The theme of this book is that more of ancient Maya religion has survived among the modern Maya than students have heretofore supposed. The author proceeds by a method of direct comparison. The major part of the book consists of detailed descriptions of religious practices in sixteen Chortí towns in southeastern Guatemala. Deities, mythologies, liturgies, and occult rituals are described as they occur through the year, in such a way that the full annual ceremonial is made known. This ceremonial is demonstrated to be essentially symbolic, governed by seasonal agricultural requirements, and recurrently associated with astronomical lore. At all points connections are made with ancient Maya religions, the sources for which are Maya codices and texts, archaeological materials, and Spanish reports. Parallels and survivals are thus demonstrable in a comparative examination. The calendar of 360 active and 5 inactive days and the agricultural calendar of 260 days provide chronological frames for both ancient and modern religions. The same deities and the same rituals are found in both. The priestly organizations and their role in the society are essentially similar. The cosmological basis is unchanged.
The book’s various revelations will appear less revealing to students familiar with the same author’s five-volume work, Los Chortís ante el problema maya (1949; second edition, 1958), which makes similar kinds of comparison. The ethnographic data derive principally from the community of Quezaltepeque and are selected and organized to support the thesis of continuity in religion. The Christian component of modern Chortí religion is subordinated in this treatment, as are all other Hispanic influences upon Chortí society. In Girard’s conception such influences appear as superficial intrusions, unrelated to the essential Maya mode of life. This persisting life is founded on myth, its actions are mythical dramatizations, and much of its “history” appears only as external circumstance. Thus it does not matter that Quezaltepeque is not even a Maya-speaking community in the twentieth century. The perspective, in my view, has much to recommend it, and it stands as an alternative and corrective to empirical studies of acculturation. One of its dangers however lies in the freedom of selection and the interpretative latitude granted to the investigator. Another is the tendency to identify what survives with what is fundamental. Still another lies in the sense of triumph that attends the completed research. This is a controversial book but it is the more controversial for the doctrinaire terms in which its message is expressed.
