(2014) Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content in the Maya Books of Chilam Balam

Ethnohistory 61:4 (Fall 2014) DOI 10.1215/00141801-2717831 Copyright 2014 by American Society for Ethnohistory

Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content in the Maya Books of Chilam Balam

Eleanor Harrison- Buck, University of New Hampshire

Abstract. This article examines the so- called First Chronicle of the Maya Books of Chilam Balam, a segment of shared content found in three of the native copybooks from northern Yucatán, including the Tizimin, the Chumayel, and the Maní, also known as the Códice Pérez. I reevaluate the chronology and historical content of the First Chronicle found in these books by examining the following: (1) the dates applied to the katun cycles (increments of roughly twenty- year periods) in light of recent archaeological finds from Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán; (2) Maya conventions of time as expressed in the katun chronicles; (3) the shared sub-ject matter found in all three books; and (4) the internal structure and transcription conventions of the First Chronicle. This study suggests that the early chronicles may offer a larger measure of historical accuracy and reliability than is currently accepted.

Among the various avenues of approach to the investigation of Maya civiliza-tion, the study of the native literature of Yucatán is, next to the actual archaeo-logical exploration of the remains, one of the most promising, for it contains much of what the Indians remembered of their old culture after the Spanish conquest.— Ralph L. Roys, The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel

Students of the Maya past are extraordinarily lucky to have at hand such a wealth of ethnohistory; the archaeologist neglects it at his peril.— Sir J. Eric S. Thompson, Maya History and Religion

Both Ralph L. Roys and J. Eric S. Thompson are remarkable for their con-tributions to ethnohistory and its analogical potential for Maya archae-ology. Today, many scholars question whether colonial- period accounts are reliable sources for their prehistoric interpretations (Hanks 2010; M. E.

Ethnohistory

Published by Duke University Press

682 Eleanor Harrison-Buck

Smith 2007). Some critiques of these Classic- colonial “leaps of faith” are warranted (Jones 1986: 74). However, as I see it, the problem lies not solely in the sources themselves but in the methodology that has been employed— interpretations of the past and chronology building started with these sources and then turned to the archaeological record to “prove” the findings. This traditional approach to ethnohistoric (and ethnographic) resources as analogies to the past is fraught with problems that often involve static struc-tural conditions from Classic to colonial times where interpretations are preloaded before the archaeological findings are even found.

This is the case with the Maya Books of Chilam Balam (hereafter BCB), where scholars have attempted to derive historical sequences of events from the early chronicles recorded in these native colonial- period books. The so- called First Chronicle of the BCB contains shared subject matter in the Tizimin, Chumayel, and Códice Pérez. In each case, these chronicles focus on the exploits of two competing lineages (the Itzá and the Xiu) and describe events that primarily occurred at Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán— four important pre- Hispanic Maya cities located in the Yucatán Peninsula (fig. 1). The shared content found in the First Chronicle of these books provides some of the most convincing evidence of archaic language and pre- Hispanic content. Over the years, scholars have applied various Gregorian dates to the katun rounds (increments of roughly twenty- year periods) that structure the First Chronicle and then attempted to project these chronologies onto the archaeological past. Ultimately, this approach has created a skewed and artificially long chronological sequence for these northern Yucatec sites that is only now being revised by archaeologists who have been unable to satisfactorily align these historical sequences with the archaeological records. The failed efforts have caused endless frustration and confusion, prompting many scholars to question the historical validity of these native books. In the edited volume Twin Tollans, Michael E. Smith (2007: 586) concludes, “Conquest- period native historical accounts [like the BCB] are unlikely to preserve reliable information about events from the Early Postclassic or Epiclassic periods,” adding that “[t]he creation of an objective record of actual historical events with chronological accuracy was not a goal of the indigenous historical traditions nor their Colonial inscrip-tion.” Similar sentiments are expressed in other current scholarship, where the accounts in the early chronicles are not only dismissed as “myth,” but the colonial Maya scribes (not the twentieth century translators) are held responsible for the historical inaccuracies.

In this article, I reassess prior translations of the dates applied to the katuns of the First Chronicle and propose a revised chronology in light of recent archaeological finds. To better understand the sociohistorical con-texts of the BCB, I first provide some background on these native books. To

Ethnohistory


Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content 683

assess the degree of historical content in the early chronicles, I evaluate the following: (1) the reconstructed dates of the katun cycles in light of recent archaeological finds from Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Maya-pán; (2) Maya conventions of time as expressed in the katun chronicles; (3) the shared subject matter found in all three books; and (4) the internal structure and transcription conventions of the early chronicles.

Background on the Books of Chilam Balam

There are nine extant Maya BCB (Chan Cah, Chumayel, Ixil, Kaua, Na, Tekax, Tizimin, Tusik, and Códice Pérez, also referred to as the Maní) that were compiled during the colonial period and found in the towns for which they are named in the northern parts of Yucatán, Mexico (see fig. 1). The nine extant “copybooks” (cartapacios) were compiled by Maya scribes and

Figure 1. Map of Yucatán showing sites and towns discussed in the text.

Ethnohistory



primarily date to the eighteenth century, although a few may date somewhat earlier (Knowlton 2008: 94; Tedlock 2010: 249). Each of the copybooks was the responsibility of the town or of a member of the community elite, and although most of the books share cognate passages, they show varia-tion from community to community (Restall 1998: 129). No single author can be attributed to these compilations, and they appear to have been copied, assembled, and recopied over the years by multiple scribes (Bricker and Miriam 2002: 11). They were guarded and maintained by the particu-lar town (or cah) for which they were named (Restall 1997: 276). They were not given any formal titles; only later were they named for Chilan Balam (a Maya patronym), who was among the most famous of Maya prophets (Bricker and Miriam 2002: 1; Hanks 2010: 339; Roys 1967 [1933]: 111). Although there probably was never one master text, Restall (1997: 279) suggests that shared literary conventions for certain segments found in dif-ferent books point to a set of local model versions, which may explain the commonalities found in the First Chronicle of the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez, discussed further below.

The Spanish clergy sought to destroy these “idolatrous” manuscripts, much as they did the antecedant codical books written in Mayan hiero-glyphic texts (Knowlton 2008: 94). The BCB are referred to as a “fobid-den genre” of texts that were kept secret from those who would disapprove (Hanks 2010: 338– 64). These “clandestine manuscripts” were compiled by the same Maya religious leaders who were being trained in Roman Catho-lic doctrine and who served the Maya communities in the absence of Span-ish priests (Knowlton 2008: 93– 94). John Chuchiak (2010: 95) notes, “The Maya themselves undertook the education of this select group of scribes and notaries, who most often were the only literate members of the village.” Redactions of Yucatec- Maya language documents like the BCB reveal that the colonial Maya scribes adapted and utilized “both the traditional hiero-glyphic script and the new alphabetic writing skills taught by the Franciscan Friars” (Chuchiak 2010: 87; see also Bricker 1989: 48). William E. Hanks (2010: 362– 63) suggests that the scribes of the BCB were evangelized Maya who wrote in a lengua reducida (converted or Christianized language) and had an intimate knowledge of Christian precepts and practices.

From these texts, it is clear that both the scribes and the BCB were bound up in heavily Christianized colonial formations. Therefore, Hanks (2010: 362) questions how scholars can be confident whether a passage in the BCB is truly an ancient text or, in fact, a colonial one. My feeling is that it is probably not an either/or state of affairs. Even now, “postcolonialism” does not mean “beyond colonialsm,” as we are always working within and around these dominant structures. “Whereas people, cultures and nations may actively resist and deny colonialist tendencies and colonial constructs,

Ethnohistory



the past is always being reworked nostalgically and adapted creatively to the present” (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 14). This seems to be the case for the doctrinal Maya scribes, given how the Maya lengua reducida and quantity of Spanish references in the scribal repertoire vary significantly among the different passages of the BCB. Table 1 reveals this marked varia-tion, with chapters in the Chumayel that contain 20 percent or less of Span-ish references in bold, which includes the First Chronicle.1 The table is heu-ristic, but the stark differences in proportions tell us that we cannot reduce the BCB to either ancient or colonial accounts because they reflect ongoing accounts of the past that were continually being reworked and adapted to the present. In assessing the sociohistorical contexts in segments of the BCB, it is therefore critical that each of the passages be analyzed individu-ally and examined for lengua reducida, as Hanks (2010: 362) suggests, as well as for archaic language and pre- Hispanic content. Comparing cognate texts is the next step. I found this approach to be helpful in assessing shared content in the passages of the early chronicles of the BCB, which I define as Events 1–9 (see further below). “If we can confidently match strips of text between books, then we can compare the points on which they vary [and look] for alternative phrasings of the same or similar objects” (342). Yet the translation of specific terms does not always appear to be unidirectional (from archaic to doctrinal language) or equivalent in meaning throughout all segments of the BCB, probably because multiple scribal- priests were involved who were continually reworking and reshaping both Maya- and Spanish- inspired terms and trying to make sense of foreign terminology in the context of their own world (see, e.g., Christensen 2013: 122).

What further complicates our understanding of the BCB is that no single genre can describe these compilations; they contain an array of indigenous writings, ranging from mythography and prophecies to cura-tive and medicinal information to pre- and postconquest mythical and his-toric events (Alvarez 1969; Bricker 1989; Bricker and Miriam 2002; Caso Barrera 2011; Hanks 2010: 338– 64; Knowlton 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Restall 1997: 276– 82, 1998: 129– 43; Solari 2010, 2013; Tedlock 2010: 248– 85). References to postconquest subject matter are found throughout the BCB and have been examined elsewhere by numerous scholars (Bolles 2003; Christensen 2013: 86– 87, 122; Hanks 2010; Jones 1989, 1998; Restall 1998: 129– 43; Rice and Rice 2005; among others). In addition, a lengthy mythog-raphy is found in the BCB, which has been the focus of more intensive study in recent years (Knowlton 2008, 2010b; Solari 2013; Tedlock 2010: 274– 85). This series of Maya creation myths, in some cases blending Christian stories, is part of a larger corpus of historico- legendary accounts referred to as u kahlay, or “history,” in the BCB (Knowlton 2010b: 36– 37). The First Chronicle in the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Maní also is considered part of

Ethnohistory



Table 1. Lines of Spanish-Influenced Text in the Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayel

Chapters in the Chumayel*Total Lines in Chapter

Spanish Lines

Percentage of Text

1. First Chronicle 152 24 15.792. Second Chronicle 98 8 8.163. Third Chronicle 130 25 19.234. Izamal and Champotón 18 1 5.565. Uxmal 22 15 68.186. Chichén Itzá 12 6 50.007. The Sermon of Ahau Pech 34 0 0.008. Cozumel 12 6 50.009. The Sermon of Puc Tun 16 0 0.0010. The Sermon of Xopan Nahuat 134 99 73.8811. Cobá 62 61 98.3912. The Ceremonial May 636 12 1.8913. The Sermon of Tzin Yabun 34 33 97.0614. The Building of Pyramids 60 20 33.3315. The Ceremonial of the Hab 160 0 0.0016. Christianity Reaches Mérida 120 68 56.6717. The Count of the Katuns 118 6 5.0818. Mérida Seats the Cycle 18 0 0.0019. The New Cycle of Mérida 154 153 99.3520. The Birth of the Uinal 224 5 2.2321. The Sermon of Kauil Ch'el 28 0 0.0022. The Cathedral of Mérida 56 55 98.2123. The Shield of Yucatán 14 0 0.0024. The Inquisition in the East 192 120 62.5025. The Civil War 66 4 6.0626. The Military Orders 94 0 0.0027. The War Indemnity 250 143 57.2028. Cesar Augustus 46 3 6.5229. The Ceremonial of the Baktun 540 66 12.2230. The Language of Zuyua 882 25 2.8331. Additional Riddles 310 68 21.9432. Astronomical Notes 96 96 100.0033. Cesar Augustus and the Chan War 202 116 57.4334. Antonio Martínez 86 86 100.0035. Valladolid Resurgent 50 14 28.0036. Chable 34 22 64.7137. The Annals of Tixkokob 66 66 100.0038. The Ending of Tribute at Chichén Itzá 28 1 3.5739. Calendrical Notes 60 60 100.0040. Valladolid 24 0 0.0041. The Sevenfold Creation 540 441 81.6742. The Sins of the Itzá 162 53 32.7243. The Sheep and the Goats 110 110 100.00

Ethnohistory



the u kahlay and includes a series of events that are temporally fixed by Maya katun dates, which are discussed below.

Katun Dating in the Books of Chilam Balam

The early chronicles of the BCB are structured around an important pre- Hispanic method of time tracking referred to as the u kahlay katunob, or “history of the katuns.” A katun is a period of roughly 20 years. A katun round comprises a bundle of 13 katuns that repeat as a cycle every 256 years (or 260 tuns). A system of recording katun dates is found in ancient Mayan hieroglyphic texts, but it varies somewhat from the method recorded in the BCB. The former system abbreviated the Classic period Long Count of ten glyphs down to just three, the katun and the day that the katun ended, which provided a period- ending date that was unique within a cycle of nearly 19,000 years (Sharer and Traxler 2008: 113). An even more abbreviated katun system, known as the Short Count, is used in the Maya chronicles of the BCB where only the Ahau days in which a particular katun ended are noted, and the date of the katun marks the end of this 20- year period (Chase 1986: 101– 2). This offers a period- ending date unique only within a cycle of 256 years (see table 2). Determining which katun cycle is being refer-enced presents some obvious confusion and is at the heart of the debate with regard to the chronological interpretations of the katun counts recorded in the chronicles of the BCB.

Dates for the katun counts were initially translated by Daniel G. Brin-ton (1969 [1882]) and Sylvanus G. Morley (1911, 1917), who were attempt-ing to correlate the Maya and Gregorian calendars. The BCB of Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez were later fully translated in published form by George B. Gordon (1913 [1993]), Ralph L. Roys (1967 [1933]), Christina Alvarez (1969), Munro Edmonson (1982, 1986), Alfredo Barrera Vásquez and Silvia Rendón (1948), Ermilo Solís Alcalá (1949), and Eugene R. Craine and Reginald C. Reindorp (1979), who retained the absolute chronology

Table 1. Continued

Chapters in the Chumayel*Total Lines in Chapter

Spanish Lines

Percentage of Text

44. Notes from Chumayel 36 36 100.0045. Cobá 30 0 0.0046. Tizimin 282 188 66.67Total Lines 6498 2315*Chapters listed are as they appear in Edmonson 1986.

Ethnohistory



established earlier on. Here, I reassess the dates of the katun counts asso-ciated with the first segments of the early chronicles in the BCB, which con-tain shared subject matter found on pages 18v– 19r in the Tizimin (Edmon-son 1982: 3– 11; Barrera Vásquez and Rendón 1948: 57), on pages 40– 41 in the Chumayel (Edmonson 1986: 51– 56; Gordon 1993 [1913]: 74; Roys 1933: 74– 76), and on pages 134– 37 in the Códice Pérez (Solís Alcalá 1949: 266– 70; Craine and Reindorp 1979: 138– 40).

There have been more recent attempts to revise the dates of the katun counts in these segments of the early chronicles that are summarized in table 3. While some of the dates proposed by these scholars align with the chronology proposed herein, none attempts a reconstruction of the entire sequence of the katun counts for the early chronicles as outlined in table 3 and the appendix, and they often are vague in terms of support-ing source references. For instance, in his discussion of the katun counts, Joseph W. Ball (1986: 406n8) acknowledges that he is unable to resolve the chronology of two of the episodes described in the early chronicles— the so- called “Hunac Ceel adventures . . . and the entire event sequence follow-ing the katun 8 Ahau destruction of Chichén Itzá as recorded in the [Códice Pérez] and [Tizimin]” (see also Ball 1974). Here I present a revised dating for the katun counts in the early chronicles, which I believe resolves some of these issues and better accords with the archaeological data and revised chronology proposed for northern Yucatán.

A Revised Northern Chronology: The Katun Rounds in Light of the Archaeology

The chronology of northern Yucatán, specifically with regard to the dating of Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, and Mayapán, has been at the center of scholarly debate for decades in Maya archaeology (Ball 1979, 1986; Lincoln 1986; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003; for a review, see Kristan- Graham and Kowalski 2007: 36– 38). Beginning around the 1980s, archaeologists began to revise the chronology of northern Yucatán based on reassessments of archaeological data coupled with new findings, but only in the last decade or so has this revised chronology been more widely accepted by scholars

Table 2. Calendrical Placements of Katun Cycles 8 Ahau, 6 Ahau, and 4 Ahau

Katun Christian Years

8 Ahau AD 672– 692 AD 928– 948 AD 1185– 12046 Ahau AD 692– 711 AD 948– 968 AD 1204– 12244 Ahau AD 711– 731 AD 968– 987 AD 1224– 1244

Ethnohistory



(A. P. Andrews, E. W. Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castellanos 2003; Bey, Hanson, and Ringle 1997; Cobos Palma 2004, 2007; Pérez de Heredia Puente 2012; Kristan- Graham and Kowalski 2007: 36; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003, 2009; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998). These revised chronologies are more firmly rooted in some cases because of current epi-graphic decipherments of dates and new or rerun radiocarbon dates, espe-cially in the case of Chichén Itzá and Mayapán (Grube and Krochock 2007; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003, 2009; Peraza Lope et al. 2006; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998).

Despite the revised northern chronology, few attempts have been made to fully revise the chronology of any of the early chronicles found in the BCB. This may be because many of the problems with the chronology were blamed on the indiscriminate use of the “history” presented in the BCB. Early on, scholars like Brinton (1969 [1882]) and Morley (1911, 1917) iden-tified in the BCB postconquest events with Gregorian dates and, count-ing backward from there, established that Mayapán collapsed in the mid- fifteenth century and that, according to their reconstructions of the katun rounds, it was first settled in the latter half of the thirteenth century. Count-ing back from here, this same reasoning led to the idea that both Uxmal and Chichén Itzá were Postclassic sites. It became entrenched in the literature that Chichén Itzá was founded no earlier than the tenth century.

These series of reconstructed dates anchored the archaeological inves-tigations that were conducted by the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Chichén Itzá and Mayapán throughout the twentieth century. Thompson (1970: 3– 47) went on to popularize the idea that the capital of Chichén Itzá was established after being invaded by the Mexicanized Chontal- speaking Itzá in AD 918 and that they “ruled over the entire peninsula until the first part of the thirteenth century” (Roys 1957: 3). Likewise, Alfred M. Tozzer’s (1957) influential early study of Chichén Itzá’s bas- relief and murals and proposed “Mexican invasion” leading to two components of occupation— an Old (Maya) and a New (Toltec- Maya) Chichén— were interpretations largely based on the native chronicles, namely, the BCB (Lincoln 1986: 144). The art historical and ethnohistoric chronologies established by Tozzer and others were the basis of subsequent ceramic and architectural sequences that were established for northern Yucatán by the mid- twentieth century (E. W. Andrews 1965a, 1965b; E. W. Andrews IV and E. W. Andrews V 1980; Brainerd 1958; R. E. Smith 1971). As Lincoln (1986: 144– 45) noted, “None of the above- named archaeologists who followed Tozzer [and others] . . . seriously attempted to reconcile either of these intractable sources (art his-torical or ethnohistorical) with the ‘dirt archaeology.’”

Since this time, more archaeological investigations have been under-taken, prompting many scholars to question the late dates for the north-

Ethnohistory


Tab

le 3

. Pro

pose

d D

ates

for

Eve

nts

in th

e Fi

rst C

hron

icle

of t

he B

ooks

of C

hila

m B

alam

(t

he a

utho

r’s

prop

osed

dat

es a

re s

tarr

ed a

nd b

oldf

ace;

see

als

o th

e ap

pend

ix)

BCB

Even

tsK

atun

Prop

osed

Gre

goria

n D

ates

BCB

Sour

ces1

Even

t 1: A

rriv

al o

f Hol

on C

han

Tepe

uh in

Pet

énB

efor

e 8

Aha

u*A

D 6

92*(

ET, S

)TZ

:3.1

– 10;

M

:138

.1– 3

81 y

ears

pas

s and

then

they

leav

e Pet

énA

fter

13

Aha

u*A

D 7

73*

TZ:3

.1– 1

0;

M:1

38.3

– 7Ev

ent 2

: Arr

ival

of A

h M

ekat

Tut

ul X

iu to

C

hacn

ovita

n8

Aha

u*/2

Aha

u/

13 A

hau/

2 A

hau

AD

692

*/75

1(C

, ET)

/ 77

0(B1

)/100

6(B3

)TZ

:3.1

1– 20

; M

:138

.8– 1

099

yea

rs p

ass a

fter h

e arr

ives

2 A

hau*

AD

751

*TZ

:3.1

1– 20

; M

:138

.8– 1

0Ev

ent 3

: Bac

alar

Pro

vinc

e est

ablis

hed,

gov

erne

d 60

yea

rs4

Aha

u*A

D 7

31*(

C, S

)M

:138

.11–

14

Even

t 4: C

hich

én It

zá “d

iscov

ered

” by

the I

tzá

8 A

hau*

/6 A

hau/

13

Aha

u/11

Aha

uA

D 6

92*(

BO, C

, ET,

R, S

)/ 71

1(B2

, EC

)/771

(B1)/

918(

B3)

TZ:5

– 6.2

1– 48

; C

H: 5

1– 52

.1– 2

8;

M:1

38.1

5– 18

The I

tzá

of C

hich

én It

zá o

vert

hrow

n1

Aha

u/8

Aha

u*/

1 A

hau/

9 A

hau/

8

Aha

u/9

Aha

u

AD

889

(B2,

C)/

948*

(BO

, R,

S, E

T)/ 1

145(

B3)/1

194(

B1)/

1204

(V)/1

450(

B3)

TZ:5

– 6.2

1– 48

; C

H: 5

1– 52

.1– 2

8;

M:1

38.1

5– 18

Even

t 5: C

hak’

anpu

tun

esta

blish

ed b

y th

e Itz

á6

Aha

u*/4

Aha

u/

1 A

hau/

8 A

hau/

6

Aha

u*/3

Aha

u

AD

711

*/A

D 7

31(V

), 88

9(B1

, B2,

C)/9

48(B

O, S

)/ 96

8(ET

)/112

8(B3

)

TZ:6

– 7.4

9– 81

; C

H:5

2– 53

.29–

62;

M:1

38.1

9– 25

Cha

k’an

putu

n go

vern

ed b

y th

e Itz

á fo

r 260

ye

ars,

then

ove

rthr

own

8 A

hau*

AD

948

*(B1

, B2,

C)/

1204

(B3,

EC, E

T, S

)TZ

:6– 7

.49–

81;

CH

:52–

53.2

9– 62

; M

:138

.19–

25

Ethnohistory


Itzá

from

Chi

chén

Itzá

brie

fly re

esta

blish

th

emse

lves

at C

hak’

anpu

tun?

4 A

hau*

AD

987

*/A

D 1

244/

(ET)

TZ:6

- 7.8

1- 88

; M

:138

.26-

28Ev

ent 6

: Uxm

al es

tabl

ished

by

Tutu

l Xiu

2 A

hau*

AD

751

*(S)

/100

7(B1

, B3,

C,

V)/1

263(

ET)

TZ:8

.89–

104;

M

:138

.29,

139

.1– 4

Uxm

al g

over

ned

by th

e Xiu

for 2

00 y

ears

10 A

hau*

/8 A

hau

AD

928

*/11

85(C

)/146

1(ET

)TZ

:8.8

9– 10

4;

M:1

38.2

9, 1

39.1

– 4Ev

ent 7

: The

Itzá

of C

hich

én It

zá o

vert

hrow

n by

H

unac

Cee

l, ai

ded

by Iz

amal

, Ul A

hau,

and

7

Nah

ua “f

orei

gner

s”

8 A

hau*

/9 A

hau/

8

Aha

uA

D 9

48*/

1194

(B1)/

12

04(C

, M, S

, V)/

1461

(EC

, ET)

TZ:8

– 9.1

05– 1

38;

CH

:53.

63– 8

4;

M:1

39.5

– 12

Even

t 8: T

he w

alle

d ci

ty o

f May

apán

com

plet

ed

(or s

eize

d?) b

y th

e Itz

á an

d U

l Aha

u un

der j

oint

ru

le

9 A

hau/

4 A

hau*

/ 13

Aha

u/10

Aha

u/

8 A

hau/

2 A

hau/

13

Aha

u

AD

935

(B3)/

987*

(B1,

B2)/

1027

(R, V

)/118

5(S)

/ 12

04(C

, M)/1

263(

B3)/

1283

(EC

)

TZ:9

– 10.

139–

148;

C

H:5

3– 54

.85–

93;

M:1

39.5

– 12

Even

t 9: X

iu o

vert

hrow

the I

tzá

unde

r joi

nt

rule

at M

ayap

án, a

ssist

ed b

y “H

umm

ingb

ird

Fore

igne

rs”

(Nah

ua m

erce

narie

s)

9 A

hau/

8 A

hau*

AD

119

4(B1

)/120

4*/1

451

(B3)/

1461

(BO

, C, E

C, E

T,

M, S

, V)

TZ:1

0– 11

.149

– 166

, 16

2.45

27– 4

538;

C

H:5

4.94

– 110

Xiu

rule

May

apán

for 2

80 y

ears

, the

n ab

ando

n 60

– 80

year

s bef

ore S

pani

sh ar

rive

9 A

hau/

8 A

hau*

AD

145

1(B1

, B3)/

1461

*(BO

, C

, EC

, ET,

M, S

, V)

TZ:1

62.4

527–

4538

; M

:139

.24–

28*=

Cur

rent

man

uscr

ipt;

B1=B

all (

1986

: Par

adig

m 1)

; B2=

Ball

(198

6: P

arad

igm

2);

B3=B

all (

1986

: Par

adig

m 3)

; BO

=Boo

t (20

10: 7

7, ta

ble 2

); C

=Cha

se

(198

6: 1

30– 3

4, ta

bles

4.5

– 4.9

); EC

=Edm

onso

n’s

Chu

may

el (1

986)

; ET=

Edm

onso

n’s

Tizi

min

(198

2); M

=Milb

rath

and

Per

aza

Lope

(200

3: 4

, ta

ble 1

); R

=Rin

gle,

Gal

lare

ta N

egró

n, a

nd B

ey (1

998:

tabl

e 3);

S=Sc

hele

and

Mat

thew

s (19

98: 2

03– 4

); V

=Var

gas (

1997

: 206

– 9; 2

001:

198–

203)

.1C

B (C

hila

m B

alam

) sou

rces

are

ref

eren

ced

here

by

page

s an

d lin

es o

f tex

t. TZ

=Edm

onso

n’s

1982

Tiz

imin

; CH

=Edm

onso

n’s

1986

Chu

may

el;

M=C

rain

e and

Rei

ndor

p’s 1

979

Man

í (or

Cód

ice P

érez

).

Ethnohistory



ern sites (A. P. Andrews, E. W. Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castella-nos 2003; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003, 2009; Peraza Lope et al. 2006; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998). For instance, at Chichén Itzá, the Sotuta Ceramic Complex, which makes up 90 percent of the assemblage, was long thought to postdate the Cehpech Complex but is now recognized to at least partially overlap with this complex and is firmly dated to the Ter-minal Classic period (Cobos Palma 2001: 186). Susan Milbrath and Carlos Peraza Lope (2003: 3), citing Ringle et al. 1998: table 1, observe that pure Sotuta ceramic deposits at Chichén Itzá have associated radiocarbon dates with midpoints that range from AD 663 to 891. This date range closely par-allels the proposed dates (AD 692–889/948) for the katun counts associated with Itzá occupation at Chichén Itzá as recorded in the BCB (discussed further below). The epigraphic data from Chichén Itzá coincides with the (early facet) Sotuta Complex, with most of the hieroglyphic texts dating to between 832 and 890 AD (Cobos Palma 2004; Grube and Krochock 2007). These data indicate that Chichén Itzá is contemporaneous with other Ter-minal Classic sites in the Maya Lowlands, like Uxmal, and that most of the major construction at Chichén Itzá ended as early as AD 1000– 1050 (Ringle 2004: 169; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998: 184).

Like Chichén Itzá, archaeological investigations at Uxmal have deter-mined that this center became the capital of a regional state (in the Eastern Puuc region of northern Yucatán) during the Terminal Classic period (ca. AD 770/800– 950 [Kowalski 2007: 253]) rather than the Postclassic. The House of the Governor, the Nunnery Quadrangle, and Ballcourt 1 at Uxmal have associated monuments and epigraphic dates that suggest that these buildings were constructed between 890 and 915 AD and that all monumen-tal construction ceased at Uxmal as early as AD 950 (Carmean, Dunning, and Kowalski 2004: 431– 32). The bulk of the ceramics found at Uxmal are from the Cehpech Complex and point to a Late to Terminal Classic occu-pation, while the presence of Tohil Plumbate tradewares found only asso-ciated with abandonment contexts lends support to the notion that the site was in a state of decline by the early to mid- tenth century.

Archaeological investigations have revealed a long history of occupa-tion from Preclassic to Colonial times at the site of Champotón on the Cam-peche coast, which most suggest is the equivalent of Chakan Putun in the BCB (Ek 2006, 2012; Folan et al. 2002; Folan et al. 2004; but see Voss 2004). In attempting to reconcile the sequence of events in the BCB, most scholars have applied an Early Postclassic date sequence (AD 948–1204) to the katun rounds that detail the rise and fall of Champotón. Yet, current archaeologi-cal research suggests that the peak period of occupation at Champotón occurred during the Late to Terminal Classic between AD 700–900 (Ek 2012). A later resurgence in occupation at Champotón appears to occur

Ethnohistory



post- AD 1204 during the Late Postclassic period, corresponding with the Tases Phase (1200/1300–1450) at Mayapán (Forsyth 2004), when the port city of Champotón is said to have covered 25 km2 with a population of as many as twenty thousand (Hurtado Cen et al. 2007: 210).

Traditionally, Mayapán is dated to around this same time period at the end of the Postclassic period (AD 1200–1461) based on the earlier readings of the ethnohistories. Like Champotón, Chichén Itzá and Uxmal, a chrono-logical realignment has been recently proposed for this regional Maya cen-ter as well. Milbrath and Peraza Lope (2003: 3) have reevaluated the ceram-ics and architecture from the archaeological investigations at Mayapán and suggest that this site overlapped with the decline of Chichén Itzá and was likely established by the mid- eleventh century AD or possibly as early as the late tenth century AD (see also Jones 1998: 10; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2009: 582). High percentages of Peto Cream ware, which dates between 900 and 1200 AD, were recorded in the early floors at Mayapán (Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2009: 591). A radiocarbon sample associated with Peto Cream ceramics found in an early phase of the Pyramid of Kukulkan at Mayapán suggest that construction was initiated in the main plaza by at least AD 1020– 1170 (Peraza Lope et al. 2006: 158), which lends support to an earlier date for the establishment of Mayapán than previously suggested.

Katun Counts and Maya Conventions of Time

Scholars often describe the BCB as “garbled” and “confused” accounts that blend myth and reality (Ball 1986: 381; Bricker 1981; M. E. Smith 2007: 579). Here, I suggest a great deal of the chronological confusion of the native chronicles may be due to a misunderstanding of Maya conventions of time in the translations of the native chronicles by Western scholars of the twentieth century. The basis of time and history for the Maya, recorded in the u kahlay katunob, was cyclical. Yet, for the most part, the series of katun dates in all three books have been translated as an unbreaking, lin-ear sequence of time. This presents a confusing repetition of events through time and an artificially long history for sites mentioned in the chronicles, elements that have led scholars to discredit the books as unreliable histori-cal documents. Contrary to what has been generally assumed, the chronicles “do not consist of a linear arrangement of katuns, but rather deal with the specific katun histories for certain places, people or events— histories which were not meant to be placed in a strictly linear, diachronic arrangement” (Chase 1986: 129; emphasis in original). As Bricker (1981: 8– 9) notes, time “telescopes” between future and past. Similar to Distance Numbers in ancient Mayan hieroglyphic texts, the intervals of time are anchored with an established start date that allowed scribes to jump backward in time and

Ethnohistory



discuss a different (but temporally overlapping) event within a given katun cycle. Viewed in this way, the katun counts comprise multiple bundles of time representing discrete events taking place within particular 256- year katun cycles (see table 2).

Many have characterized the native chronicles as “prophecies of the future” (A. P. Andrews 1990: 259; see also Farriss 1987: 570). The Maya scribes of the BCB attempted to project rhythms of past events into the future as “prophetic reinterpretations” of this cyclical history, which may have been influenced by the prophetic theory of history brought by Christian mission-aries (Tedlock 2010: 250). “[Maya scribes] did reexamine prior history for a pattern of destiny, but in so doing, they used Mayan rather than Christian ways of measuring time. And when they reached the point in their narratives where the invaders arrived, they treated the Christian calendar as an addi-tion to their own rather than as a substitute for it” (ibid.). This appears to be the case in the First Chronicle of the BCB, in which historical events involv-ing Europeans are tacked onto the end, not as a replacement or remaking of Maya history but as an addition to it (for an example, see Event 9 in the appendix). Efforts to preserve the pre- Hispanic history are reflected in the presence of cognate passages in the First Chronicle of the BCB. My reassess-ment of the katun dates for these early chronicles, presented in table 3 and the appendix, supports Ball’s (1986: 382) assertion that “the major events and event sequences recorded in the Books of Chilam Balam represent more than mere idiosyncratic occurrences [and] to reconstruct them correctly con-tributes directly to understanding the archaeological record.”

The Shared History of the First Chronicle

While for the most part the katun cycles are dated as a sequential, unbroken chain of events, there are several instances in the original translations of the First Chronicle in which the same start date is used for different events in the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez. For instance, in the First Chronicle of the Tizimin, 8 Ahau is used to establish the start date of three different events within the same katun cycle, which Edmonson (1982: lines 1, 11, 21) and others date to AD 692 (events 1, 2, and 4 in table 3 and the appendix). Among the different events recorded, it references the date for the discovery and foundation of Chichén Itzá.2

While previous translations of the First Chronicle have registered some of the repeated start dates for different events, there are several instances of repeated cycles that are translated as an unbreaking, linear sequence of events, which artificially lengthens the chronology. The first example is the rise of Uxmal in 2 Ahau (see event 6 in the appendix), which most transla-tions have dated to the Postclassic, either AD 1007 or AD 1263 (see table 3).

Ethnohistory



I suggest this is a telescope event that jumps back in time and begins in the earlier katun cycle of 2 Ahau (or AD 751), which continues through 10 Ahau (or AD 928). This discrete bundle of time provides a historical out-line for the rise of the Xiu dynasty and their capital of Uxmal, the establish-ment of which is mentioned briefly in the context of the earliest katun cycle in the First Chronicle of the Tizimin and the Códice Pérez (events 1 and 2 in table 3). Support for this realignment is provided by the archaeological data from this site as noted above, which places the rise of Uxmal in the eighth to tenth centuries AD (not the eleventh to fifteenth centuries).

Another example of a proposed repeated cycle is found in the follow-ing section of the First Chronicle for an episode involving Hunac Ceel, an important Mexican Xiu leader who appears to have been responsible for the overthrow of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá in 8 Ahau (event 7 in table 3 and the appendix). In other translations, the overthrow episode in 8 Ahau is dated to AD 1204 or 1461. As Ball (1986) has noted, the Hunac Ceel episode, which repeats in various segments of the Tizimin, Chumayel, and Códice Pérez, remains unresolved. The late dates applied to the 8 Ahau event have created great confusion in terms of dating the demise of Chichén Itzá as well as the subsequent rise and fall of both Champotón and Mayapán. The confusion has prompted some to question the accuracy of locational identifiers in the BCB (Ball 1986: 384). I suggest this is a translation error in the dates rather than a misidentified location on the part of the Maya scribe. I view the Hunac Ceel episode as another telescope event that provides a close- up of the his-torical details concerning the demise of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá, mentioned briefly at the beginning of the First Chronicle in all three books. Telescoping back in time, the details of the Itzá demise associated with Hunac Ceel are provided in later segments of the First Chronicle of the Tizimin (event 7 in the appendix; Edmonson 1982: 8– 10, lines 113– 48), the Chumayel (Edmon-son 1986: 53, lines 75– 84), and the Códice Pérez (Craine and Reindorp 1979: 139, lines 1– 18). I argue that the 8 Ahau Hunac Ceel episode dates as early as AD 948, as opposed to AD 1204 or 1461 (see event 7 in table 3). Support for this realignment is provided by the archaeological data from Chichén Itzá noted above, which places the occupation of this site between the eighth and eleventh centuries AD (not the twelfth to fifteenth centuries).

Another source of scholarly debate concerning the historical accuracy of the BCB is the entire event sequence in the First Chronicle following the katun 8 Ahau demise of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá. In the Tizimin and Chu-mayel, the Hunac Ceel episode appears to be directly linked with the estab-lishment of Champotón by the Itzá following their ousting from Chichén Itzá. However, I suggest that this is another telescope event where the cycle repeats. I date the “seating” of Champotón in 6 Ahau to AD 692–711, fol-lowed by its destruction 260 years later in 8 Ahau, which corresponds to

Ethnohistory



AD 924–948 (event 5 in table 3 and the appendix). As noted above, this chronology aligns with a spike in settlement at Champotón between ca. AD 700–900 documented archaeologically (Ek 2012) and also correlates well with the historical trajectories of other sites, like Chichén Itzá and Iza-mal, which are described in the BCB in relation to Champotón. The fall of Champotón is also linked to the establishment of Mayapán, which was “seized” or “completed” forty years later by the Itzá in 4 Ahau (event 8 in appendix; see also Edmonson 1982: 9– 10, 15– 21, 24, lines 139– 48; 1986: 53– 54, lines 85– 92; Tozzer 1941: 23– 25, 32– 34).

The First Chronicle of the Tizimin and the Chumayel outline the occu-pation of Mayapán and the subsequent ousting of the Itzá under joint rule at the site in 8 Ahau (event 9, in the appendix; Edmonson 1982: 10, lines 150– 66; 1986: 54, lines 93– 110). Traditionally, this event is dated AD 1461 (see table 3). This date was established early on by Brinton (1969 [1882]) and Morley (1911, 1917) by counting backward from a series of Gregorian dates referencing postconquest events at the end of the First Chronicle. However, in the case of the Tizimin (see event 9 in the appendix), directly following the 8 Ahau date for the fall of Mayapán there is a break in the text with a missing 4 Ahau katun date, and then the sequence becomes confusing (Edmonson 1982: 10– 11). It is clarified in a later segment of the Tizimin where there is a description of the overthrow of the Itzá under joint rule at Mayapán that is virtually identical to this earlier passage, but it offers two lines of text (Edmonson 1982: 162, lines 4533– 34) that appear to be missing in the previous segment of the Tizimin (see also a nearly identical passage found in the Chumayel [Edmonson 1986: 54– 55, lines 93– 152]). The text specifies two hundred years, and then eighty years followed the overthrow of the Itzá at Mayapán, then 6 Ahau (AD 1480) and 4 Ahau (AD 1500) passed. Edmonson (1982: 162n4534) does not adequately explain this dis-crepancy found in the later segment of the Tizimin, but I argue that the cal-culation (AD 1204 + 280 years = AD 1484) best supports an AD 1204 date (rather than an AD 1461 date) for the 8 Ahau overthrow of Mayapán under joint rule (see event 9 in appendix and table 3).

Referred to as the “League of Mayapan” or “Triple Alliance,” this joint rule is described in the native chronicles as a peace treaty among Maya-pán, Chichén Itzá, and Uxmal that lasted two hundred years (Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003: 24). In light of the revised northern chronology, some scholars have suggested that the Triple Alliance must date earlier, no later than the eleventh or twelfth centuries, in order to temporally overlap with Chichén Itzá and Uxmal (A. P. Andrews 1993: 53– 55; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003: 24; Vargas 1997: 207). The proposed chronology for the BCB lends support to a two- hundred- year- long period for the League of Maya-pán, from ca. AD 1000 to 1200, and suggests that an alliance between the

Ethnohistory



Xiu and Itzá lasted until the beginning of the thirteenth century, at which time the Xiu ousted the Itzá and ended the joint rule at Mayapán. Most scholars conflate the Xiu revolt with the final demise of Mayapán in the fif-teenth century (A. P. Andrews 1993: 55; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003: table 1; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998: 225n31). Here, I argue that these may be two separate events, the former marking the end of the Triple Alliance and the Xiu overthrow of the Itzá in AD 1204 (followed by their migration to the Petén Lakes region) and the latter involving the abandon-ment of the site core of Mayapán by the Xiu 280 years later.

Bishop Diego de Landa notes the Xiu revolt at Mayapán, but does not give a specific date (Tozzer 1941). He does indicate that the city of Mayapán had been abandoned for 120 years as of AD 1566, which scholars have used as supporting evidence for dating the Xiu revolt to AD 1461, but this connec-tion is not explicit and confounds what we know archaeologically. Both the Tizimin and Chumayel suggest that the Itzá were driven out of Mayapán in 8 Ahau but continued to occupy other parts of Northern Yucatán and also the Petén Lakes region, to which a sizeable group of Itzá are said to have migrated sometime following the Hunac Ceel episode. Using the original chronology proposed by the translators of the BCB, ethnohistorian Grant D. Jones (1998) dated the Itzá migration to the Petén Lakes region to the fifteenth century. However, archaeologists working in the Petén Lakes region suggest that this migration probably occurred much earlier based on the material evidence that shows a population influx shortly after AD 1200 in the western half of the Petén Lakes— an Itzá territory, according to Spanish accounts (Chase 1990; Paxton 2004; Rice and Rice 2005: 144, fig. 9.2). The archaeological data lend support to the chronology being proposed herein that suggests the katun 8 Ahau Xiu revolt at Mayapán occurred in AD 1204 (not 1461) and that the Itzá migration to the Petén Lakes region occurred shortly thereafter. Notably, an earlier date for the overthrow and migration of the Itzá does not preclude continued Xiu occupation at Mayapán through AD 1461, but the proposed redating reconciles some of the chronological issues with the archaeological record and what appears in many cases to be an artificially long history. Further examination of the archaeological data from Mayapán is necessary to cross- examine the idea of an earlier date for the Xiu revolt and its historical implications in terms of an earlier Itzá exodus.

History or Myth? Internal Structure and Transcription Conventions of the First Chronicle

The First Chronicle uses the katun counts in the u kahlay katunob to tem-porally fix a series of events in the past. In the case of the mythographies in the BCB, katun dates are anchored by the Maya creation date of 4 Ahau

Ethnohistory



8 Cumku, or 11 August 3114 BC, a katun cycle that predates the earliest known Maya occupation by about two thousand years and places these nar-ratives in mythical time. In contrast, the katun dates in the First Chronicle are restricted to cycles that occurred during the Maya Epiclassic and Post-classic periods (AD 692– 1500). Timothy Knowlton (2012: 259– 60) notes that the selective use of poetic framing devices, including certain meta-phoric couplets (e.g., chab akab as “genesis and darkness”)— devices also present in ancient epigraphic contexts— is one means of distinguishing mythical narratives from the historical content of the u kahlay, such as in the First Chronicle, where such verbal couplets referred to as “diaphrasic kennings” are rarely used.

Knowlton (2012: 259) and others argue that the u kahlay katunob found in the BCB likely descended from Classic period monumental inscrip-tions (see also Bricker 1989; Houston, Chinchilla Mazariegos, and Stuart 2001; Restall and Solari 2011: 23; Tedlock 1983: 126– 27). In her studies of the Chumayel, Chan Kan, and Kaua, Victoria Bricker (1985, 1989) identified certain patterns in the spelling irregularities, such as doubled consonants in disyllabic words, that relate to Classical Yucatec and can “serve as clues to the nature of the pre- Columbian hieroglyphic writing system” (Bricker and Miriam 2002: 8). For instance, on page 41 (page 75 in Gordon 1993 [1913]) of the First Chronicle of the Chumayel (Edmonson 1986: 53– 54, lines 78 and 92), Bricker (1989: 41) notes that Hunac Ceel is spelled both syllabically (hunac) and logosyllabically (hun nac), which suggests that this individual’s name was originally written in Mayan hieroglyphic texts, where both spell-ing conventions are possible. The name was subsequently adapted to the Latin alphabet in the BCB but retained the spelling inconsistencies, which shows that the Maya scribes “were accustomed to a mixed writing system that permitted words to be represented in several different ways” (ibid.).

The Hunac Ceel episode is reiterated again in the Third Chronicle of the Chumayel, but this time there is also mention of another protagonist named Kak u Pacal. While we have no preserved pre- Hispanic hieroglyphic texts with the name Hunac Ceel, the name K’ak’upakal is found in the hiero-glyphic texts at Chichén Itzá, mentioned in a number of different accounts between AD 869 and 890 (Kelley 1968; Grube and Krochock 2007: 221). This prominent Itzá war captain is thought to have been a ruler of Chichén Itzá for at least a katun or more. I believe the passage in the Third Chronicle of the Chumayel marks the death of Kak u Pacal in AD 935 (Edmonson 1986: 61, line 298). While we cannot be sure that this is the same figure mentioned in the glyphs at Chichén Itzá, the chronology proposed herein makes this a tenable suggestion, placing K’ak’upakal in his eighties at the time of his death. When examined together, the structure and transcription conventions of the early chronicles combined with the archaeological evi-

Ethnohistory



dence suggest that these segments of the BCB were adapted from archaic language originally transcribed in hieroglyphic script and that the content is largely based on historical events deeply rooted in the pre- Hispanic past.

Concluding Thoughts

“[The Books of Chilam Balam] have been attacked for their garbling of dates, persons, myths, and real events, and it is certainly true that anyone reading them cannot be impressed by the apparent utter confusion of their com-pilers” (Ball 1986: 381). This reassessment of the BCB questions whether the colonial Maya scribes should be held solely responsible for the confusion and historical inaccuracies surrounding these native copybooks. Reexamin-ing the katun rounds in light of recent archaeological finds suggests that the twentieth- century translators may have misunderstood Maya conventions of time and contributed to the garbling of dates, persons, myths, and real events documented in these books. Yet many archaeologists today take the approach that ethnohistoric documents like the BCB are a part of a literary tradition that will tell us more about myth and language than about “real history” (Kristan- Graham and Kowalski 2007: 19– 20). Certainly, over-reliance on any one piece of data is ill advised, and, as with any ethnohistori-cal document, it is important to approach the early chronicles with caution when relating them to actual historical events, given that the compilers were Christianized Maya. However, it seems equally unwise to wholeheartedly reject the events in the First Chronicle as “flawed accounts” of history (M. E. Smith 2007: 591), given their transcription conventions (stemming from hieroglyphic texts), the quantity of archaic language (compared to other passages with more Spanish doctrinal language), and the shared subject matter in all three books (despite being recorded by competing factions).

This study suggests that the early chronicles may offer a larger mea-sure of historical accuracy and reliability than is currently accepted. A care-ful examination of the katun dates and associated “historical” events in the First Chronicle recorded in the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez sug-gests that a great deal of these early chronicles concern the pre- Hispanic his-tory of Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán in the Epiclassic and Early Postclassic and not just the Late Postclassic and colonial periods. The revised dating of the katun chronology proposed for the BCB is based on recent archaeological findings that align with the revised chronology for northern Yucatán, which is now generally accepted among scholars. Like Ball (1986: 382), I offer the above reassessment of the early chronicles not as a formalized historiography but as a model based on the current archaeo-logical finds that should be further cross- examined through field excava-tions in the future.

Ethnohistory



Appendix. Early Chronicles in the Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin

Events 1–9 in the BCB Dates and Translations1 Revised Dates

Event 1: The Arrival of the Tutul Xius in Petén

Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (672–692),Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (692–711),Can Ahau 4 Ahau (711–731),Cabil Ahau Second Ahau (731–751)Ca kal hab Forty years,Ca tac And then followedHum ppel hab One year,T u hum pis tun Which was the first tunAh ox lahun Ahau Of 13 Ahau (773)Ox lahun Ahau It was 13 Ahau.

Event 2: The Arrival of Ah Mekat Tutul Xiu to Chacnovitan (the count repeats; in this case Edmonson [1982: Footnote 11] does repeat the count and applies the same chronological sequence as the prior event)

Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (672–692),Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (692–711),(Can Ahau) (4 Ahau) (711–731),Cabil Ahau 2 Ahau (731–751)Kuchc i Then arrivedChac Na Bi Ton the East priest Bi TonMekat The chiefTutul Xiu Of the Tutul Xiu,Hum ppel hab One yearMa ti ho kal hab Before it was one hundred

years.

Event 3: Bacalar Province established and governed for 60 years (only mentioned in the Códice Pérez, source after Craine and Reindorp 1979:138)

Can Ahau 4 Ahau (711–731),Cabil Ahau 2 Ahau (731–751),Ox lahun Ahau 13 Ahau (751–771)

Event 4: The Establishment & Destruction of Chichén Itzá (the count repeats; in this case Edmonson [1982: Footnote 21] does repeat the count and applies the same chronological sequence as the prior event)

Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (672–692)Uchc u chicanpahal Had been revealed,Chi Ch’en Ytza Chichén ItzáUchc u chicpahal Had been manifested:Tzucub te The groveSian Can la e Born of Heaven there.(Uac Ahau) (6 Ahau) (692–711),Can Ahau 4 Ahau (711–731),

Ethnohistory




Cabil Ahau 2 Ahau (731–751),Ox lahun Ahau 13 Ahau (751–771),Lai tzolc i That was the countingPop Of the mats.Buluc Ahau 11 Ahau (771–790),Bolon Ahau 9 Ahau (790–810),Uuc Ahau 7 Ahau (810–830),Ho Ahau 5 Ahau (830–849),Ox Ahau 3 Ahau (849–869),Hun Ahau 1 Ahau (869–889),Lahun kal hab Two hundred years

(692–889)C u tepal Chi Ch’en Ytza Chichén Itzá ruledCa pax i Then it was destroyedCa bin ob Then they wentT cahtal To the settlementChakan Putun Of ChampotonTi y anh i Where there were thenY otochob The homesAh Ytzaob Of the Itzá,Ku y an unicob i The gods who own men

Event 5: The Establishment and Destruction of Chak’anputun (the count repeats, but Edmonson [1982:6–7] continues chronology in an unbroken sequence here)

Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (948–968) (692–711)Chuc cu Completed the seatingLumil Of the landsChakan Putun Of ChampotonCan Ahau 4 Ahau (968–987), 4 Ahau (711–731),Cabil Ahau Second Ahau (987–1007). Second Ahau (731–751),Ox lahun Ahau 13 Ahau (1007–1027), 13 Ahau (751–771),Buluc Ahau 11 Ahau (1027–1047), 11 Ahau (771–790),Bolon Ahau 9 Ahau (1047–1066), 9 Ahau (790–810),Uuc Ahau 7 Ahau (1066–1086), 7 Ahau (810–830),Ho Ahau 5 Ahau (1086–1106), 5 Ahau (830–849),Ox Ahau 3 Ahau (1106–1125), 3 Ahau (849–869),Hun Ahau 1 Ahau (1125–1145), 1 Ahau (869–889),Lah ca Ahau 12 Ahau (1145–1165), 12 Ahau (889–909),Lahun Ahau 10 Ahau (1165–1185), 10 Ahau (909–928),Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (1185–1204), 8 Ahau (928–948),Paxc i DestroyedChakan Putun Was Champoton.Ox lahun kal hab Two hundred sixty yearsC u tepal Chakan Putun Champoton was ruledT u men Ytza unicob By the Itzá people.Ca tal ob Then they came onU tzaci ob y otochob And returned to their homes

Ethnohistory




T u ca ten For the second time.Ca u satah ob be They destroyed the roadChakan Putun Of Champoton.Ca tz’it u katunil For two parts of the katun

cycleBi(n)ci ob Ah Ytzaob The Itzá went onY alan che Beneath the trees,Y alan haban Beneath the bushes,Yalan ak Beneath the vines,Ti num yaob Where they suffered.Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (1204–1224), 6 Ahau (948–968)Can Ahau 4 Ahau (1224–1244) 4 Ahau (968–987)Ca kal hab Forty years,Ca talk ob Then they cameU hetz’ And establishedY otochob t u ca ten Their homes again.Ca u satah ob be Then they destroyed the roadChakan Putun Of Chompoton.

Event 6: The Establishment of Uxmal (the count repeats, but Edmonson [1982: 8] continues chronology in an unbroken sequence)

Cabil Ahau Second Ahau (1244–1263) Second Ahau (731–751)Ox lahun Ahau 13 Ahau (1263–1283), 13 Ahau (751–771),Buluc Ahau 11 Ahau (1283–1303), 11 Ahau (771–790),Bolon Ahau 9 Ahau (1303–1323), 9 Ahau (790–810),Uuc Ahau 7 Ahau (1323–1342), 7 Ahau (810–830),Ho Ahau 5 Ahau (1342–1362), 5 Ahau (830–849),Ox Ahau 3 Ahau (1362–1382), 3 Ahau (849–869),Hun Ahau 1 Ahau (1382–1401), 1 Ahau (869–889),Lah ca Ahau 12 Ahau (1401–1421), 12 Ahau (889–909),Lahun Ahau 10 Ahau (1421–1441), 10 Ahau (909–928),U hetz’c i They establishedCab Ah Sui Tok The land of Zuy Tok,Tutul Xiu A Tutul XiuUxmal Of Uxmal.Lahun kal hab c uch i Two hundred years had

passed.Ca hetz’h ob lum Uxmal Since they established the

land of Uxmal.

Event 7: The Hunac Ceel Episode (the count repeats; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 8–9] does repeat the count from the prior event but applies a later chronological sequence).

Buluc Ahau 11 Ahau (1283–1303), 11 Ahau (771–790),Bolon Ahau 9 Ahau (1303–1323), 9 Ahau (790–810),Uuc Ahau 7 Ahau (1323–1342), 7 Ahau (810–830),Ho Ahau 5 Ahau (1342–1362), 5 Ahau (830–849),Ox Ahau 3 Ahau (1362–1382), 3 Ahau (849–869),

Ethnohistory




Hun Ahau 1 Ahau (1382–1401), 1 Ahau (869–889),Lah ca Ahau 12 Ahau (1401–1421), 12 Ahau (889–909),Lahun Ahau 10 Ahau (1421–1441), 10 Ahau (909–928),Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (1441–1461), 8 Ahau (928–948),Paxc i They destroyedU hal ach uinicil The governorsChi Ch’en Ytza Of Chichén ItzáT u keban than By the sinful wordsHunac Ceel Of Hunac CeelAh Sinteyut Chan Cinteotl Chan,Tzum Tecum Tzontecome,Taxcal Tlaxcallan,Pantemit Pantemitl,Xuch Ueuet Xochihuetl,Ytzcoat Itzcoatl,Kakalcat Cacalacatl:Lai u kaba These are the namesU uinicilob la e Of the people there,Uuc tul ob The seven of them,T u men u uahal Because they were pattingUahob TortillasY etel Ytzmal With IzamalUlil Ahau And Ul Ahau.Ox lahun uutz’ Thirteen foldsU katunilob Of the katun cycle,Ca pax ob Then they were destroyedT u men Hunac Ceel By Hunac CeelT u men u tz’abal Because of the givingU nat ob Of the questionnaire (trans.

Roys 1933: 75 in the Chumayel).

Event 8: Seizing of Mayapan by the Itzá and Ul Ahau (the count continues from the prior event; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 9] continues chronology in an unbroken sequence but applies a later chronological sequence)

Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (1461–1480), 6 Ahau (948–968),Can Ahau 4 Ahau (1480–1500): 4 Ahau (968–987):Ca kal hab Forty years,Ca chuc i Then it was completed (or

seized),U lumil ych paa The land within the wallsMayapan Of Mayapan,T u men Ytza uincob By the Itzá peopleY etel Ulmil Ahau And Ul Ahau (Lord Ulmil?)T u men u keban than Because of the sinful wordsHunac Ceel Of Hunac Ceel.

Ethnohistory




Event 9: The Establishment and Destruction of Mayapan (the count is an unbroken sequence from prior event; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 10] repeats the count).

Cabil Ahau Second Ahau (1244–1263), Second Ahau (987–1007).Ox lahun Ahau 13 Ahau (1263–1283), 13 Ahau (1007–1027),Buluc Ahau 11 Ahau (1283–1303), 11 Ahau (1027–1047),Bolon Ahau 9 Ahau (1303–1323), 9 Ahau (1047–1066),Uuc Ahau 7 Ahau (1323–1342), 7 Ahau (1066–1086),Ho Ahau 5 Ahau (1342–1362), 5 Ahau (1086–1106),Ox Ahau 3 Ahau (1362–1382), 3 Ahau (1106–1125),Hun Ahau 1 Ahau (1382–1401), 1 Ahau (1125–1145),Lah ca Ahau 12 Ahau (1401–1421), 12 Ahau (1145–1165),Lahun Ahau 10 Ahau (1421–1441), 10 Ahau (1165–1185),Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (1441–1461), 8 Ahau (1185–1204),Uchc i There wasPuch’ tun ich paa Crushed stone inside the wallsMayapan Of MayapanT u men u pach tulum Because of the seizure of the

wallsT u men mul tepal By joint government (trans.

Roys 1933: 76 in the Chumayel)

Ich cah In the cityMayapan Of Mayapan

There is a break here in the text with a missing katun date (4 Ahau) and the sequence is confusing, but it is clarified in a later segment of the Tizimin (Edmonson 1982: 162) that is presented below, which substantiates the AD 1204 (rather than AD 1461) date applied to 8 Ahau for the overthrow of Mayapan under joint rule

Uaxac Ahau 8 Ahau (1461), 8 Ahau (1204),Paxc i There was destroyedCah The cityMayapan Of MayapanT u men uitzil By the HummingbirdTz’ul Foreigners [the Mexicans].Lahun kal hab Two hundred yearsCa tac can kal hab i And then eighty years (1204 + 280 = 1484)Uac Ahau 6 Ahau (1480)Can Ahau uchc i 4 Ahau (1500) passed.Ma ya cimlal ocnal Painless death was brought,Kuchil Ych Paa Appearing inside the walls.Cabil Ahau uchc i Second Ahau (1520) passedNoh kakil The great fire.Ox lahun Ahau uchc 13 Ahau (1539) occurredU cimil Ah Pul Ha The death of Water Thrower.Uac ppel hab u binel Six years were to come:Ca tz’ococ u xoc ox

lahunThen came the end of the

count of

Ethnohistory




Ahau c uchi e 13 Ahau.Ti y an u xocol hab It lay in the counting of the

yearTi lakin c uchi e That occurred in the east:Canil kan cumlahc i 4 Kan was includedPop In Pop.Hool Kan 5 KanT u ho lhun Sip Was on the fifteenth of Zip.Ca tac So thenOx ppel i There were three.Bolon Imix 9 ImixU kinil cimi i Was the time of deathAh Pul Ha Of Water Thrower.Lei tun hab 1536 c uch i That was then the year 1536.Buluc Ahau 11 AhauUlc i Was the arrivalTz’ulob Of the foreigners,Kul uincob The people of the gods.Ti lakin u tal ob From the east they cameCa ul ob When they arrivedUai Right hereTac lumil e In this land.Bolon Ahau 9 AhauHoppc i It began:Xptianoil uchc i Christianity occurred,Ca put si Second birth.Lai li ichil u katunil It was just in this katun

periodUlc i That there arrivedYax Obispo The first bishop,Toral Toral.He ix hab c u ximbal c

uchi eAnd this was the year he

came:1544 1544.Uuc Ahau cimc i 7 Ahau there he diedObispo Landa ychil u

katunilBishop Landa on the katun

date.Hoo Ahau ca yum cah i 5 Ahau the Father of our

town,Padre Mani The priest of Mani.Lai hab c u ximbal c uch i This was the year he came:La 1550 It was 1550.Lai hab c u ximbal This was the year they cameCa cahi ob And settled our townY ok ha Above the water:1552 c uch i It happened in 1552.1559 hab ca ul i 1559 was the year when there

arrived

Ethnohistory




Oydor ca pak ispital The Auditor (? Of our hospital).

1560 u habil ca ul i 1560 was the year when there arrived

Doctor The Doctor,Quixada Quijada,Yax hal ach uinic The first governorUai HereTi lum e In this land.1562 hab ca uch i 1562 was the year when there

occurredCh’ui tab The hanging of the rope.1563 hab ca ul i 1563 was the year when there

arrivedMariscal The Marshal.1569 hab ca uch i 1569 was the year when there

occurredKakil The fire.1610 u habil ca hich i 1610 was the year when they

knottedU cal Ah Kaxob The necks of the Tied Ones.1611 hab ca tz’ibtab i 1611 was the year when there

was writtenT u mene jues . . . The settlement by the judge . . .1 Source: After Edmonson (1982:3–20), unless otherwise noted.

Notes

1 Proportions in Table 1 were calculated using Munro Edmonson’s (1986) transla-tion, which is presented in verse form and provides a more consistent, quantifiable text compared to other translations, such as that of Ralph L. Roys (1967 [1933]).

2 In the Chumayel, the foundation date for Chichén Itzá is 6 Ahau (Edmonson 1986: line 13), and in the Códice Pérez it is 11 Ahau (Craine and Reindorp 1979: 138), but all other subsequent dates appear to align with one another.

References

Alvarez, Christina1969 Descripción estructural del maya del Chilam Balam de Chumayel. Mexico

City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Coordinación de Humanidades, México.

Andrews, Anthony P.1990 The Fall of Chichén Itzá: A Preliminary Hypothesis. Latin American

Antiquity 1: 258– 67.

Ethnohistory



1993 Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Journal of World Prehis-tory 7: 35– 69.

Andrews, Anthony P., E. Wyllys Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castellanos2003 The Northern Maya Collapse and Its Aftermath. Ancient Mesoamerica

14: 151– 56.Andrews, E. Wyllys IV

1965a Explorations in the Gruta de Chac, Yucatán, México. Middle Ameri-can Research Institute Publication no. 31. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

1965b Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowlands: An Intro-duction. In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 2. Robert A. Wauchope, ed. Pp. 288– 330. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews V1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatán, Mexico. Middle American

Research Institute Publication no. 48. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

Ball, Joseph W.1974 A Coordinate Approach to Northern Maya Prehistory: A.D. 700– 1200.

American Antiquity 39(1): 85– 93.1979 Ceramics, Culture History, and the Puuc Tradition: Some Alternative

Possibilities. In The Puuc: New Perspectives. L. Mills, ed. Pp. 46– 51. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

1986 Campeche, the Itzá, and the Postclassic: A Study in Ethnohistorical Archaeology. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 379– 408. Albu-querque: University of New Mexico Press.

Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, and Silvia Rendón1948 El Libro de los libros de Chilam Balam. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura

Económica.Bey, George J., Craig A. Hanson, and William M. Ringle

1997 Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatán: Architectural and Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American Antiquity 8: 237– 54.

Bolles, David2003 Post- Conquest Maya Literature: A Compilation of the Various Books of the

Chilam Balam. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.Boot, Erik

2010 Chichén Itzá in the Mesoamerican World: Some Old and New Perspec-tives. In The Maya and Their Neighbours: Internal and External Contacts through Time. Proceedings of the Tenth European Maya Conference, Lei-den, December 9– 10, 2005. Laura van Broekhoven, Rogelio Valencia Rivera, Benjamin Vis, and Frauke Sachse, eds. Pp. 73– 88. Acta Meso-americana 22. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Saurwein.

Brainerd, George W.1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatán. University of California Anthro-

pological Records, vol. 19. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Bricker, Victoria R.

1981 The Indian Christ, the Indian King: The Historical Substrate of Maya Myth and Ritual. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ethnohistory



1985 The Use of Logosyllabic Principles of Writing in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4): 351– 53.

1989 The Last Gasp of Maya Hieroglyphic Writing in the Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayel and Chan Kan. In Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation. William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 39– 50. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bricker, Victoria R., and Helga- Maria Miriam2002 An Encounter of Two Worlds: The Book of Chilam Balam of Kaua. Middle

American Research Institute Publication no. 68. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

Brinton, Daniel G.1969 [1882] The Maya Chronicles. New York: AMS Press.

Carmean, Kelli, Nicholas Dunning, and Jeff K. Kowalski2004 High Times in the Hill Country: A Perspective from the Terminal Clas-

sic Puuc Region. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Col-lapse, Transition, and Transformation. Arthur Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 424– 49. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Caso Barrera, Laura2011 Chilam Balam De IXIL: Facsmiliar y estudio de un libro maya inedito.

Mexico City: Artes De Mexico y del Mundo S.A.Chase, Arlen F.

1986 Time Depth or Vacuum: The 11.3.0.0.0 Correlation and the Lowland Maya Postclassic. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclas-sic. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 99– 140. Albu-querque: University of New Mexico Press.

1990 Maya Archaeology and Population Estimates in the Tayasal Paxcaman Zone, Petén, Guatemala. In Prehistoric Population History in the Maya Lowlands. T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 149– 165. Albu-querque: University of New Mexico Press.

Christensen, Mark2013 Nahua and Maya Catholicisms: Texts and Religion in Colonial Central

Mexico and Yucatán. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Chuchiak, John F. IV

2010 Writing as Resistance: Maya Graphic Pluralism and Indigenous Elite Strategies for Survival in Colonial Yucatán, 1550– 1750. Ethnohistory 57(1): 87– 116.

Cobos Palma, Rafael2001 Chichén Itzá. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. Vol. 1.

David Carrasco, ed. Pp. 183– 87. New York: Oxford University Press.2004 Chichén Itzá: Settlement and Hegemony during the Terminal Classic

Period. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transi-tion, and Transformation. Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 517– 44. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

2007 Multepal or Centralized Kingship? New Evidence on Governmental Organization at Chichén Itzá. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski

Ethnohistory



and Cynthia Kristan- Graham, eds. Pp. 315– 44. Washington, DC: Dum-barton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Craine, Eugene R., and Reginald C. Reindorp1979 The Codex Pérez and the Book of Chilam Balam of Maní. Norman: Uni-

versity of Oklahoma Press.Eaton, J. D., and Joseph W. Ball

1978 Studies in the Archaeology of Coastal Yucatán and Campeche, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication no. 46. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

Edmonson, Munro1982 The Ancient Future of the Itzá: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin.

Austin: University of Texas Press.1986 Heaven Born Merida and Its Destiny: The Book of Chilam Balam of Chu-

mayel. Austin: University of Texas Press.Ek, Jerald D.

2006 The Champotón Regional Settlement Survey: Results from the 2005 Field Season. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). www.famsi.org/reports/05061/index.html.

2012 The Political and Economic Organization of Late Classic States in the Peninsular Gulf Coast: The View from Champotón, Campeche. In The Ancient Maya of Mexico: Reinterpreting the Past of the Northern Maya Lowlands, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, 141–67. London: Equinox.

Farriss, Nancy M.1987 Remembering the Future, Anticipating the Past: History, Time, and

Cosmology among the Maya of Yucatan. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29(3): 566– 93.

Folan, William J., A. Morales, Rosario Dominguez, R. Ruiz, R. Gonzalez, Joel D. Gunn, Lynda Florey, M. Barredo, J. Hernandez, and D. Bolles

2002 La ciudad y puerto de Champotón, Campeche: Una encrucijada del Gulfo de México y su corredor eco- arqueológico. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 10: 8– 16.

Folan, William J., Abel Morales López, José Antonio Hernández Trujeque, Ray-mundo González Heredia, Lynda Florey Folan, David Bolles, and Joel D. Gunn

2004 Recientes excavaciones en el barrio de Pozo Monte en las ciuuidad y puerto de Champotón (Chakan Putun) Campeche: Un lugar central del Preclásico Medio a Posclásico en la costa oeste de la Peninsula de Yuca-tán. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12: 38– 53.

Forsyth, Donald W.2004 Reflexiones sobre la ocupación Posclásica en Champotón a través de la

cerámica. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12: 32– 38.Gordon, George B.

1993 [1913] The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press.

Grube, Nikolai, and Ruth J. Krochock2007 Reading between the Lines: Hieroglyphic Texts from Chichén Itzá and

Its Neighbors. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan- Graham, eds. Pp. 205– 50. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Ethnohistory



Hanks, William E.2010 Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Houston, Stephen D., Oswaldo Fernando Chinchilla Mazariegos, and David Stuart

2001 The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hurtado Cen, Araceli, Aleida Cetina Bastida, Vera Tiesler, and William J. Folan2007 Sacred Spaces and Human Funerary and Nonfunerary Placements in

Champotón, Campeche, during the Postclassic Period. In New Per-spectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatment in Ancient Maya Society. Vera Tiesler and Andrea Cucina, eds. Pp. 209– 31. New York: Springer.

Jones, Grant D.1986 The Southern Maya Lowlands during Spanish Colonial Times. In Sup-

plement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 4, Ethnohis-tory. Ronald Spores and Patricia A. Andrews, eds. Pp. 71– 86. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1989 Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

1998 The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-sity Press.

Kelley, David H.1968 Kakupacal and the Itzás. Estudios de Cultura Maya 7: 255– 68.

Knapp, A. Bernard, and Sophia Antoniadou1998 Archaeology, Politics and the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus. In Archae-

ology under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Medi-terranean and Middle East. Lynn Meskell, ed. Pp. 13– 43. London: Routledge.

Knowlton, Timothy2008 Dynamics of Indigenous Language Ideologies in the Colonial Redaction

of a Yucatec Maya Cosmological Text. Anthropological Linguistics 50(1): 90– 112.

2010a Nahua Vocables in a Maya Song of the Fall of Chichén Itzá: Music and Social Memory in the Construction of Yucatecan Ethnicities. In Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange between the Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic Period. Gabrielle Vail and Christine L. Hernandez, eds. Pp. 241– 59. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

2010b Maya Creation Myths: Words and Worlds of the Chilam Balam. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

2012 Some Historical Continuities in Lowland Maya Magical Speech Genres: Keying Shamanic Performance. In Parallel Worlds: Genre, Discourse, and Poetics in Contemporary, Colonial, and Classic Period Maya Literature. Kerry M. Hull and Michael D. Carrasco, eds. Pp. 253– 70. Boulder: Uni-versity Press of Colorado.

Kowalski, Jeff K.2007 What’s “Toltec” at Uxmal and Chichén Itzá? Merging Maya and Meso-

american Worldviews and World Systems in Terminal Classic to Early Postclassic Yucatán. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epi-

Ethnohistory



classic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan- Graham, eds. Pp. 251– 313. Washington, DC: Dum-barton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Kristan- Graham, Cynthia, and Jeff K. Kowalski2007 Chichén Itzá, Tula, and Tollan: Changing Perspectives on a Recur-

ring Problem in Mesoamerican Archaeology and Art History. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Meso-american World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan- Graham, eds. Pp. 13– 83. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Lincoln, Charles E.1986 The Chronology of Chichén Itzá: A Review of the Literature. In Late

Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 141– 96. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Milbrath, Susan, and Carlos Peraza Lope2003 Revisiting Mayapan: Mexico’s Last Maya Capital. Ancient Mesoamerica

14: 1– 46.2009 Survival and Revival of Terminal Classic Traditions at Postclassic Maya-

pán. Latin American Antiquity 20: 581– 606.Morley, Sylvanus G.

1911 The Historical Value of the Books of Chilam Balam. American Journal of Archaeology 15: 195– 214.

1917 The Rise and Fall of the Maya Civilization in the Light of the Monu-ments and the Native Chronicles. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Inter-national Congress of Americanists, Washington, DC, 1915. Pp. 140– 49. Washington, DC: International Congress of Americanists.

Paxton, Merideth2004 Tayasal Origin of the Madrid Codex: Further Consideration of the

Theory. In The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an Ancient Maya Manuscript. Gabrielle Vail and Anthony Aveni, eds. Pp. 89– 127. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Peraza Lope, Carlos, Marilyn A. Masson, Timothy S. Hare, and Pedro Candelario Delgado Kú

2006 The Chronology of Mayapan: New Radiocarbon Evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 17: 153– 75.

Pérez de Heredia Puente, Eduardo J.2012 The Yabnal- Motul Ceramic Complex of the Late Classic Period at Chi-

chén Itzá. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(2): 379– 402.Restall, Matthew

1997 The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550– 1850. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

1998 Maya Conquistador. Boston, MA: Beacon.Restall, Matthew, and Amara Solari

2011 2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Rice, Don S., and Prudence M. Rice2005 Sixteenth- and Seventeenth- Century Maya Political Geography in Cen-

tral Petén, Guatemala. In The Postclassic to Spanish- Era Transition in

Ethnohistory



Mesoamerica: Archaeological Perspectives. Susan Kepecs and Rani T. Alexander, eds. Pp. 139– 60. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Ringle, William M.2004 On the Political Organization of Chichén Itzá. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:

167– 218.Ringle, William M., Tomás Gallareta Negrón, and George J. Bey III

1998 The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the Spread of a World Reli-gion during the Epiclassic Period. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183– 232.

Roys, Ralph L.1967 [1933] The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatán Maya. Publication no. 613. Wash-

ington, DC: Carnegie Institution.Schele, Linda, and Peter Matthews

1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. New York: Scribner.

Sharer, Robert, and Loa Traxler2008 The Ancient Maya. 6th ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Smith, Michael E.2007 Tula and Chichén Itzá: Are We Asking the Right Questions? In Twin

Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Meso-american World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan- Graham, eds. Pp. 579– 617. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Smith, Robert E.1971 The Pottery of Mayapan: Including Studies of Ceramic Material from Uxmal,

Kabah, and Chichén Itzá. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Solari, Amara2010 Circles of Creation: The Inventions of Maya Cartography in Early Colo-

nial Yucatán. Art Bulletin 92(3): 154– 68.2013 The Transfiguration of Space: Maya Ideologies of the Sacred in Colonial

Yucatán. Austin: University of Texas Press.Solís Alcalá, Ermilo

1949 Códice Pérez : Traducción libre del maya al castellano. Mérida de Yuca-tán: Liga de Acción Social.

Tedlock, Dennis1983 The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press.2010 Two Thousand Years of Mayan Literature. Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press.Thompson, J. Eric S.

1970 Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Tozzer, Alfred M.

1941 Landa’s relacion de las cosas de Yucatán. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology no. 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

1957 Chichén Itzá and Its Cenote of Sacrifice: A Comparative Study of Contem-

Ethnohistory



poraneous Maya and Toltec. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth-nology Memoirs. Vols. 11 and 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Vargas, Ernesto Pacheco1997 Tulum: Organización político- territorial de la costa oriental de Quintana

Roo. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Insti-tuto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.

2001 Itzámkanac y Acalan: Tiempos de crisis anticipando el futuro. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investi-gaciones Antropológicas.

Voss, Alexander Wolfgang N.2004 Chakanputun y Champotón: Nuevas Interpretaciones. Los Investiga-

dores de la Cultura Maya 12(1): 131–47.

Ethnohistory


(2014) Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content in the Maya Books of Chilam Balam

Documents

Transcript of (2014) Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content in the Maya Books of Chilam Balam