Bishop Landa has transmitted to us some details about the destroyed metropolis of Mayapan given to him by Yucatec informants who stated that “in the central square of that city there still were 7 or 8 stones, about ten feet high, rounded on one side and well sculptured, which exhibit several rows of the native characters, but were so worn that they had become illegible. It is supposed, however, that they are the record of the foundation and destruction of that capital. Similar, but higher monuments, are at Zilan, a town on the coast. Interrogated as to the meaning of these monoliths the natives answered: It had been or was customary to erect similar stones at intervals of 20 years which was the number by which they counted their eras.” Bishop Landa subsequently remarks that “this statement is not consistent,” for, according to this “there should be many more such stones in existence, and none exist in any other pueblo but Mayapan and Zilan.”[58]
Disagreeing with the venerable Bishop, I find in the above statements the most valuable indications of the former existence of two centres of culture in Yucatan. There is a curious affinity between the name Zilan (pronounced Dzilan) and Chilan given as “the title of a priestly office which consisted of a juridistic astrology and divination,” by Landa. There may even be a connection between zilan and zian=origin, commencement; zihnal=original and primitive, which may be worthy of consideration in association with the well-known statement, quoted by Dr. Brinton, that “the most venerable traditions of the Maya race claimed for them a migration from Tollan in Zu-iva—thence we all came forth together, there was the common parent of our race; thence came we from amongst the Yagui men, whose god is Yolcuatl Quetzalcoatl.” Dr. Brinton adds that “this Tollan is certainly none other than the abode of Quetzalcoatl named in an Aztec manuscript as ‘Zivena Uitzcatl.’ ” Vague as any conjecture must necessarily be, I cannot but deem it of utmost importance that systematic excavations be made, some day, at Zilan, for the purpose of bringing to light the stelæ referred to by the native informants of Bishop Landa.
According to Brasseur de Bourbourg “Zilan, situated at about 20-½ leagues from Merida belonged to the Cheles people.[59] It is the seaport of Izamal and contains the ruins of one of the greatest pyramids or artificial mounds (omul) in Yucatan,” a fact which corroborates the view that it was an ancient important capital. The northern coast of Yucatan is extremely remarkable for it is divided from the Gulf of Mexico by a continuous strip of land between which and the mainland there is a narrow channel of water. There are two openings only in this zone of land which afford a passage into the navigable channel. One of these openings is situated almost opposite to Zilan and is known as the Boca de Zilan. At a short distance to the east there is a second such “boca” opposite to the mouth of the Rio Lagartos, which is a [pg 218] large estuary and the only river on the northern coast of Yucatan.[60]
Let us now transport ourselves, mentally, south of the peninsula to Honduras and, leaving the coast, ascend the Motagua valley to the ruins of Quirigua and Copan,[61] which have impressed Mr. Maudslay as being of great antiquity. Before examining such of these monuments as seem to yield the testimony we are seeking, let us again recall Landa's record that the Mayas erected stelæ as memorials of each 20-year period. To this statement should be added, at full length, Cogolludo's record that “the Mayas employed eras of 20 years and lesser periods of 4 years.[62] The first of these four years was assigned to the east and was named Cuch-haab; the second, Hiix, to the west; the third, Cavac, to the south and the fourth Muluc, to the north, and this served as a ‘Dominical letter.’ When five of these four-year periods had passed, which form twenty years, they called it a Katun and placed one sculptured stone over another sculptured stone and fixed them with lime and sand [mortar] to the walls of their temples and houses of the priests.”[63]
The term katun is closely linked to the said employment of memorial stones, for tun is the Maya for stone and ka seems to stand for kal or kaal=20. The word hun-kaal=20, means literally, “one complete count,” or “a count which is closed,” since the verb kaal means to close, shut, or fasten something. According to the above a katun literally means “the 20 (year) stone;” but we know that, by extension, it designated the era itself as well as war and battle. Thus we find the verb katun-tal=to fight.
Cogolludo continues: “In a town named Tixuala-tun, which signifies ‘the place where they place one stone above another,’ [pg 219] they say that they kept their archive, containing records of all events.... In current speech katun signified era and when a person wished to say he was sixty years of age, he used the expression to have three eras of years or three stones. For seventy they said three and a half stones or four less one-half stone. From this it may be seen that they were not too barbarous, for it is said that [by this system] they were able to keep such exact records that they not only certified an event but also the month and day on which it took place.”
By referring to Maya and Spanish dictionaries we gain supplementary valuable information about native memorial stones. We find the name amaytun given as that of “a square stone on which the ancient Indians used to carve the 20 years of the period ahau-katun, because the four remaining years which completed the epoch, were placed underneath, so as to form a sort of pedestal which was called, for this reason, lath oc katun or chek oc katun. By extension, painted representations [of the epoch] were also named amaytun.” The dictionary further informs us that amayté was the name for the first twenty years of the ahau katun, which were carved on the square stone and we see that amayté also means “something square or with corners” and is formed of amay=corner.
Equipped with the foregoing knowledge of the sort of memorial it was customary for the Mayas to erect, let us now see whether the ruins of Copan furnish any monuments which would answer to the description and purpose of “amay-tés” and “ka-tuns.” Referring the reader to parts i-iii of Mr. A. P. Maudslay's work already cited, I draw special attention to the following stelæ and altars which are so admirably figured therein.
Stela F, which stands at the east side of the Great Plaza at Copan and faces west, is in a particularly bad state of preservation. It exhibits a standing figure on one side whose head is surmounted by an indescribable combination of a mask, a seated figure and much elaborate feather-work. A noteworthy feature, which recurs on other stelæ in Copan and Quirigua, is an appendage which appears like an artificial beard attached to the chin of the personage. At the sides of the stela serpents' heads alternate with diminutive grotesque figures. On the back, or east side of the stela, two cords are represented which appear to have been brought over from the front and which are tied together so as to form five open loops, [pg 220] in each of which, as in a frame, there is a group consisting of four calculiform glyphs. The cord, which is knotted together at the base of the stela, appears to pass around it. It is impossible not to recognize that this representation of twenty glyphs, as divided into five groups of four, exactly agrees with Cogolludo's records that the Mayas employed 20-year and 4-year eras and that when five of the 4-year periods had passed they called it a ka-tun, and made a carved memorial of it. As Landa tells us that they erected stelæ to commemorate the 20-year period, the inference to which the Copan Stela F leads us is that it is a katun and that the twenty glyphs carved on it are year-signs. Examination, however, shows that, whereas the Maya Calendar had but four year-signs which would naturally be bound to repeat themselves in each group of four years, no two glyphs on the Stela F are alike. It is obvious, therefore, that the glyphs are not the four calendar year-signs and reflection shows, indeed, that it would have been quite superfluous to carve these repeatedly on a stela. As each year-sign was identified with a cardinal point and an element and was permanently associated with a particular color, the mere employment of the latter would suffice to convey this association of ideas. What is more, the relative positions of the four glyphs composing each group would also indicate the four year-signs and thus the sculptor of the stela would have been at liberty to record by the shape of his glyphs any fact he chose to connect with each year of the era. A curious linguistic fact must also be taken into consideration: The Maya name for the four year-signs was Ah-cuch-haab and the title for a chief or ruler of a town was Ah-cuch-cab. The mere presence on the stela, of the figure of the ruler, would suffice to convey the certainty that the count of the four year-signs was understood to be present. On Stelæ F and M, each of which displays twenty glyphs and one sculptured personage, the latter is particularly characterized by being associated with head-dresses and emblems consisting of elaborate conventionalized plumed serpents' heads. The inference naturally is that the serpent symbolism, which recurs in some form or other on every stela effigy, expresses or conveys that the rank and title of the personage were that of a Kukul-can, the high-priest ruler who impersonated the “Divine Four,” or of some lord=Ahau, who was also “ruler of the four regions.”
It must be recognized that a stone stela, on which is sculptured [pg 221] the image of a lord and a count of 20, answers exactly to the memorial stone named Ahau-ka-tun, literally, lord, 20 stone, and it is easy to see how the period or era of twenty-four years should come to be called by the name of the stone which commemorated it, and each era to be differentiated by being designated by the personal name of the ruler who held office during its course. The result would be practically the same as the allusion to a particular reign in a nation's history, with the seeming difference that all ancient American rulers and their subordinates held fixed terms of office, coinciding with the various periods of the calendar.