PREFACE
I am fully aware that this paper bears the marks of haste and gives evidence of the fact that a number of the more important points are not worked out as thoroughly and completely as they might have been had more time been devoted to them. But the growing interest in the public mind in reference to all that relates to the past history of our continent has induced me to present it in its present incomplete form rather than defer its publication to an indefinite period in the future. It is therefore offered to the public more as a tentative work than with the expectation that all my conclusions will stand the test of criticism.
I have endeavored, as will be seen by an examination of its contents, to confine my studies as strictly as possible to the Manuscript itself, without being influenced in my conclusions by the conclusions of others—using Landa's "Relacion," Perez's "Cronologia," Brasseur's works, and the Dresden Codex as my chief aids; not intending by any means to ignore the valuable work done by others in the same field, but that I might remain as free as possible to work out results in my own line of thought.
I may also add that at the time the main portion of the paper was written I was in the West, out of reach of any extensive library containing works relating to the history, antiquities, &, of Mexico and Central America. This fact I mention as an apology for the comparatively few works referred to in the paper.
I have studied the Manuscript somewhat in the same way the child undertakes to solve an illustrated rebus, assuming as a standpoint the status of the semi-civilized Indian, and endeavoring, as far as possible, to proceed upon the same plane of thought. In other words, I have not proceeded upon the assumption that the pre-Columbian Indians of Yucatan were learned philosophers, thoroughly versed in science and general knowledge, but were Indians, who through some influence, whether introduced or indigenous, had made considerable advance in certain lines of art and science. But these lines, as I believe, were few and limited, relating chiefly to architecture, sculpture, painting, and the computation of time.
As an examination of the Manuscript soon satisfied me that it was, to a great extent, a kind of religious calendar, I found it necessary first to discuss the Maya chronological system in order to make use of the numerous dates found in the work—a fact that will explain why so many pages of the first part of the paper are devoted to this subject.
The results of my investigations are summed up at the close of this preface. I find the work consists of two parts: first, a calendar giving the dates of religious festivals running through a long period of time, in all probability a grand cycle of three hundred and twelve years, together with brief formulas; second, an illustration of the habits, customs, and employments of the people. But these two subjects are mingled together throughout the Manuscript; the first including most of the characters or hieroglyphics around the spaces; the second the figures in the spaces. One omission in my paper will be observed by those who are familiar with the subject, that is, the failure on my part to notice and account for, in the Maya chronological system, the surplus days of the bissextile years. This omission on my part has been intentional. I can find no plan by which to insert them in the series, numbering them as the others, without interfering with that order which is essential to the system itself I have therefore proceeded upon the assumption that they are added as uncounted days, and hence interfere in no way with the regular order. If I am mistaken in this conclusion, considerable modification in my tabular arrangement of the years may be necessary, even though the general plan be correct. A very serious drawback to the attempt to explain the written characters or hieroglyphics has been the lack on my part of a knowledge of the Maya language. Such a knowledge I do not claim; therefore, in this part of the work, the best I could do was to quote from the lexicons, as there given, such words as I found it necessary to refer to. The propriety of attempting anything in this direction without this knowledge may be justly questioned. But after seriously considering this point, I concluded it best to give to the world the result of my investigations with these explanations, as I felt confident I had made some progress in deciphering this mysterious Manuscript.
I take this opportunity of acknowledging the obligations I am under to Dr. D. G. Brinton, of Philadelphia, for the valuable notice of the Maya Manuscripts which he has contributed as an introduction to my paper.
RESULTS OF MY INVESTIGATIONS OP THE MANUSCRIPT TROANO.
These may be briefly summed up as follows:
1st. That the work was intended chiefly as a ritual or religious calendar to guide the priests in the observance of religious festivals, and their numerous ceremonies and other duties. That the very large number of day columns and numerals, which form fully one-half of what may be called the written portion, are simply dates which appear to run through one entire grand cycle of 312 years, fixing the time when festivals should be held and other religious observances take place. Also that much of the text proper—the portion in hieroglyphics or written characters—is purely ritualistic, consisting of very simple formulas.
2d. That the figures in the spaces are in some cases symbolical, in others simple pictographs, and, in quite a number, refer to religious ceremonies, but that in many instances they relate to the habits, customs, and occupations of the people—as, for example, their method of capturing game, which, as appears from this work, was as stated by Herrera, chiefly by "gins and traps"—and the incidents of the chase; that which relates to the business of the apiarists; making ropes; the manufacture of idols; agricultural pursuits; occupation and duties of the females, &c. But even here we see the religious element pervading everything.
3d. That the work appertained to and was prepared for a people living in the interior of the country, away from the sea-shore. This is inferred from the fact that nothing is found in it relating to fishermen, or their vessels. But there are reasons for believing that it pertained to a comparatively well-wooded section.
4th. That the people of the section where it was prepared were peaceable, not addicted to war; and were sedentary, supporting themselves chiefly by agricultural products, though relying upon their "gins and traps" and the chase to supply them with animal food. Twelve of the plates (VIII to XIX) are devoted to this latter subject; ten (I* to X*) to the business, festivals, &c., of the apiarists and honey-gatherers; and ten (XXIV to XXXIII) to rains, storms, and agricultural pursuits.
The execution and character of the work itself, as well as its contents, bear testimony to the fact that the people were comparatively well advanced in the arts of civilized life. But there is nothing here to warrant the glowing descriptions of their art and refinement given by some of the earlier as well as more modern writers, nor even to correspond with what might be inferred from the architectural remains in some parts of Yucatan. We find in the work indications of stone and wooden houses, but generally with thatched roofs; at least they always have wooden supports, and are of a temporary character.
The dress of the males appears to have consisted of a strip of cloth (probably cotton), passed once or twice around the loins, with one end hanging down behind and the other in front, or a small flap in front and the ends behind. That of the females consisted of a skirt fastened at the waist and hanging down to the ankles. A kind of broad anklets and wristlets appear also to have been quite common with the better class, but the feet were always bare. The women parted their hair in the middle, that of the matrons or married women not being allowed to hang down, while that of the younger or unmarried ones was allowed to hang in long locks behind.
Mats alone seem to have been used as seats.
The pottery, so far as I can judge by what is shown in the Manuscript (and in this prefatory statement I confine my remarks strictly to what seems to be shown here, unless otherwise expressly stated), was of an inferior grade as to form and decoration, but it is worthy of notice that pots with legs were common.-Some censers in the form of a snake's neck and head are the best specimens represented. In planting their corn (maize) it was dibbled in with a curved stick, five grains to a hill being the established number. While at this work they wore a peculiar head-covering, apparently a kind of matting. The other cultivated plants noticed in the work appear to be cacao, cotton, and a leguminous species, probably a climbing bean, as it is supported by a stake.
I judge, from a number of the figures, that their corn while growing was subject to the attacks of numerous insects (represented as worms or snakes), which ate foliage, ear, and root, and was frequently injured by severe storms, and also that the planted grains were pulled up by birds and a small quadruped. Their crops were also subject to injury by severe droughts, accompanied by great heat.
The production of honey seems to have been a very important industry in the section to which the work relates, but so far I have succeeded in interpreting but few of the figures which refer to it.
Rope-making (or possibly weaving) is represented on Plate XI*—a very simple process, which will be found described in my paper.
Their chief mechanical work, as I judge from this Manuscript, was the manufacture of idols, some being made of clay and others carved of wood Two implements used in making their wooden images appear, from the figures, to have been of metal, one a hatchet, the other sharp-pointed and shaped much like a pair of shears.
Spears and arrows (if such they be, for there is no figure of a bow in the entire work), or darts, are the only implements of warfare shown. The spears or darts seem to have been often thrown by means of a kind of hook, and-guided by a piece of wood with a notch at the end.
5th. The taking of life, apparently of a slave, is indicated in one place, but whether as a sacrificial offering is uncertain. It is evidently not in the manner described by the early writers, as in this case it is by decapitation with a machete or hatchet, the arms being bound behind the back, and what is presumed to be a yoke fixed on the back of the head. This is the only thing in the Manuscript, except holding captives by the hair, as in the Mexican Codices, which can possibly be construed to indicate human sacrifice. In the Dresden Codex human sacrifice in the usual way—by opening the breast—is clearly indicated. 6th. We learn from the figures in the Manuscript that the cross in some of its forms was in use among this people as a religious emblem, and also that the bird was in some cases brought into connection with it, as at Palenque.
7th. In regard to the written characters I have reached the following conclusions:
That, although the movement of the figures is from the right to the left, and the plates should be taken in this way, at least by pairs, yet, as a general rule, the characters are in columns, to be read from the top downwards, columns following each other from left to right; that when they are in lines they are to be read from left to right and by lines from the top downwards, but that lines are used only where it is not convenient to place the characters in columns. The correctness of this conclusion is, I think, susceptible of demonstration by what is found in the Manuscript.
8th. That there is no fixed rule in reference to the arrangement of the parts of compound characters. The few which I have been able to decipher satisfactorily appear to have the parts generally arranged in an order nearly or quite the reverse of that in which the characters themselves are placed.
9th. That the characters, while to a certain extent phonetic, are not true alphabetic signs, but syllabic. Nor will even this definition hold true of them all, as some appear to be ideographic and others simply abbreviated pictorial representations. Most of the characters are compound, and the parts more or less abbreviated, and, as the writing is certainly the work of the priests, we may correctly term it hieratic.
Landa's alphabet, I think, is the result of an attempt on his part to pick out of the compound characters their simple elements, which he erroneously supposed represented letters. The day characters are found in the Manuscript substantially as given by this author, but appear to have been derived from an earlier age, and to have lost in part their original signification. No month characters are found in this work, though common in the Dresden Codex.
10th. That the work (the original, if the one now in existence be a copy) was probably written about the middle or latter half of the fourteenth century. This conclusion is reached first, from internal evidence alone; second, from this, together with historical evidence. The tribe appears to have been at the time in a peaceable, quiet, and comparatively happy condition, which will carry us back to a time preceding the fall of Mayapan, and before the introduction of Aztec soldiers by the Cocomes.
11th. I think we find conclusive evidence in the work that the Ahau or Katun was a period of 24 years, and the great cycle of 312; also, that the series commenced with a Cauac instead of a Kan year, as has been usually supposed.
Lastly, I add that I think Brasseur was right in supposing that this work originated in that section of the peninsula known as Peten.