Chapter I

.

[Footnote 1: Mr. Bowditch (1901, p. 137) says that the earliest date at Quirigua is that on Stela C: 9.1.0.0.0. and that the latest is that on Stela K: 9.18.15.0.0. According to his reckoning these dates correspond approximately to 75 B.C. and 275 A.D. respectively. Mr. Bowditch informs us that other cities in the south show similar dates, and at the same time he points out that it is possible that these cities were occupied beyond the latest dates shown on the stelae. We see, then, that the difference between Mr. Bowditch's computation and that of Mr. Morley rests solely in this: according to Mr. Bowditch the Golden Age or Old Empire had its beginnings as far back as 75 B.C.; Mr. Morley, on the other hand, believes that up to 200 A.D. there was a wholly indefinite Migratory period which led up to the Golden Age and to the Colonization period (that is, to 700 A.D.). From 700 onward the two systems are the same. Whatever divergence exists between Mr. Bowditch and Mr. Morley on the subject of chronology concerns only the Golden Age or Old Empire cities.]

[Footnote 2: Nakum was first studied scientifically by Count Maurice de Perigny (1908). Its importance is exceeded, however, by that of Tikal, which, in addition to being very near Lake Peten, is now well known. Descriptions of this elaborate group of ruins are to be found in Charnay (1887), Maudslay (1883), and in other earlier writers. The most satisfactory work on Tikal is that of Maler and Tozzer (1911). In both Nakum and Tikal the buildings are excellent examples of Old Empire construction, having massive substructures, towering superstructures, and a mass of intricate ornamentation. The dates at Tikal range from 9.2.13.0.0. to 9.15.13.0.0. (about 210-480 A.D.).]

[Footnote 3: This documentary history is based on the Books of Chilan Balam. Daniel G. Brinton's translations as given in his Maya Chronicles have been used. For bibliographical purposes the reader is referred to Tozzer, 1917.]

[Footnote 4: Although the terms Maya and Itza are used more or less interchangeably, it is to be noted that there is authority for believing them to mean two separate races. Ancona (1878, vol. i, p. 31 ff.) says that the Itzas were the earlier inhabitants of Yucatan. He adds that they worshiped Itzamna and founded Itzamal, Tihoo, and Chichen Itza. The Maya, on the other hand, worshiped Kukulkan, were enemies of the Itzas, and were the founders of Mayapan, Uxmal, and other cities. This distinction, though a fine one and hard to prove correct, deserves to be noted.]

[Footnote 5: This name, Cocom, will be brought to our attention later on, and it will be advisable for us to compare now the exceedingly confusing accounts of what the Cocom family was.

Brinton (1882, p. 165), in his introduction to the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, says: "We have no longer to do with the reckoning of the subjects of the Xiu family who ruled at Mani, but with one which emanates from the priests of the Cocomes, who were hereditary masters of Chichen Itza."

According to the Chronicle of Chac Xulub Chac, by Nahau Pech, there was a king named Ixcuat Cocom of Ake, who led the people of Chichen Itza from that place very late in their history, about eight years before the Spaniards touched at Campeche in 1516. (Brinton, 1882, p. 218.)

The Katunes of Maya History (Valentini, 1880, pp. 54, 86) say that "In the 8th Ahau the Governor of Chichen Itza was deposed because he murmured disrespectfully of Hunac-eel." The 8th Ahau would be about 1422-1444.

Brasseur de Bourbourg (1858, vol. ii, p. 35) says that the Cocomes were the kings of Mayapan and that as they became more and more tyrannical so did the Tutul Xiu of Uxmal become more and more the champions of the people. He suggests that Hunac-eel was a Cocom, and he also speaks of the Lord of Chichen as being quite distinct from the Cocomes. Brasseur (cf. Lizana, 1893, p. 3) continues his account by saying that Chac Xib Chac, who was then reigning in Chichen, likewise became indignant at the cruelty of Hunac-eel (or Cocom). As a result of this seven Nahua chiefs were sent by Hunac-eel against Chac Xib Chac, whom they vanquished. With his power thus seemingly assured, Hunac-eel set about oppressing his Mexican allies, who appealed for help to the Tutul Xiu of Uxmal, with the result that the dynasty of Cocom was ruined (about 1440). One child of the last King of Mayapan, however, was absent at Xicalanco, and he lived to set up a new Cocom kingdom at Tibulon or Sotuta.

Molina Solis says (1896, p. li): "After the time of Hunac-eel, the Cocomes, descendants of an ancient and rich house of the Itzaes, one of whose members had made himself known as a man of valor in the last war, began to rule as lords of Mayapan. The Cocomes continued the policy of their predecessor...." According to this writer it was the Cocomes who called in the people from Mexico, in spite of whom they were overthrown. The only survivors of the massacre of the family were a young son of the last king (as has been said) and a distant relative named Cocom Cat, who escaped to the town of Tiab. Molina's authority for this statement is the Relacion of Juan Bote, which he quotes (p. liii). After these events the Mexican mercenaries seized the province of Canul or Ahcanul. (Landa, 1864, p. 55.) The Cheles founded a religious state at Izamal; the Cocomes withdrew to Sotuta and the Xius to Mani. All this is accepted in the main by modern writers. (Tozzer, 1907, p. 9; Falies, 1915, vol. i, p. 247 ff.)

To summarize, we may say that the Cocomes were the lords of either Mayapan or Chichen Itza, though it is more likely they were identified with the former. They became too ambitious and powerful to please the Tutul Xiu of Uxmal and the ruler of Chichen; they called in Mexican mercenaries about 1200, and from then until about 1440 they became increasingly more arrogant until, in the latter year, the Xiu and other people who had been wronged completely destroyed the city of Mayapan, so that only two or three members of the ruling family escaped destruction. We have now reached the crux of this whole discussion. The three possible surviving Cocomes were; (1) the son of the last lord of Mayapan; (2) the Cocom Cat, who, according to Molina (quoting an old Relacion), fled southward to Tiab at about that period; and (3) King Ixcuat Cocom of Ake, who, according to Nahau Pech, also went southward, about 1508 more or less.

There is a distinct possibility that Cocom Cat may eventually have got to Tayasal. It is likewise entirely possible to believe that from him descended that Cocom who, with Ahchatappol and Ahauppuc, came out from Tayasal to meet Padres Fuensalida and Orbita in 1618. (Villagutierre, p. 116.) Sapper (1904, p. 625) tells that a Juan Pablo Cocom became the leader of an insurrection at Bacalar in May, 1848.]

[Footnote 6: Seler (1908, p. 157 ff.) says that the Casa de las Monjas, the Akat tz'ib, and the Casa Colorada all belong to this period and that they are to be associated with the various buildings at Uxmal, Kabah, Labna, and elsewhere. Rain-god masks are a striking characteristic of the architecture of this period.]

##