18
At this place, we should not like to omit pointing out an interesting suggestion where the clear headed and sagacious author, Senor Eligio Ancona[1] made in his before mentioned work, that Bishop Landa and the author of the Manuscript agree so often in their mention of historic dates, in the manner as well as the matter, as to lead to the idea that both drew their information from the same source. Whatever be its origin, we agree with the views of Señor Perez, that, in spite of the deficiency and breaks occurring in the Manuscript, it deserves critical attention as the only document thus far discovered that gives information of the early history of Yucatan.
Elements of Maya Chronology.
It is impossible to understand the Manuscript before obtaining a knowledge of the division of time prevalent in Yucatan before the Spanish Conquest. Señor Perez has the incontestable merit of having been the first to lay before the world not only the chief points of the system but also all the technical details. Before his time but little was known of Maya chronology. From the great historic works of Torquemada, Herrera and Cogolludo, we learn only that the Mayas, in conformity with the Mexicans, held that the solar year was composed of 360 days, and when these were passed they added 6 days more as a correction. We are told that both nations divided their years into 18 months, and their months into twenty days each. As to the longer periods of time, however, we hear of certain differences. While the Mexicans had an epoch of
- ↑ Historia de Yucatan, Eligio Ancona, Merida, 1879, Vol. I., page 156. "Landa in Relaçion de las cosas de Yucatan, § viii., also speaks of the tranquillity and good harmony which reigned among the chiefs of those cities, and we notice that concerning the epochs referred to, his report is in accordance, in many details, with that of the anonymous author of the 'Maya Epochs.'"
