BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIXThe various works which contain notices of the “Popol Vuh” and the kindred questions of Mayan and Kiché mythology are so difficult of access to the majority of readers that it has been thought best to divide them into two classes: (1) those which can be more or less readily purchased, and which are, naturally, of more recent origin; and (2) those which are not easy to come by, and which, generally speaking, are the work of Spanish priests and colonists of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.IThe work on the subject which is most easily obtained, and indeed the only work which gives the original Kiché text, is that of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, “Vuh Popol: Le livre sacré de Quichés et les mythes de l’antiquité Américaine.” The Kiché text was translated by the assistance of natives into French, and the translation is more or less inaccurate. The notes and introduction must be read by the student with the greatest caution. It was published at Paris in 1861.Ximenes’ translation into Spanish of the “Popol Vuh” and that of Gavarrete are about of equal value, rather inaccurate, and accompanied by scanty notes. The title of the first is “Las Historias del Origin de los Indios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes(Vienna, 1856), and of the second, “El Popol Vuh,” (San Salvador1905). This exhausts the list of works written exclusively concerning the “Popol Vuh.” The other works of Brasseur and those of Brinton contain more or less numerous allusions to it, but references to it in standard works of mythology are exceedingly rare. The only other works which have a bearing upon the subject are those upon Mayan and Kiché mythology, or which, among other matter, historical or political, refer to it in any way. The most important of these are:Dr. Otto Stoll—“Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala.”——“Ethnologie derIndianerstämmevon Guatemala.”Scherzer—“Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan.”Müller—“Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligion” (1855).E. Förstemann—“Commentary on the Maya Manuscript,” in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Translation from the German by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Harvard University, 1906).E. Seler—“Überden Ursprung dermittelamerikanischenKulturen” (1902).——“Ein Wintersemester in Mexico und Yucatan” (1903).——“Codex Fejerváry-Mayer” (Berlin, 1901).P. Schellhas—“Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,” translated by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).Cyrus Thomas—“The Maya Year,” Washington, 1894.——“Notes on Maya and Mexican Manuscripts.”W. Fewkes—“The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus,” (Washington, 1895).All these works relate more or less entirely toMayanmythology, and are chiefly valuable as illustrating the connection between the Kiché and Mayan mythologies. It must be understood that this is not a list of works relating toMayanantiquities, but only a list of such works as refer at the tame time to Mayan and Kiché mythology.The brief essay of the late Professor Max Müller upon the “Popol Vuh” is of little or no value except as a statement in favour of its authenticity. It gives little or no information concerning the work, and is, indeed, chiefly concerned with the authenticity and nature of North American picture-drawings.IIThe principal works of the older Spanish authors, which in any way relate to the myths of Maya-Kiché peoples, are:Las Casas—“Historia de los Indias” (1552).Cogolludo—“Historia de Yucathan” (1688).Diego de Landa—“Relacion de los Cosas de Yucatan” (translated into French, and edited by Brasseur).Ximenes—“Escolias à los Historias del origèn de los Indios” (Circa, 1725).Palacios—“Description de la Provincia de Guatemala” (in the collection of Ternaux-Compans).Juarros—“Historia de Guatimala.”NOTESNote 1.(Page8)Much that is absurd has been written concerning the antiquity of the ruined cities of Central America, and some authors have not hesitated to place their foundation in an antiquity beside which the pre-dynastic buildings of Egypt would appear quite recent. But that they were abandoned not long before the Columbian era is now generally admitted.SeeWinsor’s “Narrative and Critical History of America,” chap, iii., and the works of Charnay, Maler, Maudslay, and Gordon, for modern opinion upon the subject; also the various monographs contained in the more recent volumes of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology’s annual report. That a very respectable antiquity belongs to several sites is, however, certain; and competent authorities have not hesitated to ascribe to some of the ruins an age of not less than two thousand years.Note 2.(Page8)Payne has made it abundantly clear to our mind that the original seat of the Nahuatlacâ (which included both Toltecs and Aztecs) was in British Columbia (seehis “History of America,” vol. ii. p. 373et seq.). He thinks they there occupied a position southerly to that of the Athapascan stock, and were probably the first northern people to come into contact with tribes possessed of themaize plant. The knowledge of this staple, he infers, spread rapidly among the northern peoples, and induced them to hasten their southern colonisation, but it does not appear to us probable that this would be an inducement to a savage flesh-eating people averse to a life of agricultural labour. The whole question of pre-historic American migration, and of the gradual civilisation by maize of the peoples who came within its zone, is most admirably discussed in vol. xix. of “The History of North America,” by W. J. Magee and Cyrus Thomas (Philadelphia, George Barrie and Sons), published March 1908. The knowledge contained in this work is the outcome of a lifetime’s labour in the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, and its learned authors have undoubtedly produced a monumental treatise which it will take many a generation of research to supersede, if, indeed, that is possible.Note 3.(Page9)The authorities for the settlement of the Toltecs in Yucatan are the Tezcucan chronicler Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, who both allege that the immigrants went to Campeachy and the south.Note 4.(Page13)There appear to be grounds for believing that the parent deities Xpiyacoc and Xmucane are but derivations from Gucumatz, and represent the male and female attributes of that god. In the “Popol Vuh” they are spoken of as being “covered with green feathers,” the usual description of Gucumatz; but it is, of course, possible that they may have received some of his attributes in the general jumble of myths which, we have attempted to show, exists in the first book. Gucumatz, it will be remembered, is Quetzalcohuatl in another form, andthe latter is often represented in the papyri as having a woman sitting opposite to him. She does not, however, appear to be at all analogous to Messrs. Förstemann and Schellhas’s “Goddess I,” whom I take to represent the Mayan equivalent of Xmucane, and who wears on her head the knotted serpent, a reptile characteristic of Quetzalcohuatl.Note 5.(Page53)The Wallam-Olum (painted records) of the Leni Lenape Indians have often been called into question as regards their authenticity, but the evidence of Lederer, Humboldt, Heckewelder, Tanner, Loskiel, Beatty, and Rafinesque, all of whom professed to have seen them, rather discounts such unbelief in their existence. They consisted of picture-writings, or hieroglyphs, each of which applied to a whole verse, or many words. The ideas were, in fact, amalgamated in a compound system, and bear exactly the same relation to written language as the American tongues did to spoken language; that is, they were of an agglutinative type, a linguistic form where several words are welded into one. There are several series, one of which records the doings of the tribes immediately subsequent to the Creation. Another series relates to their doings in America, and consists of seven songs, four of sixteen verses of four words each, and three of twenty verses of three words each “It begins at the arrival in America,” says Rafinesque (“The American Nations”), “and is continued without hardly any interruption till the arrival of the European colonists towards 1600.” But this second series is a mere meagre catalogue of kings.Printed byBallantyne & Co. LimitedTavistock Street, Covent Garden, LondonTable of ContentsPREFACE3THE POPOL VUH5The First Book9The Myth of Vukub-Cakix11The Second Book15The Third Book23The Fourth Book27COSMOGONY OF THE “POPOL VUH”29Kiché and Mexican Mythology34THE PANTHEON OF THE “POPOL VUH”36The Vukub-Cakix Myth41Book II. commented upon42The Harrying of Xibalba46Book III. commented upon50Early Spanish Authors and the “Popol Vuh”53Evidence of Metrical Composition54BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX57I57II59NOTES61Note 1.(Page 8)61Note 2.(Page 8)61Note 3.(Page 9)62Note 4.(Page 13)62Note 5.(Page 53)63ColophonAvailabilityThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of theProject Gutenberg Licenseincluded with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org.This eBook is produced by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team atwww.pgdp.net.MetadataTitle:The Popol vuh, the mythic and heroic sagas of the Kichés of Central AmericaAuthor:Lewis Spence (1874–1955)InfoLanguage:EnglishOriginal publication date:1908Revision History2017-01-01 Started.External ReferencesThis Project Gutenberg eBook contains external references. These links may not work for you.CorrectionsThe following corrections have been applied to the text:PageSourceCorrectionEdit distance13accessexcess218blowpipesblow-pipes124[Not in source].137cosmogomycosmogony142whatsoverwhatsoever155NordenskjoldNordenskjöld1 / 058,58,58,58[Not in source]——358Indianer StämmeIndianerstämme258UberÜber1 / 058Mittelamerikanmittelamerikanischen7

The various works which contain notices of the “Popol Vuh” and the kindred questions of Mayan and Kiché mythology are so difficult of access to the majority of readers that it has been thought best to divide them into two classes: (1) those which can be more or less readily purchased, and which are, naturally, of more recent origin; and (2) those which are not easy to come by, and which, generally speaking, are the work of Spanish priests and colonists of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.IThe work on the subject which is most easily obtained, and indeed the only work which gives the original Kiché text, is that of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, “Vuh Popol: Le livre sacré de Quichés et les mythes de l’antiquité Américaine.” The Kiché text was translated by the assistance of natives into French, and the translation is more or less inaccurate. The notes and introduction must be read by the student with the greatest caution. It was published at Paris in 1861.Ximenes’ translation into Spanish of the “Popol Vuh” and that of Gavarrete are about of equal value, rather inaccurate, and accompanied by scanty notes. The title of the first is “Las Historias del Origin de los Indios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes(Vienna, 1856), and of the second, “El Popol Vuh,” (San Salvador1905). This exhausts the list of works written exclusively concerning the “Popol Vuh.” The other works of Brasseur and those of Brinton contain more or less numerous allusions to it, but references to it in standard works of mythology are exceedingly rare. The only other works which have a bearing upon the subject are those upon Mayan and Kiché mythology, or which, among other matter, historical or political, refer to it in any way. The most important of these are:Dr. Otto Stoll—“Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala.”——“Ethnologie derIndianerstämmevon Guatemala.”Scherzer—“Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan.”Müller—“Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligion” (1855).E. Förstemann—“Commentary on the Maya Manuscript,” in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Translation from the German by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Harvard University, 1906).E. Seler—“Überden Ursprung dermittelamerikanischenKulturen” (1902).——“Ein Wintersemester in Mexico und Yucatan” (1903).——“Codex Fejerváry-Mayer” (Berlin, 1901).P. Schellhas—“Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,” translated by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).Cyrus Thomas—“The Maya Year,” Washington, 1894.——“Notes on Maya and Mexican Manuscripts.”W. Fewkes—“The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus,” (Washington, 1895).All these works relate more or less entirely toMayanmythology, and are chiefly valuable as illustrating the connection between the Kiché and Mayan mythologies. It must be understood that this is not a list of works relating toMayanantiquities, but only a list of such works as refer at the tame time to Mayan and Kiché mythology.The brief essay of the late Professor Max Müller upon the “Popol Vuh” is of little or no value except as a statement in favour of its authenticity. It gives little or no information concerning the work, and is, indeed, chiefly concerned with the authenticity and nature of North American picture-drawings.IIThe principal works of the older Spanish authors, which in any way relate to the myths of Maya-Kiché peoples, are:Las Casas—“Historia de los Indias” (1552).Cogolludo—“Historia de Yucathan” (1688).Diego de Landa—“Relacion de los Cosas de Yucatan” (translated into French, and edited by Brasseur).Ximenes—“Escolias à los Historias del origèn de los Indios” (Circa, 1725).Palacios—“Description de la Provincia de Guatemala” (in the collection of Ternaux-Compans).Juarros—“Historia de Guatimala.”

IThe work on the subject which is most easily obtained, and indeed the only work which gives the original Kiché text, is that of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, “Vuh Popol: Le livre sacré de Quichés et les mythes de l’antiquité Américaine.” The Kiché text was translated by the assistance of natives into French, and the translation is more or less inaccurate. The notes and introduction must be read by the student with the greatest caution. It was published at Paris in 1861.Ximenes’ translation into Spanish of the “Popol Vuh” and that of Gavarrete are about of equal value, rather inaccurate, and accompanied by scanty notes. The title of the first is “Las Historias del Origin de los Indios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes(Vienna, 1856), and of the second, “El Popol Vuh,” (San Salvador1905). This exhausts the list of works written exclusively concerning the “Popol Vuh.” The other works of Brasseur and those of Brinton contain more or less numerous allusions to it, but references to it in standard works of mythology are exceedingly rare. The only other works which have a bearing upon the subject are those upon Mayan and Kiché mythology, or which, among other matter, historical or political, refer to it in any way. The most important of these are:Dr. Otto Stoll—“Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala.”——“Ethnologie derIndianerstämmevon Guatemala.”Scherzer—“Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan.”Müller—“Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligion” (1855).E. Förstemann—“Commentary on the Maya Manuscript,” in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Translation from the German by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Harvard University, 1906).E. Seler—“Überden Ursprung dermittelamerikanischenKulturen” (1902).——“Ein Wintersemester in Mexico und Yucatan” (1903).——“Codex Fejerváry-Mayer” (Berlin, 1901).P. Schellhas—“Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,” translated by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).Cyrus Thomas—“The Maya Year,” Washington, 1894.——“Notes on Maya and Mexican Manuscripts.”W. Fewkes—“The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus,” (Washington, 1895).All these works relate more or less entirely toMayanmythology, and are chiefly valuable as illustrating the connection between the Kiché and Mayan mythologies. It must be understood that this is not a list of works relating toMayanantiquities, but only a list of such works as refer at the tame time to Mayan and Kiché mythology.The brief essay of the late Professor Max Müller upon the “Popol Vuh” is of little or no value except as a statement in favour of its authenticity. It gives little or no information concerning the work, and is, indeed, chiefly concerned with the authenticity and nature of North American picture-drawings.

The work on the subject which is most easily obtained, and indeed the only work which gives the original Kiché text, is that of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, “Vuh Popol: Le livre sacré de Quichés et les mythes de l’antiquité Américaine.” The Kiché text was translated by the assistance of natives into French, and the translation is more or less inaccurate. The notes and introduction must be read by the student with the greatest caution. It was published at Paris in 1861.Ximenes’ translation into Spanish of the “Popol Vuh” and that of Gavarrete are about of equal value, rather inaccurate, and accompanied by scanty notes. The title of the first is “Las Historias del Origin de los Indios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes(Vienna, 1856), and of the second, “El Popol Vuh,” (San Salvador1905). This exhausts the list of works written exclusively concerning the “Popol Vuh.” The other works of Brasseur and those of Brinton contain more or less numerous allusions to it, but references to it in standard works of mythology are exceedingly rare. The only other works which have a bearing upon the subject are those upon Mayan and Kiché mythology, or which, among other matter, historical or political, refer to it in any way. The most important of these are:Dr. Otto Stoll—“Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala.”——“Ethnologie derIndianerstämmevon Guatemala.”Scherzer—“Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan.”Müller—“Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligion” (1855).E. Förstemann—“Commentary on the Maya Manuscript,” in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Translation from the German by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Harvard University, 1906).E. Seler—“Überden Ursprung dermittelamerikanischenKulturen” (1902).——“Ein Wintersemester in Mexico und Yucatan” (1903).——“Codex Fejerváry-Mayer” (Berlin, 1901).P. Schellhas—“Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,” translated by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).Cyrus Thomas—“The Maya Year,” Washington, 1894.——“Notes on Maya and Mexican Manuscripts.”W. Fewkes—“The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus,” (Washington, 1895).All these works relate more or less entirely toMayanmythology, and are chiefly valuable as illustrating the connection between the Kiché and Mayan mythologies. It must be understood that this is not a list of works relating toMayanantiquities, but only a list of such works as refer at the tame time to Mayan and Kiché mythology.The brief essay of the late Professor Max Müller upon the “Popol Vuh” is of little or no value except as a statement in favour of its authenticity. It gives little or no information concerning the work, and is, indeed, chiefly concerned with the authenticity and nature of North American picture-drawings.

Ximenes’ translation into Spanish of the “Popol Vuh” and that of Gavarrete are about of equal value, rather inaccurate, and accompanied by scanty notes. The title of the first is “Las Historias del Origin de los Indios de Guatemala, par el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes(Vienna, 1856), and of the second, “El Popol Vuh,” (San Salvador1905). This exhausts the list of works written exclusively concerning the “Popol Vuh.” The other works of Brasseur and those of Brinton contain more or less numerous allusions to it, but references to it in standard works of mythology are exceedingly rare. The only other works which have a bearing upon the subject are those upon Mayan and Kiché mythology, or which, among other matter, historical or political, refer to it in any way. The most important of these are:

Dr. Otto Stoll—“Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala.”

——“Ethnologie derIndianerstämmevon Guatemala.”

Scherzer—“Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan.”

Müller—“Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligion” (1855).

E. Förstemann—“Commentary on the Maya Manuscript,” in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Translation from the German by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Harvard University, 1906).

E. Seler—“Überden Ursprung dermittelamerikanischenKulturen” (1902).

——“Ein Wintersemester in Mexico und Yucatan” (1903).

——“Codex Fejerváry-Mayer” (Berlin, 1901).

P. Schellhas—“Representation of Deities of the Maya Manuscripts,” translated by S. Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).

Cyrus Thomas—“The Maya Year,” Washington, 1894.

——“Notes on Maya and Mexican Manuscripts.”

W. Fewkes—“The God ‘D’ in the Codex Cortesianus,” (Washington, 1895).

All these works relate more or less entirely toMayanmythology, and are chiefly valuable as illustrating the connection between the Kiché and Mayan mythologies. It must be understood that this is not a list of works relating toMayanantiquities, but only a list of such works as refer at the tame time to Mayan and Kiché mythology.

The brief essay of the late Professor Max Müller upon the “Popol Vuh” is of little or no value except as a statement in favour of its authenticity. It gives little or no information concerning the work, and is, indeed, chiefly concerned with the authenticity and nature of North American picture-drawings.

IIThe principal works of the older Spanish authors, which in any way relate to the myths of Maya-Kiché peoples, are:Las Casas—“Historia de los Indias” (1552).Cogolludo—“Historia de Yucathan” (1688).Diego de Landa—“Relacion de los Cosas de Yucatan” (translated into French, and edited by Brasseur).Ximenes—“Escolias à los Historias del origèn de los Indios” (Circa, 1725).Palacios—“Description de la Provincia de Guatemala” (in the collection of Ternaux-Compans).Juarros—“Historia de Guatimala.”

The principal works of the older Spanish authors, which in any way relate to the myths of Maya-Kiché peoples, are:Las Casas—“Historia de los Indias” (1552).Cogolludo—“Historia de Yucathan” (1688).Diego de Landa—“Relacion de los Cosas de Yucatan” (translated into French, and edited by Brasseur).Ximenes—“Escolias à los Historias del origèn de los Indios” (Circa, 1725).Palacios—“Description de la Provincia de Guatemala” (in the collection of Ternaux-Compans).Juarros—“Historia de Guatimala.”

The principal works of the older Spanish authors, which in any way relate to the myths of Maya-Kiché peoples, are:

Las Casas—“Historia de los Indias” (1552).

Cogolludo—“Historia de Yucathan” (1688).

Diego de Landa—“Relacion de los Cosas de Yucatan” (translated into French, and edited by Brasseur).

Ximenes—“Escolias à los Historias del origèn de los Indios” (Circa, 1725).

Palacios—“Description de la Provincia de Guatemala” (in the collection of Ternaux-Compans).

Juarros—“Historia de Guatimala.”

NOTESNote 1.(Page8)Much that is absurd has been written concerning the antiquity of the ruined cities of Central America, and some authors have not hesitated to place their foundation in an antiquity beside which the pre-dynastic buildings of Egypt would appear quite recent. But that they were abandoned not long before the Columbian era is now generally admitted.SeeWinsor’s “Narrative and Critical History of America,” chap, iii., and the works of Charnay, Maler, Maudslay, and Gordon, for modern opinion upon the subject; also the various monographs contained in the more recent volumes of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology’s annual report. That a very respectable antiquity belongs to several sites is, however, certain; and competent authorities have not hesitated to ascribe to some of the ruins an age of not less than two thousand years.Note 2.(Page8)Payne has made it abundantly clear to our mind that the original seat of the Nahuatlacâ (which included both Toltecs and Aztecs) was in British Columbia (seehis “History of America,” vol. ii. p. 373et seq.). He thinks they there occupied a position southerly to that of the Athapascan stock, and were probably the first northern people to come into contact with tribes possessed of themaize plant. The knowledge of this staple, he infers, spread rapidly among the northern peoples, and induced them to hasten their southern colonisation, but it does not appear to us probable that this would be an inducement to a savage flesh-eating people averse to a life of agricultural labour. The whole question of pre-historic American migration, and of the gradual civilisation by maize of the peoples who came within its zone, is most admirably discussed in vol. xix. of “The History of North America,” by W. J. Magee and Cyrus Thomas (Philadelphia, George Barrie and Sons), published March 1908. The knowledge contained in this work is the outcome of a lifetime’s labour in the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, and its learned authors have undoubtedly produced a monumental treatise which it will take many a generation of research to supersede, if, indeed, that is possible.Note 3.(Page9)The authorities for the settlement of the Toltecs in Yucatan are the Tezcucan chronicler Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, who both allege that the immigrants went to Campeachy and the south.Note 4.(Page13)There appear to be grounds for believing that the parent deities Xpiyacoc and Xmucane are but derivations from Gucumatz, and represent the male and female attributes of that god. In the “Popol Vuh” they are spoken of as being “covered with green feathers,” the usual description of Gucumatz; but it is, of course, possible that they may have received some of his attributes in the general jumble of myths which, we have attempted to show, exists in the first book. Gucumatz, it will be remembered, is Quetzalcohuatl in another form, andthe latter is often represented in the papyri as having a woman sitting opposite to him. She does not, however, appear to be at all analogous to Messrs. Förstemann and Schellhas’s “Goddess I,” whom I take to represent the Mayan equivalent of Xmucane, and who wears on her head the knotted serpent, a reptile characteristic of Quetzalcohuatl.Note 5.(Page53)The Wallam-Olum (painted records) of the Leni Lenape Indians have often been called into question as regards their authenticity, but the evidence of Lederer, Humboldt, Heckewelder, Tanner, Loskiel, Beatty, and Rafinesque, all of whom professed to have seen them, rather discounts such unbelief in their existence. They consisted of picture-writings, or hieroglyphs, each of which applied to a whole verse, or many words. The ideas were, in fact, amalgamated in a compound system, and bear exactly the same relation to written language as the American tongues did to spoken language; that is, they were of an agglutinative type, a linguistic form where several words are welded into one. There are several series, one of which records the doings of the tribes immediately subsequent to the Creation. Another series relates to their doings in America, and consists of seven songs, four of sixteen verses of four words each, and three of twenty verses of three words each “It begins at the arrival in America,” says Rafinesque (“The American Nations”), “and is continued without hardly any interruption till the arrival of the European colonists towards 1600.” But this second series is a mere meagre catalogue of kings.

Note 1.(Page8)Much that is absurd has been written concerning the antiquity of the ruined cities of Central America, and some authors have not hesitated to place their foundation in an antiquity beside which the pre-dynastic buildings of Egypt would appear quite recent. But that they were abandoned not long before the Columbian era is now generally admitted.SeeWinsor’s “Narrative and Critical History of America,” chap, iii., and the works of Charnay, Maler, Maudslay, and Gordon, for modern opinion upon the subject; also the various monographs contained in the more recent volumes of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology’s annual report. That a very respectable antiquity belongs to several sites is, however, certain; and competent authorities have not hesitated to ascribe to some of the ruins an age of not less than two thousand years.

Note 1.(Page8)

Much that is absurd has been written concerning the antiquity of the ruined cities of Central America, and some authors have not hesitated to place their foundation in an antiquity beside which the pre-dynastic buildings of Egypt would appear quite recent. But that they were abandoned not long before the Columbian era is now generally admitted.SeeWinsor’s “Narrative and Critical History of America,” chap, iii., and the works of Charnay, Maler, Maudslay, and Gordon, for modern opinion upon the subject; also the various monographs contained in the more recent volumes of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology’s annual report. That a very respectable antiquity belongs to several sites is, however, certain; and competent authorities have not hesitated to ascribe to some of the ruins an age of not less than two thousand years.

Note 2.(Page8)Payne has made it abundantly clear to our mind that the original seat of the Nahuatlacâ (which included both Toltecs and Aztecs) was in British Columbia (seehis “History of America,” vol. ii. p. 373et seq.). He thinks they there occupied a position southerly to that of the Athapascan stock, and were probably the first northern people to come into contact with tribes possessed of themaize plant. The knowledge of this staple, he infers, spread rapidly among the northern peoples, and induced them to hasten their southern colonisation, but it does not appear to us probable that this would be an inducement to a savage flesh-eating people averse to a life of agricultural labour. The whole question of pre-historic American migration, and of the gradual civilisation by maize of the peoples who came within its zone, is most admirably discussed in vol. xix. of “The History of North America,” by W. J. Magee and Cyrus Thomas (Philadelphia, George Barrie and Sons), published March 1908. The knowledge contained in this work is the outcome of a lifetime’s labour in the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, and its learned authors have undoubtedly produced a monumental treatise which it will take many a generation of research to supersede, if, indeed, that is possible.

Note 2.(Page8)

Payne has made it abundantly clear to our mind that the original seat of the Nahuatlacâ (which included both Toltecs and Aztecs) was in British Columbia (seehis “History of America,” vol. ii. p. 373et seq.). He thinks they there occupied a position southerly to that of the Athapascan stock, and were probably the first northern people to come into contact with tribes possessed of themaize plant. The knowledge of this staple, he infers, spread rapidly among the northern peoples, and induced them to hasten their southern colonisation, but it does not appear to us probable that this would be an inducement to a savage flesh-eating people averse to a life of agricultural labour. The whole question of pre-historic American migration, and of the gradual civilisation by maize of the peoples who came within its zone, is most admirably discussed in vol. xix. of “The History of North America,” by W. J. Magee and Cyrus Thomas (Philadelphia, George Barrie and Sons), published March 1908. The knowledge contained in this work is the outcome of a lifetime’s labour in the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, and its learned authors have undoubtedly produced a monumental treatise which it will take many a generation of research to supersede, if, indeed, that is possible.

Note 3.(Page9)The authorities for the settlement of the Toltecs in Yucatan are the Tezcucan chronicler Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, who both allege that the immigrants went to Campeachy and the south.

Note 3.(Page9)

The authorities for the settlement of the Toltecs in Yucatan are the Tezcucan chronicler Ixtlilxochitl, and Torquemada, who both allege that the immigrants went to Campeachy and the south.

Note 4.(Page13)There appear to be grounds for believing that the parent deities Xpiyacoc and Xmucane are but derivations from Gucumatz, and represent the male and female attributes of that god. In the “Popol Vuh” they are spoken of as being “covered with green feathers,” the usual description of Gucumatz; but it is, of course, possible that they may have received some of his attributes in the general jumble of myths which, we have attempted to show, exists in the first book. Gucumatz, it will be remembered, is Quetzalcohuatl in another form, andthe latter is often represented in the papyri as having a woman sitting opposite to him. She does not, however, appear to be at all analogous to Messrs. Förstemann and Schellhas’s “Goddess I,” whom I take to represent the Mayan equivalent of Xmucane, and who wears on her head the knotted serpent, a reptile characteristic of Quetzalcohuatl.

Note 4.(Page13)

There appear to be grounds for believing that the parent deities Xpiyacoc and Xmucane are but derivations from Gucumatz, and represent the male and female attributes of that god. In the “Popol Vuh” they are spoken of as being “covered with green feathers,” the usual description of Gucumatz; but it is, of course, possible that they may have received some of his attributes in the general jumble of myths which, we have attempted to show, exists in the first book. Gucumatz, it will be remembered, is Quetzalcohuatl in another form, andthe latter is often represented in the papyri as having a woman sitting opposite to him. She does not, however, appear to be at all analogous to Messrs. Förstemann and Schellhas’s “Goddess I,” whom I take to represent the Mayan equivalent of Xmucane, and who wears on her head the knotted serpent, a reptile characteristic of Quetzalcohuatl.

Note 5.(Page53)The Wallam-Olum (painted records) of the Leni Lenape Indians have often been called into question as regards their authenticity, but the evidence of Lederer, Humboldt, Heckewelder, Tanner, Loskiel, Beatty, and Rafinesque, all of whom professed to have seen them, rather discounts such unbelief in their existence. They consisted of picture-writings, or hieroglyphs, each of which applied to a whole verse, or many words. The ideas were, in fact, amalgamated in a compound system, and bear exactly the same relation to written language as the American tongues did to spoken language; that is, they were of an agglutinative type, a linguistic form where several words are welded into one. There are several series, one of which records the doings of the tribes immediately subsequent to the Creation. Another series relates to their doings in America, and consists of seven songs, four of sixteen verses of four words each, and three of twenty verses of three words each “It begins at the arrival in America,” says Rafinesque (“The American Nations”), “and is continued without hardly any interruption till the arrival of the European colonists towards 1600.” But this second series is a mere meagre catalogue of kings.

Note 5.(Page53)

The Wallam-Olum (painted records) of the Leni Lenape Indians have often been called into question as regards their authenticity, but the evidence of Lederer, Humboldt, Heckewelder, Tanner, Loskiel, Beatty, and Rafinesque, all of whom professed to have seen them, rather discounts such unbelief in their existence. They consisted of picture-writings, or hieroglyphs, each of which applied to a whole verse, or many words. The ideas were, in fact, amalgamated in a compound system, and bear exactly the same relation to written language as the American tongues did to spoken language; that is, they were of an agglutinative type, a linguistic form where several words are welded into one. There are several series, one of which records the doings of the tribes immediately subsequent to the Creation. Another series relates to their doings in America, and consists of seven songs, four of sixteen verses of four words each, and three of twenty verses of three words each “It begins at the arrival in America,” says Rafinesque (“The American Nations”), “and is continued without hardly any interruption till the arrival of the European colonists towards 1600.” But this second series is a mere meagre catalogue of kings.

Printed byBallantyne & Co. LimitedTavistock Street, Covent Garden, London

Printed byBallantyne & Co. Limited

Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London

Table of ContentsPREFACE3THE POPOL VUH5The First Book9The Myth of Vukub-Cakix11The Second Book15The Third Book23The Fourth Book27COSMOGONY OF THE “POPOL VUH”29Kiché and Mexican Mythology34THE PANTHEON OF THE “POPOL VUH”36The Vukub-Cakix Myth41Book II. commented upon42The Harrying of Xibalba46Book III. commented upon50Early Spanish Authors and the “Popol Vuh”53Evidence of Metrical Composition54BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX57I57II59NOTES61Note 1.(Page 8)61Note 2.(Page 8)61Note 3.(Page 9)62Note 4.(Page 13)62Note 5.(Page 53)63

ColophonAvailabilityThis eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of theProject Gutenberg Licenseincluded with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org.This eBook is produced by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team atwww.pgdp.net.MetadataTitle:The Popol vuh, the mythic and heroic sagas of the Kichés of Central AmericaAuthor:Lewis Spence (1874–1955)InfoLanguage:EnglishOriginal publication date:1908Revision History2017-01-01 Started.External ReferencesThis Project Gutenberg eBook contains external references. These links may not work for you.CorrectionsThe following corrections have been applied to the text:PageSourceCorrectionEdit distance13accessexcess218blowpipesblow-pipes124[Not in source].137cosmogomycosmogony142whatsoverwhatsoever155NordenskjoldNordenskjöld1 / 058,58,58,58[Not in source]——358Indianer StämmeIndianerstämme258UberÜber1 / 058Mittelamerikanmittelamerikanischen7

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of theProject Gutenberg Licenseincluded with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org.

This eBook is produced by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team atwww.pgdp.net.

This Project Gutenberg eBook contains external references. These links may not work for you.

The following corrections have been applied to the text:

Back to Index Next