confusing the great cycles of 260 (or 312) years, one with another, and assigning events to different cycles which really happened in the same. This would increase the number of the cycles, and thus extend the period of time they appear to cover. This has undoubtedly been done in No. II.
According to the reckoning as it now stands, six complete great cycles were counted, and parts of two others, so that the native at the time of the Conquest would have had eight great cycles to distinguish apart.
I have not found any clear explanation how this was accomplished. We do not even know what name was given to this great cycle, nor whether the calendar was sufficiently perfected to prevent confusion in dates in the remote past.