  The chronicles and fragments of chronicles which I have collected here are all taken from the various “Books of Chilan Balam.” They constitute about all that remains to us, so far as I know, of the ancient history of the peninsula. There are, indeed, in other portions of these “Books” references to historical events before the Conquest, but no other consecutive narrations of them. Except the one given first, none of these has ever been printed, nor even translated from the Maya into any European language. Whether they corroborate or contradict one another, it is equally important for American archÆology to have them preserved and presented in their original form. It does not come within my present purpose to try to reconcile the discrepancies between them. I am furnishing materials for history, not writing it, and my chief duty is to observe accuracy, even at the risk of depreciating the value of the documents I offer. In the notes I have also discussed such grammatical or historical questions as have occurred to me as of use in elucidating the text. 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. 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. 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. I find, however, two passages in the collection of ancient manuscripts, which I have before referred to as the Codice Perez, which seem to have a bearing on this point; but as the text is somewhat corrupt and several of the expressions U hiɔil lahun ahau u ɔocol hun uuɔ katun, u zut tucaten oxlahunpiz katun ɔiban tu uichob tu pet katun; la hun uuɔ katun u kaba ca bin ɔococ u than lae, u hoppol tucaten; bay hoppci ca ɔib lae ca tun culac u yanal katun lae. Cabin ɔococ uaxac ahau lae u hoppol tucaten lae. (Page 90.) U hiɔil Lahun Ahau u ɔocol u nuppul oxlahunpez katun ɔiban u uichob tu pet tzaton lo hun (sic) uuɔ katun u kaba ca bin ɔococ u than lae, ca tun culac u yanal katun ca bin ɔococ uaxac Ahau lae; hu hoppol tucaten bay hoppci ca ɔib. (Page 168.) Translation. At the last of the tenth ahau katun is ended one doubling of the katun, and the return a second time of thirteen katuns is written on the face of the katun circle; one doubling of the katuns, as it is called, will then finish its course, to begin again; and when it begins, it is written that another katun commences: when the eighth katun ends it begins again (i.e., to count with this eighth as the first of the next “doubling”). At the last of the tenth Ahau Katun is ended the joining together of thirteen katuns (which is) written on the face of the katun circle; one doubling of the katuns, as it is called, will then finish its course, and another katun will begin and will end as the eighth katun; this begins a second time, as it began (at first) and was then written. In other words, if I do not miss the writer’s meaning, the repetitions of the great cycle of thirteen katuns were not counted from either of its terminals, to wit, the thirteenth or the second katun, but from the tenth katun. These repetitions were For the convenience of the reader I have drawn up the following chronological table of the events referred to in the Chronicles, arranging them under the Great Cycles and Katuns to which they would belong were the former numbered according to the regular sequence given on page 59. I have also inserted the katuns which were omitted by the native chroniclers, but which, according to that sequence, are necessary in order to complete their records in accordance with the theory of the Maya calendar. The references in Roman numerals are to the different chronicles. SYNOPSIS OF MAYA CHRONOLOGY.
|
|
