Introduction

The Cuceb¹ is one of the most interesting narratives found in the Chilam Balam books, but it is also one of the most difficult texts to interpret. On one hand, it describes a war between cavalcade gods and monsters. Meanwhile, it likewise describes the cycles of the tun, haab, and katun as well as the days themselves (which embody time) as a journey in the sky, on earth, and across the Underworld, during which individuals and communities (Itza) generally suffer from diseases, wars, starvation, and thirst. Throughout this text, each sentence contains dense metaphors that sometimes can be interpreted correctly, but other times we have only vague conjectures as to what they actually refer to.

This text likely dates to the beginning of the 17th century, as the Cuceb itself states in the first sentence, however, other fragments suggest that it was written sometime in the late 18th century. Both the language and vocabulary in the Perez manuscript had been altered from the original, which in some cases helps interpretation, but also raises the question whether these changes redesign the original narrative, are hypothetical texts, or contains additions copied from another manuscript.²

The etymology of cuceb is derived from the verb root cuc (“to turn, to revolve”) with the added instrumental suffix -eb meaning, “that which revolves” (^{Bolles, 2001}). At the beginning of the Pérez manuscript, there is a drawing depicting a squirrel, pronounced kúˀuk in the Yucatec language (^{Bricker, 1998: 202}) which is almost identical to the pronunciation of the word kúuk (“returns”) - noting that Colonial orthography never signaled the tone - therefore this squirrel functions as a rebus. Cuceb is an old noun: the instrumental suffix in the Colonial Yucatec was already -Vb by the second half of the 16^th century, therefore we expect the form of *cucub. Nevertheless, this noun used the Proto-Yucatecan -eeb’ suffix (^{Bricker, 2019: 201}), which was not used in the Colonial Period. The root of cuc as “return” has disappeared in the Modern Yucatec language, although it remains a productive root in Modern Itza (kuk as “roll”; ^{Hofling and Tesucún, 1997: 365}).

The authors of previous translations have interpreted the text very differently depending on when they wrote their narratives as well as which period are they referring to. ^{Roys (1949: 158)} says that the Cuceb was a fictitious Katun 5 Ahau, while ^{Barrera Vásquez and Rendón (1948: 46)} have argued that it is about Katun 3 Ahau, but both agree that it is a tun prophecy wheel. ^{Craine and Reindorp (1979: 99-101)} accepted the argument of Roys concerning the tun wheel and that it was a fictitious katun, however, they argued that the internal criticisms recounted in Cuceb clearly occurred before either 1544 or 1593. ^{Edmonson (1982: 69-70)}, on the other hand, claimed that the text was finished by Kauil Chhel in Bacalar on February 8, 1596, and that he forecasted the history of Katun 5 Ahau two years before it was due to begin. Furthermore, Edmonson believes that Kauil Chhel used the preceding cycle of the calendar round (fifty-two years earlier) and was recounting the events from 1541 to 1561. According to ^{Edmonson (1982: 70, note 1549)} “[the author] presents instead a year-by-year and calendar round (i. e., totally Nahua) view of the events, he chronicles, using tun (360 days) for hab (365 days) and misdating the katun by five years”. Edmonson thought that Kauil Chhel was of both Xiu and Nahuatl origin and was adviser to the lord of Uxmal, although he relocated, in old age, to Bacalar. Nevertheless, ^{Edmonson (1982: 112, note 2980)} also said that he did not believe that the real Kauil Chhel wrote the narrative, but a scribe who used the famous prophet’s name and purportedly in the years of 1618-1623.

Gunsenheimer accepted both that the katun is fictitious as well as the travel to Bacalar in 1544, and that this tale was invented intentionally to hide the original source:

An original hieroglyphic source from a region exempt from Spanish rule, on the other hand, would have been much more authentic and credible, in particular with respect to the prophecies. In addition, dating the text with the year 1544 also meant less risk for the scribe, because it set them in the generation of his parents or even grandparents. At the same time, the dating of the journey linked to an original hieroglyphic source dating from the year 1544, must be seen as programmatic, not accidental. […] Rather […] [the] record 1544 as the year marking the advent of Christianity, the first baptism of Mayans, and the arrival of Bishop Toral. […] It is therefore possible that the year 1544 was intentionally chosen to juxtapose the traumatic transformation of the lives of the Maya with the apparent continuity of their own culture. By virtue of that date claim, the historical, calendrical and prophetic testimony was rendered unique and genuine. It suggested that at a time when old, familiar traditions were disintegrating into chaos and destruction, there was still credible contemporaneous documentation that could serve as a basis for generations to follow (^{Gunsenheimer, 2009: 132}).

Most recently, ^{David Bolles (2010: 97)} offered an interesting explanation that the anomalies that occur in the Cuceb suggest that the text is a partial remnant of a 52-year-old calendar circle, but only the first 21 years, the rest being lost. If this suggestion is true, then every 52 years of the prophecies presumably include not only the events of Katun 5 Ahau but others as well. Bolles also speculates that the scribes wrote the original manuscript in hieroglyphs but renewed it on its anniversary date 52 years later in 1596, but this time in Latin script. The date Bolles refers to is mentioned in the Prologue chapter of the Cuceb (^{2010: 97}).

Albeit it is in itself a fascinating topic to unravel, the true time of production of the Cuceb, for the purpose of this presentation I will focus on some facets of the narrative. These intriguing entries associate with Pre-Columbian historiography while the scribes applied expressions which link to the Postclassic and possibly the Classic Periods. Additionally, I consider other texts from the Chilam Balam, some of which contradict the correct framework of dates that appeared in other parts of the books as well as the Spanish sources. In the following pages I deal with two features of the Cuceb, namely expressions that connect to Pre-Columbian sources indicated by a scribe familiar with traditional (pre-contact) indigenous literary style; the second feature is the recollection about famous destruction of Mayapan through the viewpoint of the Xiu family, whose member allegedly wrote the narrative (^{Bolles, 2010: 97}) claims that Gaspar Antonio Chi Xiu would be a possible candidate for the real author of the Cuceb.

Difrasismos and the Eclipse Monster

The structure of the Cuceb is simple: it consists of 21 tun (360 days) prophecies. These prophecies actually refer to haab year (365 days) prophecies because each one begins with a year-bearer -13 Kan 1 Pop, 1 Muluc 1 Pop, 2 Ix 1 Pop, 3 Cauac 1 Pop and so on. The seat of the katun is Mayapan. The Cuceb hints at several events such as depopulation, destruction, famine, diseases, and death everywhere, which are very similar to the katun prophecies (u uudz katunoob) in the Chilam Balam books.

In the narrative there are many gods, monsters and malevolent beings. We know about some of them from other sources, but the rest are still waiting to be identified. There are metaphors for people, objects and actions. Among these, some are metaphors, while others are animals such as jaguar, opossum, deer, ants and bees which represent people. One particular expression that often appears in the Cuceb (in 13 Kan, 7 Cauac, 1 Ix, and 4 Muluc prophecies) and in parts of Chilam Balam, connects to a Classic Ch’olan expression. It could be possible that the latter was the origin for the Yucatec difrasismos.

Originally Garibay Kintana coined the word difrasismo to describe the pairing of two terms employed as a single metaphorical unit (¹⁹⁶⁸).³Difrasismos work as nouns in Mesoamerican languages. In Mayan languages, just as in Classic Ch’olan, there are compound and complex nouns (^{England, 1983: 70}). Compounds contain two roots but they refer to a single lexeme. When it is possessed, the ergative precedes the compound and the eclitic follows it (examples in Classic Ch’olan are u-lakamtun-il, u-k’altun-il, y-etk’ab’a’-il, etc.). Complex nouns contain two roots, where the first is possessed by the second, however this phrase refers to a single lexeme. When a complex noun is possessed, it is only the second root which receives the possessive affixes. Such complex nouns are rare in Classic Ch’olan, but in Yucatec we can find u lèekilimpòol “my skull” (from leek “gourd” and pool “head”) or in Ch’orti’ uut e k’in “sky” (from ut “surface, face, eye, fruit” and k’in “sun”). Difrasismos are added to the system. They contain two roots which express one single lexeme but when they are possessed the ergative precedes both roots (in Classic Ch’olan the example are u-b’akil u-jolil, u-ch’ahb’il y-ahk’b’al, u-k’ab u-ch’e’n, etcétera).

Other expressions would be metaphors, and some of them could have already appeared in the Classic Period inscriptions, one occurs often in the Cuceb.

Well and Cave

There is a particular difrasismo which I believe refers to settlements and cities, and it only appears in the Cuceb.⁵ In the prophecies of the 3rd, 10th, 12th, 14th, 18th tuns, and the end of the 13 Oc chapter this expression consists of the words chhen (well) and actun (cave):⁶

The “well-cave” behaves as other difrasismo: it contains two roots that express one single lexeme but when they are possessed the ergative precedes both words (example: Classic Ch’olan u b’akil u jolil, u ch’ahb’il yak’b’al, etcétera). In this particular case of chhen actun, the order of the roots is not regulated. In most cases chhen is the first word in the expression, although in one instance actun comes first (Example 3). Moreover, this expression occurs in abbreviated form when either of the words is missing: for Example 5, the CB Tizimin version has tu chhenil ti yactun, while in the parallel version of Pérez appears tu chhenil; in same tun prophecy yactun shows up alone.

The expression then works like kab-ch’en/chan-ch’en in the Classic Period (^{Stuart and Houston, 1994}; ^{Hull, 2003}, ²⁰¹²; ^{Lacadena, 2009}; ^{Bíró, 2011}; ^{Tokovinine, 2013}). Ch’en often appears alone while it refers to settlement, or in rare cases, it is associated with a shrine in which the gods are living. In the Yucatec language, chhen has a special meaning of “well, water cistern” (^{Barrera, 1980: 131}); Modern Yucatec č’éʔen in ^{Bricker (1998: 82)}. Actun is “cave” (^{Barrera, 1980: 7}); Modern Yucatec ʔáaktun in ^{Bricker (1998: 2)}. In Colonial Yucatec there is the lexeme of actunchhen “cave with water” (^{Barrera, 1980: 7}), which in Modern Yucatec changes to “collapsed cave” (ʔáaktunč’éʔen in ^{Bricker, 1998: 3}).

Nevertheless, there are two examples (2 and 6) which offer key insight into understanding the meaning in the Cuceb. At the end of the 10^{th t} un prophecy there is an omen which says that the Itza will leave their well-and-cave in the 17th tun. On the surface this is a confusing entry because this year supposedly gives the next year’s (the 11th one) prophecy. ^{Barrera Vásquez and Rendón (1948: 116)} corrected it to eleven, but I think it connects to another narrative within the books of Chilam Balam, one which clarifies this mysterious passage.

In the 3rd, fragmented katun-wheel, in the Katun 8 Ahau there is a description of the conquest of Chichen Itza in the 17th tun (in the Pérez version it is the 16th tun; see ^{Roys, 1962: 80}). I suggest that the Cuceb story contains data from Katun 8 Ahau in which Mayapan was destroyed and depopulated (more below). In this particular case of the 10th tun prophecy, the author used the same tradition in which the siege of Chichen Itza occurred in the 17th tun of Katun 8 Ahau. The “cave-and-well” then refers to Chichen Itza, or the town of the Itza.

Following the tun prophecies in the Cuceb there is a confusing explanation of how the katun works (^{Roys, 1949: 177, note 224}) in the so-called “pacing off the katun” section. Here the scribe describes the ending of the katun over Mayapan and it passes to Maya Cuzamil (^{Bíró, 2012}, on this toponym). The text then recounts the events of Katun 8 Ahau, when Mayapan was abandoned by its inhabitants and major noble families, which later settled down in different regions of Northern Yucatan. In this specific example, the chhibalob established (edz) themselves in their cities after leaving Mayapan, an apt description of the historical event, which probably took place in the second half of the 15th century. It is apparent that terms “well-and-cave” are referring to settlements and from these two contexts I believe that it can expand into other contexts in which the meaning of “city” functions well.

Eclipse and the Big Shark

The eclipses of the sun and the moon feature prominently in the Maya codices and are also mentioned many times in the Chilam Balam (^{Bricker and Bricker, 2011: 249-366}). The Pre-Columbian Maya and the Colonial Yucatec believe that a monster devours the sun or the moon, which is represented in the codices. The best two examples are in the Paris codex’s so-called ‘Zodiac’ pages (^{Codex Peresianus 1968: 23-24}) and the Eclipse Table in the Dresden codex (^{Codex Dresdensis, 1975: 51-58}). The images of the eclipses are varied but one representation occurs frequently in which an animal opens its mouth trying to swallow the sun or the moon. In D56b and D57b the images show the serpent and the fish-like creature (shark) opening their mouths while the sign of K’IN is stabbed by two bones. This complex emblem hangs on the sky-band glyphs of star (EK’), skull (the moon UH), cloud (MUYAL), or darkness (AK’AB’). On both sides of the K’IN sign are white and dark cartouches called “the eclipse glyph” in the epigraphic literature (T326), and according to ^{Christian Prager (2006)}, the reading is NAM, “disappearance, waning, vanishing, dearth, lack” (from Ch’orti’). In pages 23 and 24 there are 13 beasts that swallow the sun while they are clinging from the sky-band. Beast 6 is a shark-like creature, the others are scorpion, turtle, rattlesnake, muwan owl, frog and so on (^{Bricker and Bricker, 2011: 695-708}). We can find the particular representation in the prophecy of the 14^th tun in the Cuceb narrative:

Here we have a curious description which hitherto scholars have not paid sufficient attention. The text begins with two creatures, Ah Xixte Ul and Chac Uayab Xoc who initially deloused themselves. Although it is difficult to understand what the sentence refers to, these two monsters prepare to act during the ominous last five days of the year, on which the ceremony of the New Year occurs. Ah Xixte Ul was translated by ^{Barrera Vásquez and Rendón (1948: 1 y 13)} as El-rugoso-caracol-de-tierra or the Rough Earthly Snail, however Barrera provides another translation, “caracol-arrugado-o-espulgador” or Wrinkle Licker Snail (^{Barrera, 1980: 947}), or “a snail who cleanses off lice/fleas” -an association with death. The other creature, Chac Uayab Xok is the Great Uayab Shark, uayab connects to a Classic Ch’olan expression uwayhab’, “the sleep of the year” or the last month of the year (in Colonial Yucatec uayeb). Because the Cuceb contains the prophecies for the next year, it is obviously that the prophet or the priest identifies this as a menacing period.

The next sentence describes that the Great Shark’s tail is set on fire while the shark is tied up clinging from the sky and the clouds. Although we do not have this particular image of a burning shark in the Classic Period, we have another monster, the Starry Deer Crocodile, which is often represented with incense on its tail -the latter called the Quadripartite Badge (^{Taube, 2009: 99-106}). In the Cuceb, the shark clings from the sky and clouds which aptly describes the iconographic figures in the Dresden and Paris codices where monsters try to swallow the sun and the moon (here “it is covered”); a later narrative also mentions this (Figure 2). In summary, we can say that these lines of the 14^th tun prophecies really recount the general image of an eclipse and a celestial creature.

Pre-Columbian Past and Intertextuality

Intertextuality was coined by Julia Kristeva in the 1960s working on Bakhtin’s theories on literature (^{Kristeva, 1986: 34-61}). In her own words, “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotation; any text is the absorption and transformation of another” (^{Kristeva, 1986: 37}). Later on, she proposes that we must think on literary genres as a “imperfect semiological system signifying beneath the surface of language but never without it” and secondly, we can discover “relations among larger units such as sentences, questions-and-answers, dialogues, etc.” (^{Kristeva, 1986: 37}). Although intertextuality would become a common concept in literary criticism in the age of postmodernism (see ^{Allen, 2000}, for this development in several academic disciplines), it also appeared in the research of ancient literacy such as in Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Classic hermeneutics (^{Bauks, Horowitz, and Lange, 2013}).

One important concept is the realization that the textual world, which has been flourishing for millennia, is “saturated”, it is no longer possible to write something that has not been written before. This means that things cannot be written, only rewritten. Therefore, literature is not a creation or a representation, but a rearrangement of pre-existing stories, images, symbols. This is accomplished by the text having a “dialogue” within the text, and the resulting literature is created out of the interaction between old and modern texts.

The manuscripts of Chilam Balam contain multiple texts in different genres, such as prophecies, chronicles, stories of the Bible, correlation of the Maya and European calendars, etc. which ultimately derive from other texts (^{Roys, 1933}; ^{Edmonson, 1982}, ¹⁹⁸⁶; ^{Gunsenheimer, 2002}, ²⁰⁰³, ²⁰⁰⁹). The Cuceb is among the prophecy genres where the wheel or fold of the katun texts is of noted importance. The Cuceb engages distinctive sources and stories all underscoring that are part of the mythological narratives.

In this section I argue that some of the tun prophecies are directly concerned with the destruction of Mayapan. These narratives explicitly use sentences from other stories, or they employ those from an original source. First, there is a puzzling entry in the Third Chumayel Chronicle, which connects to the narrative of the Cuceb (^{Roys, 1933: 140, notes 1 and 4}; ^{Edmonson, 1986: 60, note 268}):

The mystery is the date of Katun 5 Ahau; in every other source, such as the other chronicles and the katun prophecies, the events concerning Hunac Ceel occurred in Katun 8 Ahau (^{Roys, 1933: 177-181}). This anomaly, however, could be explained if there were two traditions, one which dated the events to Katun 8 Ahau, while the second one fixed them to Katun 5 Ahau. There are many hints for this in the narrative of the Cuceb. In several parts of the Cuceb we find events associated with the collapse of Mayapan, which are traditionally dated to Katun 8 Ahau.

In general, the ‘face’ or the aspect of Katun 5 Ahau in the Cuceb, is Mayapan. This is unique in the Chilam Balam (CB) manuscripts because the face (u uich) is connected to gods (or rulers) and not with places. When the fictitious Katun 5 Ahau ended, the Katun leaves Mayapan (see 13 Oc chapter above in the Example 6), alluding to these events occurring in Katun 8 Ahau at Mayapan.

In the first tun prophecy there is a line which describes the overthrow of a wall, which usually relates to Mayapan (one common epithet of the city is ich paa “within the walls”):

In the second tun prophecy, at the beginning of the narrative there is a description of talking among the people of the mountain:

Although in the CB Tizimin ui appears alone, in the Pérez version uitzi shows up which I can reconstruct as uitzi[l dzul] “foreigners from the hills”. These foreigners are mentioned in the Tizimin and Pérez chronicles in Katun 8 Ahau: pax ci cah mayapan tumen uitzil dzul or “the city of Mayapan was destroyed by the foreigners from the hills (^{Boot, 2005: 487}). In the Cuceb, the winners of the battle discuss the lands and the tribute (cuch is in burden and ppic is also), as well as the captives whom later they sacrifice to Uuc Chapat, the mouth of the monster who controls the gate of the Underworld.

In the tenth tun prophecy, at the end of a rather long narrative, there is a story of the destruction of Mayapan by the Xiu family containing metaphorical expressions and puns:

This very complex story describes the collapse of Mayapan and Itza cities. While the Pérez version is longer than that of the Tizimin, this text might be interpolated with the original narrative remaining in the Tizimin version. The text begins with the descending of the burden from the hills to Maya Cuzamil, a toponym which may refer to the polity of Mayapan in the 15th century. The “burden from the hills” is associated with the Puuc region and with the Xiu family who rebelled against the power of the Cocom dynasty as Landa noted in his Relación (^{Tozzer, 1941: 31-39}). The next line mentions that the burden falls over Mayapan from the deer hoofs and turkey claws of Mani. Although “the deer-and-turkey” is the name of Yucatán in Landa, it is curious that in this particular part of the Cuceb is connected to Mani, the capital of the Xiu after they left Mayapan. A relevant key in understanding this sentence can be found in the Xiu family tree, from the Xiu Chronicle. On the bottom of the image (^{Restall, 1998: 145}) there is a bowl with burning deer hoofs (may ceeh) which can represent the Xiu family and the ancestor Hun Uitzil Chac or One Hilly Chac. It is obvious that the place name of Mani in this context is anachronistic because the town was founded after the abandonment of Mayapan.

The next part of the narrative depicts the birds of the king as the animal augury: here there is a pun mut’s meanings are “bird” and “augury” (^{Barrera, 1980: 542}). The next line there is a corrupt word (yxuixum) which ^{Barrera Vásquez and Rendón (1948: v109)} reconstructed as yaxum or “cotinga” a turquoise bird which in Classic Nahuatl is xuihtototl, or Tutul Xiu. Whatever the significance of this section is, it certainly symbolizes the Xiu family.

Next, we find a story within the story where the scribe creates an ethnic etymology of Mani, which according to him is derived from the perfective aspect of mani “it passed” or “it is past” (^{Craine and Reindorp, 1979: 107, note 154}). In these passages are mentioned the names of Montesuma and Buluc Am (11 Spider) which appear in another part of the Pérez manuscript (^{Craine and Reindorp, 1979: 127}). Note that in the latter text the scribe begins with the date of the 10th of May 1756 and follows by discussing the fragmented katun-wheel. The first wheel is Katun 8 Ahau which tells the plotting of Hunac Ceel against Chac Xib Chac of Chichen Itza. Similar to the section of the Cuceb, the author highlights that Montezuma and Buluc Am foresaw the events and also the Aztec emperor said it to the Itza. It is highly likely that this is a fictitious narrative invented by the Yucatec people in the 18th century. Nevertheless, the text shows the link between the Cuceb‘s presentation of the past and the later pieces of the story. The two last lines of the Cuceb tale finish introducing Hapai Can, the “Sucking Serpent”, from the famous storyline of Katun 8 Ahau. Hapai Can plays a prominent role in the Katun 8 Ahau of the fragmented third katun-wheel (^{Roys, 1962: 80}) with his arrival to Izamal, and also the ruler fed his children to him (presumably meaning sacrifice).

After examining the narrative of the 10th tun of the Cuceb, I believe this to be strong evidence that it is describing the fateful events which took place in Katun 8 Ahau, albeit here they are associated with Katun 5 Ahau.

The first katun-wheel in Pérez version has a peculiar feature, namely that each katun prophecy contains a year list table which corresponds the Christian year and its correction (^{Craine and Reindorp, 1979: 157}). In three Katuns (Katun 8 Ahau, Katun 11 Ahau and Katun 9 Ahau) there are historical events associated with specific years. In 13 Muluc of Katun 8 Ahau there is an entry which describes the rebellion in Mayapan (^{Roys, 1962: 78}).

This event also appears in the katun chronicles (First Chumayel Chronicle and the Tizimin Chronicle) in Katun 8 Ahau. If we check the year of 13 Muluc in the Cuceb we find an intriguing entry right at the beginning of the prophecy:

Recently, Tsubasa Okoshi (2018) has convincingly explained the meaning of mul tepal as an “assembly of the kings/nobles”, which actually shows up in Landa in Spanish:

Que entre los sucesores de la casa Cocomina hubo uno muy orgulloso, imitador de Cocom, y que éste hizo otra liga con los de Tabasco, y que metió más mexicanos dentro de la ciudad, y que comenzó a tiranizar y hacer esclavos a la gente menuda y que por esto se juntaron los señores (multepal) a la parte de Tutuxiu, el cual era gran republicano como sus antepasados, y que concertaron de matar a Cocom, y que así lo hicieron, matando también a todos sus hijos, sin dejar más que uno que estaba ausente (Landa, 1938: 17, cited by ^{Okoshi, 2018: 912}).

If we view the full entry for relevant passages of Katun 8 Ahau in the First Chumayel Chronicle, then we see that the entry of 13 Muluc in the first katun-wheel in Pérez is part of the full description of the siege of Mayapan:

It is also intriguing that the 13 Muluc year events are registered in different years, dated to the 7th tun of 8 Ahau, while in the Cuceb they are dated to the 13th tun of 5 Ahau, while in another chronicle they put it in the 10th tun of 8 Ahau. I can say then that while the 13 Muluc year and the events were not changed, the scribes associated them with different katuns and different countings of the year. Nevertheless, this part of the Cuceb uses the occurrences of Katun 8 Ahau to make its prophecy.

Conclusion

David ^{Bolles (2010: 97)} speculated that

The Cuceb is a series of year prognostications. It is probably incomplete, as there should be 52 years with their prognostications instead of the 21 listed here. The 22nd year given in the Cuceb, 8 Muluc, does not have a prognostication, but rather is a statement by Ah Kauil Cħel that he, along with Ah Na Puc Tun and Ah Xupan Nauat, is responsible for “taking this out of the hieroglyphs” (line C560). (See Section J for more on these three men.) Fifty-two years would make a complete cycle of u bubukilhaaboob (see table on lines A440-475) and would be more in keeping with the name Cuceb and the nature of all the other prognosticatory material presented by the Colonial sources. On lines C566-568 Ah Kauil Cħel writes that he wrote the Cuceb with Ah Na Puc Tun in the Mayan date of 18 Zac 11 Chuen, which he equates with the Christian date of February 15, 1544. This Mayan date of 18 Zac 11 Chuen happens only in the year 2 Hiix when the year bearer set is Kan, Muluc, Hiix, Cauac. The year 2 Hiix did fall in the Christian years 1543-1544 if one assumes the Colonial method of dating, but it also fell in the years 1595-1596 which is the year in which the “Prologue to the Cuceb” was written. While the following thought is just speculation on the compiler’s part, it could well be that the Cuceb was in fact originally written in 1544 in hieroglyphs and then renewed on its anniversary date 52 years later in 1596, but this time in Latin script.

If we can accept provisionally this suggestion (below), then we can try to count the wheel of 52-year back:

The 52-year 3rd wheel almost matches the date of the 20-year katun wheel of Katun 8 Ahau, which lasted from 1441 to 1461. I am unsure why the scribe used this particular count and dated 5 Ahau from 1593 to 1614, but he employed a tradition in which the collapse of Mayapan dated to Katun 5 Ahau. The Cuceb then recounted, in part, events from Katun 8 Ahau - apart from kennings and descriptions of occurrences which can connect to hieroglyphic sources. Other events come from the Colonial period, such as changing the clothes from Maya garb to Christian garb, or the explicit mention of Spanish people as white men. Although, I believe, as Gunsenheimer has argued convincingly, that the Cuceb was written later than 1544, I also believe that parts of this story were already written up in the Pre-Columbian era. If this is true, then it is a 52-year wheel prophecy that contains events that occurred between 1440 and 1596 written in clever ways of the age of lore of the katun literature.

In this paper I addressed some of the many metaphors or difrasismos and I also try to explain the intertexuality remaining in the narrative of the Cuceb, the only text in the Chilam Balam which focuses on the year-by-year (or tun) prophecies. Indeed, in the hieroglyphic Paris Codex there is a tun-prophecy, from pages 2 to 14, located above the katun-prophecy. According to ^{Bricker and Bricker (2011)} the scribes who made the codex copied a katun-prophecy from the early 8th century and it is also possible that the tun-prophecy originated from the same era. Some difrasismos truly came from the Classic Period literature (for example in the 4^th tun: elom u uich tu cab tu chhenil “they will be burned the faces of the earth, of the wells”, i.e. the cities will be burned). The Cubeb, to a certain extent, is a past narrative of the Classic Period, though it was updated to the 16th and the 17th centuries.

There are many more intriguing metaphors and gods for future scholars to address here. With our increasing knowledge of the Classic Period inscriptions, perhaps they will continue with what I have unraveled here, revealing more secrets of this wonderful Yucatec text.