History of the Spanish Conquest of Yucatan and of the Itzas Part 1

History of the Spanish Conquest of Yucatan and of the Itzas.

by Philip Ainsworth Means.

NOTE

This Paper is the result of work carried on by Mr. Means as a graduate student in the Division of Anthropology during the years 1915-1917. It consists mainly of translations of early Spanish books and ma.n.u.scripts.

It is gratifying to note that this is the first publication by the Museum based upon the large collection of photographic reproductions of early ma.n.u.scripts from Mexico and Central America brought together by Professor W. E. Gates of Point Loma, California, and presented to the Museum by Mr. Charles P. Bowditch. Among these ma.n.u.scripts is Avendano's account of his journey to Peten, the greater part of which is included in the present paper. The original of this ma.n.u.script is in the British Museum. Cano's account of a trip to Guatemala is also given here. This ma.n.u.script is in the Brinton Collection at the University of Pennsylvania. It is through the kindness of Dr. George B. Gordon, Director of that Museum, and of Miss Adela C. Breton, who copied the ma.n.u.script, that it is possible to publish it at this time. The Avendano and the Cano ma.n.u.scripts were translated by Mr. Bowditch and Senor G. Rivera.

CHARLES C. WILLOUGHBY _Director_

INTRODUCTION

In the library of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University there is an invaluable collection of photographs of old ma.n.u.scripts relating to Middle America. These photographs, made by Professor William E. Gates of Point Loma, California, were given to the Peabody Museum by Charles P. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston. One of the volumes contains a photographic reproduction of an original ma.n.u.script ent.i.tled _Relacion de las dos Entradas que hize a Peten Ytza_. The author, Fray Andres de Avendano y Loyola, of the Order of Saint Francis, will receive much of our attention later. Fortunately Mr. Bowditch and Sr. Guillermo Rivera have deciphered and translated the crabbed old text, so that we have at hand an account of the subjection of the Itzas of Tayasal, or Peten Itza, which is not only invaluable as being the work of an eyewitness of that subjection, but which also is filled with a rare charm. It was largely with a view to bringing this old ma.n.u.script to the attention of students that Mr. Bowditch and Dr. Tozzer asked me to work it up into a study of the Itzas of Tayasal. At the same time we must not neglect to notice here the translation, made by Mr. Bowditch and Sr. Rivera, of another inedited work on the same subject. I refer to the account by Fray Alonso Cano, which will be of great use to us later.

Though Avendano and Cano are, so to speak, the prime reasons for the writing of this study, they have been supplemented in no inconsiderable degree by two other early Spanish writers on the history of Yucatan and its people, Diego Cogolludo and Juan de Villagutierre y Sotomayor. A few comments on the works of these two authors will later prove useful to the reader.

Though Villagutierre's Spanish style is far superior to that of such writers as Fernando Montesinos and Antonio de la Calancha, it is, nevertheless, atrocious. Although he wrote about 1700, Villagutierre's style is excessively archaic; his grammatical construction can hardly be called construction at all, so formless and ambiguous is it.

Villagutierre never hesitates to write several long sentences without a single main verb between them, nor does he often refrain from going on and on for a page or so without using a period. In the use of capitals he is most whimsical; usually he has them when they are called for, but he has many that are out of place as well.

The style of Cogolludo, on the other hand, is very good, and that, be it noted, despite the fact that Cogolludo wrote prior to 1688. One remarks with considerable surprise that in several cases Villagutierre and Cogolludo use almost the same words. For example, in speaking of the visit which Cortes made to the island of Tayasal, Cogolludo says: "... _y aun la ida de Cortes se tuvo por ossadia, y demasiada confianza...._" Villagutierre, in the same connection says: "... _que lo tenian a grandissima temeridad, y ossadia, y por demasiada confianza...._" This is an interesting point, and perhaps it is significant that Cogolludo's book was published in 1688, whereas that of Villagutierre was not brought out until 1701. It is to be noted that Cogolludo, the earlier writer, uses only two epithets, and that Villagutierre, the later writer, uses the same two, plus a new one of his own. I know of two other cases where equally close and significant similarity exists between the two. It is possible, then, that Villagutierre copied (not to say plagiarized) the work of Cogolludo without giving credit for it. But the important point for us in this matter does not concern the personal integrity of Villagutierre. Rather does the importance of the matter lie in this: if Villagutierre was acquainted with the history of Yucatan by Cogolludo to such a degree that he frequently borrowed whole phrases from it, he must have had a very good reason for diverging widely now and again from the version of events given by Cogolludo. Such a reason could only be supplied by the fact that Villagutierre possessed information which he regarded as superior to and more official than that of Cogolludo. Therefore, since in several instances (as in his account of the events leading up to the visit of Cortes to Tayasal) Villagutierre occasionally departs from the footsteps of Cogolludo, we may safely a.s.sume that he was at once more critical and better informed than the latter, whom, however, he valued enough to be willing to draw from his work much of his information and even some of his phraseology.

The virtues and defects of Avendano and of Cano are less subtle; so much so, indeed, that it would be absurd to attempt a criticism of them here. The reader will have ample opportunity to see their qualities for himself in the body of the book.

A word as to the method adopted in translating is in order. In the various pa.s.sages taken from Cogolludo and Villagutierre I have preserved the spelling and capitalization of proper names that appear in the text. All pa.s.sages from Avendano and Cano are from the translations made by Mr. Bowditch and Sr. Rivera.

All the other works used are so well known that comment on them is superfluous.

Finally, I wish to express my grat.i.tude to Mr. Bowditch and to Dr.

Tozzer, both of whom have spent much time and thought in going over the ma.n.u.script of this work. Among the others who have shown me kindness and courtesy during the preparation of this study are Mr. Putnam of the Library of Congress; Dr. George Byron Gordon of the University Museum, Philadelphia; Professor Holmes of the United States National Museum; Dr. Edward Luther Stevenson of the Hispanic Society of America, New York; and, lastly, my mother, Mrs. James Means. These and others have generously given me much of their time and information.

PHILIP AINSWORTH MEANS

February 23, 1917

CHAPTER I

THE PRECOLUMBIAN HISTORY OF THE MAYAS AND OF THE ITZAS, 1445

In general it may be said that the Maya culture occupied the peninsula of Yucatan, portions of the states of Tabasco and Chiapas in Mexico, Guatemala, and the northern part of Honduras. That branch of the Mayas who called themselves the Itzas and who form the chief subject of this work occupied the southern portion of Yucatan and the greater part of what is now the Department of Peten in Guatemala.

A few decades ago it was the fas.h.i.+on to credit the aboriginal peoples of America with a civilization of enormous antiquity. But the whole trend of modern scientific investigation tends to prove that the American continent was one of the last parts of the world to be settled and that, at the time of the Spanish conquest, the aboriginal cultures were certainly not more than three thousand or so years old. Even this estimate should be understood to include centuries of migratory s.h.i.+ftings and centuries of development along lines which eventually led to the erection of the earlier types of high culture in Middle and South America. Roughly speaking, the time of Christ coincides with the period at which the earliest high cultures in this hemisphere began to flourish.

For the sake of convenience we shall follow the chronology suggested by Mr. Morley (1915) and divide the pre-Columbian history of the Maya race into eight periods. The first seven of these periods we shall discuss briefly in this opening chapter; the eighth will furnish the subject matter for the remainder of the book. The dates given should be regarded as merely approximate.

APPROXIMATE DATES PERIODS PERIODS A.D.

I Migratory period ?-200 II Golden Age or Old Empire 200-600 III Colonization period 450-700 IV Transitional period 700-1000 V Renaissance or League period 1000-1200 VI The period of the Toltec mercenaries 1200-1450 VII Disintegration 1450-1541 VIII Period of wars with Spain 1519-1697

Before taking up our review of the first seven periods we must remind ourselves that the prehistoric cultures of Middle America have a certain unity, showing beyond doubt that they were all of a common origin. It is impossible to tell at what epoch the Maya became separate and distinct from the other highly cultured peoples scattered over Mexico and Central America. Fortunately, however, owing to the investigations in the Valley of Mexico, we have abundant material for the reconstruction of the sequence of cultures. Three successive strata of occupation have been found in the Valley of Mexico. The earliest of these, the Archaic, is also found in many other places throughout Mexico and Central America. There is some reason to suppose that this culture was at one time fairly uniform throughout the greater part of Middle America. The local developments seen in the Maya, the Zapotec, and the early Mexican cultures may have been the result of modifications of the Archaic culture. Above this Archaic stratum in the Valley of Mexico is found the Toltec or Teotihuacan culture. This is synchronous with late Maya of the sixth period on our table.

Manifestations of its art are found in the latest buildings at Chichen Itza.

I. Migratory Period (?-200 A.D.). The two earliest dated Maya inscriptions that we have are those on the Tuxtla statuette and on the Leyden plate. (Morley, 1915, p. 194 ff.; Holmes, 1916.) The former is dated, in the Maya system of chronology, 8.6.2.4.17. (about 100 B.C.); the date on the latter is 8.14.3.1.12. (about 50 A.D.).[1] Although, as Mr. Morley points out, these are the earliest dates we know of from the Maya area, it is to be noted that they do not differ essentially from the more recent inscriptions. They ought, therefore, to be regarded as introductory to the historic period, and it may be a.s.sumed that they were themselves preceded by many decades of development during which the first attempts at writing were gradually elaborated until the extremely complex Maya hieroglyphics were evolved in the form in which we know them.

II. The Golden Age or Old Empire of the Maya (200-600 A.D.). This period extended, roughly, from 9.2.10.0.0. (210) to 10.2.0.0.0. (600).

In this time many cities rose, flourished, and fell. Of these Palenque, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, Tikal, Seibal, Quirigua, Copan, and Nak.u.m are some of the more important. Like Seibal on the east and Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan on the west, Tikal and Nak.u.m were not far from the Peten region to which our attention will be chiefly directed.[2]

Indeed, Lake Peten lies in what is almost the geographical center of the area formerly occupied by the Old Empire. It is significant, therefore, that Mr. Morley has found at the modern town of Flores (in Lake Peten) two stelae dated approximately 10.1.0.0.0. and 10.2.0.0.0.

(580 and 600).

The various elaborate architectural features of the Old Empire cities have been fully examined by many writers, and it is, therefore, needless for us to speak of them except in the most general terms. One predominating feature of all the ruins is the excessive use of ornamentation. Because the country was devoid of any great natural elevations which would give an effective setting for their buildings, the people often used substructures of varying heights and superstructures of several sorts. If one may judge from the sculptures left by the inhabitants of the early cities, their life was mainly taken up with an extremely involved ritualistic religion which, in the hands of a priestly body, was at once the means by which they were ruled and the outlet for the artistic gifts which they undeniably had.

Very probably the over-elaborate religion was responsible for the tremendous ma.s.s of detail to be seen in so many of the ruined cities.

So great was the eagerness for s.p.a.ce upon which to crowd ornamentation that an architectural feature which served no purpose other than that of affording more ample s.p.a.ce for decoration was evolved. The roof-comb is found in a high degree of development at Yaxchilan and elsewhere.

(Spinden, 1913, p. 112, fig. 148.) Sometimes, as at Tikal, this c.u.mbersome construction was carried to such lengths that the area covered by walls was out of all natural proportion to that covered by rooms.

One can only conjecture what brought about the downfall of these ancient cities in which a very advanced culture once flourished. It is not impossible that the priesthood became so oppressive that an emigration took place; or, owing to a lack of proper agricultural knowledge, the fields probably became spent so that the people were forced to seek new homes; possibly also there was some sort of an invasion from the west or east. Any one or all of these causes may have brought about the succeeding period, one which lies within and at the end of the Golden Age.

III. The Colonization Period (450-700 A.D.). This period is chiefly notable for us because it marks the beginning of doc.u.mentary history and because the Itzas are first specifically mentioned in connection with it.[3]

About 450 Ziyan Caan or Bakhalal was built, to be occupied only some sixty years. (Spinden, 1913, Table 2; Brinton, 1882, Chr. I.) According to Chronicle V the use of the name Itza dates from the founding of Chichen Itza, an event which took place about 510.[4] At this time there also occurred important changes in the calendar system, an event symbolized in the Chronicles by the phrase "Pop was set in order."

There is, then, in this period of colonization, a well-defined migration northward. The ancient cities in the south did not die out at once, and we may suppose that the sixth century of our era was a time of great cultural activity. It is interesting to know that the old Maya culture and the Tiahuanaco culture (the two greatest American civilizations) were probably in part at least contemporaries. (Cf.

Means, 1917.)

The Chronicles are vague and divergent on the question of how long the first occupation of Chichen Itza lasted. Chronicle I says 120 years; Chronicle II says 200; Chronicle III says 240. As two of the three important Chronicles place the length of occupation at 200 years or more, we may a.s.sume that it lasted from about 500 to 700 of our era.

To this period we may confidently attribute some of the structures at Chichen. It has been shown that the Casa de Monjas at Chichen underwent several periods of construction. It is what Mr. Thompson has called "Old Chichen," however, that is most surely a.s.sociated with the period we are now discussing. In that portion of the ruins Mr. Thompson found a lintel dated 10.2.9.1.9. (about 610). As the building in which the lintel was found is one of a group that is quite distinct from the rest of the ruins, it may be believed that they all date from the first occupation.

We have, of course, no satisfactory data from which to derive an opinion as to the territorial expansion of the kingdom ruled from Old Chichen (if, indeed, it was ruled from there). Spinden (1913, p. 201), however, has found ample reason for believing that Xcalumkin, Xlabpak, Sayil, Kabah, and Tabi were flouris.h.i.+ng at this period. Briefly, the presence of a modified form of the "manikin scepter" and of the stela (both characteristic of the ancient cities) convinces him that all these places were erected before the influence of the Old Empire cities had died out.

IV. Transitional Period (700-1000 A.D.). The Maya-Itza stock now reentered upon their migrations. They moved, about 700, to Chakanputum, where they stayed until about 950. The Chronicles all agree as to the length of time the Itzas were at Chakanputum. Of this site we know little beyond the fact that Cortes, when he visited it in 1519, found a large village there.

Just before the Itzas left Champoton, or perhaps just after, Uxmal was founded by Ahcuitok Tutul Xiu, who, according to the tradition, probably came from the west. The lords of this city were destined to have an important part to play in the history of the Itzas. About the year 1000 the cities of Uxmal, Chichen, and Mayapan formed a confederation which has been called the League of Mayapan. After three or four hundred years of unrest after the disintegration of the Old Empire a New Empire was about to begin its career.

V. Renaissance or League Period (1000-1200 A.D.). In the Golden Age or Old Empire the civilization of the Maya race had centered about Lake Peten, in the extreme south of the peninsula of Yucatan. In the time of the New Empire the old cities in the south were gradually forgotten and new ones, quite as remarkable, sprang up in the northern portion of the peninsula. Three cities probably shared the sovereign power, forming, by their alliance, the celebrated League of Mayapan. These cities were Uxmal, ruled by the Xiu family, Mayapan, possibly ruled by the Cocom[5]