Truth and Lies

Glyph of Pacal’s name
One of the most pernicious ideas that still has some influence on the study of Mayan Hieroglyphs is the notion that the History recorded in the Glyphs are lies and propaganda. This notion seems to be especially popular among the archeologists and not very popular among the epigraphers, (interpreters of the glyphs).1 This debate is based on the idea that not just were the inscriptions of the Mayan Kings one sided propaganda but that they were deliberate lies and rewriting of history for political purposes. In the twentieth century we have become familiar with lies and propaganda by the state so at first this does not seem like such an outrageous notion. But it is an outrageous notion in the manner in which it is put forward, and it usually has been framed so that those who propose it have thrown the onus of "proof" upon the epigraphers. This is an outrageous notion.

The onus is on those who propose that the inscriptions are lies to show that the inscriptions are false. Before I go into the alleged "evidence", I would like explain why I consider this to be an outrageous notion. The lies that I’m referring to are the birth, accession and death dates also the lists and names of various rulers mentioned in inscriptions. What the "doubters" are proposing is that none of this information can be trusted and that it is often a complete propaganda lie. What is interesting is that the Mayan monumental inscriptions are the only one’s I know of that are subject to such a level of distrust. Egyptian Hieroglyphic texts of the Pharaohs are not subject to this level of distrust, neither are Shang Oracle bones, Hittite texts, Roman, inscriptions, etc. Generally birth dates, reign lengths, accession dates, etc., are considered reliable. Even Rameses (II), the Great whose inscriptions including the monumental ones about the Battle of Kadesh, in which Rameses’ claims he won the battle, when he lost, is considered reliable in terms of his reign dates, birth etc.. The Mayan Royals are being accused of a level of falsehood and mendacity unparalleled in any other ancient society we know of. The deliberate creation of outrageous thoroughly false data about age, birth and accession to the throne. Not even modern Totalitarian states have lied to that extent. As will be shown below the arguments used to distrust the Mayan monumental inscriptions could be applied to virtually any ancient society. For example how safe are the various Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian King lists from such "distrust"?

Another effect is that if this distrust is warranted then all the historical information in all Mayan inscriptions would have to be thrown out as fatally unreliable. Nothing could be trusted in the inscriptions; the "history" in the inscriptions would have to be regarded as "useful fictions" created for political purposes. This may appear to be a straw man I’m creating to knock down but that is in effect what the "doubters" are suggesting.

The "doubters" argument is based on the following points. These points will be discussed in relation to the Palenque Royal inscriptions.

1, The inscriptions at Palenque contain obviously made up and fanciful figures. For example the figure of U-Kix-Chan is recorded in a Royal inscription at Palenque as being born on March, 11 933 B.C.E. and ascending the throne on Mar. 28, 967 B.C.E.

2, The dates of accession contain large gaps of time between them. For example the gap of over 4 years between the death of Chaacal I and the accession of Kan-Xul I. Gaps also occur at other Mayan sites. The implication is one of possible or probable usurpation.

3, The great ages recorded for many Mayan Kings upon death and/or accession. For example Chan-Bahlum of Palenque was 66 when he died, 48 upon accession to the throne. Pacal himself was 80 when he died. Pacal’s son Kan-Xul II was 57 years old at accession. These figures are considered unbelievable given what we know about Mayan life expectancy during this period. We cannot be expected to believe the Mayan’s were ruled by a "Gerontocracy".2

4, Mayan Rulers put on their monuments what they wanted their future nobles to believe. No evidence provided, deduced from the public nature of the monuments.

5, Mayan Rulers had ample chance to fake dates to justify usurpation, also in many cases there is a lack of contemporaneous documents. For example the birth and accession of Pacal.

6, Studies of the bones found in the tomb of Pacal reveal that they are the bones of a man who died in his at most in his mid fifties. Thus Pacal could not have been 80 when he died and therefore his birth and accession dates are political lies. Alberto Ruz has stated he believes the man in the temple was about 40 years old when he died.3

7, Given the hard "Scientific" facts about the age of the body in the Temple of the Inscriptions the Glyphic evidence must be in error and give way.

Evaluating this 'evidence" and argument is problematic in that it is so hard to take seriously. The good points are drowned in a sea of bad argument. To start with points 6 and 7. The dates for both Pacal’s accession and birth and death are exact right down to the day. The principles of calculating Mayan dates and converting them to modern dates have been massively tested and are endlessly checked. The same is true of the interpretation and analysis of the Glyphs. That cannot be said for the analysis of bones to determine age. The age at death given for Pacal varies from 40 to 55. Hardly exact. There is in fact much discussion of this in the literature about whether or not old people generally have "young" bones. Further exactly how the anthropologists determined the age of the bones has not been published. 50 years after analysis!4

Tomb of Pacal

In 1984-1986 an analysis was conducted of the bones of those interred in a crypt in a Church at Spitalfields in east London. The dates of birth and death were known of the remains. Different methods of bone analysis, etc. were used to evaluate / determine when the people died and then compared to their actual date of death. The results indicated that:

All the methods applied to the Spitalfields skeletons tended to underestimate the age of the old, and overestimate the age of the young, a result that reflects the bias inherent in cemetery material composed of individuals who died of natural causes. Those who die young have presumably failed to achieve their potential and already have “old bones,” while those who live to a great age are survivors and have “young” bones at death.5

In fact this entire edifice of conjecture is based on the argument that Pacal was far too young at the time of his death to be telling the truth about his birth and accession. So the dates were frauds. From this supposed "fact" was erected, like an inverted pyramid the whole argument about Mayan historical texts being mendacious lies. A rather slender basis for such a sweeping conclusion.

Regarding points 4 & 5. The simple fact that Mayan could have faked evidence is not proof, evidence of fraudulent records. That such lies could benefit Mayan rulers is also no evidence of fraud. The lack of contemporaneous inscriptions for some rulers does not prove that in all such cases later records are fraudulent. In the case of European history certain historical figures would disappear with such an attitude towards the documentary record. For example Alfred the Great, or Hugh Capet, (founder of the Capetian Dynasty of France).

Regarding the puzzling gaps. The "doubter’s" do not seem to notice that the gaps vary in time period from a few months to several years. After making the valid point that these gaps are puzzling and require explanation they are used to impeach the credibility of the whole record. The problem is why did Mayan royalty record those gaps at all. If Mayan royalty was willing to fake birthdays, ages, days of accession to the throne, why not simply erase those puzzling gaps rather than record them? It is very likely that the longer gaps indicate succession problems but the very fact that such gaps were recorded is not an indication that the record is fraudulent. Once again far too broad conclusions are being drawn on limited evidence.

A possibility not mentioned in the literature is that the accession date is the equivalent of enthronement so that frequently it was postponed for reasons involving having it on an astrologically etc., auspicious day and not because of political disputes.

Puzzling features also include the fact that Mayan inscriptions include bad news, such as Kings captured and the sack of cities. In fact inscriptions at Palenque mention the city being sacked. At Tikal a King is described as dying of wounds. These inscriptions would seem to record bad things happening to the cities and their rulers. The doubters can’t have it both ways if the "good" news is lies then so is the bad news.6

Regarding point 1. The fact that U-Kix-Chan is probably legendary is no more proof that the rest of the list is fraudulent anymore than the claim of the House of Tudor that they were related to King Arthur. To say nothing of the claims of other European Noble and Royal families.

Regarding point 3. The "Doubters" are very selective in what reigns they select to make the King’s lists look ridiculous. For example the lists at Palenque do not just include the ages mentioned in point 3 put also the following. Ages. Kuk-Balam acceded age 33, died age 37. Butz-Aj acceded age 27, died age 40. Ahkal Mo-Nahb II acceded age 41 died age 47. Kan Balam I acceded age 47 died age 57. These dates are certainly more "realistic". Given the vagaries of the human life span before modern times such a wide variety of life spans are to be expected. This supports the overall validity of the list.7

Concerning the life span of Pacal and his son it is to be expected that if Pacal reigned for a long time, (67 years) that his successor would be at least middle aged. And since Pacal’s first son, Chan Bahlum II died apparently without surviving children or grandchildren, his younger brother Kan-Hok succeeded him. Since the lists with very few exceptions list only rulers it is not surprising that any children who did not live so long would not be listed. Alberto Ruz’s comment about a Gerontocracy seems only to apply to Pacal and two of his sons, and by what seems to be deliberate perversity in ignoring much of the rest of the King lists.8

Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque

The great ages recorded should not occasion surprise in that it is perfectly reasonable to expect members of the Mayan elite to have on average significantly longer life spans than ordinary Maya so comparison with the apparent fact that the life expectancy of ordinary Maya was significantly less than the life spans recorded for the elite is hardly much in terms of proof that the inscriptions are lies.

This argument has been characterized with some justification in my opinion to result from the fact that few of the "dirt" archeologists can read the inscriptions or in fact have any knowledge of any Mayan language. If the inscriptions can be dismissed as "propaganda" and "lies" then the archeologist doesn’t have to learn the inscriptions or Mayan. Certainly the analogy with Greece or Egyptology etc., is striking. It would be hard to take seriously any "Egyptologist" who could not read the hieroglyphs, or a Classicist who could not read Latin or Greek. But if you dismiss the inscriptions you can avoid learning Mayan Glyphs and language.9

In 1999 at Palenque an inscription called the K'an Tok Tablet was discovered. This inscription records the investiture of a series of officials by the rulers of Palenque over a 300 year period. The list records such things as Lady Incal overseeing the "tying of the headband" on a man named Janahb Sotz. This record of prosaic activities of the rulers of Palenque strongly supports the idea that the King lists are in fact historical and not lies. Overall in the last few years the accumulation of evidence has virtually completely discredited the doubters.10

The above may appear to be a low blow but in my opinion the proper onus is on those who propose that the inscriptions are mendacious lies to prove that that is so.

Finally it is infuriating that the doubters would like to be able to pick and choose what is "true" and is not "true" and the criteria seems to be entirely subjective. It is concluded that the Mayan inscriptions are about as reliable has other similar inscriptions elsewhere in the world and their reliability should be judged in a similar fashion and not rejected by a cynical nihilism.

To conclude:

We can confidently say that K’inich Janab Pakal did die when he was 80, if only because the contemporaneous records of Maya history, anchored so firmly in the mechanisms of the Maya calendar, leave little doubt. His birth and death dates are immovable, and they come from inscriptions that were composed during his lifetime or soon thereafter. Despite what others have argued, we cannot believe that any Maya king could have manipulated the structure of contemporary history to exaggerate his own age. Pakal was notable for being 80 years old, and Maya historians at Palenque seem to have taken some pride in mentioning his advanced age whenever possible, especially using the title “the Five-score Year Lord”.11

Palace, Palenque

1, Marcus, Joyce, Royal Family, Royal Texts, in Mesoamerican Elites, Ed. Z. Chase & Arlen Chase, University of Oklahoma Press, London, 1992 & Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ., 1992.

2, Ruz, Alberto, Gerontocracy at Palenque?, in Social Process in Maya Prehistory, Ed. N. Hammond, Academic Press, London, 1977. see also Footnote 1.

3, IBID.

4, Schele, Linda, & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone Books, New York, 1998, pp. 342-344. See also Renfrew, Colin, & Bahn, Paul, Archaeology, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 1996, p. 408, Stuart, David, & George Stuart, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 180-182.

5, Renfrew, p. 408.

6, Martin, Simon, & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, 2008, pp, 30-31, 158-161.

7, Stuart, David, pp. 244-247.

8, Lists are, two in Pacal's tomb in the Temple of the Inscriptions and one in the Temple at the Top. One list is in Kan B'alam's Temple of the Cross. See Schele, Linda, & Freidal, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow & Company Inc., New York, 1990, Chapter 9, pp 217-261.

9, See Coe, Michael D., Breaking the Maya Code, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992.

10, Skidmore, Joel, A New Palenque Ruler, at Mesoweb, Here

11, Stuart, David, p. 182.

Pierre Cloutier

Mayan Timeline
From
25,000 B.C.E.. – Present
(B.C.E. is Before Common Era, C.E. is Common Era)

c. 25000 B.C.E.- Ancestors of the American Indians, the first Human’s in the new World, enter the Americas by crossing the Bering Strait.

c. 7000 B.C.E.- Beginning of the process of domesticating Maize, ("Corn"). In Mexico. This process would be very slow.

c. 5000 B.C.E.- First clear signs of settled village life. Beginning of the domestication of squashes, beans, tomatoes etc., in Mexico.

c. 4000 B.C.E.- First appearance of villages in Mayan area.

C. 3000 B.C.E.- Ancestors of the Maya settle in Yucatan and Guatemala.

c. 2000 B.C.E.- Temple structures begin to be built in Mexico and Olmec area. Mayan village culture established. Domestication process of Maize, ("Corn"), complete.

c. 1600 B.C.E.- Emergence of Olmec civilization on Gulf coast of Mexico.

c. 1400 B.C.E.- Establishment of San Lorenzo in Olmec heartland. First Temple structures in Mayan area.

c. 1200 B.C.E.- San Lorenzo abandoned La Venta established beginning of Olmec golden age.

c. 1200 - 600 B.C.E.Climax of Olmec golden age. Monumental sculpture, art, Architecture.

c. 1200 - 200 B.C.E.Olmec influence on Maya pervasive and long lasting.

c. 900 B.C.E.-Wealthy tombs in Copan region.

c. 600 B.C.E.-Tikal settled.

c. 600 B.C.E.-Fall of La Venta. Beginning of Olmec decline.

c. 600-200 B.C.E.-Terminal Olmec period. Development of Writing, calendar and mathematical, dating system.

c.400-200 B.C.E.-Establishment and growth of El Mirador and other sites. First signs of Kingship.

c.200 B.C.E.-Izapa monuments with Glyphs and indecipherable dates are erected. Earliest depictions of Popol Vuh mythology.

c. 100 B.C.E.-1. C.E.-Writing appears in Mayan area. Climax of late pre-classic. (300 B.C.E.-100 C.E.). Massive monumental building at El Mirador and other sites.

36 B.C.E.-First date (Olmec Region).

c. 50 C.E.-Massive construction at Tikal (Mutul) and other sites.

c. 90 C.E.-Foundation of Dynasty of Tikal (Mutul) by Yax-Moch-Xoc.

c. 100 C.E.-El Mirador and other sites abandoned.

100 C.E.-600 C.E.-Early Classic

100 C.E.-Earliest object with a date in the Mayan region.

160 C.E.-Kingdom of Copan established.

c. 200 C.E.-Kalak’mul (Kan) established.

c. 200 C.E.-Building of Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan (Pul).

Mayan Glyph

359 C.E.-Yoaat B'alam I establishes Dynasty of Yaxchilan.

378 C.E.-Tikal (Mutul) conquers Uaxactun.

378 C.E.-Siyaj K'ak', apparently from Teotihuacan (Pul) kills? Chak Tok Ich'aak I of Tikal (Mutul) and installs Yax Nuun Ayiin I as king of Mutul. This whole episode is very mysterious, especially since the new king and his successors continue to claim Chak Tok Ich'aak I as an ancestor and trace themselves back to Yax-Moch-Xoc the Dynasty Founder.

300-500 C.E.-Significant Teotihuacan (Pul) influence on Tikal (Mutul)

426 C.E-Yax-Kuk-Mo’, apparently from Teotihuacan (Pul), or Tikal (Mutul), establishes Dynasty at Copan.

431 C.E.-Kuk-B’alam I, maybe from Tikal (Mutul) or Teotihuacan (Pul), establishes Dynasty of Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

475 C.E.-Kan-Ax rules at Tikal (Mutul).

514 C.E.-North Acropolis built at Tikal (Mutul).

c. 520-540 C.E.-First signs of Tikal (Mutul) / Kalak’mul (Kan) rivalry.

553 C.E.-"Double Bird" King of Tikal establishes Yahaw-Ye as King of Caracol. Shortly thereafter Yahaw-Ye allies himself with Kalak’mul (Kan).

556 C.E.-Tikal (Mutul) sacks Caracol.

562 C.E.-Caracol, allied with Kalak’mul (Kan), defeats Tikal (Mutul) and sacks city. Captures and sacrifices King "Double Bird" as well. Tikal encircled by allies of Kalak’mul.

c.560-690 C.E.-The Hiatus at Tikal and allied sites. Construction and monumental building stops, and no dated monuments for almost 140 years at Tikal (Mutul).

599 C.E.-Yahaw-Ye of Caracol dies is succeeded by his eldest son.

600-900 C.E.-Late Classic

Mayan Inscription

603 C.E.-Pacal (I) born.

615 C.E.-Pacal (I) crowned King of Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

618 C.E.-Kan II younger son of Yahaw-Ye becomes King of Caracol.

619 C.E.-Kan II reaffirms alliance between Caracol and Kalak’mul (Kan).

625 C.E.-Balah-Kan K’awil from Tikal (Mutul) becomes King of Dos Pilas. Shortly afterwards he allies with Kalak’mul (Kan).

630 C.E.-Caracol wars with Naranjo an ally of Tikal (Mutul).

636 C.E.-Caracol defeats and conquers Naranjo. And in 642 C.E. dedicates a victor’s stairway at Naranjo.

c. 650-700 C.E.-Teotihuacan (Pul) sacked and destroyed. Site of Chichen Itza is found during this time.

657 C.E.-Nun-Bak-Chak of Tikal, (Mutul) driven into exile.

659 C.E.-Nun-Bak-Chak visits Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

c. 664 C.E.-Nun-Bak-Chak returns to Tikal (Mutul).

672 C.E.-Nun-Bak-Chak takes Dos Pilas forcing Balah-Kan K’awil into exile.

677 C.E.-Balah-Kan K’awil and Yukun-Kun of Kalak’mul (Kan) retake Dos Pilas from Tikal (Mutul).

679 C.E.-Balah-Kan K’awil captures and sacrifices Nun-Bak-Chak of Tikal (Mutul).

682 C.E.-Ah-Cacaw of Tikal (Mutul) accedes as King. Wac-Chanil-Ahau daughter of Balah-Kan K’awil of Dos Pilas arrives in Naranjo to re-establish Royal line.

683 C.E.-Pacal (I) of Palenque (Lakam-Ha) dies.

Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque

686 C.E.-Ich’ak-K’ak of Kalak’mul (Kan) accedes Balah-Kan K’awil of Dos Pilas, attends ceremony.

690 C.E.-Ah-Cacaw of Tikal (Mutul) erects first dated monuments at Tikal in over a century and builds first Pyramid complex.

693 C.E.-K’ak-Tiliw son of Wac-Chanil-Ahau accedes as King of Naranjo. For the next 10 years Naranjo wars with Tikal (Mutul) and her allies.

695 C.E.-Ah-Cacaw of Tikal (Mutul) captures and sacrifices Ich’ak-K’ak of Kalak’mul (Kan). The encirclement by Kalak’mul (Kan) of Tikal (Mutul) is broken. The next 50 years are the height of Tikal’s power and prestige. Ah-Cacaw celebrates by a massive program of building and art.

695 C.E.-Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil of Copan accedes to throne.

700-800 C.E.-Climax of Mayan civilization.

709 C.E.-Beginning of prolonged succession crisis at Yaxchilan. Itzamnaaj B'alam II begins to try to arrange succession of son Yaxun Balam IV.

c. 710-730 C.E.-The Itza, allies of Tikal (Mutul) found city of Chichen Itza.

710-711 C.E.-K’ak-Tiliw of Naranjo after switching sides attacks enemies of Tikal.

711 C.E.-Ah-Cacaw erects spectacular Pyramids 4 and 5 at Tikal (Mutul).

715 C.E.-Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil of Copan celebrates his 20th anniversary and builds Temple 22.

723-726 C.E.-Continuation of succession crisis at Yaxchilan. Itzamnaaj B'alam II involves his chief wife Lady Xoc in various rites supposably designed to disinherit her sons in favour of his son Yaxun Balam IV.

725 C.E.-Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil of Copan arranges accession of K’ak-Tiliw as King of Quirigua.

734 C.E.-Yik’in-Kan-K’awil becomes King of Tikal (Mutul).

736 C.E.-K’ak-Tiliw of Quirigua is visited by a "Lord" of Kalak’mul. Quirigua becomes an ally of Kalak’mul (Kan) about this time. Copan remains an ally of Tikal (Mutul).

738 C.E.-K’ak-Tiliw of Quirigua captures and sacrifices Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil of Copan.

c. 740 C.E.-K'ak' Yipyaj Chan K'awiil of Copan marries a "Lady of Lakam-Ha", (Palenque).

742 C.E.-Itzamnaaj B'alam II of Yaxchilan dies beginning of acute succession crisis. Yaxun Balam IV begins complex campaign to succeed his father.

743 C.E.-Yik’in-Kan-K’awil of Tikal (Mutul) defeats El Peru.

744 C.E.-Yik-Kan-K’awil attacks Naranjo, which as once again changed sides and captures and sacrifices its King Yax-Hix-Ek’-Way.

c. 745 C.E.-Yoaat B'alam II becomes King of Yaxchilan. He probably a son of Lady Xoc and Itzamnaaj B'alam II. The succession struggle with Yaxun Balam IV continues.

749 C.E.-Lady Xoc of Yaxchilan dies.

c. 750 C.E.-Ah-Kuy-Tok becomes King of Uxmal.

752 C.E.-Yaxun Balam IV of Yaxchilan accedes to throne of Yaxchilan.

761 C.E.-Alliance against Dos Pilas lead by Tikal (Mutul) takes Dos Pilas. Surviving members of Royal family flee to Aguateca.

763 C.E.-Yax-Pac of Copan the son of "Lady of Lakam-Ha" (Palenque) accedes to throne.

768 C.E.-Yax-Ain of Tikal (Mutul) accedes to throne. Yax-Pac of Copan begins massive building project including Hieroglyphic stairway.

c. 770 C.E.-Local inhabitants of Dos Pilas area fortify city centre. Effort fails and city falls and is sacked soon after.

775 C.E.-Yax-Pac dedicates Alter Q at Copan.

783 C.E.-Yax-Pac of Copan celebrates his 20th anniversary and erects Temple 22a.

790 C.E.-Last date at Aguateca and Pomona.

791 C.E.-Chaan-Muan of Bonampak celebrates ceremonies designating his eldest son has his heir. Shortly after Bonampak Murals are painted.

793 C.E.-Yax-Pac of Copan celebrates his 30th anniversary. Last date at Yaxha.

795 C.E.-Last date at Bonampak which is sacked and abandoned soon after. Yax-Pac erects another Alter in Temple 22a.

799 C.E.-Kimi-Pacal accedes to throne of Palenque (Lakam-Ha). Last date at Palenque, city abandoned soon after.

800-900 C.E.-The Collapse. Most of the cities of the Maya are abandoned during this time period.

c. 800 C.E.-Chichen Itza ally of Tikal (Mutul) starts a long war with Coba who is allied with Kalak’mul (Kan).

802 C.E-Yax-Pac of Copan celebrates his 40th anniversary. And completes Temple 18.

807 C.E.-Last date at La Amelia.

808 C.E.-Last Date at Yaxchilan.

810 C.E.-Yax-Pac visits Quirigua, now an ally.
Last date at Piedras Negras.
Last Date at Kalak’mul.
Last date at Naranjo.
Last date at Quirigua.

c. 820 C.E.-Yax-Pac dies at Copan. End of his dynasty.

822 C.E.-Last date at Copan. Attempt by U-Cit-Tok of Copan to establish dynasty fails.

830 C.E.-Wat’ul establishes himself as King of Seibal.

841 C.E.-Last date Machaquila.

849 C.E.-Wat’ul of Seibal builds Temple A-3.
Last date at Alter de Sacrificios.
Last date at Xunantunich.
Last date at Ucanal.
High Priests Grave dedicated at Chichen Itza.

859 C.E.-Last date at Caracol.

869 C.E.-Last date at Tikal (Mutul).
Ball court dedicated at Chichen Itza .
By this time Coba has been defeated and largely abandoned.

879 C.E.-Monuments dedicated at Jimbal, Sacchana.
Last date at Ixlu.

Mayan Inscription

889 C.E.-Last date at La Muneca.
Last date at Xultun.
Last date Uaxactun.
Last date Jimbal.
Last date at Seibal.
At Chichen Itza a large number of Monuments are dedicated.

898 C.E.-Last date at Chichen Itza.

900 C.E.-By this time most of the Mayan cities have been abandoned. The end dates listed above only record a few of the end dates.

900-1500 C.E.-Post Classic.

901 C.E.-Chan-Chak-K’ak’nal-Ahau dedicates Ball court at Uxmal.

c. 905-910 C.E.-Chan-Chak-K’ak’nal-Ahau builds Nunnary Quadrangle, and Palace of the Govenors at Uxmal.

909 C.E.-Last date at Tonina , also last Long Count date.

948 C.E.-Chichen Itza abandoned by the Itza for first time. Itza establish kingdom of Chak’anputun.

c. 975-1050 C.E.-Alleged Toltec invasions of Yucatan and Guatemala and establishment of Mexican-Mayan ruling Dynasties. Note this event probably never happened.

c. 1000-1100 C.E.-Chichen Itza reoccupied.

1150 C.E.-Establishment of Mayapan

1185 C.E.-Itza leave Chak’anputun.

Portrait of Mayan King

1194 C.E.-Hunak-Kel conspiracy at Chichen Itza. Chichen Itza abandoned soon after.

c. 1200 C.E.-Establishment of League of Mayapan. About the same time Tayasal in lake Petan is established.

1224 C.E.-Itza take Itzamal and attack Mayapan.

1263 C.E.-Itza attack and defeat Mayapan. They establish new confederacy, based in Mayapan the Itza call themselves Maya.

1382 C.E.-Mayapan abandoned by the Itza.

c. 1380-1420 C.E.-Vicious internal fighting in Mayapan between various factions. The Tutul-Xiw leave Mayapan.

1441 C.E.-Mayapan abandoned and sacked. Yucatan disintegrates into vicious intercity warfare for the next 70+ years.

c. 1470 C.E.-Quiche of Guatemala begin creation of Empire in Guatemala.

c. 1485 C.E.-The Kaqchikals separate from the Quiche and establish a rival Empire. Next 40+ years characterized by vicious fighting between the two rivals.

1492 C.E.-Columbus sails to the West Indies and back to Spain.

1493 C.E.-First European settlement on island of Hispanola. Conquest of island by Spain 1493-1498.

1500-2000 C.E.-The Modern age

c. 1500-First of series of devastating epidemics of Old World diseases ravages the Maya.

c. 1500-1620 C.E.-Disease, Warfare and ruthless Spanish exploitation reduces Mayan numbers by at least 80-90% and possibly 95%.

1502 C.E.-Columbus encounters a Mayan merchant off Honduras during fourth voyage.

1517 C.E.-Spanish land at Chak’anputun and are driven out.

1518 C.E.-Spanish sack Chak’anputun.

1519 C.E.-Cortes lands at Cozumel island and meets Dona Maria, (Malinche), his chief interpreter and aide during the conquest of the Aztec Empire.

1519-1521 C.E.-Cortes conquers the Aztec Empire.

1523 C.E.-Alvarado, Lieutenant to Cortes, invades Guatemala.

1524 C.E.-Alvarado defeats and kills Quiche King. Sacks Quiche capital and at a mass burning kills more than 300 Quiche nobles. Kaqchikels begin war with the Spanish.

1525 C.E.-Cortes, visiting Honduras, travels through the Petan and visits Tayasal capital of the Itza.

1527 C.E.-Spanish invade Yucatan under the leadership of Montejo. For the next 7 years the Spanish try to conquer Yucatan.

1530 C.E.-After 6 years of vicious warfare the Kaqchikels submit to Alvarado. Resistance continues for another 10 years in Guatemala.

1534 C.E.-Montejo and his forces are driven out of Yucatan.

1540 C.E.-Last resistance in Guatemala ends. Alvarado massacres Kaqchikels leadership and many others.

1541 C.E.-Alvarado dies. Montejo Junior, invades Yucatan. Defeats the Local Mayan rulers.

Pages from the Dresden Codex

1542 C.E.-Spanish establish Merida on ruins of Tiho. Western part of Yucatan occupied by Spanish.

1546 C.E.-Massive Mayan rebellion in Yucatan crushed.

c. 1540-1600 C.E.-Christianization of the Maya. Massive destruction of Mayan Temples, Art etc., by the Spanish. Systematic attack on Mayan learning and lore. Almost compete obliteration of Mayan Books.

c. 1550 C.E.-Mayan Priests begin to copy out the books of Chilam Balam. (books of the Jaguar Priests). They will prove to be invaluable and would be added to well into the twentieth century.

1562 C.E.-Bishop Landa of Yucatan climaxes his drive against "idolatry" by burning thousands of Mayan books in a public square at Mani. Also many Mayan Priests etc., fall victim to his drive.

1565-1570 C.E.-Bishop Landa while in Spain writes his Relacion de las coscas de Yucatan. An absolutely priceless source on the Maya.

c. 1570 C.E.-A Mayan Nobleman copies from a Mayan Hieroglyphic manuscript the Popol Vuh into Mayan using the Roman alphabet. Later He or someone else copies it out into Spanish.

Knowledge of the Hieroglyphs fades until they no longer can be read.

c.1550-1650 C.E.-Establishment of a Spanish ruling class over a en-serfed Mayan peasantry. Virtual disappearance of Mayan ruling class.

c. 1650 C.E.-Copy of Relacion de las coscas de Yucatan by Bishop Landa made by Government officials in Spain. It is unfortunately a condensed version. The original is lost or destroyed.

1600-1690 C.E.-Continual efforts to conquer Itza Kingdom of Tayasal and border warfare with it. All Spanish efforts fail.

1697 C.E.-The Spanish take Tayasal last independent city of the Maya and sack city. Last library of hieroglyphic books vanishes along with last readers/writers of Glyphs.

1697-1720 C.E.-Resistance continues in the kingdom of Tayasal but is crushed.

1650-1820 C.E.-The Maya cling with remarkable stubbornness to the remnants of their culture. Mayan population begins to recover.

1773 C.E.-Palenque rediscovered.

Head of Pacal King of Palenque

1810 C.E.-Mexican War of independence starts.

1820 C.E.-Mexico becomes independent.

1825 C.E.-Establishment of Guatemala.

1841 C.E.-Stephens and Catherwood publish their Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. Beginning of modern Mayan studies.During the same decade Brasseur de Bourboug, a French Scientist finds Bishop Landa’s Relacion..., in a Spanish archive, and in Guatemala he finds the Popol Vuh.

1847-1855 C.E.-War of the Castes in Yucatan. Mayans rise against the Mexicans. Rebellion ends in bloody stalemate. Large areas of Yucatan and neighbouring provinces outside of Mexican control.

1850-1900 C.E.-First efforts to decipher the Glyphs. All efforts fail miserably except with the calendar portion of them.

1850 C.E.-The Founding of Chan Santa Cruz. "The Speaking Cross" and the state of Cruzob.

c. 1860-1900 C.E.-Attempted "Europenization of Guatemala".

1877-1910 C.E.-Dictatorship of Portifo Diaz in Mexico. 1901 C.E.-After many attempts the Mexican government finally conquers the state of Cruzob.

Mayan Number 20

1910-1920 C.E.-Mexican Revolution.

1944 C.E.-Revolution in Guatemala.

1952 C.E.-Knorozov publishes his Ancient Writing of Central America. The beginning of the decipherment of the Glyphs. Ruz finds Pacal’s tomb in the Temple of Inscriptions.

1954 C.E.-A C.I.A. sponsored, lead, paid for coup in Guatemala. For the next 40 years Guatemala would be ruled by a ruthless military oligarchy that will be virulently anti-Mayan at times.

1973 C.E.-First Palenque Round Table. Rediscovery of Pacal of Palenque. 1970-1985 is the breakthrough period in deciphering the Glyphs.

1978-1990 C.E.-Bloody war in Guatemala between guerrillas and military government.

1980-1982 C.E.-Dictatorship of Rios more than 140,000 Mayan Indians are massacred. Government targets Mayan Shaman and Priests for killing.

1988-1990 C.E.-The Deciphers begin to teach Modern Maya how to read the Glyphs.

1992 C.E.-Rigoberta Menchu , a Mayan Indian women is awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

Rigoberto Menchu

1996 C.E.-Peace in Guatemala. Beginning of a Mayan revival?

Mayan Family

Bibliography

Von Hagen, Victor W., World of the Maya, Mentor Books, New York, 1960.

Schele, Linda & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone Books, New York, 1998.

Schele, Linda & Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow Company Inc., New York, 1990.

Coe, Michael D., The Maya, (6th Ed.), Thames & Hudson, London, 1998.

Jones, Grant D., The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1998.

Denevan, William M. Editor, The Native Population of the Americas in 1492, (2nd Ed.), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1992.

Thomas, Hugh, Conquest, Touchstone Books, New York, 1993.

Martin, Simon & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008.

Stuart, David & Stuart, George, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008.

Webster, David, The Fall of the Ancient Maya, Thames and Hudson, London, 2002.

Dumond, Don E., The Machete and the Cross, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1997.

Reed, Nelson A., The Caste War of Yucatan, Revised Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2001.

Menchu, Rigoberta & Burgos–Debray, Elisabeth, I Rigoberta Menchu, Verso, London, 1984.

Clendinnen, Inga, Ambivalent Conquests, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

Commission of Historical Clarification, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, at Here.

Demarest, Arthur, Ancient Maya, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.

Sharer, Robert J. & Traxler, Loa P., The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006.

De Landa, Diego, Yucatan Before and After The Conquest, Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1978.

Falla, Ricardo, Quiche Rebelde, University of Texas Press, Austin, 2001.

Foster, Lynn V., Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.

McKillop, Heather, The Ancient Maya: New Perspectives, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2006.

Pierre Cloutier

The Fall of the Maya

The Raid
Mural from Bomapak Mexico

The Glory of the Mayan golden age ended with abandoned cities and chaos. Between 800 C.E. and 900 C.E. the great majority of classical Mayan centres were abandoned. Why is one of the great mysteries of Pre-Columbian America.

It should be pointed out that Collapse while rare is not unique it has happened to a number of societies in the course of Human History. For example:

1, The Western Roman Empire 350-500 C.E.

2, Chacoan Culture 1150-1250 C.E.

3, Indus Civilization 1700-1500 B.C.E.

4, Mycenaen Civilization 1250-1150 B.C.E.

5, Easter Island 1500-1700 C.E.

Since Stephens and Catherwood explored and described the Mayan cities there has been much speculation about why the cities were abandoned, much of it totally useless. Unfortunately the Maya seem to attract more then their fair share of weirdoes and cranks. Including a truly large number of the wacky who could not and cannot believe that the ancestors of today’s Maya built the cities. The Erich von Daniken Chariots of the Gods, nonsense for example. Who is mentioned here because von Daniken interprets the image on Pacal’s sarcophagus lid as that of an Astronaut in a spaceship. I wonder what Pacal would think? Mr. Von Daniken’s particular conceit is that the Mayans were expecting the "Gods" to return on a certain date and when they did not the Mayans abandoned their cities.2

To get back to reality theories about why the Mayan collapse happened have included, Earthquakes, Famines, Epidemics, Hurricanes, Unbalanced sex-ratios, Foreign invasions and so on and so forth. All the above theories have in common the following. Lack of evidence, wild speculation and simplicity.3 They are also almost all not just partly wrong but completely wrong.4

Rather more serious is the idea proposed by the Great Mayanologist Sylvanus Morley that the Mayans devastated their environment by practicing slash and burn agriculture that turned large areas of the lowlands into savanna leading to collapse due to inability of agriculture to support the population.5

The Great Mayanologist Erich Thompson proposed that the Collapse occurred when exasperated Mayan peasants, tired of taxes and wars, overthrew the system and sacked the cities.6

Both those theories are believed to have some truth in them however both had a series of flaws. Morley’s Agricultural depletion theory was based on the assumption that the Mayans during the Classic period practiced slash and burn agriculture, (also called swidden and milpa), which involved burning down an area of jungle planting 1-3 crops and then letting it lie fallow for years (10-30) before planting again. Of course the population that could be supported by this system was not large and population densities were assumed to be low and the cities assumed to be ceremonial centres. To put it bluntly this is all wrong. The Mayan region was much more thickly populated, the cities real cities, and intensive agriculture by means of terrace farming and irrigation the norm in the lowlands.7

Regarding the peasant revolt theory it was based on a view of Mayan society has a huge mass of peasant labourers ruled by a tiny class of Aristocrats/Priests residing in ceremonial centres. This is also very wrong. We now know about the existence of a large class of "petty" nobility with a far from insignificant "middle" class. And of course the cities had large populations.8

The lack of evidence for either savanna creation or a mass peasant revolt does not help these theories either.9 This does not mean these theories do not have value. The decipherment of the Glyphs has brought to forth various new theories and the creation of new theories. The following are some things to keep in mind.

Lintel from Yaxchilan Mexico

1, Mayan cities had been abandoned before the best example of this is El Mirador about 100 C.E.

2, The Maya had cyclical view of time expecting things to repeat, at least on a general level each 256 years of the short count.

3, There are clear signs of environmental degradation and population pressure before the collapse.

4, The Mayan city state system was dominated by the city-states of Tikal, (Mutul), and Kalak’mul who engaged in a struggle for dominance lasting centuries.

5, The population did not collapse and did not decline noticeably until several centuries after the collapse.

6, The Maya Collapse is similar to other collapses.10

It now appears that the collapse occurred for a variety of interrelated reasons. The most likely reasons seem to be a combination of environmental degradation and severe competition between the city-states.

It has been suggested that the concept "marginal returns " offers a way of looking at the problem. In marginal returns the idea is for example: 1X effort = 1Z result, however,2X effort = 1 & 1/2 result, not 2Z result. Or to put it another way it costs for example:it costs $100 to build a bridge 10 meters long, however it costs, $300 to build a bridge 20 meters long. The idea is that all systems have "costs" which tend to go up exponentially in relation to their results. Thus a pyramid 40 meters high takes 4 times the effort, cost, etc., of one 50 20 meters high. This applies to all "systems". The "marginal return" tends to get less. In other words you get less bang for your buck the more you try to do. In this concept has Mayan society got more complex, more ornate, has more temples were built, the aristocracy got larger there was a tendency to get less for the effort, cost, in maintaining the whole system. The idea is that in the late 8th century the cost became to great in relation to the returns, and the system radically simplified i.e., collapsed. 11

The Mayan agricultural system of irrigation and terrace agriculture was apparently developed to support a growing population and to provide the economic surplus to support the elite and the cities. For a considerable period of time the system continued to expand fueled by demand for more people for building projects, pay taxes and to provide bodies for intercity competition. In the late 8th century the system was capable of supporting the population but it was having increasing difficulty doing that and supporting the cities. It was the apparent impossibility of doing both by about 800 C.E. that caused the collapse. Certainly there is some evidence of increasing hunger and disease by the late 8th century. Also it appears that the elite was much larger by the late 8th century than before and a greater burden to carry. Further building projects were on average more extravagant/costly than ever. Wars between the city-states were getting worst. 12

Also the system had been under stress for quite sum time because of the inability of the Maya to politically unify resulting in continual wars between the cities. By 400 C.E., the Mayan world was dominated by two "Super" states Kalak’mul and Tikal (Mutul). Each one lead a constellation of vassals and allies who acknowledged the over lordship of one or the other "Super" state. The conflict was never resolved instead both alliances fought themselves into exhaustion. The competition lead to escalating conflict, competition and steadily increasing expense and effort. The result was that beginning in the late 8th century a great simplification began to happen. 13.

For example in Copan the local nobles apparently decided they did not need a King or monumental architecture or the expense of Royal politics and after Yax-Pac died (820 C.E.) made sure they did not have one. In Bonampak the locals may have overthrown the government. In other place like Dos Pilas, Aguateca ex-victims sacked and destroyed them both. In other places the inhabitants simply abandoned the city i.e., Yaxchilan, Palenque. In some places like Kalak’mul the place was occupied for several decades after the collapse but then abandoned. In many place temporary smaller centres were established independent from any control has the city-states disintegrated before they too collapsed. 14

The Maya in the Classic age also apparently knew of and used the short count dating system which placed a date within a 256 recurring period of time. The Maya believed that events in a general sense repeated themselves in each 256-time period. Thus for example Tikal (Mutul) was defeated and sacked by Caracol in 562 C.E.. The katun (20 year period) in which this disaster happened was due to start c. 800 C.E.. The "Hiatus" that resulted from the sack lasted in Tikal and many of its allies for over 100 years. With that date approaching it is possible that many Maya acted accordingly and created, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy?16

In the end the cities were abandoned and left to the jungle while the Maya were left to pick up the pieces for the cost of maintaining a steady escalating complex, expensive system was too much, and besides was not disaster inevitable?

What is remarkable is that it is all too likely that the Maya may have something to teach us about the limits to "endless" growth.

Glyphic Panel from Palenque Mexico

1, The Collapse of Complex Societies, by Joseph A. Tainter, University of Cambridge Press, New York, 1988.

2, Chariots of the Gods, by Erich von Daniken, Bantam Books, New York, 1968.

3, See The Classic Maya Collapse, Ed. T. Patrick Culbert, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1973, for more details.

4. IBID.

5, See above 1, & The Ancient Maya, by Sylvanus Morley, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1956.

6. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, (2nd Ed.), by Erich Thompson, University of Oklahoma Press, New York, 1966.

7, Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, Ed. Peter Harrison & B.L. Turner, University of New Mexico, Albuequerque, 1978.

8, See The Maya (6th Ed.), Michael D. Coe, Thames & Hudson, London, 1998.

9, See Note 3.

10, See The Code of Kings, by Linda Schele & Peter Mathews, Touchstone Books, New York, 1998.

11. See note 1.

12. See Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1990 & Fash, William L., Scribes, Warriors and Kings, Rev'd Ed., Thames and Hudson, London, 2001.

13. Martin, Simon, & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 2nd Ed., Thames and Hudson, London, 2008.

14. See Fash, Schele, Sharer, Robert J., & Traxler, Loa P., The Ancient Maya, sixth Ed., Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006.

16. IBID. Sharer.

Pierre Cloutier

Life of K'inich Pacal I (the Great) of Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

Pacal's name in Glyphic form

603 - 683 C.E.

March 26, 603 C.E.

Pacal I was born on this date, during the reign of his great-grandmother Incal. his parents were Zak-Kuk the daughter of Incal's younger son Pacal and Kan-B'alam-Mo' a member of an important family that had served the dynasty for generations. Pacal I was named Pacal in honor of his grandfather Pacal. The circumstances of his birth were not auspicious.

Sculptured Head of Pacal has a young man

A few years earlier on April 21, 599 C.E.

The city is been sacked by Kalak'mul (Kan - meaning Snake) the leader of an enemy alliance that fought an alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul - meaning bundle of hair) that Palenque (Lakam-Ha - meaning big water) was a member of. His great-grandmother had came to throne in disastrous circumstances and had, had great difficulty in holding things together. Even the very fact of her accession was unusual and in the normal course of things Pacal I becoming king was not very likely given that his grandfather Pacal could have other sons and Ac-Kan, Incal's eldest son was also before him.

Map of the Mayan Area

November 7, 604 C.E.

Incal died on this date. This death marked the beginning of a period of crisis during which things went from bad to worst for the kingdom and dynasty.

January 4, 605 C.E.

Ac-Kan formally accedes to throne on this day. During this year or the next one Bonampak, an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) successfully raids Lakam-Ha, (Palenque). Apparently Ac-Kan has far less success than his mother, Incal, in holding the kingdom together.

April 11, 611 C.E.

Kalak'mul (Kan) in alliance with various city states like Tonina and Pomona, sacks Lakam-Ha (Palenque) even more thoroughly than the last time on this date. Apparently several members of the royal family are killed and/or captured and sacrificed. Palenque (Lakam-Ha) is humiliated and forced to pay tribute. In subsequent years Lakam-Ha is raided and humiliated again and again.

March 9, 612 C.E.

Pacal, Pacal I's grandfather dies suddenly and probably violently on this date. Pacal has no surviving sons and his heir is probably his daughter Zak-Kuk. Pacal I now becomes a contender for the throne but only if his uncle Ac-Kan should die without children then the heir will be Pacal I's mother Zak-Kuk.

August 11, 612 C.E.

Ac-Kan dies on this date. again, like his brother Pacal, rather suddenly and possibly violently as Palenque's enemies close in to finish off the royal family.

October 12, 612 C.E.

Muwaan Mat accedes to the throne on this date. possibly actually Zak-Kuk, Pacal's mother who takes the throne like her grand mother Incal, or the person is an unknown male relative or entirely fictive. (To symbolize retrospectively a new beginning.) Whoever it is, accedes to the throne in difficult circumstances. Only in this case they may have been even more serious than before. The city is badly damaged. The royal family decimated so that Zak-Kuk was likely the only adult member left. The kingdom is weak, and her enemies many. It is uncertain but it appears that Zak-Kuk was the power behind the throne at this time if she was not reigning herself.

July 29, 615 C.E.

On this date Pacal was crowned, at the age of 12, by his mother Zak Kuk, K'inich, ruler of the kingdom of Bak, (meaning bone), in the city of Lakham-Ha (Palenque). Years later Pacal has carved a plaque commemorating the event. The plaque was fixed into a wall of the palace and all future rulers of Bak were crowned and enthroned underneath it. After possibly ruling alone for 2 1/2 years Zak-Kuk makes sure her son will rule by crowning him in her lifetime. At the same time she deliberately leaves her own position ambiguous. The kingdom is weak and Zak-Kuk makes sure her position remains ambiguous.

The Plaque of Zak-Kuk crowning Pacal I

615 - 640 C.E.

This period is what amounts to the joint reign of Pacal I and his mother Zak-Kuk. during this period Pacal erects no monuments and records no known wars. Inscriptions at Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) and other sites do not record any disasters happening to the kingdom of Bak. It seems safe to conclude that Zak-Kuk was successful in keeping things together and beginning the process of recovery of the kingdom. Pacal later in his reign records that his mother was unable to make the proper sacrifices because the gods were damaged.

?March 22, 626 C.E.

On this date Pacal marries lady Ahpo-Hel. Pacal is 22 years old and will turn 23 on March 26, 626 C.E., the marriage, at least politically, is a great success. Since Pacal would record this event has one of the 5 most significant events of his reign it seems safe to conclude that lady Ahpo-Hel came from a significant family and city.

January 27, 633 C.E.

On this date Zak-Kuk celebrates a katun, (twenty year) anniversary. This anniversary also probably celebrates the twenty, plus a few months since she took power.

May 23, 635 C.E.

On this date, Kan B'alam II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow Pacal as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 683 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had sons born before Kan B'alam who did not survive their father. Pacal is 32 years old.

September 12, 640 C.E.

Pacal becomes sole ruler of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) on this date, when his mother Zak-Kuk dies. Pacal is now well established as ruler because since his mother's possible accession to the throne there has been peace and stability and gradual recovery. However little if any building activity has been done, and Lakam-Ha still has many dangerous enemies. Pacal is 37 years old.

Map of Downtown Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

June 17, 641 C.E.

On this date Pacal holds a ritual and ceremony to officially designate his son, Kan B'alam II, age 6, his heir. This further solidifies Pacal's position and the security of the dynasty.

January 1, 643 C.E.

Kan-B'alam-Mo', Pacal's father dies, on this date. With his fathers death the last strings of parental control are removed.

644 C.E.

Pacal begins a war with the nearby city of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first major war. Tortuguero is an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) and a enemy of Palenque (Lakam-Ha) and Palenque's ally Tikal, (Mutul).

November 5, 644 C.E.

On this date, Kan-Xul II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow his older brother Kan B'alam II as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 702 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had other sons who did not survive their father.

January 31, 645 C.E.

Pacal sacks a city, perhaps an ally of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first great military achievement. The name of the city is unknown but Pacal extends his control into the east of his kingdom.

647 C.E.

Pacal dedicates his first great building project, the temple Olividado. This temple is of a radically different design from earlier ones, with a double-galleried hall, much thinner walls than usual, and many doors and vaults. This temple apparently celebrated the rival of the power and prestige of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha).

?November 18-25, 649 C.E.

Pacal takes and sacks Tortuguero.The eastern frontier of the kingdom is now stabilized. Pacal turn his attention to the western frontier of the kingdom.

April 19, 653 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual dance to appease the gods and ensure the safety of Lakam-Ha, (Palenque).

November 654 C.E.

Dedication of the subterrean passages below house E in the Palace.

September 10, 655 C.E.

An event of some importance occurs involving Pacal's wars in the west. The exact nature of the event is not known.

650-658 C.E.

Pacal constructs the Temple of the Count, and houses, E, B, in the palace. The architecture continues to be innovative and continues to indicate the revival of Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

August 7, 659 C.E.

Pacal captures Nuun Ujol Chahk king of Santa Elena. Six days later this king and his lieutenants are presented at Palenque (Lakham-Ha).

August 16, 659 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) and ally of Pacal visits him in Lakam-Ha. Nun-Bak-Chak had been driven out of Mutul by an alliance of Kalak'mul and Dos Pilas. The visit was probably both a high level meeting to discuss strategy and an affirmation of Pacal's support for the alliance between Lakam-Ha and Mutul. The very fact that Pacal would thus defy Kalak'mul, which had twice taken Lakam-Ha in 60 years, indicates the significant revival of Lakam-Ha's fortunes. Also it indicates very clearly Pacal's continuation of the long-standing alliance with Mutul. This long-standing conflict was by now at least a century old. The conflict would carry on long after Pacal's death. This event was considered by Pacal one of the most important events in his life and he made sure it was prominently recorded. Pacal is 56 years old.

659 C.E.

Pacal dedicates house C in the palace. This is the last of Pacal's construction work until close to his death.

662 C.E.

Several unknown prisoners are displayed at this time by Pacal.

662 C.E.

Pacal appoints a nobelman Aj Sul to th position of Yajawk'ahk (Lord of Fire), probably a military position.

c.664 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) regains control of Mutul. Apparently Pacal has a hand in this. The reestablishment of Nun-Bak-Chak probably removes for the time being any worries about Kalak'mul

c.672 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak takes Dos-Pilas with the assistance of his allies including Lakam-Ha (Palenque). It is possible Pacal was there when the city was taken.

November 16, 672 C.E.

Lady Ahpo-Hel wife of Pacal and mother of two future kings, Kan B'alam II & Kan-Xul II, dies on this day. Ahpo-Hel and Pacal had been married 46 years. This event is also prominently recorded by Pacal. Pacal is now 69 years old and probably feeling his age.

October 20, 675 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual associated with the creation of this universe and the mayan hero twins. This was a ritual to insure the safety of both the dynasty and the kingdom.

677 C.E.

Kalak'mul and the deposed king of Dos Pilas, Balah-Kan K'wail retake Dos Pilas. This a considerable set back for the alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul). Whether or not Pacal is involved in this defeat is not known.

679 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal, (Mutul) is captured and sacrificed by Balah-Kan K'wail king of Dos Pilas. This is a major disaster for the alliance. We do not know if Pacal was involved. It is very likely that this disaster involving a man that Pacal knew personally would have shaken Pacal. Also it would seem that this would create a serious threat to Pacal and his kingdom. Amazingly Pacal and his kingdom escape unscathed from the disaster. How? We do not know.

January 26, 679 C.E.

Pacal organizes and lays out the succession among his three sons.

c. 680-683 C.E.

Pacal builds the Temple of the Inscriptions to honor the gods and inside the temple, at its base, builds a truly remarkable tomb. Pacal records in the tomb two "king" lists and a third in the temple on the top of the pyramid. Pacal's son Chan Bahlam II finishes the temple and dedicates it on july 6, 690 C.E. The temple itself with its stucco carvings, stone sculpture, beautiful and architecture, is considered by many the most beautiful building ever built by the Mayans. The world would first see Pacal from the beautiful image of him on the incredible sarcophagus lid found in the tomb when it was opened by Ruz in 1952.

Temple of the Inscriptions

August 31, 683 C.E.

Pacal dies, apparently suddenly, at the age of 80. Pacal has reigned 68 years. Shortly after he dies he is buried in the Temple of the Inscriptions. His son Kan B'alam II formally succeeds him on January 10, 684 C.E. It is said that the emperor Augustus when he lay dying asked "have I conducted myself well in this farce called life?". The historian Suetonius said "yes". If Pacal had been asked this question, the reply would have been the same.

Sarcophagus of Pacal I

The Sources for this life are:

Schele, Linda, Wars of Pacal, on September 29th 1995 at the Palenque Round Table, Palenque Mexico. Notes from the talk Here.

Martin, Simon, Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Mayan Kings and Queens, 2nd edition, Thames and Hudson, London 2008, pp. 155-175.

Schele, Linda, Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, 1990. pp. 216-261.

Stuart, David & Stuart, George, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 147-184.

Mathews, Peter, Who’s Who in the Classic Maya World - K'inich Janab' Pakal I, From the FAMSI website Here.

Pierre Cloutier