The Yucatan-From Prehistoric Times to the Great Maya Revolt: A Narrative History of the Origin of Maya Civilization and the Epic Encounter with Spanish Conquest

The YUCATAN

FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE

GREAT MAYA REVOLT

DOUGLAS T. PECK

A Narrative History of the Origin of Maya Civilization

and the Epic Encounter with Spanish Conquest

Copyright © 2005 by Douglas T. Peck.

All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or other media.

Other books by Douglas T. Peck:

Cristoforo Colombo—God’s Navigator. ISBN 0-9641798-0-6,

copyright 1993, Columbian Publishers, Columbus, WI.

Ponce de León and the Discovery of Florida. ISBN 1-880654-02-4,

copyright 1993, Pogo Press, St. Paul, MN.

Other historical literary works by Douglas T. Peck, see:

www.NewWorldExplorersInc.org

This book was printed in the United States of America.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

Orders@Xlibris.com

28367

Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Jacinto Canek, a legendary Maya hero

Acknowledgments

Introduction

ONE

TWO

THREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

Epilogue

Reference Bibliography

Dedicated to Jacinto Canek the Legendary Hero of the Maya

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Except where noted all illustrations and charts are original art by the author)

Figure 1. Low relief sculpture from the Olmec

La Venta archaeological site

Figure 2. Printing cylinder from the Olmec San Andrés archaeological site

Figure 3. Feathered and plumed rattlesnake emblem from Maltrata

Figure 4. Isla Cerritos port facilities, northern Yucatan … Figure 5. Chontal Maya trade routes and path of military migration

Figure 6. Sculpture of a Maya noble on a building in

Xochicalco

Figure 7. Itzá Chacobs, or burden bearer gods, from

Chichén Itzá

Figure 8. Low relief sculpture of a winged rattlesnake in Tula

Figure 9. The large st pyramidal temple in

Edzna, Campeche, Yucatan

Figure 10. Annotated map of principal archaeological sites in Yucatan

Figure 11. Sculpture of a gigantic Olmec head in

Izamal, Yucatan

Figure 12. Sculpture of a large Olmec style mask in Edzna

Figure 13. Sculpture of an Olmec style head in Kohunlich

Figure 14. Two examples of human sacrifice in Chichén Itzá

Figure 15. Restored Temple of Kukulcan (El Castillo)

in Chichen Itza

Figure 16. Maya god from the Dresden Codex with the body of a winged rattlesnake

Figure 17. Captive rulers on low relief sculpture in Chichen Itza

Figure 18. War scenes from the temple of the warriors in Chichen Itza

Figure 19. Ceremonial parade on wall mural in Chichen Itza

Figure 20. Goggle-eyed mask found in Chichen Itza

Figure 21. Winged rattlesnake emblem from Yaxchilan on the Usumacinta River

Figure 22. Detail from a statuette of Yax K’uk Mo found in Copan

Figure 23. Taino log canoe pictured by Girolamo

Benzoni(1563)

Figure 24. Maya warriors pictured in a temple in Chichen Itza

Figure 25. Maya war vessels from Chichen Itza and Tikal Figure 26. Model of a large Chontal Maya trading vessel showing seaworthy features

Figure 27. Drawing of Mixtec wood workers showing tools of their trade

Figure 28. Prehistoric trade and exploration routes of the Chontal Maya

Figure 29. Ceremonial dress of Florida Indians and the Maya on the Yucatan

Figure 30. Feathered and winged rattlesnake emblems—

American Indians and Maya

Figure 31. Anthropomorphic Indian and Maya gods speaking

Figure 32. Indian pyramidal temple mounds at Lake Jackson, Florida

Figure 33. Postulated route of Maya vessels from

Yucatan to Florida

Figure 34. Mound Key, headquarters of the Calusa

Indians in Florida

Figure 35. The round Caracol building in Chichén Itzá

Figure 36. The night sky as seen from the Yucatan—God

C from Dresden Codex

Figure 37. Maya partition of the sky from the Madrid

Codex—Maya observatory

Figure 3 8. Annotated drawing of the northwest portion of Peter Martyr’s 1511 map of the Indies

Figure 39. The three vessels used by Córdoba in his 1517 voyage to Yucatan

Figure 40. Annotated track of Córdoba from Santiago to Cabo San Antón

Figure 41. Track of Córdoba from Cabo San Antón to

Isla Mujeres, Yucatan

Figure 42. Ruins of the Maya temple on the south point of Isla Mujeres

Figure 43. Córdoba’s track to Champotón and return to Cuba

Figure 44. Ruins of a Maya temple on Cozumel

Figure 45. View of Tulum as seen by Grijalva from the sea. . Figure 46. Details from early maps showing Yucatan as an island

Figure 47. Initial track of Grijalva around the north coast of Yucatan

Figure 48. Chart showing extensive Mexican shoreline explored by Grijalva

Figure 49. Track of Cortés from Cozumel to anchorage at Veracruz

Figure 50. Map of the Gulf of Mexico in Cortés’s letter to the Crown (ca. 1525)

Figure 51. The Pineda map of the Gulf of Mexico (ca. 1521) … Figure 52. Coat-of-Arms of Don Francisco Hernández de Montejo

Figure 53. Itinerary of Montejo’s 1527-1528 entrada of Eastern Yucatan

Figure 54. Itinerary of Montejo’s 1529-1535 entrada of Central Yucatan

Figure 55. Itinerary of Montejo the Younger’s

1537-1546 entrada of Yucatan

Figure 56. Map showing the principal provinces involved in The Great Maya Revolt of 1546

Figure 57. Map from Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de

Yucatan (ca. 1550)

Figure 5 8. Catherwood’s drawing of typical Maya high ceiling arch construction

Figure 5 9. The itinerary of Stephens’s archaeological investigations in Yucatan

Figure 60. Catherwood’s drawing of an unusual round building in Mayapan

Figure 61. View of the Casa del Gobernador building in Uxmal

Figure 62. A stylized sculptured mask in the wall of a building in Uxmal

Figure 63. One of the large pyramidal temples in Uxmal called House of the Dwarf

Figure 64. One of five buildings in the Casa de las Monjas complex in Uxmal

Figure 65. Ornate masks embedded in a building in Uxmal

Figure 66. A wall in Kabah covered with sculptured masks

Figure 67. An intricately carved lintel from Kabah subsequently lost in a warehouse fire

Figure 68. The large three-tiered building in Sayil known as Casa Grande

Figure 69. Detail of the Casa Grande showing rounded

Doric-like columns

Figure 70. One of several ornate buildings in Sabachtsche

Figure 71. The interior of the elaborate gateway at Labna.. Figure 72. A unique and dramatically decorated temple in Labna

Figure 73. One of the elaborately decorated buildings in Chunhuhu

Figure 74. The immense cavern near Bolonchen in west-central Yucatan

Figure 75. An elaborate base relief sculpture found in the Laphak ruins

Figure 76. Low relief sculpture of a warrior found in Dzibichaltun

Figure 77. A small ornate temple in Chichen Itza called

La Iglesia

Figure 78. The Casa de las Monjas building in Chichen Itza

Figure 79. Ball court goal ring found in Chichen Itza

Figure 80. Maya hieroglyphics found in a temple in Chichen Itza

Figure 81. The fishing village of Yalahao on the north coast of Yucatan

Figure 82. The massive construction of the back or seaward side of El Castillo temple in Tulum …. Figure 8 3. The front of El Castillo in Tulum showing the broad entrance stairway

Figure 84. The Temple of the Frescoes in Tulum

Figure 85. The Temple of the Descending god in Tulum… Figure 86. One of the watch towers on the wall in Tulum … Figure 87. The large mound of ruins of Dzilan on the north coast of Yucatan

Figure 88. Engraved funerary skull from a rural

Maya church

Epilogue illustration. Sculpture representing

Jacinto Canek, a legendary Maya hero

Acknowledgments

In my introduction I have noted how my earlier historical research on the voyages of early Spanish explorers was tied into and a vital part of this work on the history of the Yucatan. So my Acknowledgments must start with my entry into the discipline of historical research in 1986 when I became associated with the Society for the History of Discoveries (SHD). My colleagues in the SHD, probably without realizing it, played an important role in preparation and writing of this book. Their expertise in the discipline of historical research was unselfishly shared with me in my sometimes agonizing transition from an ocean navigator and geographer to research historian. Included in this group of astute scholars are John Parker, Carol Urness, James E. Kelley Jr., Oliver Dunn, David Henige, Helen Wallis, Donald McGuirk, Gregory McIntosh, Charles Hoffman, Ryan Seidermann, and William Dunwoody. I distributed the drafts of my work to these scholars and they kindly took the time to critique the papers and offer suggestions related to the accuracy of the content and most importantly and appreciated were their comments on how the paper could be improved. Two of this group deserve special recognition.

Dr. Helen Wallis graciously offered her assistance in my (1988) search in the cartographical library of the British Museum in London for sixteenth-century documents related to early seafaring exploration. At the time Dr. Wallis was Director of the Cartographical Library and I would never have made it through those two locked and guarded doors to the inner archives without her help. Helen spent an entire day with me digging out much valuable data on early, sixteenth-century navigation including geographical concepts, knowledge of magnetic variation and its effect on both navigation and geographical shorelines depicted in cartography, and the first faltering steps of navigators into the new so-called celestial navigation. Sadly, Helen lost her bout with cancer a few years back and the SHD lost one of their most valuable contributors to the history of discoveries.

Jim Kelley deserves special recognition for his unselfish and time-consuming assistance in furnishing me his translation and analytical interpretation of Herrera’s original 1601 summary of Ponce de León’s log of his 1513 exploration voyage. And Jim certainly had the credentials for this task as he was the coauthor of the latest and most widely accepted definitive translation of the Las Casas Columbus log published as, The Diario of Columbus’s First Voyage to America (Dunn-Kelly 1989). I required this for my research of the Ponce de León voyage (Peck 1992, 1993, 1998c) since the available English translations of the log were made from secondary Spanish translations of the 1601 script and contained inconsistencies and errors. Chapter 2 details the data contained in Ponce de León’s log that are related to Córdoba’s 1517 voyage to the Yucatan seeking new lands.

In pursuing my research into prehistoric canoe travel between the Yucatan, the islands of the Caribbean, and Florida, I received wholehearted help in a flow of e-mails on the subject from Dr. Barbara Purdy, Professor Emeritus, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Dr. Mark Hartmann, University of Arkansas, Marian S. Gilliland, University of Florida, and Ryan M. Seidemann, an independent anthropologist. When I determined that evidence pointed to the landing site of prehistoric Maya adventurers in the Calusa territory, I received much needed assistance from Robin C. Brown and Arden Arrington, two well-known regional historians experienced (from active participation) in the archaeological findings of the area (Arrington 1997; Brown 1994). Arden knows the Mound Key area like the back of his hand and conducted me on a two-day informative tour that provided much of the background for the coverage of the subject in Chapter 2.

When I expanded my study to include the prehistoric Maya on the Yucatan (chapters 1 & 2) I moved from the assistance of most of my SHD colleagues and was introduced to a new but equally helpful and cooperative group of Mexican scholars. My library and field research into the history of the ancient Maya was conducted over a nine-year period from 1996 to date. My field research in the Yucatan occupied forty-two weeks during this period in which I visited university and museum archives in Merida, Cancun, Guadalajara and Chetumal, as well as the major archaeological sites in the Yucatan related to my study. In my extensive field research in the Yucatan I was blessed with having the acquaintance of several good friends who are bilingual in English and Spanish and graciously gave me immeasurable assistance in my travels and contacts during my research efforts. Gerardo (Jerry) Magaña Barragan is the Director of the Regional Turismo Office on Isla Mujeres, former Mayor (Presidente) of Isla Mujeres, and former teacher in the Cancun/Isla Mujeres school system. Jerry not only introduced me to key educators and civic leaders in the area but translated several of my papers on the Maya into Spanish for distribution within the regional school system. Early in my historical research (1996) Jerry introduced me to Dr. Ricardo Delphin Quezada Domínguez, Faculty Director of Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan in Merida. Dr. Quezada kindly arranged for me to present a formal lecture to the advanced students after which in a meeting with key faculty members we engaged in an animated discussion of early Maya history related to the Yucatan. During my two-day stay at the University Dr. Quezada presented me with a considerable number of copies of historical documents on early Maya history that are only available to faculty members. One of these that proved to be of immeasurable value was a collection (Atlas) of large unbound reproductions of early cartography of the Yucatan with attached commentary (Autochiw 1994b). And to add to this store of valuable reference material, Senior Jesus Lima, the Grand Old Man of Isla Mujeres and a legend in his time, gave me several scarce documents on the early sixteenth-century Spanish/Maya conflict from his extensive private library. From the documents that Jesus Lima kindly gave me, I learned of the legendary and ethereal Maya hero, Jacinto Canek, reported in the Epilogue and to which the book is fittingly dedicated.

In this extended field research I depended on both Geraldo ( Jerry) Magaña and Enriquita (Henrietta) M. de Avila to act as my translators. Henrietta, the owner of a small hotel on the island, is a well-known and talented artist of the area. Henrietta willingly and quite effectively acted as my translator and coordinator in my travels around the area. She is better organized than I am and can be depended on to keep track of and remind me of my appointments and schedule. I hardly know where to begin to thank Jerry and Henrietta for their dedicated, professional, and completely voluntary assistance in my endeavors.

In 1997 and again in 2001, Dr. Mariano Ceballos Martinez, Director Academico of La Salle Universidad in Cancun kindly invited me to present papers to the advanced students. My lectures at the universities or to civic organizations were delivered in English and I always prefaced my presentation with an apology for not speaking their language by giving the lame and rather transparent excuse that the people with whom I am associated in Mexico speak better English than I do. At La Salle Universidad, in like manner to my experience in the Universidad in Merida, these visits were followed by a lively discussion of early Maya history with faculty archaeologists and historians, Juan E. Vanegas Perez, Luis Armando Guillermo, and Rubin Cruz Carena. For this reason these lectures I gave at the Universidad proved to be a learning experience for me that added to the store of knowledge in the book.

And finally, I must credit my wife Becky and my son Douglas for their very real part in production of this book. Becky patiently kept my family and business affairs in order during my extended field research trips to Mexico, and Douglas, luckily a teacher and Technical Internet Administrator in the local school system, was able to render invaluable assistance in my frequent encounters with my distinctly unfriendly and uncooperative computer.

Introduction

The Yucatan has been the focal point and the geographical crossroad of profound cultural, ethnological, and sociological change and development in Mesoamerica from ancient times to the present. This far reaching and significant acculturation was brought about by two widely separated epic migrations and military conquests by foreign peoples bringing radically new, innovative, and advanced culture to the area. The first of these was the migration and military conquest by the Olmec/Chontal Maya/Itza from Tabasco bringing their written language, mathematics, architectural expertise, and religion into northern and central Yucatan. This golden age of Maya civilization, centered in the Yucatan, lasted for a millennium during which the advanced Maya culture flowered and was spread south into Honduras and Guatemala and west into the highlands of Mexico. In like manner, the second migration and military conquest of the Yucatan by Spanish conquistadors also brought new and advanced cultural norms to the area. The history of the origin, development, and impact of these two momentous events constitutes the thrust of this book and is contrary to and challenges much of the currently accepted historiography related to the subject.

This book was conceived and developed during nearly two decades of full time historical research into the history of early Spanish exploration and colonization of the New World. The genesis of the book can be traced to my historical research performed during the years 1985 to1996 related to the 14921493 exploration voyage of Christopher Columbus, Juan Ponce de Leon’s 1513 voyage, and the 1517 voyage of Francisco

Hernández de Córdoba. Although unaware of it at the time, I found later in my research that this was an appropriate starting point to investigate and write the early history of the Yucatan. The log or Diario of Columbus is relevant to the history of the Yucatan in that it contains evidence of prehistoric contact between the Maya on the Yucatan and the Taino Indians of Española and Jamaica. The book contains a detailed discussion of this prehistoric contact contained in Columbus’s log and records evidence from Ponce de León’s log that Antón de Alaminos (the pilot for Ponce de León, Córdoba, Grijalva, and Cortés) obtained knowledge from Indian guides that an undiscovered exotic land lay south-southwest from Florida. This knowledge later provided the catalyst for Córdoba’s voyage seeking new lands in that direction and resulted in the Spanish discovery of the Yucatan and the realm of the Maya.

In pursuing this research I discovered that sixteenth-century contemporary accounts related to these voyages were ambiguous, incomplete, inaccurate, and filled with biased distortion which made the writing of a history of the events difficult. Given these conditions it follows that the secondary accounts by modern historians, based on interpretation of these flawed primary sources, are also filled with ambiguities, inaccuracies, and in some cases unfounded and misleading fiction. A maj or fault in modern secondary accounts of these voyages is that they are based on a narrow interpretation and acceptance of these flawed early source documents without consideration of geophysical and geopolitical factors as well as judicious application of the science of navigation.

Early in 1996, having completed my extensive research and published several reports on the voyages of Columbus and Ponce de León (see Bibliography), I turned to the research of Córdoba’s 1517 voyage in which he discovered the Yucatan. My intent at the time was to limit my research and report to the navigational track of Córdoba and determine the controversial geographical site of Cabo Catoche where he landed and identified a nearby large Maya city which he called Gran Cairo. Not unexpectedly, I found that the currently accepted published accounts of Córdoba’s voyage, in like manner to the accounts of the voyages of Columbus and Ponce de León, were filled with historical errors and inaccuracies. The book contains a dialectical analysis of these errors in both the primary source documents and modern accounts, and presents an updated and accurate account of Córdoba’s 1517 voyage based on my earlier research.

My library and field research of Córdoba’s voyage included visits to university and museum archives and archaeological sites in the Yucatan associated with the Spanish/Maya encounters during the voyage. As indicated in my acknowledgments, I received immeasurable assistance in my research efforts from independent scholars on Isla Mujeres, and from faculty and staff members at universities and museums in Cancun, Chetumal, and Merida. During this period I presented formal lectures on the Córdoba voyage, with emphasis on the first Spanish/Maya encounters, at Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, MX (1996), La Salle Universidad, Cancun, MX (1997), Institute of Maya Studies, Miami (1998), and University of Missouri, St. Louis (1999). My studies into Córdoba’s encounters with the Maya on the Yucatan kindled my interest in this ancient and enigmatic culture that has been the subject of what can only be described as an overwhelming amount of archaeological investigation followed by publication of voluminous academic studies and popular literature. In turning to the study of the Maya I found that previous accepted historical writings were filled with contradictions, anomalies, and unfounded speculation, and failed to give a clear viable picture of the origin and development of Maya civilization. European archaeologists/ historians have been able to determine a clear picture of the origin and development (and decline) of the ancient civilizations of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, and others, so it is difficult to understand why the same clear picture has not been developed for the Maya.

At first I was reluctant to undertake the task of prehistoric Maya research (Chapters 1 and 2) because I would have to delve deeply into the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology which were out of my primary field of expertise in navigation and seafaring of early explorers and the geography and geophysics related to these early voyages. However, in my initial investigations I determined that my expertise would be an asset since I found that the ancient Chontal Maya/Itza, contrary to popular belief, were a worldly, precocious, and sophisticated seafaring peoples, and this fact played a vital role in their development and spread of the advanced Maya civilization. Written history of the ancient Maya civilization has been dominated, quite rightly, by scholars working in the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology rather than by historians. But the historical spectrum of Maya civilization extended unbroken from ancient prehistoric times to the early documented historic period of Spanish conquest. So it was with some confidence that I put aside my misgivings and expanded my investigation to encompass the wider scope of the book.

This full-time library and field research on Maya civilization was initiated in 1996 and continues to date. During this later period I presented papers on my Maya research at La Salle Universidad, Cancun, MX (2001) and Colegio Jalisco, Guadalajara, MX (2002), and an early version of these papers, containing some of the material in Chapter 1, was published in Revista de Historia de America, Numero 130, (2002), Mexico City, MX. The lectures that I presented to advanced students at Mexican universities in Cancun and Merida proved to be a learning experience for me that exceeded that of the students. In these instances the question and answer period, attended by faculty members, extended into a productive, seminar-like discussion of controversial elements of Yucatan/Maya history such as those covered in the book. From these discussions I learned there was a strong feeling among my Mexican colleagues that the historical significance and impact of the Yucatan on the history of Mesoamerica had been neglected and inaccurately reported by past historians.

The book was written as a pragmatic historical narrative rather than an academic dissertation. True history is meaningless when written as a chronological listing or catalog of facts arrived at by past historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and ethnologists.

The data and artifacts produced by archaeologists and the translated and published knowledge contained in early documents produced by historians, toiling in the archives of the world, must be assembled in a factual and realistic pattern to qualify as true history. William H. McNeill expressed this philosophy in his book, Mythistory and Other Essays, by stating: To become history, facts have to be put together into a pattern that is understandable and creditable; and when that has been achieved; the resulting portrait of the past may become useful. Pattern recognition of the sort historians engage in is the chef d’ oeuvre of human intelligence. Pattern recognition is what natural scientists are up to; it is what historians have always done, whether they knew it or not (McNeill 1986:5). In reviewing the current historiography of the prehistoric Maya and the early Maya/Spanish encounters in Yucatan it was quite apparent that past history as published did not follow an understandable and creditable pattern. Instead, prehistoric and early historic Yucatan history has been presented, not as a viable pattern, but as a convoluted listing of events, placed in suspect chronological time periods in widely separated locations, and poorly supported by viable evidence or logic. The book discusses the inaccuracies in previous published historiography and brings together these events, widely separated in time and space, into an accurate, creditable and understandable historical pattern.

My lengthy, in-depth, historical research involving considerable travel in the USA and Mexico, was not funded by a university or foundation grant. In this I am fortunate in being a retired military officer with an independent income that permits me to pursue the historical research unencumbered by deadlines or other restrictive measures. In my investigative research I have based my conclusions and theory on analysis of primary sources which included archaeological artifacts and data, art and sculpture, recorded oral history, and extant early documents rather than reciting the conclusions of previous secondary writers. I have not participated in any archaeological investigation. My conclusions related to archaeology are based on the descriptions, drawings, photographs, museum exhibits, and field examination of the sites of archaeologists whom I cite as a source. When my conclusions differ from those of the archaeologists involved, I present my related evidence and give a dialectical argument to support my rationale or conclusion. And I have not engaged in research of documents in the archives of Seville, Madrid, Guatemala, or Mexico City. Instead, I have studied and drawn my conclusions from the available published translations of these documents by scholars whom I cite as a source. But here again, the conclusions are mine based on a reading of the prime document, and not the secondary source or translator that I cite, with whom I frequently disagree. The first two chapters in the book present a theory or cultural pattern that challenges the popular view that the advanced Maya culture in the Yucatan only developed late in the Classic and Post Classic period and was largely influenced by acculturation from the Mexican highlands or the jungles of Peten. This popular view has little creditable historical foundation and is supported primarily by the authority of predecessor archaeologist/ historians and by circular reasoning that since some motifs of art and architecture in the Yucatan can be found in the highland area, therefore that is their source. Contrary to this consensus, the theory or historical pattern presented in Chapter 1 shows that the Olmec cultural heritage and knowledge did not die out or disappear with abandonment of their early centers, but melded unbroken into the growing power of the militaristic, mercantile oriented Chontal Maya a short distance east in Tabasco. It was this alliance between the merchants and their warrior rulers that made the Chontal Maya such a powerful force in Maya history. The Formative period Olmec and Chontal Maya lived in the same coastal area, had the same language, the same principal god and mythology (Kukulcan/Itzamna), the same writing and mathematics, the same style of architecture, and developed and conducted the same extensive trade network. Except for the fact that archaeologists have labeled them as separate and distinct peoples based on superficial differences in surviving artifacts, a student of anthropology and ethnology might be tempted to label them as the same homogeneous people.

The developed historical pattern in Chapter 1 details how the Chontal Maya (later known by their true name as the Itzá), through their widespread trading enterprise and their epic military expansionist migrations, spread the Kukulcan myth, writing, mathematics, and other vestiges of advanced civilization first to the Yucatan and subsequently throughout the Maya lowlands and peripheral highland areas. In challenging long accepted theories and patterns of acculturation it became necessary to not only support my theory and pattern with evidence and argument, but to show the weakness or flaws of previously published views by a creditable dialectical analysis. Thus the book constitutes both a history of the period and a history of the historiography related to the period and is unique in this respect.

Chapter 2 details how the Chontal Maya had developed naval engineering, metallurgy, tool design, and woodworking and shipbuilding capabilities to build the large seaworthy vessels in which they traveled to the islands of the Caribbean and to Florida. Chapters 3 through 5 move from the prehistoric to the historic period and details the Spanish explorations of the Yucatan and the initial encounter of the Maya by Córdoba, Grijalva, and Cortés, taken largely from the source documents of Oviedo, Herrera, Martyr, Gómara, Salazar, Las Casas, Santa Cruz, Flores, Landa, Juan Diaz, and Bernal Diaz. Chapters 6 and 7report the troubled and lengthy (1527-1546) conquest and colonization of the Yucatan by Don Francisco de Montejo from much the same documentary evidence. The report of The Great Maya Revolt in 1546 (Chapter 7) is often mentioned but seldom covered in detail in historiography related to the violent sociological turmoil endemic to the Yucatan.

The report of John Lloyd Stephens’s, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan (Chapter 8), is not a work that is chronologically related to the time period of this history of the Yucatan. But Stephens’s account supplies much valuable data related to the history of early Maya cities of Yucatan (chapters 1 and 2) that is not available in academic publications. Possibly the two most important chapters in the book are the first and the last. Chapter 1 presents the new Maya origin and acculturation theory and is supported by the latest little-known research and by reexamination and new interpretation of artifacts from older research. Chapter 8, the findings of Stephens’s comprehensive archaeological investigation (two Volumes, 640 pages) are over a century and a half old, which in the eyes of some scholars throws the work into the category of outdated material, and it is further shadowed by being contained in a popular trade travelog rather than a scholarly work in an academic publication. But what is overlooked is that the nearly destroyed (or in some cases, completely missing) ruins that archaeologists toil over today were in far better condition for study in the earlier pre-looter 1841 period. Chapter 8 also presents valuable cultural, sociological and ethnological history related to the remnants of the full-bloodied Maya that survived to Stephens’s time and can be found in the Yucatan today.

And finally, the Epilogue is a valuable part of the overall history of the Yucatan as it notes the several large revolts that followed the Great Maya Revolt of 1546 and brings out important cultural and ethnological aspects of later Spanish/Maya Yucatan history that could not fit into the limited historical narrative. An important part of the Epilogue contains the history of the legendary Maya hero, Jacinto Canek, to which the book is dedicated.

ONE

The Origin of the Advanced Maya Civilization in the Yucatan

For most of the Twentieth century, academic consensus was tied to the theory that the first inhabitants in the Americas evolved from waves of peoples crossing the Bering land bridge from Asia at the end of the last Ice Age. The earliest site of an identifiable cultural settlement was at Clovis, New Mexico, dated around 11,200, and all subsequent acculturation was believed to have emanated from that point and date (Coe 1993:31; Dillehay 2000:2-43). However, recent archaeological finds in both North and South America, most notably that at Monte Verde in southern Chili, indicate that humans formed settled villages in the Americas much earlier than previously thought (Dillehay 2000:2-43, 227-248). The latest research using Mitochondrial DNA sampling indicates that the Americas were first populated from northern Asia between 40,000 and 20,000 years ago followed by later waves of more advanced peoples.1 These early migrations of nomadic hunter-gatherers first settled and formed organized communities in the coastal plains along a shore where animal, marine, and plant foods were readily available year-around.

This study is concerned, not with where the first settlements occurred, but only with the origin of the first settlement in Mesoamerica that evolved into the advanced Maya civilization. The definitive term Maya civilization is used in this instance as a generic, historical definition to identify the dominant advanced and ethnically homogeneous polity in Mesoamerica that had internally developed writing, mathematics, public architecture, and other vestiges of civilization in the Formative period. By definition, this includes peripheral peoples that have the same root language and share the same cultural background, but have been arbitrarily compartmentalized as separate from the Maya because of largely superficial variances in language dialect, architectural style, or use of different ceramic motifs and coloring.

There is wide disagreement among archaeologists, anthropologists, and historians concerning both the geographical origin and later geographical spread of the advanced Maya civilization. This study presents and supports the theory that the cultural knowledge which constituted the basis for the advanced Maya civilization originated in the Olmec heartland in the Vera Cruz and Tabasco coastal area of the Gulf of Mexico and is recorded in the Maya mythology of an ancient priestly godlike king named Kukulcan. The theory of the advanced Maya civilization evolving from the Olmec in the Gulf Coastal area (but not tied to the Kukulcan myth) is not new, has been in existence in published works for some time, and known as the Olmec-Centric Theory.2 The Olmec-Centric Theory for Maya cultural origin was put forward in the mid-twentieth century primarily by Mexican scholars, Ignacio Bernal (1969), Miguel Covarrubias (1942, 1946, 1957), Alfonso Caso (1942, 1952, 1969), Matthew W. Stirling (1947, 1965, 1968), John E. Clark (1989, 1990), and Beatriz de la Fuente (1977, 1981).

The Olmec-Centric theory was later challenged by scholars advocating the currently popular Indigenous Origin theory based primarily on evidence of complex societies with settled villages that rose throughout Mesoamerica in the same period as the rise of the Olmec. Just the ability to form settled villages, build stone buildings, or establish a social polity does not insure development of the high cultural elements of a civilized society such as the Olmec. Currently the Olmec-Centric Theory has been revived and given limited support, most notable by the research of Richard A. Diehl (1989, 1995) and Paul Tolstoy (1990). Diehl presents a strong argument for the Olmec-Centric theory in, The Olmec World—Ritual and Rulership, by listing eleven cultural features originated by the Olmec that later spread throughout the Maya and peripheral areas, which he concludes justifies recognizing the Olmec as Mesoamerica’s Mother Culture (Diehl-Coe 1995:23-24), a conclusion reached fifty years earlier by Covarrubias.

This study is concerned only with the spread or diffusion of the Olmec Mother Culture from Tabasco, but there is compelling evidence that the Olmec culture was influenced or even nurtured by inter-hemispheric cultural diffusion from China. In a variation or extension of the Olmec-Centric theory, H. Mike Xu, building on Heine-Geldern’s, Shao’s and Ekholm’s work, presented a provocative theory that the initial origin of the advanced Olmec Mother Culture can be traced to refugees from the downfall of the Shang Dynasty in northern China (Ekholm 1964:489-510; Miller 2000; Shao 1983; Xu 1996:13-47). Xu favors Shao’s and Covarrubias’s theory that Olmec culture originated in the Pacific slope of Izapan, Oaxaca and Guerrero from Chinese migration then progressed through the highlands to the Gulf coast in Tabasco where it flowered into the Olmec and Maya civilization (Durant 1954; Covarrubias 1942, 1946, 1957; Shao 1976, 1983; Xu 1996). Scholars who advocate the Indigenous Origin theory and oppose the diffusionist theories from China cite (1) the absence of the true arch; (2) absence of wheeled vehicles; and (3) absence of Old World artifacts in archaeological investigation of prehistoric sites. However, the comprehensive work of Paul Shao related to the subject showed the absence of these three factors to be irrelevant and presented a compelling argument to support cultural diffusion from China (Shao 1983).

The new and original theory in this study challenges the popular consensus that the advanced Maya culture in the Yucatan developed late in the Classic and Postclassic period and was largely influenced by acculturation from the Mexican highlands or movement from the abandoned cities in the southern Peten lowlands. Contrary to this consensus, the theory or historical pattern in this study shows that the Olmec cultural heritage and knowledge as expressed in the Kukulcan mythology, did not die out or disappear with abandonment of their early centers in southern Vera Cruz and northern Tabasco, but melded without interruption into the growing power of the militaristic, mercantile oriented Chontal Maya a short distance east in Tabasco. The Chontal Maya, later known by their true name as the Itza, through their widespread trading enterprise, together with their military expansionist migrations into neighboring areas, then spread the Kukulcan myth, writing, mathematics, and other vestiges of advanced civilization first to the Yucatan and subsequently throughout the Maya lowlands and peripheral highland areas. In developing this new theory I can be accused of going over well-trodden ground previously published by astute scholars whose works have been largely accepted by the academic community. In essence that is the basic approach of this historical research,—to examine and analyze the widely divergent views expressed in published works and determine an accurate and viable historical pattern of the origin and acculturation of Maya civilization.

The long coastline of the Yucatan peninsula and adjacent shores fronting on both the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea was the factor that thrust the early inhabitants of the Yucatan and adjacent areas into a leading role in development of the advanced Maya civilization. This leading role was largely influenced by the development and control of the long range canoe routes that ranged from Tampico in the north, around the shores of the Yucatan to the Bay of Honduras, and up the drainage rivers to the highland cities of the interior. The historically significant and leading role of coastal dwelling seafaring peoples in development of early civilizations, first promoted by Toynbee (1947) has recently been supported by Cunliffe (2001) in his study of prehistoric cultures and civilizations. Since Maya civilization spanned both prehistoric and early historic times, the limited archaeological findings related to the Formative (Preclassic) period, have been supplemented with interpretive study of Maya oral history and mythology that were recorded by the few surviving Maya scribes and the early Spanish observers and historians. Hidden within these ancient oral myths, and the later related art and sculpture that recorded this mythology, can be found a clear identification of the origin of the advanced fundamental elements of Maya civilization such as writing, ordained religion, mathematics, and public architecture.

The Geographical and Ethnical Origin of the Advanced Maya Civilization as Derived from the Kukulcan Mythology

In the Formative period the ancient Maya revered a godlike priestly king from mythology called Kukulcan who brought the vestiges of civilization to their ancestors. Kukulcan, the godlike ruler from Maya mythology, was a holy man with fair skin, long dark hair, and flowing beard, whose symbol was the feathered and winged rattlesnake, and who instructed the ancient Maya in writing, mathematics, architecture, and the arts of government. Incurring the wrath of the gods, he was forced to leave and departed in a vessel of serpent skins to Tlapallan his home in the East, but vowed that some day he would return. This amalgamation of the several versions of the ancient myth closely follows William H. Prescott’s account of the later derived Toltec/Aztec Quetzalcoatl myth (Prescott 1969:38-39,171,361). Prescott’s comprehensive research was conducted in the latter part of the eighteenth and early nineteenth-century from primary source documents. Prescott’s version is ostensibly closer to the original Kukulcan mythology, since he was not influenced by later twentieth century historiography containing convoluted Post-Classic Quetzalcoatl myths and legends, which bear little resemblance to the older and more valid Formative period Kukulcan mythology.

The esoteric theogony of the numerous Quetzalcoatl myths in late Classic, Postclassic, and early historic (Spanish) period serve only to confuse and throw a shadow on the original clearly defined Formative period Kukulcan mythology. In discussing the religious myths of the Aztec, Prescott brings out the point of the earlier inherited myths being perverted into a later different form when he stated: It naturally suggests the idea of two distinct sources [for religious myths], and authorizes the belief that the Aztec had inherited from their predecessors a milder faith [Kukulcan], on which was afterwards engrafted their own mythology. The latter [Quetzalcoatl] soon became dominant, and gave its dark coloring to the creeds of the conquering nations (Prescott 1969:37).

Contrary to this view, Nicholson devoted sixteen pages in a comprehensive discussion of the subject and concluded (without evidence or a rational argument) that the Kukulcan myth followed and was based on the many Quetzalcoatl myths (Nicholson 1967:78-93). Milbrath follows this unfounded conclusion and indicated her bias for origin of the mythology in the highlands in her chapter with the subtitle, Quetzalcoatl-Kukulcan: The Venus god from central Mexico (Milbrath 1999:177-186). This study will show that the origin of the Kukulcan myth can be dated to the early Formative period Olmec/Chontal Maya/Itzá in Tabasco and was adopted in the highlands and perverted into the Quetzalcoatl (Quetzal Feathered Snake) myth at a much later date.

The revered ancient king called Kukulcan was the first historical figure to emerge from the many gods of the Maya myth of creation and from his description of bringing the elements of civilization to the people would thus have been considered by the Maya as the founder of their civilization or culture. In this respect, he can be likened to Abraham who emerged as a historical founding father from the creation mythology of Genesis in the Judaic-

Christian Bible (Laymon 1971:6-14).3 The myth of Kukulcan instructing the Maya in writing and other elements of civilization ostensibly could not have been tied to one single king or ruler, but would have originated in the oral history of a powerful dynasty by that name or with that symbol. This ancient dynasty would have been one that supported a large and precocious leisure class of nobles, and over an extended period of time developed writing, mathematics, and other vestiges of civilization.

The fact that Kukulcan in the mythology came from his homeland in the East is misleading. The East referred to in Maya mythology is not geographical east, but the heavenly East associated with the Maya mythology of creation and the god Venus as the Morning Star. Friar Diego de Landa in the early sixteenth-century recorded the hi story of the Yucatan in his Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan (Tozzer 1941; Gates 1990).4 Landa was probably reporting the Kukulcan mythology (without recognizing it as such) when he stated: "Some old men of Yucatan say they have heard from their ancestors