Part 13 (1/2)
Such was its political condition at the time of the discovery. There were numerous populous cities, well built of stone and mortar, but their inhabitants were at war with each other and devoid of unity of purpose.[1]
Hence they fell a comparatively easy prey to the conquistadors.
[Footnote 1: Francisco de Montejo, who was the first to explore Yucatan (1528), has left strong testimony to the majesty of its cities and the agricultural industry of its inhabitants. He writes to the King, in the report of his expedition: ”La tierra es muy poblada y de muy grandes ciudades y villas muy frescas. Todos los pueblos son una huerta de frutales.” _Carta a su Magestad, 13 Abril, 1529_, in the _Coleccion de Doc.u.mentos Ineditos del Archivo de Indias_, Tom. xiii.]
Whence came this civilization? Was it an offshoot of that of the Aztecs?
Or did it produce the latter?
These interesting questions I cannot discuss in full at this time. All that concerns my present purpose is to treat of them so far as they are connected with the mythology of the race. Incidentally, however, this will throw some light on these obscure points, and at any rate enable us to dismiss certain prevalent a.s.sumptions as erroneous.
One of these is the notion that the Toltecs were the originators of Yucatan culture. I hope I have said enough in the previous chapter to exorcise permanently from ancient American history these purely imaginary beings. They have served long enough as the last refuge of ignorance.
Let us rather ask what accounts the Mayas themselves gave of the origin of their arts and their ancestors.
Most unfortunately very meagre sources of information are open to us. We have no Sahagun to report to us the traditions and prayers of this strange people. Only fragments of their legends and hints of their history have been saved, almost by accident, from the general wreck of their civilization. From these, however, it is possible to piece together enough to give us a glimpse of their original form, and we shall find it not unlike those we have already reviewed.
There appear to have been two distinct cycles of myths in Yucatan, the most ancient and general that relating to Itzamna, the second, of later date and different origin, referring to Kukulcan. It is barely possible that these may be different versions of the same; but certainly they were regarded as distinct by the natives at and long before the time of the Conquest.
This is seen in the account they gave of their origin. They did not pretend to be autochthonous, but claimed that their ancestors came from distant regions, in two bands. The largest and most ancient immigration was from the East, across, or rather through, the ocean--for the G.o.ds had opened twelve paths through it--and this was conducted by the mythical civilizer Itzamna. The second band, less in number and later in time, came in from the West, and with them was Kukulcan. The former was called the Great Arrival; the latter, the Less Arrival[1].
[Footnote 1: Cogolludo contradicts himself in describing these events; saying first that the greater band came from the West, but later in the same chapter corrects himself, and criticizes Father Lizana for having committed the same error. Cogolludo's authority was the original MSS. of Gaspar Antonio, an educated native, of royal lineage, who wrote in 1582.
_Historia de Yucatan_, Lib. iv, caps, iii, iv. Lizana gives the names of these arrivals as _Nohnial_ and _Cenial_. These words are badly mutilated.
They should read _noh emel_ (_noh_, great, _emel_, descent, arrival) and _cec, emel_ (_cec_, small). Landa supports the position of Cogolludo.
_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p. 28. It is he who speaks of the ”doce caminos por el mar.”]
--1. _The Culture Hero, Itzamna._
To this ancient leader, Itzamna, the nation alluded as their guide, instructor and civilizer. It was he who gave names to all the rivers and divisions of land; he was their first priest, and taught them the proper rites wherewith to please the G.o.ds and appease their ill-will; he was the patron of the healers and diviners, and had disclosed to them the mysterious virtues of plants; in the month _Uo_ they a.s.sembled and made new fire and burned to him incense, and having cleansed their books with water drawn from a fountain from which no woman had ever drunk, the most learned of the sages opened the volumes to forecast the character of the coming year.
It was Itzamna who first invented the characters or letters in which the Mayas wrote their numerous books, and which they carved in such profusion on the stone and wood of their edifices. He also devised their calendar, one more perfect even than that of the Mexicans, though in a general way similar to it[1].
[Footnote 1: The authorities on this phase of Itzamna's character are Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, Lib. iv, cap. iii; Landa, _Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 285, 289, and Beltran de Santa Rosa Maria, _Arte del Idioma Maya_, p. 16. The latter has a particularly valuable extract from the now lost Maya Dictionary of F. Gabriel de San Buenaventura. ”El primero que hallo las letras de la lengua Maya e hizo el computo de los anos, meses y edades, y lo enseno todo a los Indios de esta Provincia, fue un Indio llamado Kinchahau, y por otro nombre Tzamna. Noticia que debemos a dicho R.F. Gabriel, y trae en su Calepino, lit. K. verb. Kinchahau, fol. 390, vuelt.”]
As city-builder and king, his history is intimately a.s.sociated with the n.o.ble edifices of Itzamal, which he laid out and constructed, and over which he ruled, enacting wise laws and extending the power and happiness of his people for an indefinite period.
Thus Itzamna, regarded as ruler, priest and teacher, was, no doubt, spoken of as an historical personage, and is so put down by various historians, even to the most recent[1]. But another form in which he appears proves him to have been an incarnation of deity, and carries his history from earth to heaven. This is shown in the very earliest account we have of the Maya mythology.
[Footnote 1: Crescencio Carrillo, _Historia Antigua de Yucatan_, p. 144, Merida, 1881. Though obliged to differ on many points with this indefatigable archaeologist, I must not omit to state my appreciation and respect for his earnest interest in the language and antiquities of his country. I know of no other Yucatecan who has equal enthusiasm or so just an estimate of the antiquarian riches of his native land.]
For this account we are indebted to the celebrated Las Casas, the ”Apostle of the Indians.” In 1545 he sent a certain priest, Francisco Hernandez by name, into the peninsula as a missionary. Hernandez had already traversed it as chaplain to Montejo's expedition, in 1528, and was to some degree familiar with the Maya tongue. After nearly a year spent among the natives he forwarded a report to Las Casas, in which, among other matters, he noted a resemblance which seemed to exist between the myths recounted by the Maya priests and the Christian dogmas. They told him that the highest deity they wors.h.i.+ped was Izona, who had made men and all things. To him was born a son, named Bacab or Bacabab, by a virgin, Chibilias, whose mother was Ixchel. Bacab was slain by a certain Eopuco, on the day called _hemix_, but after three days rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
The Holy Ghost was represented by Echuac, who furnished the world with all things necessary to man's life and comfort. Asked what Bacab meant, they replied, ”the Son of the Great Father,” and Echuac they translated by ”the merchant.”[1]
[Footnote 1: Las Casas, _Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap. cxxiii.]
This is the story that a modern writer says, ”ought to be repudiated without question.”[1] But I think not. It is not difficult to restore these names to their correct forms, and then the fancied resemblance to Christian theology disappears, while the character of the original myth becomes apparent.
[Footnote 1: John T. Short, _The North Americans of Antiquity_, p. 231.]
Cogolludo long since justly construed _Izona_ as a misreading for _Izamna_. _Bacabab_ is the plural form of _Bacab_, and shows that the sons were several. We are well acquainted with the Bacabab. Bishop Landa tells us all about them. They were four in number, four gigantic brothers, who supported the four corners of the heavens, who blew the four winds from the four cardinal points, and who presided over the four Dominical signs of the Calendar. As each year in the Calendar was supposed to be under the influence of one or the other of these brothers, one Bacab was said to die at the close of the year; and after the ”nameless” or intercalary days had pa.s.sed the next Bacab would live; and as each computation of the year began on the day _Imix_, which was the third before the close of the Maya week, this was said figuratively to be the day of death of the Bacab of that year. And whereas three (or four) days later a new year began, with another Bacab, the one was said to have died and risen again.