14 BUREAU OF AMEEICAN ETHNOLOGY I bull. 57 



[the sons] were acceptable." This suggests the possibihty, at least, 

 that primogeniture could sometimes be set aside, particidarly when 

 the first-born lacked the necessary qualifications for leadership. In 

 a somewhat drawn-out statement the same authority discusses the 

 the question of "princely succession" among the Maya: 



If the children were too yoiing to be intrusted with the management of their own 

 affairs, these were turned over to a guardian, the nearest relation. He gave the children 

 to their mothers to bring up, because according to their usage the mother has no power 

 of her own. WTien the guardian was the brother of the deceased [the cliildren's 

 paternal uncle] they take the cliildren from their mother. These guardians give what 

 was intrusted to them to the heirs when they come of age, and not to do so was considered 

 a great dishonesty and was the cause of much contention. . . . If when the lord died 

 there were no sons [ready, i. e., of age] to rule and he had brothers, the oldest or most 

 capable of his brothers ruled, and they [the guardians] showed the heir the customs 

 and fetes of his people until he should be a man, and these brothers, although the heir 

 were [ready] to rule, commanded all their lives, and, if there were no brothers the 

 priests and principal people selected a man suitable for the position.^ 



The foregoing would seem to imply that the rulers were succeeded 

 by their eldest sons if the latter were of age and otherwise generally 

 acceptable; and that, if they were minors when their fathers died, 

 their paternal uncles, if any, or otherwise some capable man selected 

 by the priests, took the reins of government, instructing the heir in 

 the duties of the position which he was to occupy some day; and 

 finally that the regent did not lay down his autliority until death, 

 even though tlie heir liad previously attained his majority. This 

 custom is so unusual that its existence may well be doubted, and it 

 is not at all improbable that Bishop Landa's statement to the con- 

 trary may have arisen from some misapprehension. Primogeniture 

 was not confined to the executive succession alone, since Bishop Landa 

 states further that the higli priest Ahau can mai was succeeded in 

 his dignity by his sons, or those next of kin. 



Nepotism doubtless prevailed extensively, all the higher offices of 

 the priesthood as well as the executive offices being hereditary, and 

 in all probability filled with members of the halach uinic's family.. 



The priests instructed the younger sons of the ruling family as well 

 as their own, in the priestly duties and learning; in the computation of 

 years, months, and days; in unlucky times; in fetes and ceremonies; 

 in the administration of the sacraments; in the practices of prophecy 

 and divination; in treating the sick; in their ancient history; and 

 finally in the art of reading and writing their hieroglyphics, whicli was 

 taught only to those of high degree. Genealogies were carefully 

 preserved, the term meaning "of noble birth" behig ah Imha, "he who 

 has a name. " The elaborate attention given to the subject of lineage, 

 and the exclusive right of the all lala to the benefits of education, 

 show that in the northern part of the ]Maya territory at least govern- 



> Landa, 1864: p. 137, 



