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.
I have, therefore, followed strictly the manuscripts which I possess in fac-similes of the originals, and when I believe the text is corrupt or in error, I have suggested apart from the text what I suppose to be the needed correction to the passage.
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.
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.
I find, however, two passages in the collection of ancient manuscripts, which I have before referred to as theCodice Perez, which seem to have a bearing on this point; but as the text is somewhat corrupt and several of the expressionsarchaic, I am not certain that I catch the right meaning. These passages are as follows:—
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.)
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.
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 werecalleduuɔ katun, the doubling or foldings over of the katuns, and they were inscribed on the circle or wheel of the katuns at that part of it where the tenth katun was entered. These wheels were calledu pet katun, the circle of the katuns, oru met katun, the wheel of the katuns, oru uazaklom katun, the return of the katuns. I have several copies of them, and one is given in Landa’s work, but I know of none which is a genuine original, and, therefore, it is not surprising that I do not find on any of them the signs referred to adjacent to the tenth katun.
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 page59. 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.
From the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani.
The first chronicle which I present is the only one which has been heretofore published. On account of its comparative fullness it deserves especial attention. It is taken from the Book of Chilan Balam of the town of Mani.
This town, according to a tradition preserved by Herrera, was founded after the destruction of Mayapan, and, therefore, not more than seventy years before the arrival of the Spaniards. Mayapan was destroyed in consequence of a violent feud between the two powerful families who jointly ruled there, the Cocoms and the Xius or Tutul Xius. The latter, having slain all members of the Cocom family to be found in the city, deserted its site and removed south about fifteen miles, and there established as their capital a city to which they gave the name Mani, “which means ‘it is past,’ as if to say ‘let us startanew.’”89-1
At the time of the Conquest the reigning chief of the Tutulxius was friendly to the Spaniards, and voluntarily submitted to their rule, as we are informed with much minuteness of detail by the historianCogolludo.90-1We may reasonably suppose, therefore, that this chronicle was brought from Mayapan in the “Books of Science,” which Herrera refers to as esteemed their greatest treasure by the chiefs who broke up their ancient confederation when Mayapan was deserted. Hence the records ran a better chance of being preserved in this province than in those which were desolated by war. As I have already said (page65) a large number were destroyed precisely at Mani by Bishop Landa, in 1562.
I find among the memoranda of Dr. Berendtreference to four “Books of Chilan Balam,” of Mani. These dated from 1689, 1697, 1755 and 1761, respectively, but I have not learned from which of these Pio Perez extracted the chronicles he gave Mr. John L. Stephens. Dr. Berendt adds that it was from one which was in possession of a native schoolmaster of Mani, who, having the surname Balam, claimed to be descended from the original ChilanBalam!91-1
The first publication of the document was in the Appendix to the second volume of Mr. Stephens’Incidents of Travel in Yucatan(New York, 1843). It included the original Maya text, with a not very accurate translation into English of Pio Perez’s rendering of the Maya. From Mr. Stephen’s volume, the document has been copied into various publications in Mexico, Yucatan and Europe.
The other attempt at an independent translation was that of the Abbé Brasseur (de Bourbourg), published at Paris in 1864, in the same volume with Landa’sRelacion de las Cosas de Yucatan. The text he took from Stephens’ book, errors and omissions included, and his translation is entirely based on the English one, as he evidently did not have access to the original Spanish of Pio Perez.
The most important recent study of the subject has been made by Dr. Valentini, who published the notes of Pio Perez on his translation, and gave a general re-examination of ancient Maya history, with a great deal of sagacity and a large acquaintance with the related Spanishliterature.92-1He is, however, in error in stating that he was the first to publish the notes of Perez, as they had previously been printed in a work by CanonCarrillo.92-2
Much use of this chronicle has been made by the recent historians of Yucatan, Don Eligio Anconaand the Canon Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona; but I am surprised to find that they have depended entirely on the previous labors of Pio Perez, Stephens and Brasseur, and have made no attempt to verify or extend them.
Dr. Berendt, although earnestly devoted to collecting and copying these records did not, as Dr. Valentini observes, ever attempt a translation of any of them.
No hint is given as to the author of the document, nor do we know from what sources he derived his information. It has been plausibly suggested that it was an epitome of the history of their nations, which was learned by heart and handed down from master to disciple, and which served as a verbal key to the interpretation of the painted and sculptured records, and to the “katun stones” which were erected at the expiration of each cycle and inscribed with the principal events which had transpired in it.
The Abbé Brasseur placed at the head of his edition of this chronicle the title, in Maya:—
“Lelo lai u tzolan katunil ti Mayab,”
which he translates—
“Séries des Epoques de l’Histoire Maya.”
This is an invention of the learned antiquary.There is no such nor any other title to the original. It is simply called in the first lineu tzolan katun, the arrangement or order of the katuns. The wordtzolanis a verbal noun, the past participle of the passive voice oftzol, which means to put in order, to arrange, and is in the genitive of the thing possessed, as indicated by the pronounu. Literally, the phrase reads, “their arrangement (the) katuns.”
TEXT.
Notes1. Lai u tzolan katun lukci ti cab ti yotoch Nonoual cante anilo Tutulxiu ti chikin Zuiua u luumil u talelob Tulapan95-1chiconahthan.
2. Cante bin ti katun lic u ximbalob ca uliob uaye yetel Holon Chantepeuh yetel u cuchulob. Ca hokiob ti petene uaxac ahau bin yan cuchi uac ahau, can ahau, cabil ahau, cankal haab catac hunppel haab, tumen hun piztun oxlahun ahau cuchie, ca uliob uay ti petene, cankal haab catac hunppel haab, tu pakteil, yetel cu ximbalob lukci tu luumilob ca talob uay ti petene Chacnouitan lae; u añoil lae8181.
Notes3. Uaxac ahau, uac ahau; cabil ahau kuchci chacnouitan Ahmekat Tutulxiu; hunppel haab minan ti hokal haab cuchi yanob chacnouitan lae; lai u habillae99 años.
Notes4. Laitun uchci u chicpahal tzucubte Ziyan caan lae Bakhalal; can ahau, cabil ahau, oxlahun ahau, oxkal haab cu tepalob Ziyan caan ca emob uaylae; lai u habil cu tepalob Bakhalal96-1chuultelaitun chicpahci Chicħen Itzalae60 años.
Notes5. Buluc ahau, bolon ahau, uuc ahau, ho ahau, ox ahau, hun ahau, uackal haab, cu tepalob Chichen Itzaa, ca paxi Chicħen Itza, ca binob cahtal Chanputun, ti yanhi u yotochob ah Itzaob kuyan uincob lae; lay u habillae120.
Notes6. Uac ahau chucuc u luumil Chanputun. Can ahau, cabil ahau, oxlahun ahau, buluc ahau, bolon ahau, uuc ahau, ho ahau, ox ahau, hun ahau, lahca ahau, lahun ahau, uaxac ahau paxci Chanputun; oxlahunkal haab cu tepalob Chanputun tumenel Ytza uinicob ca talob u tzac le u yotochob tu caten; laixtun u katunil binciob ah Itzaob yalan che, yalan96-2aban,yalan ak ti numyaob lae; lai u habil cu96-3xinballae260.
Notes7. Uac ahau, can ahau, cakal haab, ca talob u heɔob yotoch tu caten ca tu zatahob chakanputun; lay u habillae40.
Notes8. Lai u katunil cabil ahau u heɔcicab Ahcuitok Tutulxiu Uxmal; cabil ahau, oxlahun ahau, buluc ahau, bolon ahau, uuc ahau, ho ahau, ox ahau, hun ahau, lahca ahau, lahun ahau; lahun kal haab cu tepalob yetel u halach uinicil chicħen Itza yetel Mayalpan; lai u habillae200.
Notes9. Lai u katunil buluc ahau bolon ahau uuc ahau, uaxac ahau, paxci u halach uinicil Chicħen Itzaa tumenel u kebanthan Hunac eel; ca uch ti Chacxibchac Chichen Itzaa tu kebanthan Hunac eel u halach uinicil Mayalpan ich paae. Cankal haab catac lahunpiz haab, tu lahun tun, uaxac ahau cuchie lai u habil paxci tumenel Ahzinteyut chan yetel Tzuntecum, yetel Taxcal, yetel Pantemit, Xuchueuet yetel Ytzcuat, yetel Kakaltecat; lai u kaba uiniclob lae uuctulob ah Mayelpanoblae90.
Notes10. Laili u katunil uaxac ahau lai ca binob u paa ah Ulmil ahau tumenel u uahal uahoob yetel ah Itzmal ulil ahau lae oxlahun uuɔ u katunilob ca paxob tumen Hunac eel; tumenel u ɔabal u natob; uac ahau ca ɔoci hunkal haab catac canlahun pizi; lai u habil cu97-1xinbal34.
Notes11. Uac ahau, can ahau, cabil ahau, oxlahun ahau, buluc ahau chucuc u luumil ich paa Mayapan, tumenel u pach tulum, tumenel multepal ich cah Mayalpan, tumenel Ytza uinicob yetel Ulmil ahau lae, cankal haab catac oxppel haab; yocol buluc ahau cuchi paxci Mayalpan tumenel ahuitzil ɔul tan cahMayapan83.
Notes12. Uaxac ahau lai paxci Mayapan; lay u katuniluac ahau, can ahau, cabil ahau, lai haab, cu ximbal ca yax mani españoles u yax ulci caa luumi Yucatan tzucubte lae oxkal haab paxac ichpaacuchie60.
Notes13. Oxlahun ahau, buluc ahau uchci mayacimil ich paa yetel nohkakil; oxlahun ahau cimci Ahpula; uacppel haab u binel ma ɔococ u xocol oxlahun ahau cuchie; ti yanil u xocol haab ti lakin cuchie, canil kan cumlahi pop, tu holhun zip catac oxppeli, bolon imix u kinil lai cimci Ahpula; laytun año cu ximbal cuchi lae ca oheltab lai u xocnumeroil anoslae 1536 años cuchie, oxkal haab paxac ichpa cuchi lae.
Notes14. Laili ma ɔococ u xocol buluc ahau lae lai ulciespañoleskul uincob ti lakin, u talob ca uliob uay tac luumil lae; bolon ahau hoppcicristianoil; uchci caputzihil; laili ichil u katunil lae ulci yaxobispoToroba u kaba; heix año cu ximbaluchie1544.
Notes15. Yan cuchi uuc ahau cimci yax obispo de landa; ychil u katunil ho ahau ca yan cahi padre manii lai añolae1550.
Notes16. Lai año cu ximbal ca cahi padre yokhaa1552.
Notes17. Lai año cu ximbal ca uli Oidor la ca pakiEspital1559.
Notes18. Lai año cu ximbal ca kuchi Doctor Quijada yax goboruaye1560.
Notes19. Lai año cu ximbal ca uchci cħuitablae1562.
Notes20. Lai año cu ximbal ca uli Mariscal goborca betab99-1thulub1563.
Notes21. Lai año cu ximbal ca uchci nohkakillae1609.
Notes22. Lai año cu ximbal ca hichiucalkaxob1610.
Notes23. Lai año cu ximbal ca ɔibtah cah tumenel Juez DiegoPareja1611.
TRANSLATION.
Notes1. This is the arrangement of the katuns since the departure was made from the land, from the house Nonoual, where were the four Tutulxiu, from Zuiva at the west; they came from the land Tulapan, having formed a league.
2. Four katuns had passed in which they journeyed when they arrived here with Holon Chantepeuh and his followers. When they set out for this country it was the eighth ahau. The sixth ahau, the fourth ahau, the second ahau (passed), four score years and one year, for it was the first year of the thirteenth ahau when they arrived here in this country; four score years and one year in all had passed since they departed from the land and came here, to the province Chacnouitan. These wereyears81.
Notes3. The eighth ahau, the sixth ahau; in the second ahau Ahmekat Tutulxiu arrived at Chacnouitan; they were in Chacnouitan five score years lacking one year; these wereyears99.
Notes4. Then took place the discovery of the province Ziyan caan or Bakhalal; the fourth ahau, the second ahau, the thirteenth ahau, three score years they ruled Ziyan caan when they descended here: in these years that they ruled Bakhalal it occurred then that Chichen Itza was discovered. 60 years.
Notes5. The eleventh ahau, the ninth ahau, the seventh ahau, the fifth ahau, the third ahau, the first ahau, six score years, they ruled at Chichen Itza; then they abandoned Chichen Itza and went to live at Chanputun; there those of Itza, holy men, had their houses; these wereyears120.
Notes6. In the sixth ahau the land of Chanputun was seized. The fourth ahau, the second ahau, the thirteenth ahau, the eleventh ahau, the ninth ahau, the seventh ahau, the fifth ahau, the third ahau, the first ahau, the twelfth ahau, the tenth ahau; the eighth ahau Chanputun was abandoned; thirteen score years Chanputun was ruled by the Itza men when they came in search of their houses a second time; in this katun those of Itza were under the trees, under the boughs, under the branches, to their sorrow; the years that passedwere260.
Notes7. The sixth ahau, the fourth ahau, two score years, (had passed) when they came and established their houses a second time, and they lost Chakanputun; these wereyears40.
Notes8. In the katun the second ahau Ahcuitok Tutulxiu founded (the city of) Uxmal; the second ahau, the thirteenth ahau, the eleventh ahau, the ninth ahau, the seventh ahau, the fifth ahau, the third ahau, the first ahau, the twelfth ahau, the tenth ahau; ten score years they ruled with the governor of Chichen Ytza and Mayapan; these wereyears200.
Notes9. Then were the katuns eleventh ahau, ninth ahau, sixth ahau; in the eighth ahau the governor of Chichen Itza was driven out on account of his plotting against Hunac Eel; and this happened to Chac Xib Chac of Chichen Itza on account of his plotting against Hunac Eel the governor of Mayapan, the fortress. Four score years and ten years, and it was the tenth year of the eighth ahau that it was depopulated by Ah Zinteyut Chan, with Tzuntecum, and Taxcal, and Pantemit, Xuchueuet and Ytzcuat and Kakaltecat: these were the names of the seven men ofMayapan90.
Notes10. In this eighth ahau they went to the fortress of the ruler of Ulmil on account of his banquet to Ulil ruler of Itzmal; they were thirteen divisions of warriors when they were dispersed byHunac Eel, in order that they might know what was to be given; in the sixth ahau it ended, one score years and fourteen; the years that passedwere34.
Notes11. The sixth ahau, the fourth ahau, the second ahau, the thirteenth ahau, the eleventh ahau; then was invaded the land of the fortress of Mayapan by the men of Itza and their ruler Ulmil on account of the seizure of the castle by the joint government in the city of Mayapan; four score years and three years; the eleventh ahau had entered when Mayapan was depopulated by foreigners from the mountains in the midst of the city ofMayapan83.
Notes12. In the eighth ahau Mayapan was depopulated; then were the sixth ahau, the fourth ahau, the second ahau; during this year the Spaniards first passed and first came to this land the province of Yucatan, sixty years after the fortress wasdepopulated.60.
Notes13. The thirteenth ahau; the eleventh ahau took place the pestilence in the fortresses and the smallpox; in the thirteenth ahau Ahpula died; for six years the count of the thirteenth ahau will not be ended; the count of the year was toward the East, the month Pop began with (theday) fourth Kan; the eighteenth day of the month Zip (that is), 9 Imix, was the day on which Ahpula died; and that the count may be known in numbers and years it was the year 1536, sixty years after the fortress was destroyed.
Notes14. The count of the eleventh ahau was not ended when the Spaniards, mighty men, arrived from the east; they came, they arrived here in this land; the ninth ahau Christianity began; baptism took place; also in this katun came the first bishop Toroba by name; this was the year 1544.
Notes15. In the seventh ahau died the first bishop de Landa; in the fifth katun the Fathers first settled at Mani, in the year 1550.
Notes16. As this year was passing the fathers settled upon thewater1552
Notes17. As this year was passing the auditor came and the hospital wasbuilt1559
Notes18. As this year was passing the first governor Dr. Quijada, arrivedhere1560
Notes19. As this year was passing the hanging tookplace1562
Notes20. As this year was passing the Governor Marshall came and built thereservoirs1563
Notes21. As this year was passing the smallpoxoccurred1609
Notes22. As this year was passing those of Tekax werehanged1610
Notes23. As this year was passing the towns were written down by Judge DiegoPareja1611
NOTES.
MayaEnglish1. The introductory paragraph is not less obscure in construction than it is important in its historical statements, and I shall give it, therefore, a particularly careful analysis.
I have already explained the termu tzolan katun;lukciis the aorist oflukul, which forms regularlyluki, but the mutation tociis used when the meaningsinceorafter thatis to be conveyed; as Beltran says, “cuando el verbo trae estos romances,despues que ò desde que, como este romance; despues que murio mi padre, estoy triste:cimci in yume, okomuol” (Arte del Idioma Maya, p. 61).cabmeans country or place, in the sense of residence, whereasluum, used in the same paragraph, is land or earth, in the general sense. TheDicc. de Motulsays: “cab, pueblo ò region;in cab, mi pueblo, donde yo soy natural.”yotochis a compound of the possessive pronounu, his or their, andotoch, the word for house when it is indicated whose house it is; otherwisenais used;otochis probably allied toocha verbal root signifying to give food to, the house being looked upon as specifically the place where meals are prepared.
The wordcanteis translated by Perez and Brasseur asfour, and applied to the Tutulxiu, while the intervening wordanilois not translated by either:canteis no doubt the numeralfourwith the numeral particletesuffixed. But here a serious difficulty arises. According to all the grammars and dictionaries the particleteis never used for counting persons,but only “years, months, days (periods of time), leagues, cacao, eggs and gourds.” Moreover, what isanilo? We have, indeed, the formtenilo, I am that one, from the particlei(Buenaventura,Arte de la Lengua Maya, fol. 27, verso); and we might haveyanilo, they are those. But this necessitates a change in the text, and if that has to be done I should prefer to suppose thatanilowas a mistake of the copyist, and that we should readkatunorkatunile. This would reconcile the numeral particle and would do away with thefourTutulxius, of whom we hear nothing afterwards.
chikin, the West, literally, that which bites or eats the sun, fromchi, the mouth, and, as a verb, to bite. An eclipse is called in Mayachibal kin, the sun bitten;ti chikin, toward the West.
talelob, plural form oftalortalel, to come to, to go from.
chiconahthanis not translated by either Pio Perez or Brasseur, nor in that precise form has it any meaning. I take it, however, to be a faulty orthography forchichcunahthanwhich means to support that which another says, hence, to agree with, to act in concert with; “chichcunah u thanil, having renewed the agreement” (Diccionario de Ticul). It refers to an agreement entered into by the different leaders who were about to undertake the migration into unknown lands. Possibly, however, this is not a Maya word, but another echo of Aztec legend.Chiconauhtlan, “the place of the Nine,” was a village and mountain north of the lake of Tezcuco and close to the sacred spot Teotiuacan, where, in Aztec myth, the gods assembled to create the sun and moon (Sahagun,Historia de Nueva España, Lib VII, cap. II).Tulapan Chiconauhtlanwould thus become a compound local name.
It will be seen from the above that the translation which I have given of this paragraph does not satisfy me as certainly correct. I shall now give the original with an interlinear translation, and also those of Pio Perez and Brasseur, adding a free rendering which I am inclined to prefer, although it modifies the text somewhat.
Interlinear Translation.
Translation of Pio Perez.
Esta es la serie de Katunes corridos desde que se quitaron de la tierra y casa de Nonoual en que estaban los cuatro Tutulxiu al poniente de Zuina; el pais de donde vinieron fué Tulapan.
Translation of Brasseur.
C’ est ici la série des epoques écoulées depuis que s’ enfuirent les quatre Tutul Xiu de la maison de Nonoual etant a l’ouest de Zuinà, et vinrent de la terre de Tulapan.
Free translation suggested.
This is the order of the Katuns since the four Katuns during which the Tutulxiu left their home and country Nonoual to the west of Zuiua, and went from the land and city of Tula, having agreed together to this effect.
I have said nothing of the proper names in this paragraph. They are remarkable for the fact that three out of the four are unquestionably Nahuatl or Aztec, and hence they have given occasion for considerable theorizing in favor of the “Toltec” origin of the Maya civilization, and also of the Nahuatl descent of the princely family of the Tutulxiu.
Their name is the only one in the paragraph with a distinctively Maya physiognomy. It is a compound ofxiu, the generic term for herb or plant, andtutul, a reduplicated form oftul, an abundance, an excess, as in the verbtutulancil, to overflow, etc. (Diccionario de Ticul, MS.). It would appear therefore to be a local name, and to signify a place where there was an abundance of herbage. The surname is Xiu only, and as such is still in use in Yucatan.
But it may also be claimed that even this is a Nahuatl name; for also in that tonguexiuitlmeans a plant, as well as a turquoise, a comet, a year, and in composition a greenish or bluish color; whiletototlis a bird or fowl. The Mayaxiuand the Nahuatlxiuitl(in whichitlis a termination lost in composition) are undoubtedly the same word. Which nation borrowed it from the other? It is certainly a loan-word, for these two languages have no common origin, while, as we might expect from neighbors, each does have a number of loan-words from the other.
I answer that the Mayaxiuis unquestionably a loan from the Nahuatl, and my reason for the opinion is that while in Maya the rootxiuis sterile and has no relations to other words (unless perhaps toxiitil, to open like a flower, to brood as a bird, to augment, to grow), in Nahuatl it is a very fertile root, and nearly thirty compounds of it can be found in the dictionaries (See Molina,Vocabulario de la Lengua Mexicana,fol. 159, verso). But the composition of the name follows the Maya and not the Nahuatl analogy.
That in either language the name Tutulxiu can be translated “Bird-tree” (Vogelbaum), as is argued by Dr. Carl Schultz-Sellack (Archiv für Ethnologie, Band XI, 1879), and on which translation he bases a long argument, is very doubtful. It certainly could not in Maya; and in Nahuatl,tototlin composition would drop both its terminal consonants.
The remaining names, Nonoual, Zuiua, Tula-pan, clearly indicate their Nahuatl origin. Zuiua, which was erroneously printed in Pio Perez’s version as Zuina is Zuiva; Nonoual is Nonohual; Tulapan, literally “the standard of Tula,” refers to the famous city of the Toltecs, presided over by Quetzalcoatl. All these names are borrowed directly from the myth of this hero-god.
Zuivenwas the name of the uppermost heaven, the abode of the Creator Hometeuctli, the father of Quetzalcoatl, and the place of his first birth as a divinity. In later days, when the Quetzalcoatl myth had extended to the Kiches and Cakchiquels, members of the Maya family in Guatemala, “Tulan Zuiva” was identified with the Aztec Chicomoztoc, the famous “Seven Caves,” “Seven Ravines,” or “Seven Cities,” from which so many tribes of Mexico, wholly diverse in language and lineage, claimed that their ancestors emerged in some remote past (compare theCodex Vaticanus, Lam. I;Codex Zumarraga, chap. I, with thePopol Vuh, pp. 214, 227). To this spot the ancestors of the Guatemalan tribes were reported to have gone to receive their gods; from it issued the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli; in it still were supposed to dwell his mother and other mighty divinities; and Quetzalcoatl was again the youngest born of Iztac Mixcohuatl, themighty lord of the Seven Caves (Motolinia,Historia de los Indios de Nueva Españap10, etc.).
Tula, properlyTollan, a syncopated form ofTonatlan, which means “the place of the Sun,” was a name applied to a number of towns in Mexico, all named after that magnificent city inhabited by the Tolteca (“dwellers in the place of the Sun”), servants and messengers of the Light-God their ruler, the benign, the virgin-born Quetzalcoatl. The common tradition ran that it was destroyed by the wiles of Tezcatlipoca, the brother, yet the eternal enemy, of Quetzalcoatl, and that at its destruction the Toltecs disappeared, no one knew whither, while Quetzalcoatl, after reigning a score of years in Cholula, journeyed far eastward to the home of the Sun, where he enjoyed everlasting life.
Nonohualalso had a place in this myth. It was a mountain over against Tulan. There it was that the eldest sister of Quetzalcoatl resided. When he was made drunken by the insidious beverage handed him as a healing draught by Tezcatlipoca, he sent for this sister, held to her lips the intoxicating cup, and with her passed a night of debauch, the memory of which filled him with such shame that nevermore dared he face his subjects. Such is the story recited at length in the Aztec chronicle called theCodex Chimalpopoca.
Nonoalcowas also the name of a small village near the city of Mexico which still appears on the maps. Sahagun tells us that some extreme eastern tribes in Mexico called themselvesNonoalca(Historia de la Nueva España, Lib. X,cap,XXIX,p12); and the licenciate Diego Garcia de Palacio mentions “quatro lugares de Indios que llaman los Nunualcos” as dwelling, in his time (1576), in the eastern part of the province of San Salvador, of Aztec descent, and who had recentlycome there. (Carta al Rey de España, p. 60, New York, 1860). It should be mentioned in reference to these names and all others of similar vocalization, that both in Maya and Nahuatl the Spanish constantly confound the short ŏ and ŭ. As the Bachelor Don Antonio Vasquez Gastelu observes: “usan de laoalgunos tan obscuramente, que tira algo à la pronunciacion de lauvocal” (Arte de lengua Mexicana, fol. 1, verso, La Puebla de los Angeles, 1726).
Señor Alfredo Chavero, in his Appendix to Duran’sHistoria de las Indias de Nueva España(p. 45, Mexico, 1880), claims thatNonoalcawas the name given to the Maya-Kiche tribes, or rather adopted by them, when, at an extremely remote epoch, they penetrated to the central table land of Mexico. He thinks that subsequently they became united with the Toltecs, and were dispersed with that people at the destruction of the city of Tula. The grounds for this theory he claims to find in certain unpublished manuscripts, which unfortunately he does not give in extracts, but only in general statements. Like much that this writer presents, these assertions lack support. All the names he quotes as of Nonoalca, that is, Maya origin, are distinctly not of the latter tongue, but are Nahuatl. And the introduction of the mystical city of Tula is of itself enough to invest the story with the garb of unreality.
It is, in fact, nowhere in terrestrial geography that we need look for the site of the Tula of Quetzalcoatl, nor at any time in human history did the Tolteca ply their skillful hands, nor Tezcatlipoca spread his snares to destroy them. All this is but a mythical conception of the daily struggle of light and darkness, and those writers who seek in the Toltecs the ancestors or instructors of any nation whatsoever, make the once commonerror of mistaking myth for history, fancy for fact. Therefore, any notion that Yucatan was civilized by the Toltecs after their dispersion, or owes anything to them, as so many, and I might say almost all recent writers have maintained, is to me an absurdity.
This reference to the Quetzalcoatl myth at the commencement of the Maya chronicle needs not surprise us. We encounter it also in the KichePopol Vuhand the CakchiquelMemorial de Tecpan Atitlan. These members of the Maya family also grafted that myth upon their own traditions. As history, it is valueless; but as indicative of a long and early intercourse between the Maya and Nahuatl speaking tribes, it is of great interest. As this question will also recur in reference to various later passages in the Maya chronicles, I will discuss it here.
One of the earliest historians of Yucatan, the Doctor Don Pedro Sanchez de Aguilar, states that six hundred years before the Spanish conquest the Mayas were vassals of the Aztecs, and that they were taught or forced by these to construct the extraordinary edifices in their country, such as are found at Uxmal and Chichen Itza. His words are: “Fueron tan politicos y justiciosos en Yucatan como los Mexicanos, cuyos vasallos habian sido seis cientos años antes de la llegada de los Españoles. De lo cual tan solamente hay tradicion y memoria entre ellos por los famosos, grandes y espantosos edificios de cal y canto y silleria y figuras y estatuas de piedra labrada que dejaron en Oxumual [Uxmal] y en Chicheniza que hoy se veen y se pudieran habitar.”Informe contra Idolum Cultores del Obispado de Yucatan, fol. 87 (Madrid, 1639).
The vague tradition here referred to was made part of thetestimony in a lawsuit at Valladolid, Yucatan, in 1618. These old documents were brought to light by the late eminent Yucatecan historian Doctor Justo Sierra, and Dr. Berendt took a copy in manuscript of the most important points. I think it worth while to insert and translate this testimony.
Villa de Valladolid—Año de 1618.
“Documento 1º.A la primera pregunta dijo este testigo que conoce al dicho Don Juan Kahuil y à la dicha Doña Maria Quen su legitima muger y que todos los contenidos en la pregunta, tuvo noticia muy larga de su padre de este testigo, porque fue en su antiguedadahkin, sacerdote entre los naturales antiguos, antes que recibiesen agua de bautismo, como los susodichos contenidos en la pregunta vinieron del reino de Mexico y poblaron estas provincias, y que era gente bellicosa y valerosa y Señores, y asi poblaron à Chichenica los unos, y otros se fueron hacia el Sur que poblaron á Bacalar, y hacia el Norte que poblaron la costa; porque eran tres ò cuatro Señores y uno que se llamoTumispolchicbulera deudo de Moctezuma, rey que fuè de los reinos de Mexico, y queCuhuikakcamalcacalpucera deudo muy cercano de dicho Don Juan Kahuil por parte de sus padres, y que dichaIxnahaucupulhija deKukumcupulfue muger de su abuelo de dicho D. Juan Kahuil, todos los cuales fueron los que vinieron de Mexico à poblar estas Provincias, gente principal y Señores, pues poblaron y se señorearon de esta tierra, porque como dicho tiene, le oyó decir al dicho su padre que eran tenidos, obedecidos y respetados como à Señores de esta tierra, y de uno de ellos procede el dicho D. Juan Kahuil, y de estos hay mucha noticia y dicho su padre le dijo muchas veces, quehabia constancia entre ellos de lo sucedido por estos Señores.
“2º. A la segunda pregunta dice este testigo, que como dicho tiene, oyó decir à su padre y otros Indios principales que los susodichos contenidos en la primera pregunta vinieron de los reynos de Mejico à poblar estàs provincias, los unos se quedaron en Chichinica que fueron los que edificaron los edificios sontuosos que hay en el dicho asiento, y otros se fueron à poblar à Bacalar, y otros fueron à poblar la costa hacia el norte, y este que fué à poblar la costa, se llamabaCacalpuc, de donde procede el dicho D. Juan Kahuil, y estos que así se repartieron, fueron à poblar las provincias susodichas, y las tuvieron sugetas y en govierno, y que le cupo à un Cocom, el poblar en Chichinica, y le obedecian todos por Señor, y los de la isla de cuzumel le eran sugetos; y de alli (de Chicinica) se pasaron à la provincia de Sotuta, donde estaban, cuando los conquistadores vinieron, y siempre fueron tenidos, obedecidos y respetados como Señores.
“3º. A la primera pregunta dijò este testigo que conoce al dicho D. Juan Kahuil, y à la dicha Da Maria Quen, su muger, y que de todos los contenidos en la pregunta, tuvo muy larga noticia de ellos, porque D. Juan Camal, cacique è gobernador que fuè del pueblo de Sisal, de los primeros que lo gobernaron por comision e titulo que le diò el Oidor Tomas Lopez, oiendo como era de los antiguos caciques del dicho pueblo en estas provincias, lo trataba en conversacion à sus principales y este testigo, que siempre estaba en su casa, y fué alguacil mayor ordinario en ella, como los contenidos habian venido de Mejico à poblar esta tierra de Yucatan, y que los unos poblaron à Chichinica y hicieron los edificiós que estan en dicho asiento muy suntuosos, y que habiendo sido los quevinieron de Mejico, cuatro deudos ò parientes con sus allegados y gente que trajaron; el uno pobló como dicho tiene à Chichinica, y el otro fué à poblar à Bacalar, y el otro hacia el Norte y pobló en la costa, y el otro fué hacia Cozumel; è poblaron con gente, y fueron Señores de estas provincias, y las gobernaron y señorearon muchos años; y que oyó decir que uno de ellos llamadoTanupolchicbulera pariente de Moctezuma, rey de Mejico.”
(Translation.)
Corporation of Valladolid—Year 1618.
“Document No. 1.To the first question the witness answered that he knows the said Don Juan Kahuil and the said Dona Maria Quen his lawful wife, and all those referred to in the question; that this witness had full information from his father, who formerly wasahkinor priest among the natives, before they had received the water of baptism, how the parties above mentioned in the question came from the kingdom of Mexico, and establishedtowns116-1in these provinces, and that they were a warlike and valiant people and lords, and thus some of them established themselves at Chichen Itza, and others went to the south and established towns at Bacalar, and toward the north and established towns on the coast; because they were three or four lords, and one, who was namedTumispolchicbul, was a kinsman of Montezuma, king of the kingdom of Mexico, and thatCuhuikakcamalcacalpucwas a very near kinsman of the said Don Juan Kahuil on his father’s side, and that the saidIxnahaucupul, daughter ofKukumcupulwas wife of the grandfather of the said Don JuanKahuil, all of whom were those who came from Mexico to found towns in these provinces, prominent people and lords; then they founded towns and ruled this land, because as he said, he heard his said father say that they were regarded, obeyed and respected as lords of this land, and that from one of them proceeded the said Don Juan Kahuil; and of these there is abundant information, and his said father often said to him that there was unanimity among them as to what took place by these lords.
“2ND.To the second question this witness answered that as he has said, he heard his father and other leading Indians say that the parties above mentioned in the first question came from the Kingdom of Mexico to found towns in these provinces; some remained in Chichen Itza, who were those who built the sumptuous edifices which are in the said locality; others went to found towns at Bacalar, and others to found towns on the coast to the north; and he who went to found towns on the coast was named Cacalpuc, from whom proceeds the said Don Juan Kahuil and those who thus made division went to found towns in the above mentioned provinces, and held them under subjection and government; and he chose a certain Cocom to rule in Chichen Itza, and they all obeyed him as lord, and those of the island of Cozumel were subject to him; and from there (from Chichen Itza) they passed to the province of Zotuta, where they were when the conquerors came, and they were always regarded, obeyed and respected as lords.