The few items of information respecting the Votanic period not already mentioned, some of them not in themselves improbable, but few traceable to any very definite native source, are the following: The date of the foundation of the empire, according to Ordoñez, was about 1000 B.C. Whether he had any other reason for this supposition than his theory that the building of Solomon's temple, attributed by some writers to that period, took place during Votan's life, is uncertain. The name Tzequiles, applied to Votan's followers by the aborigines, – or rather, it would seem, by the first to the second division of the Serpents – is said to mean in Tzendal 'men with petticoats,' and to have been applied to the new-comers by reason of their peculiar dress.286 To them was given, after the permanent establishment of the empire, one of the great kingdoms into which it was divided, with Tulan as their capital city. This kingdom with two others, whose capitals were Mayapan in Yucatan and Chiquimula, possibly Copan, in Honduras, were allied with, yet to a certain degree subordinate to, the original empire whose capital was Nachan, built and ruled by Votan himself and his descendants. The only names which seem to have been applied in the Tzendal traditions to the people and their capital city were Chanes, or Serpents, and Nachan, or City of Serpents; but these names acquire considerable historical importance when it is noted that they are the exact equivalents of Culhuas and Culhuacan, names which will be found so exasperatingly prevalent in the Nahua traditions of the north. Ordoñez claims, however, that the name Quiché, at a later period that of a Guatemalan kingdom, was also in these earlier times applied to Votan's empire.287
Of Votan's death there is no tradition, nor is anything definite reported of his successors, save, what is perhaps only a conjecture, that their names are recorded in the Tzendal calendar as the names of days,288 the order being that of their succession. In this case it is necessary to suppose that Votan had two predecessors, Igh and Imox; and in fact Brasseur claims to find in one document a statement that Igh brought the first colony to America.289 Chinax, the last but two of the line, a great soldier, is said to have been put to death by a rival of another nation.290 Nuñez de la Vega notes the existence of a family of Votans in his time, claiming direct descent from the great founder; and Brasseur states that a wild tribe of the region are yet known as Chanes.291
Such are the vague memories of the Chiapan past so far as they were preserved by the natives of the region, and collected by Europeans. The nature of the traditions themselves, the sources whence they sprang, the medium through which they are given to us, are not such as to inspire great confidence in the accuracy of the details related, although some of the traditions are not improbable and were very likely founded on actual occurrences. But whatever value may be attached to their details, the traditions in question have great weight in establishing two general propositions – the existence in the remote past of a great and powerful empire in the Usumacinta region, and a general belief among the subjects of that empire that the beginning of their greatness was due to a hero or demi-god called Votan. They point clearly to the appearance and growth of a great race, nation, or dynasty; and they carry us no farther. Respecting the questions who or what was Votan, man or mythic creation, populator, colonizer, civilizer, missionary, conqueror, foreign or native born? When, how, and whence did he come to the central tierra caliente? Who were the people among whom he wrought his mighty deeds, and what was their past history? we are left to simple conjecture, – conjecture of a class which falls without the limits of my present purpose, and to which the first chapter of this volume has been devoted. Doubtless the Votanic was not the first period of American civilization and power, but none earlier is known to us. In addition to the Tzendal traditions there are several other authorities bearing more or less directly on this primitive empire, which I proceed to investigate.
In the second volume of this work I have described the physique, character, manners and customs, arts, and institutions of the civilized nations of our territory, dividing them into two great families or groups, the Mayas and the Nahuas, "the former the more ancient, the latter the more recent and wide-spread." The many contrasts observed between the institutions of the northern and southern nations seemed sufficiently marked to outweigh the frequently recurring resemblances, and to justify me in the opinion there expressed that their culture had either been distinct from the beginning, or – what is more probable and for my purpose practically the same thing – that it had progressed in different paths for a long time previous to the coming of the Spaniards. The contrasts observed were attributed to a distinct origin of the two national groups, or, with more probability, to their long separation; while the analogies were to be referred either to unity of origin, to the tendency of humanity to like development under like circumstances, to frequent communication and friction by commerce or war, or still better, to the influence of all these causes combined.
The picture presented in the third volume of the myths and languages of the same nations favored the view previously taken. In the religious fancies, divinities, forms of worship, ideas of a future state, physical, animal, and creation myths, to which the first part of the volume was devoted, the analogies, it is true, seemed somewhat stronger and the contrasts less striking than in the characteristics previously portrayed; this was perhaps because the myths of any people point farther back into their past than do the so-called manners and customs; but in the consideration of languages which followed, the contrasts between the two groups came out more distinctly marked than at any previous stage of the investigation. A very large proportion of the tongues of the civilized nations were found to belong more or less closely to one or the other of two linguistic families. Finally, in the fourth volume a study of material relics tended very strongly to confirm the opinion before arrived at respecting the development of Maya and Nahua culture in distinct channels, at least during the historic period. I need not repeat here even en résumé the facts exhibited in the preceding volumes, nor the lessons that have at different points been drawn from them; but I may briefly mention some general conclusions founded on the preceding matter which bear on my present purpose of historical investigation. First, as already stated, the Maya and Nahua nations have been within traditionally historic times practically distinct, although coming constantly in contact. Second, this fact is directly opposed to the once accepted theory of a civilized people, coming from the far north, gradually moving southward with frequent halts, constantly increasing in power and culture, until the highest point of civilization was reached in Chiapas, Honduras, and Yucatan, or as many believed in South America. Third, the theory alluded to is rendered altogether untenable by the want of ruins in California and the great north-west; by the utter want of resemblance between New Mexican and Mexican monuments; by the failure to discover either Aztec or Maya dialects in the north; and finally by the strong contrasts between the Nahuas and Mayas, both in language and in monuments of antiquity. Fourth, the monuments of the south are not only different from but much more ancient than those of Anáhuac, and cannot possibly have been built by the Toltecs after their migration from Anáhuac in the eleventh century, even if such a migration took place. Fifth, these monuments, like those of the north, were built by the ancestors of the people found in possession of the country at the Conquest, and not by an extinct race or in remote antiquity.292 Sixth, the cities of Palenque, Ococingo, and Copan, at least, were unoccupied when the Spaniards came; the natives of the neighboring region knew nothing of their origin even if they were aware of their existence, and no notice whatever of the existence of such cities appears in the annals of the surrounding civilized nations during the eight or nine centuries preceding the Conquest; that is, the nation that built Palenque was not one of those found by Europeans in the country, but its greatness had practically departed before the rise of the Quiché, Cakchiquel, and Yucatan powers. Seventh, the many resemblances that have been noted between Nahua and Maya beliefs, institutions, arts, and relics, may be consistently accounted for by the theory that at some period long preceding the sixth century the two peoples were practically one so far as their institutions were concerned, although they are of themselves not sufficient to prove the theory. Eighth, the oldest civilization in America