2 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 57 



race, their once remarkable civilization is a thing of the past, and its 

 manners and customs are forgotten. 



History 



The ancient Maya, with whom this volume deals, emerged from bar- 

 barism probably during the first or second century of the Christian 

 Era; at least their earliest dated monument can not be ascribed with 

 safety to a more remote period/ How long a time had been required 

 for the development of their complex calendar and hieroglyphic sys- 

 tem to the point of graphic record, it is impossible to say, and any 

 estimate can be only conjectural. It is certain, however, that a long 

 interval must have elapsed from the first crude and unrelated scratches 

 of savagery to the elaborate and involved hieroglyphs found on the 

 earhest monuments, which represent not only the work of highly 

 skilled sculptors, but also the thought of intensively developed minds. 

 That this period was measured by centuries rather than by decades 

 seems probable; the achievement was far too great to have been per- 

 formed in a single generation or even in five or ten. 



It seems safe to assume, therefore, that by the end of the second 

 century of the Christian Era the Maya civilization was fairly on its 

 feet. There then began an extraordinary development all along the 

 line. City after city sprang into prominence throughout the southern 

 part of the Maya territory,^ each contributing its share to the general 

 progress and art of the time. With accomphshment came confidence 

 and a quickening of pace. All activities doubtless shared in the gen- 

 eral upUft which followed, though httle more than the material evi- 

 dences of architecture and sculpture have survived the ravages of the 

 destructive environment in which this culture flourished; and it is 

 chiefly from these remnants of ancient ^laya art that the record of 

 progress has been partially reconstructed. 



This period of development, which lasted upward of 400 years, 

 or until about the close of the sixth century, may be called per- 



1 The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology herein followed is that suggested by the writer in 

 "The Correlation of Maya and Christian Chronology" {Papers of the School of American Archxology, No. 11). 

 See Morley, 1910 b, cited in Bibliography, pp. xv, xvi. There are at least six other systems of correla- 

 tion, however, on which the student must pass judgment. Although no two of these agree, all are based 

 on data derived from the same source, namely, the Books of Chilan Balam (see p. 3, footnote 1). The 

 differences among them ar€ due to the varj'ing interpretations of the material therein presented. Some 

 of the systems of correlation which have been proposed, besides that of the writer, are: 



1. That of Mr. C. P. Bowditch (1901 a), found in his pamphlet entitled "Memoranda on the Maya Calen- 

 dars used in The Books of Chilan Balam." 



2. That of Prof. Eduard Seler (1902-1908: i, pp. 588-599). See also Bulletin 2S, p. 330. 



3. That of Mr. J. T. Goodman (1905). 



4. That of Pio Perez, in Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Yucatan (1843: i, pp. 434-459; n, pp. 465-469) 

 and in Landa, 1804: pp. 366-429. 



As before noted, these correlations differ greatly from one another, Professor Seler assigning the most 

 remote dates to the southern cities and Mr. Goodman the most recent. The correlations of Mr. Bowditch 

 and the writer are within 260 years of each other. Before accepting any one of the systems of con-elation 

 above mentioned, the student is strongly urged to e.xamine with care The Books of Chilan Balam. 



2 It is probable that at this early date Yucatan had not been discovered, or at least not colonized. 



