Waiting for Godot

The von Daniken Version

of the Mayan Collapse

Erich von Daniken

In a previous posting I briefly reviewed Erich von Daniken’s monumental best seller Chariots of the Gods? Of course I concluded that the book was incredibly silly, basically stunningly wrong, but great fun as a puff piece of absurdest “explanation”. Since then we have seen the creation and broadcasting of the idiotic Ancient Aliens, a show that uses the Ancient Space Aliens nonsense and puts the critical facilities to sleep. Von Daniken along with other “experts” has appeared often on the show promoting his idiocies. However the bottom line was that von Daniken simply didn’t and doesn't know what he was talking about.1

Maya Writing Tools

A Brief Note

Mayan Scribe at work

The Maya had a sophisticated system of writing. They also created some very beautiful books so what were the tools that they used in writing those books?

The End and the Maya

Mayan Glyphs

   

Well midnight on December 20th happened, it is now December 21st, and the world has not ended.

 

For the last generation or so people have been aware the Mayans supposedly predicted that the world would come to an end  on midnight December 20th 2012. This myth as indicated elsewhere in  book after book in is fact completely bogus1. The Maya did not in fact expect the world to end in 2012 and in fact expected it to continue to exist well into the far, far far future.2

Politics and the

Warrior Queen



Carving of Bajlaj Chan K'awiil
King of Dos Pilas

One of the most surprising discoveries associated with the decipherment of Mayan Hieroglyphs has been the discovery of a whole previously unknown world of dynastic politics and intrigue. Perhaps the most convoluted involves the dynastic politics of the site of Dos Pilas.1

Sometime in the second quarter of the 7th century (625-650 C.E.) a man called Bajlaj Chan K’awiil become lord of the site of Dos Pilas. Now Dos Pilas is a small site, but the dynastic history which it participated in was not that of a minor site but that of a major power in the Mayan world.2

The Longest Count

Stela One, Coba, Yucatan, Mexico

In a previous posting I discussed the Mayan calendar and of course the Mayan long count.1 Since the supposed ending of the world in 2012 was supposedly predicted by the Maya perhaps exactly what the Mayan long count was about should be examined. Now in the Mayan long count dates were given by giving the number of days that had passed since August 11, 3114 B.C.E., (B.C.).2 This was the so called long count which is usually transcribed into 5 numbers as in 13.0.0.0.0. The number given is in fact the beginning of the Mayan long count.

Diffusionistic Fantasies IIa
Thor Heyerdahl’s List Part 1

Thor Heyerdahl

The Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl was among other things an extreme Diffusionist, who believed that a group of blond / red headed, blue eyed “white” people from the Atlas region of Africa brought civilization to the Americas c. 1200 B.C.E. Further Thor Heyerdahl believed that their descendants eventually explored the Pacific ocean creating the Moai of Easter Island, and that the Polynesian’s originated in the region of coastal British Columbia and first settled Hawaii and then the rest of Polynesia intermingling with Melanesians to produce the Polynesians .1

Of course this hypothesis already unlikely in 1952, when Thor Heyerdahl published American Indians in the Pacific was even more unlikely in 1978 when he wrote Early Man and the Ocean, is now even more unlikely given the genetic and skeletal studies now done. In fact it is virtually impossible.2

Given that Thor Heyerdahl resisted until the day he died the idea that the Polynesians ultimate origin was South East Asia and that the undeniable fact that he Polynesians speak an Austro-Asiatic language. (This group includes Aboriginal languages on Taiwan, Malay, Indonesian, languages of Micronesia and the languages of coastal New Guinea)3 No Polynesian dialect or language shows any influence or vocabulary from any of the Aboriginal languages of the Americas.4 That would in itself be a powerful indication of where the Polynesians came from but Thor Heyerdahl just waved it away as of little importance.

Later in life Thor Heyerdahl convinced himself that he had found the tomb of Odin and the “real” Asgard to cap off his life of promoting far out ideas.5

But then as it was said in a review of the book by Thor Heyerdahl about Odin:

The conversation between Thor and Per, however, frequently takes on the character of an involuntary parody, since the “master” often demonstrates as much ignorance as the disciple.6

In this case “Master” Thor Heyerdahl displays a great deal of ignorance and an unbending, dogmatic adherence to his opinions and an unwillingness to learn. This is not however confined to Thor’s ideas about Odin.

In the book Thor Heyerdahl wrote called Early Man and the Ocean, Thor Heyerdahl lists 53 cultural traits that indicate contact between the Middle Eastern civilizations and the civilizations of the New World uniting them in a common cultural area with those civilizations.7 Here I will deal with the first 20 listed.

Before I start on Thor Heyerdahl’s list I would just like to mention that it is passing strange that Thor Heyerdahl in compiling this list assumes that the civilizational influence came from the Middle East. He does not consider either India or China must less Africa outside of Egypt, even though his culture bearers came from the Atlas region of North Africa. This is interesting given the very interesting and quite arresting similarities between certain cultural features of the Americas and East Asia.8 The Euro-centric bias, considering that the Middle Eastern Civilizations are generally assimilated as part of the European heritage, of Thor Heyerdahl is blatantly obvious.

1. A Hierarchy based on sun worship and complex state administration under the leadership of an absolutist priest-king whose dynasty claimed descent of the sun.
2. Brother-sister marriages in royal families to preserve the solar blood line.9

Thor Heyerdahl at once shows us that he will engage in deception by omission. He fails to tell us what those societies are. Why? The answer is obvious. The comparison is between The Inca Empire and Ancient Egypt. This faces the rather serious problem that the Inca established their Empire traditionally c. 1200 C.E., and by then Egyptian civilization had been dead for a long time. There is no evidence for the idea being transmitted to the Incas and the time difference makes it very unlikely. There is no evidence of those practices in the intervening time in Peru. In fact Thor Heyerdahl’s comparison shows deep ignorance of Egyptian practice. His comparison is with common practice during the 18th dynasty in Egypt which was c. 1530-1310 B.C.E; well over 2000 years before the Incas. At other times in Egyptian history royal incest was a lot less common.10

The rest of it is mere puffery or is he really claiming that bureaucracy and absolute rule had to diffuse from Egypt?

3. A fully developed system of script in a period when writing was still unknown among European nations.
4. Paper manufacture by soaking and beating intersecting layers of vegetable fibers, and the production of books filled with polychrome hieroglyphic inscriptions and formed as long wide bands that were folded or rolled up.11

Thor Heyerdahl carefully elides mentioning that the script developed by which I think he means Epi-olmec, Mayan and Aztec is quite distinct from any Old World system and shows no evidence of being derived from such systems. Further Thor Heyerdahl is simply wrong the earliest evidence for a writing system in Mexico is c. 600 B.C.E., and by then Europe had had several writing systems like Linear A and B, (c. 1800 B.C.E.-1200 B.C.E., and the Greek Alphabet by 750 B.C.E.) None of which have any similarity to the Mexican systems.12

Again Egypt rears it head. Thor Heyerdahl is describing the manufacture of Papyrus. Well in the Americas there is no papyrus and the techniques of manufacturing paper in the Americas, because of the different materials, (they used bark generally), have a lot of differences from making papyrus into paper. And again Thor Heyerdahl weasels out using terms like polychrome in an attempt to compare Mayan and Mexican hieroglyphic books with Egyptian papyrus scrolls. Well no one would mistake Egyptian hieroglyphs for Mayan or Aztec hieroglyphs. If the Mayans and Aztecs were making paper than it makes sense that they would write on said paper. No bearded cultural bearers needed.

Further in Egypt “books” were rolled into scrolls and in Mexico books were folded into codices with virtually no exceptions. It appears that in Peru record keeping was done with knotted string or Khipu which may have been a complete writing system and as such as no parallel in the Old World.13

Thor Heyerdahl seems to have realized that detailed comparisons tended to break down so he settled on obscurity and obfuscation.

5. The organization of spectacular masses of people for the erection of colossal structures with no practical function.
6. A technique unknown today which permitted mathematically perfect cutting of colossal blocks of stone which quite independent of either shape or size, were fitted together without cement but with joints so exact that a knife’s edge could not be inserted between them.
7. Technical knowledge which permitted the long-range transportation of such gigantic blocks, weighing upwards of 100 tons, across many miles of rugged terrain, swamps, rivers, and lakes; and the ability to maneuver them on edge as towering monoliths or to lift them onto each other in perfect megalithic walls.
8. The raising of colossal stone statutes carved in human form and serving as religious outdoor monuments.14

Numbers 5 and 8 can be dismissed as telling us nothing of value. Is Thor Heyerdahl seriously proposing that the idea to build impressive structures to the God(s) needs to be taught and that it would not occur to anyone independently? Oh and since when does Thor Heyerdahl get to decide what is practical. After all to the men of those times building temples to the Gods was very practical. Of course building outdoor statutes to the Gods seems an obvious idea or does Thor Heyerdahl seriously think that indoor statutes to the Gods are obvious but outdoor ones need to be taught? Of course with this level of analysis I am surprised Thor Heyerdahl is not suggesting that the very idea of carving statutes of the God(s) is proof of diffusion.

As for 6 and 7. Thor could have used with some intense research which would indicate that the techniques of cutting, fitting and transporting huge stone blocks were not that mysterious to Archaeologists at the time he wrote the book. Of course Thor Heyerdahl once again does not give any specifics. The cultures he as in mind seem to be mainly Ancient Egypt and the Incas. Of course the vast time difference, (more than 2000 years) between the two is forgotten. Thor Heyerdahl also seems to be thinking of the cyclopean walls of Mycenaean fortresses, Hittite structures etc., (dated c. 1200 B.C.E.) Of course the vast amount of time between those structures and the Inca ones are ignored.

Thor Heyerdahl also ignores that the builders of Stonehenge were able to develop techniques of stone carving and moving without help from culture bearers.

The fact is the development of stone working techniques is clear from the archaeological record in Peru and shows no signs of appearing suddenly fully developed. In fact it seems to have reached its full form only with the Incas, and that includes the fitting together of irregular stones c. 1500 C.E. In other words the evidence shows slowly evolving and improving stone working and moving skills in both Mexico and Peru not a sudden interruption of a technology with no precursors.

Once again Thor Heyerdahl shows an embarrassing lack of familiarity with the Archaeological record.15

9. The erection of mnemonic stele with images of people carved in relief and surrounded by incised hieroglyphic inscriptions. The repetition in both areas of the same relief motif showing a bearded man fighting off a giant snake standing on its tail. (Hittite stele at Aleppo museum and Olmec Stele from La Venta now in Villahermosa.)
10 Stucco-covered rooms of religious edifices with walls and columns covered with polychrome fresco paintings of priest-kings and processions with people depicted in profile and with all limbs visible. The recurrence within both areas of such a special fresco motif as a man with bird head standing on the back of a plumed serpent. (Common on walls in the Valley of Kings, Egypt, and recently discovered on the excavated temple walls at Cacaxtla, Mexico).
11. The Constructions of pyramids of the Mesopotamian Ziggurat type of stupendous dimensions and geometric perfection, which on both sides of the Atlantic are sometimes built from squared stone blocks and sometimes from sun-dried adobe bricks, always with a ground plan carefully oriented astronomically. These pyramids do in some cases exhibit additional parallels on both sides of the Atlantic: a ceremonial staircase leading up one or more of the pyramid’s sides to a temple structure on the summit; a sealed and hidden doorway to a secret inner staircase leading to a burial chamber; a special hexagonal cross section of the steep passageway containing the long and narrow staircase to the door of the burial chamber; the presence in this burial chamber of a stone sarcophagus, a ventilation system, and burial gifts; the knowledge of a technical-architectural solution which, in spite of the ignorance of the principle of the arch among those pre-European constructors, nevertheless enabled the wide ceilings of the burial chamber as well as the narrower one of the inner staircase to support the enormous weight of the entire pyramid.
12. A large walled temple yard adjacent to one side of the pyramid with tall stone columns of both round and square cross sections set in long parallel rows.
13. Megalithic sarcophagus covered by a stone lid which itself weighed several tons and was sometimes sculptured to show a human image.
14. The ability and practice of mummifying deceased persons of high rank by evisceration through the anus and use of certain resins, cotton padding, and wrappings.
15 A special mummy mask perforated at the edges so as to be tied on in front of the face outside the mummy cloth.16

Regarding No. 9 it is basically a comparison between stele in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Mayan stele. Aside from the fact no one could possibly mistake Mayan for Egyptian etc., there is the obvious and rather large difference in time between say Egyptian, Mesopotamian stele and Mayan. Further the development of stele in the Mayan region shows a clear progression of development over time from simple beginnings to the elaborately carved versions. Thor Heyerdahl than for the first time gives an “exact” similarity. The problem is he provides no details of exactly what the two items are, neither does he provide illustrations. I have attempted to find pictures of the figure Thor Heyerdahl describes but have been unable to do so. The nearest one is a stand alone stele with a snake on it. As for the Olmec figure. I think Thor Heyerdahl is referring to this one.

Olmec Stele

I note that the snake is NOT fighting the man and unlike most Neo-Hittite, (Thor Heyerdahl gets it wrong the stele in the Aleppo museum are not Hittite but Neo-Hittite), this sculpture has no inscriptions, further is not artistically similar in terms of design. The similarity is vague and not very convincing with Neo-Hittite stele.

Neo Hittite Stele

Number 10 is a collection of bromides and not very convincing ones. Frescoes are common world wide and not require diffusion. Similarly stucco was made and used differently in the Americas as compared to the Old World, aside from archaeology showing the gradual development of the use and technique of stucco in the New World. The rest of the comparison is generally between the frescoes in Egyptian tombs and the frescoes of Bonampak Mexico done by the Maya c. 795 C.E. The comparisons are meaningless in that doing people in profile is easier than face on and further Thor Heyerdahl once again forgets the time difference after all the Egyptian paintings he is comparing them with date from c. 1500-1000 B.C.E., more than 1500 years earlier. The comparison of a motif in a painting from Cacaxtla Mexico (c. 800 C.E.) to paintings in the Valley of the Kings, (c. 1500-1100 B.C.E.) falls for the same reason. Of course given that Thor Heyerdahl does not supply any details about said paintings so checking is virtually impossible. (I tried).

Regarding pyramids. I dealt with that in an earlier posting but to repeat in the Americas pyramids were built with a variety of techniques including using earth and rubble. Pyramids built entirely or largely of stone do not exist in the Americas. Of course we now know that pyramids existed in the Americas before pyramids in the Old World. So much for the natives copying people from the Middle East. Note that the pictures that Thor Heyerdahl uses on p. 87 to illustrate how American and Egyptian pyramids look alike are old 19th century drawings and not pictures that make them look more alike than they are.

Once again obfuscating the issue by not providing details Thor Heyerdahl compares Egyptian pyramid burials with the tomb of Pacal (c. 680 C.E.) in Palenque Mexico; thus Ignoring the vast amount time that past between them of over 2000 years. Thor does not seem to note that in many respects the tomb of Pacal shows many one off features, and is in many respects a unique not typical Mayan royal burial. Further of course the development of Mayan royal burials was a gradual process as indicated by the archaeology and Pacal’s tomb shows clear signs of being a development of previous Royal burials. Thor Heyerdahl thus compares one Mayan Royal burial with Egyptian royal burials of the pyramid age and ignores the other Mayan royal burials probably because they are not so similar to Egyptian pyramid burials.

The final bit is about the corbelled vault, which for some reason Thor Heyerdahl does not name. I suspect because it is abundantly clear that this solution to the problem of building walls and roofs over spaces was invented multiple times all over the world, including megalithic Europe. But by dressing it up in this fashion Thor Heyerdahl can dress it up as some sort of secret arcane knowledge that could only have diffused to the Americas instead of being a common solution to a problem. I note that arches existed in the Old World by 1200 B.C.E., supposedly when these culture bearers arrive in the New World. I wonder why they failed to bring the true arch?

Number 12 is trivial a walled temple yard next to a temple is obvious and no great shakes secondly the columned hall Thor is referring to, but once again failing to name, is the columned yard next to the Temple of Warriors in Chichen-Itza, and also next to a Temple at Tula Mexico, both of which date to c. 1000 C.E., so comparing them to Egyptian mortuary temples next to Egyptian pyramids, (which were tombs and not platforms for temples, which Mexican pyramids were), which date to more than 2000 years earlier is a bit much.

Number 13 refers yet again to the tomb of Pacal at Palenque Mexico. Again the dates do not correspond and Pacal’s massive stone sarcophagus dates more than 2000 years after the pyramid age in Egypt, further as stated above in many respects Pacal’s tomb is a one off. Thor Heyerdahl once again cherry picks a particular construction that fits his ideas and ignores the others which do not.

Number 14. Well let’s just say mummification as been dated to before 4000 B.C.E., in South America. That the usual way Egyptian’s eviscerated the dead for mummification was through a slit made in the belly not through the anus. And again Thor Heyerdahl is comparing later Peruvian practice, which is not very similar to Egyptian practice and besides is much later than Egyptian practice. Once again archaeology shows a slow development of Peruvian mummification practices and no evidence of a technique fully developed suddenly appearing.

Number 15. Since masks are a near universal in human cultures tying a mask to a face by this method is obvious. So it should be a matter of little importance that people might tie masks to the deceased in the same manner. This is an example of Thor Heyerdahl making much of the trivial and obvious.17

16. Great skill in the difficult magio-surgical trepanning of the skull bone of living persons, with a high percentage of survival among the patients.

17. Circumcision performed on young boys as a religious ritual.18

Is Thor Heyerdahl serious? Trepanning is an exceptionally common practice all over the world dating from well before civilization and practiced by many so-called primitive peoples. There is no reason to assume diffusion at all.

As for circumcision again it is practiced all over the world by all sorts of people including Australian Aborigines who entered Australia before 50,000 B.C.E. It is a common practice and again there is no need to assume diffusion at all.19

19. The use of false beards as ceremonial attire of high priests.
20. The making of adobe bricks from a paste of selected soil mixed with straw and water and formed into rectangular blocks in a wooden mold, subsequently sun dried and used for the building of pyramids, temples, and houses with one or more floors.20

Number 19 is basically pretty trivial. It seems rather obvious that if you can grow a real beard a false beard would follow and from that would follow using it in ceremonies. Thor Heyerdahl is thinking I believe of the use of false beards by Egyptian Pharaohs and Priests. I merely note that the again the chronological lack of comparisons between the use of false beards in ancient Egypt and false beards in Mexico c. 1000-1500 C.E. False beards seem to have been less used in Peru and the chronological problem is the same.

Number 20 is simply adobe is used the world over. The use of clay / mud for building is universal. Further in Peru and Mexico a variety of methods and types of technologies were used to create adobe bricks. To say nothing of adobe techniques that did not use molds or adobe at all. Oh and the Peruvians were using adobe c. 3000 B.C.E. Thor Heyerdahl is once again cherry picking a trait that is similar, although not that similar, to a technique also used in the Old World to prove diffusion. Also once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores issues of chronology or the indications of the slow development of the technique in the New World.21

Over and over again Thor Heyerdahl cherry picks particular traits, regardless of the time those traits existed. He for example picks traits from the New World that date from 1500 C.E. and compares them to traits that existed in the Old World c. 1200 B.C.E., and earlier. Thor Heyerdahl assumes surface similarity is evidence of contact and ignores specifics. He picks as evidence of diffusion traits which are commonplaces and evidence of nothing but Thor Heyerdahl’s lack of knowledge, like circumcision and trepanning.

He waves away the problems with the idea of contact like the almost total lack of even arguable Old World artefacts in the New World during this so called contact period. He neglects to tell us why invaders from North Africa would bring such a cacophony of traits from a smorgasbord of Old World cultures. Thor Heyerdahl does not try to match it up with cultural traits from North Africa c. 1200 B.C.E. The fact that he matches traits from all sorts of different time periods in the Old World to time periods in the New World from Olmec times to the conquest doesn’t help.

Thor Heyerdahl’s cherry picking is just that he goes through the enormous variety of Old and New World traits and declares that the similarities he picks are evidence of contact. The mere piling up of similarities proves nothing, a bunch of vague similarities does not get added weight by piling them up on top of each other. Bad evidence remains bad evidence regardless of the amount; it does not become good evidence by simply accumulating examples.

Thor Heyerdahl seems to assume that similarities are evidence of contact when what a lot of them prove is that humans tend sometimes to find similar solutions by virtue of the fact that we are all human. It should not be the slightest surprise that human cultures show similarities, it would be more astounding if they did not.

Thor Heyerdahl glides over the problem of the total lack, (with some dubious exceptions) of ancient Old World artefacts in the New World. The time period he gives for his Conquistador like conquest of the New World is c. 1200 B.C.E., would indicate that we should find such Old World remains at such a time. We do not. The Archaeological record does not record such an event. Instead it see the steady development of village cultures into Olmec civilization with no massive intrusion of outsiders.

Thor Heyerdahl neglects to explain how bronze weapon welding invaders managed not to bring bronze weapons with them to Mexico or how bronze weapons didn’t appear in Mexico until c. 800 C.E. To say nothing of various Old World crops. In fact what they left behind is amazing; say pigs and rats for example. Yet they came in such numbers as to conquer Mexico and Peru!

Finally if similarities are evidence of contact than logically differences are evidence of lack of contact. And such differences are not minor. For example the quite different agricultures of the Old World and New World in terms of plants.

In the end the obvious solution is that the civilizations of the New World arose largely independently of Old World civilizations, and any contact had little or no influence on the development of New World civilizations.

Thor Heyerdahl used a variety of polemical techniques, such as not giving details that could be checked, ignoring crucial data in evaluating claims etc., and he does not forget the ultimate technique of portraying himself as a moderate against two extremes; when of course his idea of bearded, blue eyed, blond and white culture bearers conquering Mexico and Peru, bringing civilization, c. 1200 B.C.E., is in fact nothing but extreme hyper-diffussionistic fantasy.

Of course the recent the discoveries in Peru, pushing back high culture if not civilization to c. 3000 B.C.E., to say nothing of Olmec culture or at least it precursors being pushed back to c. 2000 B.C.E. have made Thor Heyerdahl’s fantasy of 1200 B.C.E. very unlikely indeed.

1. See Heyerdahl, Thor, American Indians in the Pacific, 1952, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., New York, 1952, and Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978, pp. 151-184, 273-281.

2. Flenley, John & Bahn, Paul, The Enigmas of Easter Island, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp. 50-60.

3. Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 1998, pp. 334-339.

4. I am excluding coincidental similarities and recent additions.

5. See Heyerdahl, Thor, & Lilliestrom, Per, Jakten på Odin—På sporet av vår fortid, J.M. Stenersens forlag, Oslo, 2001. For a devastating review of the above book see Hovdhaugen, Even, et al, at Google Cache, Here. (Note: the document does not seem to be available anymore at Google Cache. I'll send a copy to anyone who requests it)

6. Hovdhaugen, pp. 1-2.

7. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 84-91.

8. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 84. For the similarities between East Asia and the Americas see, Davies, Nigel, Voyageurs to the New World, William morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 103-124.

9. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 84.

10. Tyldesley, Joyce, Daughters of Isis, Penguin Books, London, 1994, pp. 198-199, Mason, J. Alden, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru, 2nd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 155, 186.

11. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 84-85.

12. Diehl, Richard A, The Olmecs, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004, pp. 96-97, Pool, Christopher A., Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007, pp. 260-263, . Finley, M.I., Early Greece, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 34-38, 145.

13. Hawkes, Jacquetta, The First Great Civilizations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 436-442, Longhena, Maria, Maya Script, Abbeville Press, Publishers, New York, 2000, p. 20, Townsend, Richard F., The Aztecs, 3rd Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2009, pp. 206-212, Urton, Gary, Signs of the Inka Khipu, University of Texas Press, Austin, 2003, pp. 1-36.

14. Heyerdahl. 1978, p. 85.

15. Mason, pp. 160-165, Moseley, Michael E., The Incas and their Ancestors, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992, pp. 74-75, 153, 165, 205, 212.

16. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 85-86.

17. See Sharer, Robert J., et al, The Ancient Maya, 6th Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, check out items in Index marked Stelae, also pp. 215-216, 449-450, 568-575, Schele, Linda, et Al, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York 1990, pp. 96-129, Gurnay, O.R., The Hittites, Penguin Books, London, 1952, pp. 39-46, Miller, Mary Ellen, The Art of Mesoamerica, 3rd Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2001, pp. 165-167, Schele, Linda, et al, The Code of Kings, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132, Mason, 187-188, Moseley, pp. 54, 93-94, 151-152.

18. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 86.

19. See Wikipedia article Circumcision Here. See also Majno, Guido, The Healing Hand, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1975. pp. 24-29.

20, Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 86.

21. See Wikipedia article Notre Chico Civilization Here. See Davies, pp. 125-126, for an example of use of a false beard in a mythological context in Mesoamerica.

22. IBID, Notre Chico Civilization, Heyerdahl, 1978, pp, 273-281, Pool, pp. 92-144.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies I

One of the most persistent mythological ideas concerning the development of civilization in the Americas is the notion that the pre-Columbian civilizations of Americas were the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

In other words that civilization in the New World was the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

Now this idea was fairly popular in the late Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has since declined considerably in popularity. However it still has many adherents the great majority of whom are not experts in the Civilizations in question or even terribly knowledgeable or experts who just like thumb their noses at the “orthodox establishment”.1

Now one of the most persistent characteristic’s of this type of thinking is a pervasive inability to believe that the Peoples of the New World could have developed civilization on their own.2 Thus the accomplishments of the peoples of the New World is nothing more than them borrowing from the peoples of the Old World.3 Part of this approach is the infamous “White God” mythos which is to put it politely a total crock.4

Now this attitude is worth exploring in greater detail elsewhere but her I will examine just one example of diffusionistic reasoning. The example of Pyramids. It is a common trope in Diffusion literature.

The idea is that the peoples of the Americas got the idea of pyramids from the Old World; most commonly they were alleged to be copying the pyramids of Egypt.5

Pyramids of Giza, Egypt

Here is where nomenclature helps confuse the issue. Simply calling two things by the same name does not prove that the two things are the same thing. For example we have wolves in the Old World & North America and on the island of Tasmania there used to exist, the now extinct, Tasmanian wolf. The fact is the Tasmanian wolf is not a wolf at all, but a marsupial and aside from being a mammal is not related to wolves at all, which are placental mammals.6 Thus calling something the same thing as something else does not prove that they are identical or that there is any sort of relationship between them. In the case of the Tasmanian wolf, they certainly look dog like, but are about as close to dogs as is the Spiny Anteater or Platypus.

Tasmanian Wolves
In the case of the Pyramids it is the same the fact that pyramids in Egypt and Mexico / Peru look alike does not prove that they are linked in any way. In order to link the two items one must do a comparison and this involves discussing that they were made of and how they were made.

Egyptian pyramids like the Great pyramid at Giza were largely built as tombs for the Pharaohs of Egypt. The era of the building of huge spectacular pyramids in Egypt lasted only a little less than a two centuries.7 This was the period of the 3rd and 4th dynasties.

It was during the reign of these Kings that Pyramid building reached its climax and then went into rapid decline. Ever since the unification of Egypt under the 1st dynasty Egyptians had been increasingly experimenting with stone work and with building stone monuments. By the beginning of the 3rd dynasty the Egyptians were fairly accomplished in this work.8

It was during the reign of Pharaoh Djoser of the 3rd dynasty that the first spectacular example of both pyramid construction and massive stone work was built. Djoser’s step pyramid and the mortuary complex around it are the first outstanding examples of truly massive stonework in human history. It is also a very well built series of constructions that are in quite good shape considering their age, (more 4500 years!).9

Step Pyramid of Djoser

In terms of construction the Step pyramid of Djoser was constructed of a series of stepped layers and the stone blocks constructing it were much smaller that the stone blocks later used.10 It was all part of the process by which the Egyptians were learning how to construct massive stone monuments. Later developments would add smooth sides to the pyramids and, enlarge the blocks of they were composed add granite covering stones and make them progressively larger.11

However towards the end of the 4th dynasty pyramids got drastically smaller. For example Menkaure’s pyramid is only about ¼ the size of the Great pyramid.12 Afterwards in the 5th and 6th dynasties pyramids were drastically smaller and far less finely constructed , being made largely of rubble and mud brick. It appears that Egyptians decided that the enormous cost of building such colossal and finely built edifices of stone was simply not worth it anymore.13

Now if the idea of Pyramids were brought to the Americas by people who were influenced by structures like the Great Pyramid one would expect pyramids in Mexico / Peru to resemble them. The problem is they do not.

Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan

Because of the very extensive time period over which pyramids were built in the Americas and the very wide diversity of cultures and places that built them there was, not surprisingly a great diversity of methods by which pyramids were constructed in the New World.

Pyramid, Tikal, Guatemala

There are some commonalities; however, one is that the pyramid had an earth / mud brick / rubble interior and that it was almost always used as a platform for a temple where sacred services / rituals would be performed. Also not infrequently there would be burials in the pyramids, but there chief purpose seemed to almost always have been platforms for temples.14

Pyramid at Sipan, Peru

Now one of the problems for the idea that someone had to bring over the idea of building pyramids from the Old World is that it is hard believe that it would not have independently occurred to someone that piling up earth etc, was a way to build an impressive monument. The fact is that the pyramid shape has a great deal of stability and strength and anyone who engages in trying to build impressive mounds will find out that the four sided shape is remarkably stable. Once you start building such monuments you would naturally come to this conclusion.15

Aside from differences between the purpose and techniques of building pyramids between Egyptian and New World pyramids there is the rather difficult task of explaining why New World inhabitants would seek to copy pyramids built during the great age of Pyramid building. As I said above the great age of Pyramid building lasted less than 200 years and then pyramid building went into rapid decline. After all pyramids built did no start being built in Mesoamerica until c. 1500 B.C.E., and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be compared to stone built Egyptian pyramids. If there was diffusion one would expect copies of the rather roughly stone, adobe, rubble cores with stone facings of pyramids of the Middle Kingdom.16

Of course by 1500 B.C.E., the Middle Kingdom was over and the New Kingdom had began and Egyptian Pharaohs from were being buried in rock cut tombs not pyramids. So just why would Egyptian visitors teach Mesoamericans to build pyramids when they were not building them anymore? That along with different purposes, and techniques of construction, aside make it highly dubious one as anything to do with the other.

As for South America, the same strictures apply as above with one important exception. The first pyramids in South America date to c. 3500-3000 B.C.E., at Notre Chico in Peru!17 This needless to say throws a severe monkey wrench into the idea that the natives of the New World got the idea for building pyramids from elsewhere.

Pyramids at Caral Peru, Notre Chico Culture

In fact it appears vastly more likely that if there was diffusion of pyramid building it would have been from Peru into Mesoamerica rather than from the Old World to either Mesoamerica or South America.

Now a much better idea, if you’re going to postulate diffusion is from Mesopotamia to the Americas, at least in terms of time. Mesopotamia developed into a complex society between 4000-3000 B.C.E., and during the same time period started erecting platforms, made of baked mud brick and rubble, for temples.18 This is about the same time period for the development of the pyramid temples of the Notre Chico civilization so it does fit the time period. Further Mesopotamian Ziggurats did have temples on their tops. However it does run into a whole series of problems. The four most important being.

Ziggurat of Ur, Iraq

1. If there was contact one would expect some artifacts from Mesopotamia in Peru and some artifacts from Peru in Mesopotamia. What one finds is nothing.19

2. The techniques of building are very different. For example Mesopotamian Ziggurats were built of baked mud brick with rubble cores. The pyramids of Notre Chico were built of earth and some rubble put into place in reed baskets.20

3. Mesopotamian Ziggurats don’t look a lot like Peruvian or Mexican pyramids.

4. The Mesopotamian Ziggurats did not attain the form that looks like pyramids until after Egyptian pyramids, (c. 500 years later). Which of course precludes them being inspirational for Notre Chico civilization.21

Now it is of interest to report that although the Mesopotamian Ziggurats look at lot more like New World pyramids than Egyptian pyramids they were never used as burial places, meanwhile New World pyramids were often used as burial places. Egyptian pyramids were always used as burial places and never used as platforms for temples.22

The dual use of so many New World pyramids would seem to indicate that some sort of independent development was going on.

Also one would expect that if there was contact between the New World and the Old world that one would find Old World artifacts in the New World and New World artifacts in the Old World in the relevant archaeological strata. One does not. With the exception of a slew of truly dubious alleged finds which have no providence and just show up with no background the finding of pre-Columbian Old World artifacts in the New world has been to all apparently zip. The same is true for New World finds in the Old World.23

Certainly if Egyptians influenced the development of Mexican Pyramids or in fact brought the idea, one would expect to find some Egyptian artifacts in the New World during this time period. In fact one does not find such artifacts. The same is true for Mesopotamian artifacts. They are absent.24

As said above it is absolutely incredible that anyone would think that it requires someone to bring the idea of building large impressive mounds to the New World. That such an idea would never occur to anyone except one lone genius in all of human history, from whom everybody took the idea. One just has to look at children playing in a playground to realize that piling up earth and sand is a very common idea.

Further the techniques of building Old World as against New World pyramids are different. To quote:

But those early Meso-American pyramids were made of earth and rubble covered with clay or plaster. The impressive stone structures that tourists travel to Mexico City, Yucatan, and Guatemala to see belong to the Classic Period (c. 300-900) or later. Even these later monuments were built with a core of earth and rubble and only an outer coating of limestone blocks. This building technique is quite different from those used to erect pyramids in Egypt or ziggurats in Mesopotamia.25

Also as indicated above the time periods are all screwed up. What with the Mesoamericans taking up pyramids after the Egyptians had abandoned them. And most decisively that the earliest pyramids on Earth seem to be Peruvian. If anyone spread the idea it would be from Peru to the rest of the world. Yes before the Egyptian pyramids before Babylonian Ziggurats Peru structures superficially like them were being built in Peru; in the coastal desert valleys.26

Of course some authors make foolish use of the tomb of Pacal in the Temple of the Inscriptions, (c. 670-700 C.E.) and say that it is a copy of a Pharaoh’s pyramid tomb in Egypt complete with sarcophagus. Unfortunately aside from missing the fact that why would a Mayan King imitate a tomb built 3000+ years earlier, there is the fact that Pacal’s tomb including the sarcophagus are only superficially similar. Also Pacal’s tomb is in many ways, including its huge stone sarcophagus unique in Mesoamerica, (so far). I further note not a trace of Egyptian iconography or artistic influence can be found in the tomb. (Ditto for Mesopotamian)27

Tomb of Pacal in The Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, Mexico

In many respects the attitude that assumes that because something looks like something else they are linked assumes that:

A) Similarity proves contact / influence without regard to details.

B) Similarity cannot arise or is very unlikely to arise independently.

Both of those assumptions are dubious. Given that humans are biologically similar and have similar brains the idea that they just might come to similar solutions to similar problems should not be a surprise.

Why so many want to deny the possibility that the natives of the New World were largely responsible for the civilizations of the New World is in itself a very interesting question that says a great deal about those who propose it.

Akapana Pyramid, Tiwanku, Bolivia

1. See Williams, Stephen, Fantastic Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1991, Steibings, William H., Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, Fagan, Garrett, Review of Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, from In the Hall of Maat Here.

2. See for example Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and The Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978.

3. An all too common attitude see for example IBID, and such books as Marx, Robert F., & Marx, Jennifer, In Quest of the Great White Gods, Crown Publishing Group, New York, 1992.

4. See Marx above & Heyerdahl pp. 93-126. For an effective demolition of this nonsense see Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 125-140, Reece, Katherine, The Spanish Imposition, from In the Hall of Maat, Here, Townsend, Camilla, Burying the White Gods, American Historical Review, vol. 108 No. 3, June 2003, also at In the Hall of Maat, Here.

5. Heyerdahl, pp. 85-86.

6. Thylacine, Wikipedia Here.

7. Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids of Egypt, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1961, p. 297. (2700 – 2500 B.C.E.)

8. Rice, Michael, Egypt’s Making, Routledge, London, 1990, pp. 169-198.

9. IBID, Mendelssohn, Kurt, The Riddle of the Pyramids, Sphere Books Ltd., London, 1974, pp. 45-54, Edwards, pp. 53-80.

10. IBID, Edwards.

11. IBID. pp. 90-115.

12. Mendelssohn, p. 48.

13. IBID, 127-131, Edwards, pp. 170-210.

14. Stiebings, pp. 120-125.

15. For an amusing demonstration about the strength of pyramid structures see Thomson, Devon, Stressed Out Structures, at Here. It turned out that a pyramid could handle c. 9 times the weight that caused other structures tested to collapse. See also Fagan.

16. Edwards, pp. 211-253.

17. Notre Chico at Wikipedia Here. see also Moseley, Michael E., The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: An Evolving Hypothesis, From In The Hall of Maat Here.


18. Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 194-198.

19. Davies, pp. 9-10.

20. Bertman, pp. 194-198, Lost Pyramids of Caral at BBC Here

21. Stiebings, p. 121.

22. Stiebings, pp. 120-125, Feder, Kenneth L., Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Mayfield Pub. Co., Mountain View CA., 1999, pp. 172-175.

23. See Note 19.

24. IBID.

25. Stiebing, p. 124.

26. Footnote 17.

27. Schele, Linda & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Pierre Cloutier

Yax Mutal’s Start

Central Tikal

Certainly the most imposing of Mayan sites, if not the most beautiful is the great Mayan ruin of Yax Mutal, better known today as Tikal, for only recently have we found out that it’s name during the cities heyday was in fact Yax Mutal. In the Mayan language spoken in what we now call Tikal, Yax means first and Mutal seems to mean possibly bird, but more likely a handful or “topknot” of hair.1

The origins and early archaeology of the site are poorly known. But it appears that Tikal emerged in the late pre-classic period, (400 B.C.E. – 250 C.E.)2

The city became important during this time period with building in the North Acropolis area going back to 350 B.C.E.3 During this period Tikal although growing was very much in the shadow of the massive site of El Mirador, located near what is now the Mexican / Guatemalan border. This site one of the most massive ever erected in the Pre-Columbian Americas, completely dwarfed any other Mayan site and was apparently to remain the largest Mayan site ever.4 Although the Maya at El Mirador erected stela they appeared to have painted rather than sculpted inscriptions on them, the result being that nothing can read from them after the paint was washed off by rain. So the history of El Mirador remains unknown.5

Tikal emerged during this period of domination by El Mirador. So that by 1 C.E., it was a very important center with a significant ceremonial center and a large population. It appears from graves found during this time period that Tikal was ruled by Kings although the names of the rulers has not come down to us.6

c. 90 C.E., a man named Yax Ehb Xook (First Step Shark) became King of Tikal he was regarded by later rulers of Tikal as a founder of the ruling dynasty. We know virtually nothing about him except that later Kings considered him the founder. Although a tomb in the northern acropolis called Burial 85 is very likely his burial.7

Glyph of Yax Ehb Xook’s Name

Shortly after this some time between 250-400 C.E., El Mirador collapsed and was largely abandoned. Although there may have been competition between el Mirador and Tikal it appears that the real reason for the collapse was over exploitation of local resources, especially agricultural exhaustion.8 It appear that right to the end El Mirador’s sheer size was vastly greater than any contemporary Mayan city. This would appear to indicate that its large size without a significant hinterland of similar cities to support it may have made it uniquely vulnerable to collapse from any source of local stress. It appears that the smaller local communities around El Mirador also experience significant decline.9

Glyph of Foliated Jaguar’s Name

The period after the reign of Yax Ehb Xook in Tikal is very poorly known the next named King is called Foliated Jaguar or ? Bahlam; exactly how to read his name is not clear.10 Although the name as also been found on some jade plaques found in Costa Rica. The first dated monument at Tikal bears the date 292 C.E., the name of the ruler portrayed is lost. It could be that the ruler depicted is in fact Foliated Jaguar.11

Stela 29

The next ruler known is Animal Headdress or K’inch Ehb? Who is only known from a monument erected by his son Siyaj Chan K’awiil (Sky born Great Claw) I which was erected c. 300 C.E. An inscription describes Siyaj as the 11 in line from the founder Yax Ehb Xook. Which makes his father , Animal Headdress, number 10.12

Glyph of Animal Headdress’ Name

Very little is known about Siyaj Chan K’awiil, who seems to have reigned c. 307 C.E. It is possible that stela 29 is in fact one of his monuments.13

Glyph of Siyaj Chan K’awiil’s Name

The next ruler of Tikal mentioned in the inscriptions is Unen Bahlam, (Baby Jaguar) who seems to have ruled c. 317 C.E. It was originally thought that the ruler was female but more recent analysis and evidence has made that claim dubious, although the sex this ruler remains unclear. On September 1, 317 C.E., this ruler oversaw some ritual event that was commemorated in an inscription. It appears likely that if Unen Bahlam was a women this event was the result of a crisis in the kingdom, and perhaps created a continual crisis that would climax in the end of the reign of Chak Tok Ich’aaak I. This so given that Mayan women rarely acceded to thrones to reign in their own right.14

Glyph of Unen Bahlam’s Name

The next ruler K’inch Muwaan Jol (Radiant Hawk Skull) apparently became King c. 320 C.E., Little is known about him although he is mentioned in later inscriptions as a ruler of Tikal. An inscription found outside Tikal seems to record his death in 359 C.E He is styled the 13th successor of the founder Yax Ehb Xook.15

Glyph of K’inch Muwaan Jol’s Name

K’inch Muwaan Jol was succeeded by his son Chak Tok Ich’aaak I, (Jaguar paw / claw). His reign was the last of the early rulers of Tikal. Stela 39 shows him standing in triumph over a captive enemy. He seems to have expanded the extensive royal palace and used it as a political and residential headquarters. Various finds would seem to indicate that he was a successful monarch. It appears that Tikal was engaged in a serious conflict with the neighbouring city of Uaxactun.16

Stela 39

What happened next is a surprise, Chak Tok Ich’aaak I, apparently secure on his throne was seemingly overthrown and killed and a new ruler installed. But interestingly the new rulers still recorded the reign of Chak Tok Ich’aak I and still counted themselves from the founder Yax Ehb Xook. I will explore in a future post the mystery and puzzle of this event.17

Glyph of Chak Tok Ich’aak I’s Name

By this time Tikal was the greatest of Mayan cities and the predominant power in the lowland Petan region. The over throw of Chak Tok Ich’aak I was not to stop the rise of Tikal but to single the further rise of Tikal to greater glory and power.

This very incomplete list of rulers provides an glimpse into the rise of what was to become one of the superpowers of Pre-Columbian America.

1. Montgomery, John, Tikal, Hippocrene Books Ltd., New York, 2001, p. 36, Martin, Simon & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, Second Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 3008, p. 30.

2. Drew, David, The Lost Chronicles of The Maya Kings, Phoenix, London, 1999, p.6., Martin, p. 8.

3. Drew, pp. 132-135, 183-186.

4.Sharer, Robert J., & Traxler, Loa P., The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, pp. 352-364, Drew, pp. 131-136.

5. Traxler, p. 352-264, Schele, Linda, & Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow & Co. Ltd., New York, 1990, p. 128.

6. Traxler, pp. 305-306.

7. Traxler, p. 310-311, Martin, p. 26-27, Schele, p. 136, Coe, Michael et al, Royal Maya Dynasties of the Classic Period, 2005, FASMI, Here
p. 23.

9. Traxler, pp. 252-264, Demarest, Arthur, Ancient Maya, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 103, 310, Martin, p. 8, Drew, pp. 145-146.

10. Martin, p. 27, Traxler, p. 312, coe, p. 23.

11. Traxler, p. 311, Martin, p. 26-27. Montgomery, p. 43, Coe, p. 23.

12. Montgomery, p. 43, Traxler, p. 311-312, Martin , p. 27, Coe, p. 23.

13. IBID.

14. Martin, p. 27, Montgomery, pp. 43-44. Coe, p. 23, Traxler, p. 311-312, Schele, p. 221.

15. Coe. p. 23, Traxler, pp. 311-312, Montgomery, p. 44, Martin, p. 27.

16. Coe, p.23, Martin, p. 28, Montgomery, pp. 44-49, 52-53, Drew, pp. 188-189, Schele, pp. 130-164.

17, Martin, 29-30, Drew, pp. 197-202, Montgomery, pp. 68-74.

Pierre Cloutier

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