Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
in the Maya Books of Chilam Balam
Eleanor Harrison-­Buck, University of New Hampshire
Abstract. This article examines the so-­called First Chronicle of the Maya Books of
Chilam Balam, a segment of shared content found in three of the native copybooks
from northern Yucatán, including the Tizimin, the Chumayel, and the Maní, also
known as the Códice Pérez. I reevaluate the chronology and historical content of
the First Chronicle found in these books by examining the following: (1) the dates
applied to the katun cycles (increments of roughly twenty-­year periods) in light of
recent archaeological finds from Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán;
(2) Maya conventions of time as expressed in the katun chronicles; (3) the shared subject matter found in all three books; and (4) the internal structure and transcription
conventions of the First Chronicle. This study suggests that the early chronicles may
offer a larger measure of historical accuracy and reliability than is currently accepted.
Among the various avenues of approach to the investigation of Maya civilization, the study of the native literature of Yucatán is, next to the actual archaeological exploration of the remains, one of the most promising, for it contains
much of what the Indians remembered of their old culture after the Spanish
conquest.
—­Ralph L. Roys, The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel
Students of the Maya past are extraordinarily lucky to have at hand such a
wealth of ethnohistory; the archaeologist neglects it at his peril.
—­Sir J. Eric S. Thompson, Maya History and Religion
Both Ralph L. Roys and J. Eric S. Thompson are remarkable for their contributions to ethnohistory and its analogical potential for Maya archaeology. Today, many scholars question whether colonial-­period accounts are
reliable sources for their prehistoric interpretations (Hanks 2010; M. E.
Ethnohistory 61:4 (Fall 2014) DOI 10.1215/00141801-2717831
Copyright 2014 by American Society for Ethnohistory
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
682
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Smith 2007). Some critiques of these Classic-­colonial “leaps of faith” are
warranted (Jones 1986: 74). However, as I see it, the problem lies not solely
in the sources themselves but in the methodology that has been employed—­
interpretations of the past and chronology building started with these
sources and then turned to the archaeological record to “prove” the findings.
This traditional approach to ethnohistoric (and ethnographic) resources as
analogies to the past is fraught with problems that often involve static structural conditions from Classic to colonial times where interpretations are
preloaded before the archaeological findings are even found.
This is the case with the Maya Books of Chilam Balam (hereafter BCB),
where scholars have attempted to derive historical sequences of events from
the early chronicles recorded in these native colonial-­period books. The
so-­called First Chronicle of the BCB contains shared subject matter in the
Tizimin, Chumayel, and Códice Pérez. In each case, these chronicles focus
on the exploits of two competing lineages (the Itzá and the Xiu) and describe
events that primarily occurred at Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and
Mayapán—­four important pre-­Hispanic Maya cities located in the Yucatán
Peninsula (fig. 1). The shared content found in the First Chronicle of these
books provides some of the most convincing evidence of archaic language
and pre-­Hispanic content. Over the years, scholars have applied various
Gregorian dates to the katun rounds (increments of roughly twenty-­year
periods) that structure the First Chronicle and then attempted to project
these chronologies onto the archaeological past. Ultimately, this approach
has created a skewed and artificially long chronological sequence for these
northern Yucatec sites that is only now being revised by archaeologists who
have been unable to satisfactorily align these historical sequences with the
archaeological records. The failed efforts have caused endless frustration
and confusion, prompting many scholars to question the historical validity
of these native books. In the edited volume Twin Tollans, Michael E. Smith
(2007: 586) concludes, “Conquest-­period native historical accounts [like
the BCB] are unlikely to preserve reliable information about events from the
Early Postclassic or Epiclassic periods,” adding that “[t]he creation of an
objective record of actual historical events with chronological accuracy was
not a goal of the indigenous historical traditions nor their Colonial inscription.” Similar sentiments are expressed in other current scholarship, where
the accounts in the early chronicles are not only dismissed as “myth,” but
the colonial Maya scribes (not the twentieth century translators) are held
responsible for the historical inaccuracies.
In this article, I reassess prior translations of the dates applied to the
katuns of the First Chronicle and propose a revised chronology in light of
recent archaeological finds. To better understand the sociohistorical contexts of the BCB, I first provide some background on these native books. To
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
683
Figure 1. Map of Yucatán showing sites and towns discussed in the text.
assess the degree of historical content in the early chronicles, I evaluate the
following: (1) the reconstructed dates of the katun cycles in light of recent
archaeological finds from Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán; (2) Maya conventions of time as expressed in the katun chronicles;
(3) the shared subject matter found in all three books; and (4) the internal
structure and transcription conventions of the early chronicles.
Background on the Books of Chilam Balam
There are nine extant Maya BCB (Chan Cah, Chumayel, Ixil, Kaua, Na,
Tekax, Tizimin, Tusik, and Códice Pérez, also referred to as the Maní) that
were compiled during the colonial period and found in the towns for which
they are named in the northern parts of Yucatán, Mexico (see fig. 1). The
nine extant “copybooks” (cartapacios) were compiled by Maya scribes and
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
684
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
primarily date to the eighteenth century, although a few may date somewhat
earlier (Knowlton 2008: 94; Tedlock 2010: 249). Each of the copybooks
was the responsibility of the town or of a member of the community elite,
and although most of the books share cognate passages, they show variation from community to community (Restall 1998: 129). No single author
can be attributed to these compilations, and they appear to have been
copied, assembled, and recopied over the years by multiple scribes (Bricker
and Miriam 2002: 11). They were guarded and maintained by the particular town (or cah) for which they were named (Restall 1997: 276). They were
not given any formal titles; only later were they named for Chilan Balam
(a Maya patronym), who was among the most famous of Maya prophets
(Bricker and Miriam 2002: 1; Hanks 2010: 339; Roys 1967 [1933]: 111).
Although there probably was never one master text, Restall (1997: 279)
suggests that shared literary conventions for certain segments found in different books point to a set of local model versions, which may explain the
commonalities found in the First Chronicle of the Chumayel, Tizimin, and
Códice Pérez, discussed further below.
The Spanish clergy sought to destroy these “idolatrous” manuscripts,
much as they did the antecedant codical books written in Mayan hieroglyphic texts (Knowlton 2008: 94). The BCB are referred to as a “fobidden genre” of texts that were kept secret from those who would disapprove
(Hanks 2010: 338–­64). These “clandestine manuscripts” were compiled by
the same Maya religious leaders who were being trained in Roman Catholic doctrine and who served the Maya communities in the absence of Spanish priests (Knowlton 2008: 93–­94). John Chuchiak (2010: 95) notes, “The
Maya themselves undertook the education of this select group of scribes
and notaries, who most often were the only literate members of the village.”
Redactions of Yucatec-­Maya language documents like the BCB reveal that
the colonial Maya scribes adapted and utilized “both the traditional hieroglyphic script and the new alphabetic writing skills taught by the Franciscan
Friars” (Chuchiak 2010: 87; see also Bricker 1989: 48). William E. Hanks
(2010: 362–­63) suggests that the scribes of the BCB were evangelized Maya
who wrote in a lengua reducida (converted or Christianized language) and
had an intimate knowledge of Christian precepts and practices.
From these texts, it is clear that both the scribes and the BCB were
bound up in heavily Christianized colonial formations. Therefore, Hanks
(2010: 362) questions how scholars can be confident whether a passage in
the BCB is truly an ancient text or, in fact, a colonial one. My feeling is that
it is probably not an either/or state of affairs. Even now, “postcolonialism”
does not mean “beyond colonialsm,” as we are always working within and
around these dominant structures. “Whereas people, cultures and nations
may actively resist and deny colonialist tendencies and colonial constructs,
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
685
the past is always being reworked nostalgically and adapted creatively to
the present” (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 14). This seems to be the case
for the doctrinal Maya scribes, given how the Maya lengua reducida and
quantity of Spanish references in the scribal repertoire vary significantly
among the different passages of the BCB. Table 1 reveals this marked variation, with chapters in the Chumayel that contain 20 percent or less of Spanish references in bold, which includes the First Chronicle.1 The table is heuristic, but the stark differences in proportions tell us that we cannot reduce
the BCB to either ancient or colonial accounts because they reflect ongoing
accounts of the past that were continually being reworked and adapted to
the present. In assessing the sociohistorical contexts in segments of the
BCB, it is therefore critical that each of the passages be analyzed individually and examined for lengua reducida, as Hanks (2010: 362) suggests, as
well as for archaic language and pre-­Hispanic content. Comparing cognate
texts is the next step. I found this approach to be helpful in assessing shared
content in the passages of the early chronicles of the BCB, which I define as
Events 1–9 (see further below). “If we can confidently match strips of text
between books, then we can compare the points on which they vary [and
look] for alternative phrasings of the same or similar objects” (342). Yet the
translation of specific terms does not always appear to be unidirectional
(from archaic to doctrinal language) or equivalent in meaning throughout
all segments of the BCB, probably because multiple scribal-­priests were
involved who were continually reworking and reshaping both Maya- and
Spanish-­inspired terms and trying to make sense of foreign terminology in
the context of their own world (see, e.g., Christensen 2013: 122).
What further complicates our understanding of the BCB is that no
single genre can describe these compilations; they contain an array of
indigenous writings, ranging from mythography and prophecies to curative and medicinal information to pre- and postconquest mythical and historic events (Alvarez 1969; Bricker 1989; Bricker and Miriam 2002; Caso
Barrera 2011; Hanks 2010: 338–­64; Knowlton 2008, 2010a, 2010b; Restall
1997: 276–­82, 1998: 129–­43; Solari 2010, 2013; Tedlock 2010: 248–­85).
References to postconquest subject matter are found throughout the BCB
and have been examined elsewhere by numerous scholars (Bolles 2003;
Christensen 2013: 86–­87, 122; Hanks 2010; Jones 1989, 1998; Restall 1998:
129–­43; Rice and Rice 2005; among others). In addition, a lengthy mythography is found in the BCB, which has been the focus of more intensive study
in recent years (Knowlton 2008, 2010b; Solari 2013; Tedlock 2010: 274–­
85). This series of Maya creation myths, in some cases blending Christian
stories, is part of a larger corpus of historico-­legendary accounts referred
to as u kahlay, or “history,” in the BCB (Knowlton 2010b: 36–­37). The First
Chronicle in the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Maní also is considered part of
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
686
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Table 1. Lines of Spanish-Influenced Text in the
Books of Chilam Balam of Chumayel
Chapters in the Chumayel*
1. First Chronicle
2. Second Chronicle
3. Third Chronicle
4. Izamal and Champotón
5. Uxmal
6. Chichén Itzá
7. The Sermon of Ahau Pech
8. Cozumel
9. The Sermon of Puc Tun
10. The Sermon of Xopan Nahuat
11. Cobá
12. The Ceremonial May
13. The Sermon of Tzin Yabun
14. The Building of Pyramids
15. The Ceremonial of the Hab
16. Christianity Reaches Mérida
17. The Count of the Katuns
18. Mérida Seats the Cycle
19. The New Cycle of Mérida
20. The Birth of the Uinal
21. The Sermon of Kauil Ch'el
22. The Cathedral of Mérida
23. The Shield of Yucatán
24. The Inquisition in the East
25. The Civil War
26. The Military Orders
27. The War Indemnity
28. Cesar Augustus
29. The Ceremonial of the Baktun
30. The Language of Zuyua
31. Additional Riddles
32. Astronomical Notes
33. Cesar Augustus and the Chan War
34. Antonio Martínez
35. Valladolid Resurgent
36. Chable
37. The Annals of Tixkokob
38. The Ending of Tribute at Chichén Itzá
39. Calendrical Notes
40. Valladolid
41. The Sevenfold Creation
42. The Sins of the Itzá
43. The Sheep and the Goats
Total Lines
in Chapter
Spanish
Lines
Percentage
of Text
152
98
130
18
22
12
34
12
16
134
62
636
34
60
160
120
118
18
154
224
28
56
14
192
66
94
250
46
540
882
310
96
202
86
50
34
66
28
60
24
540
162
110
24
8
25
1
15
6
0
6
0
99
61
12
33
20
0
68
6
0
153
5
0
55
0
120
4
0
143
3
66
25
68
96
116
86
14
22
66
1
60
0
441
53
110
15.79
8.16
19.23
5.56
68.18
50.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
73.88
98.39
1.89
97.06
33.33
0.00
56.67
5.08
0.00
99.35
2.23
0.00
98.21
0.00
62.50
6.06
0.00
57.20
6.52
12.22
2.83
21.94
100.00
57.43
100.00
28.00
64.71
100.00
3.57
100.00
0.00
81.67
32.72
100.00
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
687
Table 1. Continued
Chapters in the Chumayel*
Total Lines
in Chapter
44. Notes from Chumayel
45. Cobá
46. Tizimin
Total Lines
36
30
282
6498
Spanish
Lines
36
0
188
2315
Percentage
of Text
100.00
0.00
66.67
*Chapters listed are as they appear in Edmonson 1986.
the u kahlay and includes a series of events that are temporally fixed by
Maya katun dates, which are discussed below.
Katun Dating in the Books of Chilam Balam
The early chronicles of the BCB are structured around an important pre-­
Hispanic method of time tracking referred to as the u kahlay katunob, or
“history of the katuns.” A katun is a period of roughly 20 years. A katun
round comprises a bundle of 13 katuns that repeat as a cycle every 256 years
(or 260 tuns). A system of recording katun dates is found in ancient Mayan
hieroglyphic texts, but it varies somewhat from the method recorded in the
BCB. The former system abbreviated the Classic period Long Count of ten
glyphs down to just three, the katun and the day that the katun ended, which
provided a period-­ending date that was unique within a cycle of nearly
19,000 years (Sharer and Traxler 2008: 113). An even more abbreviated
katun system, known as the Short Count, is used in the Maya chronicles of
the BCB where only the Ahau days in which a particular katun ended are
noted, and the date of the katun marks the end of this 20-­year period (Chase
1986: 101–­2). This offers a period-­ending date unique only within a cycle
of 256 years (see table 2). Determining which katun cycle is being referenced presents some obvious confusion and is at the heart of the debate with
regard to the chronological interpretations of the katun counts recorded in
the chronicles of the BCB.
Dates for the katun counts were initially translated by Daniel G. Brinton (1969 [1882]) and Sylvanus G. Morley (1911, 1917), who were attempting to correlate the Maya and Gregorian calendars. The BCB of Chumayel,
Tizimin, and Códice Pérez were later fully translated in published form by
George B. Gordon (1913 [1993]), Ralph L. Roys (1967 [1933]), Christina
Alvarez (1969), Munro Edmonson (1982, 1986), Alfredo Barrera Vásquez
and Silvia Rendón (1948), Ermilo Solís Alcalá (1949), and Eugene R. Craine
and Reginald C. Reindorp (1979), who retained the absolute chronology
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
688
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Table 2. Calendrical Placements of Katun Cycles 8 Ahau, 6 Ahau, and 4 Ahau
Katun
8 Ahau
6 Ahau
4 Ahau
Christian Years
AD 672–­692
AD 692–­711
AD 711–­731
AD 928–­948
AD 948–­968
AD 968–­987
AD 1185–­1204
AD 1204–­1224
AD 1224–­1244
established earlier on. Here, I reassess the dates of the katun counts associated with the first segments of the early chronicles in the BCB, which contain shared subject matter found on pages 18v–­19r in the Tizimin (Edmonson 1982: 3–­11; Barrera Vásquez and Rendón 1948: 57), on pages 40–­41 in
the Chumayel (Edmonson 1986: 51–­56; Gordon 1993 [1913]: 74; Roys 1933:
74–­76), and on pages 134–­37 in the Códice Pérez (Solís Alcalá 1949: 266–­
70; Craine and Reindorp 1979: 138–­40).
There have been more recent attempts to revise the dates of the katun
counts in these segments of the early chronicles that are summarized in
table 3. While some of the dates proposed by these scholars align with
the chronology proposed herein, none attempts a reconstruction of the
entire sequence of the katun counts for the early chronicles as outlined in
table 3 and the appendix, and they often are vague in terms of supporting source references. For instance, in his discussion of the katun counts,
Joseph W. Ball (1986: 406n8) acknowledges that he is unable to resolve the
chronology of two of the episodes described in the early chronicles—­the
so-­called “Hunac Ceel adventures . . . and the entire event sequence following the katun 8 Ahau destruction of Chichén Itzá as recorded in the [Códice
Pérez] and [Tizimin]” (see also Ball 1974). Here I present a revised dating
for the katun counts in the early chronicles, which I believe resolves some
of these issues and better accords with the archaeological data and revised
chronology proposed for northern Yucatán.
A Revised Northern Chronology:
The Katun Rounds in Light of the Archaeology
The chronology of northern Yucatán, specifically with regard to the dating
of Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, and Mayapán, has been at the center of scholarly
debate for decades in Maya archaeology (Ball 1979, 1986; Lincoln 1986;
Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003; for a review, see Kristan-­Graham and
Kowalski 2007: 36–­38). Beginning around the 1980s, archaeologists began
to revise the chronology of northern Yucatán based on reassessments of
archaeological data coupled with new findings, but only in the last decade
or so has this revised chronology been more widely accepted by scholars
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
689
(A. P. Andrews, E. W. Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castellanos 2003;
Bey, Hanson, and Ringle 1997; Cobos Palma 2004, 2007; Pérez de Heredia
Puente 2012; Kristan-­Graham and Kowalski 2007: 36; Milbrath and Peraza
Lope 2003, 2009; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998). These revised
chronologies are more firmly rooted in some cases because of current epigraphic decipherments of dates and new or rerun radiocarbon dates, especially in the case of Chichén Itzá and Mayapán (Grube and Krochock 2007;
Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003, 2009; Peraza Lope et al. 2006; Ringle,
Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998).
Despite the revised northern chronology, few attempts have been made
to fully revise the chronology of any of the early chronicles found in the
BCB. This may be because many of the problems with the chronology were
blamed on the indiscriminate use of the “history” presented in the BCB.
Early on, scholars like Brinton (1969 [1882]) and Morley (1911, 1917) identified in the BCB postconquest events with Gregorian dates and, counting backward from there, established that Mayapán collapsed in the mid-­
fifteenth century and that, according to their reconstructions of the katun
rounds, it was first settled in the latter half of the thirteenth century. Counting back from here, this same reasoning led to the idea that both Uxmal and
Chichén Itzá were Postclassic sites. It became entrenched in the literature
that Chichén Itzá was founded no earlier than the tenth century.
These series of reconstructed dates anchored the archaeological investigations that were conducted by the Carnegie Institution of Washington at
Chichén Itzá and Mayapán throughout the twentieth century. Thompson
(1970: 3–­47) went on to popularize the idea that the capital of Chichén Itzá
was established after being invaded by the Mexicanized Chontal-­speaking
Itzá in AD 918 and that they “ruled over the entire peninsula until the first
part of the thirteenth century” (Roys 1957: 3). Likewise, Alfred M. Tozzer’s
(1957) influential early study of Chichén Itzá’s bas-­relief and murals and
proposed “Mexican invasion” leading to two components of occupation—­
an Old (Maya) and a New (Toltec-­Maya) Chichén—­were interpretations
largely based on the native chronicles, namely, the BCB (Lincoln 1986: 144).
The art historical and ethnohistoric chronologies established by Tozzer and
others were the basis of subsequent ceramic and architectural sequences
that were established for northern Yucatán by the mid-­twentieth century
(E. W. Andrews 1965a, 1965b; E. W. Andrews IV and E. W. Andrews V 1980;
Brainerd 1958; R. E. Smith 1971). As Lincoln (1986: 144–­45) noted, “None
of the above-­named archaeologists who followed Tozzer [and others] . . .
seriously attempted to reconcile either of these intractable sources (art historical or ethnohistorical) with the ‘dirt archaeology.’”
Since this time, more archaeological investigations have been undertaken, prompting many scholars to question the late dates for the north-
Published by Duke University Press
4 Ahau*
8 Ahau*/6 Ahau/
13 Ahau/11 Ahau
Event 3: Bacalar Province established, governed
60 years
Event 4: Chichén Itzá “discovered” by the Itzá
Published by Duke University Press
Chak’anputun governed by the Itzá for 260
years, then overthrown
Event 5: Chak’anputun established by the Itzá
1 Ahau/8 Ahau*/
1 Ahau/9 Ahau/
8 Ahau/9 Ahau
6 Ahau*/4 Ahau/
1 Ahau/8 Ahau/
6 Ahau*/3 Ahau
8 Ahau*
AD 692*(BO, C, ET, R, S)/
711(B2, EC)/771(B1)/918(B3)
8 Ahau*/2 Ahau/
13 Ahau/2 Ahau
2 Ahau*
Event 2: Arrival of Ah Mekat Tutul Xiu to
Chacnovitan
99 years pass after he arrives
The Itzá of Chichén Itzá overthrown
AD 731*(C, S)
After 13 Ahau*
81 years pass and then they leave Petén
AD 889(B2, C)/948*(BO, R,
S, ET)/ 1145(B3)/1194(B1)/
1204(V)/1450(B3)
AD 711*/AD 731(V),
889(B1, B2, C)/948(BO, S)/
968(ET)/1128(B3)
AD 948*(B1, B2, C)/
1204(B3, EC, ET, S)
AD 692*/751(C, ET)/
770(B1)/1006(B3)
AD 751*
AD 773*
AD 692*(ET, S)
Before 8 Ahau*
Event 1: Arrival of Holon Chan Tepeuh in Petén
Proposed Gregorian Dates
Katun
BCB Events
Table 3. Proposed Dates for Events in the First Chronicle of the Books of Chilam Balam
(the author’s proposed dates are starred and boldface; see also the appendix)
TZ:5–­6.21–­48;
CH: 51–­52.1–­28;
M:138.15–­18
TZ:5–­6.21–­48;
CH: 51–­52.1–­28;
M:138.15–­18
TZ:6–­7.49–­81;
CH:52–­53.29–­62;
M:138.19–­25
TZ:6–­7.49–­81;
CH:52–­53.29–­62;
M:138.19–­25
TZ:3.1–­10;
M:138.1–­3
TZ:3.1–­10;
M:138.3–­7
TZ:3.11–­20;
M:138.8–­10
TZ:3.11–­20;
M:138.8–­10
M:138.11–­14
BCB Sources1
Ethnohistory
8 Ahau*/9 Ahau/
8 Ahau
Event 7: The Itzá of Chichén Itzá overthrown by
Hunac Ceel, aided by Izamal, Ul Ahau, and 7
Nahua “foreigners”
Event 8: The walled city of Mayapán completed
(or seized?) by the Itzá and Ul Ahau under joint
rule
9 Ahau/8 Ahau*
TZ:10–­11.149–­166,
162.4527–­4538;
CH:54.94–­110
TZ:162.4527–­4538;
M:139.24–­28
TZ:6-­7.81-­88;
M:138.26-­28
TZ:8.89–­104;
M:138.29, 139.1–­4
TZ:8.89–­104;
M:138.29, 139.1–­4
TZ:8–­9.105–­138;
CH:53.63–­84;
M:139.5–­12
TZ:9–­10.139–­148;
CH:53–­54.85–­93;
M:139.5–­12
*=Current manuscript; B1=Ball (1986: Paradigm 1); B2=Ball (1986: Paradigm 2); B3=Ball (1986: Paradigm 3); BO=Boot (2010: 77, table 2); C=Chase
(1986: 130–­34, tables 4.5–­4.9); EC=Edmonson’s Chumayel (1986); ET= Edmonson’s Tizimin (1982); M=Milbrath and Peraza Lope (2003: 4,
table 1); R=Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey (1998: table 3); S=Schele and Matthews (1998: 203–­4); V=Vargas (1997: 206–­9; 2001: 198–­203).
1CB (Chilam Balam) sources are referenced here by pages and lines of text. TZ=Edmonson’s 1982 Tizimin; CH=Edmonson’s 1986 Chumayel;
M=Craine and Reindorp’s 1979 Maní (or Códice Pérez).
Event 9: Xiu overthrow the Itzá under joint
rule at Mayapán, assisted by “Hummingbird
Foreigners” (Nahua mercenaries)
Xiu rule Mayapán for 280 years, then abandon
60–­80 years before Spanish arrive
10 Ahau*/8 Ahau
Uxmal governed by the Xiu for 200 years
9 Ahau/4 Ahau*/
13 Ahau/10 Ahau/
8 Ahau/2 Ahau/
13 Ahau
9 Ahau/8 Ahau*
AD 751*(S)/1007(B1, B3, C,
V)/1263(ET)
AD 928*/1185(C)/1461(ET)
2 Ahau*
AD 948*/1194(B1)/
1204(C, M, S, V)/
1461 (EC, ET)
AD 935(B3)/987*(B1, B2)/
1027(R, V)/1185(S)/
1204(C, M)/1263(B3)/
1283 (EC)
AD 1194(B1)/1204*/1451
(B3)/1461 (BO, C, EC, ET,
M, S, V)
AD 1451(B1, B3)/1461*(BO,
C, EC, ET, M, S, V)
AD 987*/AD 1244/(ET)
4 Ahau*
Itzá from Chichén Itzá briefly reestablish
themselves at Chak’anputun?
Event 6: Uxmal established by Tutul Xiu
Ethnohistory
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
692
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
ern sites (A. P. Andrews, E. W. Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castellanos 2003; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003, 2009; Peraza Lope et al. 2006;
Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998). For instance, at Chichén Itzá, the
Sotuta Ceramic Complex, which makes up 90 percent of the assemblage,
was long thought to postdate the Cehpech Complex but is now recognized
to at least partially overlap with this complex and is firmly dated to the Terminal Classic period (Cobos Palma 2001: 186). Susan Milbrath and Carlos
Peraza Lope (2003: 3), citing Ringle et al. 1998: table 1, observe that pure
Sotuta ceramic deposits at Chichén Itzá have associated radiocarbon dates
with midpoints that range from AD 663 to 891. This date range closely parallels the proposed dates (AD 692–889/948) for the katun counts associated
with Itzá occupation at Chichén Itzá as recorded in the BCB (discussed
further below). The epigraphic data from Chichén Itzá coincides with the
(early facet) Sotuta Complex, with most of the hieroglyphic texts dating to
between 832 and 890 AD (Cobos Palma 2004; Grube and Krochock 2007).
These data indicate that Chichén Itzá is contemporaneous with other Terminal Classic sites in the Maya Lowlands, like Uxmal, and that most of
the major construction at Chichén Itzá ended as early as AD 1000–­1050
(Ringle 2004: 169; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998: 184).
Like Chichén Itzá, archaeological investigations at Uxmal have determined that this center became the capital of a regional state (in the Eastern
Puuc region of northern Yucatán) during the Terminal Classic period (ca.
AD 770/800–­950 [Kowalski 2007: 253]) rather than the Postclassic. The
House of the Governor, the Nunnery Quadrangle, and Ballcourt 1 at Uxmal
have associated monuments and epigraphic dates that suggest that these
buildings were constructed between 890 and 915 AD and that all monumental construction ceased at Uxmal as early as AD 950 (Carmean, Dunning,
and Kowalski 2004: 431–­32). The bulk of the ceramics found at Uxmal are
from the Cehpech Complex and point to a Late to Terminal Classic occupation, while the presence of Tohil Plumbate tradewares found only associated with abandonment contexts lends support to the notion that the site
was in a state of decline by the early to mid-­tenth century.
Archaeological investigations have revealed a long history of occupation from Preclassic to Colonial times at the site of Champotón on the Campeche coast, which most suggest is the equivalent of Chakan Putun in the
BCB (Ek 2006, 2012; Folan et al. 2002; Folan et al. 2004; but see Voss 2004).
In attempting to reconcile the sequence of events in the BCB, most scholars
have applied an Early Postclassic date sequence (AD 948–1204) to the katun
rounds that detail the rise and fall of Champotón. Yet, current archaeological research suggests that the peak period of occupation at Champotón
occurred during the Late to Terminal Classic between AD 700–900 (Ek
2012). A later resurgence in occupation at Champotón appears to occur
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
693
post-­AD 1204 during the Late Postclassic period, corresponding with the
Tases Phase (1200/1300–1450) at Mayapán (Forsyth 2004), when the port
city of Champotón is said to have covered 25 km2 with a population of as
many as twenty thousand (Hurtado Cen et al. 2007: 210).
Traditionally, Mayapán is dated to around this same time period at the
end of the Postclassic period (AD 1200–1461) based on the earlier readings
of the ethnohistories. Like Champotón, Chichén Itzá and Uxmal, a chronological realignment has been recently proposed for this regional Maya center as well. Milbrath and Peraza Lope (2003: 3) have reevaluated the ceramics and architecture from the archaeological investigations at Mayapán and
suggest that this site overlapped with the decline of Chichén Itzá and was
likely established by the mid-­eleventh century AD or possibly as early as the
late tenth century AD (see also Jones 1998: 10; Milbrath and Peraza Lope
2009: 582). High percentages of Peto Cream ware, which dates between
900 and 1200 AD, were recorded in the early floors at Mayapán (Milbrath
and Peraza Lope 2009: 591). A radiocarbon sample associated with Peto
Cream ceramics found in an early phase of the Pyramid of Kukulkan at
Mayapán suggest that construction was initiated in the main plaza by at
least AD 1020–­1170 (Peraza Lope et al. 2006: 158), which lends support to
an earlier date for the establishment of Mayapán than previously suggested.
Katun Counts and Maya Conventions of Time
Scholars often describe the BCB as “garbled” and “confused” accounts that
blend myth and reality (Ball 1986: 381; Bricker 1981; M. E. Smith 2007:
579). Here, I suggest a great deal of the chronological confusion of the
native chronicles may be due to a misunderstanding of Maya conventions
of time in the translations of the native chronicles by Western scholars of
the twentieth century. The basis of time and history for the Maya, recorded
in the u kahlay katunob, was cyclical. Yet, for the most part, the series of
katun dates in all three books have been translated as an unbreaking, linear sequence of time. This presents a confusing repetition of events through
time and an artificially long history for sites mentioned in the chronicles,
elements that have led scholars to discredit the books as unreliable historical documents. Contrary to what has been generally assumed, the chronicles
“do not consist of a linear arrangement of katuns, but rather deal with the
specific katun histories for certain places, people or events—­histories which
were not meant to be placed in a strictly linear, diachronic arrangement”
(Chase 1986: 129; emphasis in original). As Bricker (1981: 8–­9) notes, time
“telescopes” between future and past. Similar to Distance Numbers in
ancient Mayan hieroglyphic texts, the intervals of time are anchored with
an established start date that allowed scribes to jump backward in time and
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
694
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
discuss a different (but temporally overlapping) event within a given katun
cycle. Viewed in this way, the katun counts comprise multiple bundles of
time representing discrete events taking place within particular 256-­year
katun cycles (see table 2).
Many have characterized the native chronicles as “prophecies of the
future” (A. P. Andrews 1990: 259; see also Farriss 1987: 570). The Maya
scribes of the BCB attempted to project rhythms of past events into the future
as “prophetic reinterpretations” of this cyclical history, which may have been
influenced by the prophetic theory of history brought by Christian missionaries (Tedlock 2010: 250). “[Maya scribes] did reexamine prior history for
a pattern of destiny, but in so doing, they used Mayan rather than Christian
ways of measuring time. And when they reached the point in their narratives
where the invaders arrived, they treated the Christian calendar as an addition to their own rather than as a substitute for it” (ibid.). This appears to be
the case in the First Chronicle of the BCB, in which historical events involving Europeans are tacked onto the end, not as a replacement or remaking
of Maya history but as an addition to it (for an example, see Event 9 in the
appendix). Efforts to preserve the pre-­Hispanic history are reflected in the
presence of cognate passages in the First Chronicle of the BCB. My reassessment of the katun dates for these early chronicles, presented in table 3 and
the appendix, supports Ball’s (1986: 382) assertion that “the major events
and event sequences recorded in the Books of Chilam Balam represent more
than mere idiosyncratic occurrences [and] to reconstruct them correctly contributes directly to understanding the archaeological record.”
The Shared History of the First Chronicle
While for the most part the katun cycles are dated as a sequential, unbroken
chain of events, there are several instances in the original translations of the
First Chronicle in which the same start date is used for different events in the
Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez. For instance, in the First Chronicle
of the Tizimin, 8 Ahau is used to establish the start date of three different
events within the same katun cycle, which Edmonson (1982: lines 1, 11, 21)
and others date to AD 692 (events 1, 2, and 4 in table 3 and the appendix).
Among the different events recorded, it references the date for the discovery
and foundation of Chichén Itzá.2
While previous translations of the First Chronicle have registered some
of the repeated start dates for different events, there are several instances
of repeated cycles that are translated as an unbreaking, linear sequence of
events, which artificially lengthens the chronology. The first example is the
rise of Uxmal in 2 Ahau (see event 6 in the appendix), which most translations have dated to the Postclassic, either AD 1007 or AD 1263 (see table 3).
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
695
I suggest this is a telescope event that jumps back in time and begins in the
earlier katun cycle of 2 Ahau (or AD 751), which continues through 10
Ahau (or AD 928). This discrete bundle of time provides a historical outline for the rise of the Xiu dynasty and their capital of Uxmal, the establishment of which is mentioned briefly in the context of the earliest katun cycle
in the First Chronicle of the Tizimin and the Códice Pérez (events 1 and 2 in
table 3). Support for this realignment is provided by the archaeological data
from this site as noted above, which places the rise of Uxmal in the eighth to
tenth centuries AD (not the eleventh to fifteenth centuries).
Another example of a proposed repeated cycle is found in the following section of the First Chronicle for an episode involving Hunac Ceel, an
important Mexican Xiu leader who appears to have been responsible for the
overthrow of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá in 8 Ahau (event 7 in table 3 and the
appendix). In other translations, the overthrow episode in 8 Ahau is dated to
AD 1204 or 1461. As Ball (1986) has noted, the Hunac Ceel episode, which
repeats in various segments of the Tizimin, Chumayel, and Códice Pérez,
remains unresolved. The late dates applied to the 8 Ahau event have created
great confusion in terms of dating the demise of Chichén Itzá as well as the
subsequent rise and fall of both Champotón and Mayapán. The confusion
has prompted some to question the accuracy of locational identifiers in the
BCB (Ball 1986: 384). I suggest this is a translation error in the dates rather
than a misidentified location on the part of the Maya scribe. I view the Hunac
Ceel episode as another telescope event that provides a close-­up of the historical details concerning the demise of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá, mentioned
briefly at the beginning of the First Chronicle in all three books. Telescoping
back in time, the details of the Itzá demise associated with Hunac Ceel are
provided in later segments of the First Chronicle of the Tizimin (event 7 in
the appendix; Edmonson 1982: 8–­10, lines 113–­48), the Chumayel (Edmonson 1986: 53, lines 75–­84), and the Códice Pérez (Craine and Reindorp 1979:
139, lines 1–­18). I argue that the 8 Ahau Hunac Ceel episode dates as early as
AD 948, as opposed to AD 1204 or 1461 (see event 7 in table 3). Support for
this realignment is provided by the archaeological data from Chichén Itzá
noted above, which places the occupation of this site between the eighth and
eleventh centuries AD (not the twelfth to fifteenth centuries).
Another source of scholarly debate concerning the historical accuracy
of the BCB is the entire event sequence in the First Chronicle following the
katun 8 Ahau demise of the Itzá at Chichén Itzá. In the Tizimin and Chumayel, the Hunac Ceel episode appears to be directly linked with the establishment of Champotón by the Itzá following their ousting from Chichén
Itzá. However, I suggest that this is another telescope event where the cycle
repeats. I date the “seating” of Champotón in 6 Ahau to AD 692–711, followed by its destruction 260 years later in 8 Ahau, which corresponds to
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
696
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
AD 924–948 (event 5 in table 3 and the appendix). As noted above, this
chronology aligns with a spike in settlement at Champotón between ca.
AD 700–900 documented archaeologically (Ek 2012) and also correlates
well with the historical trajectories of other sites, like Chichén Itzá and Izamal, which are described in the BCB in relation to Champotón. The fall
of Champotón is also linked to the establishment of Mayapán, which was
“seized” or “completed” forty years later by the Itzá in 4 Ahau (event 8 in
appendix; see also Edmonson 1982: 9–­10, 15–­21, 24, lines 139–­48; 1986:
53–­54, lines 85–­92; Tozzer 1941: 23–­25, 32–­34).
The First Chronicle of the Tizimin and the Chumayel outline the occupation of Mayapán and the subsequent ousting of the Itzá under joint rule
at the site in 8 Ahau (event 9, in the appendix; Edmonson 1982: 10, lines
150–­66; 1986: 54, lines 93–­110). Traditionally, this event is dated AD 1461
(see table 3). This date was established early on by Brinton (1969 [1882]) and
Morley (1911, 1917) by counting backward from a series of Gregorian dates
referencing postconquest events at the end of the First Chronicle. However,
in the case of the Tizimin (see event 9 in the appendix), directly following
the 8 Ahau date for the fall of Mayapán there is a break in the text with
a missing 4 Ahau katun date, and then the sequence becomes confusing
(Edmonson 1982: 10–­11). It is clarified in a later segment of the Tizimin
where there is a description of the overthrow of the Itzá under joint rule at
Mayapán that is virtually identical to this earlier passage, but it offers two
lines of text (Edmonson 1982: 162, lines 4533–­34) that appear to be missing
in the previous segment of the Tizimin (see also a nearly identical passage
found in the Chumayel [Edmonson 1986: 54–­55, lines 93–­152]). The text
specifies two hundred years, and then eighty years followed the overthrow
of the Itzá at Mayapán, then 6 Ahau (AD 1480) and 4 Ahau (AD 1500)
passed. Edmonson (1982: 162n4534) does not adequately explain this discrepancy found in the later segment of the Tizimin, but I argue that the calculation (AD 1204 + 280 years = AD 1484) best supports an AD 1204 date
(rather than an AD 1461 date) for the 8 Ahau overthrow of Mayapán under
joint rule (see event 9 in appendix and table 3).
Referred to as the “League of Mayapan” or “Triple Alliance,” this joint
rule is described in the native chronicles as a peace treaty among Mayapán, Chichén Itzá, and Uxmal that lasted two hundred years (Milbrath and
Peraza Lope 2003: 24). In light of the revised northern chronology, some
scholars have suggested that the Triple Alliance must date earlier, no later
than the eleventh or twelfth centuries, in order to temporally overlap with
Chichén Itzá and Uxmal (A. P. Andrews 1993: 53–­55; Milbrath and Peraza
Lope 2003: 24; Vargas 1997: 207). The proposed chronology for the BCB
lends support to a two-­hundred-­year-­long period for the League of Mayapán, from ca. AD 1000 to 1200, and suggests that an alliance between the
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
697
Xiu and Itzá lasted until the beginning of the thirteenth century, at which
time the Xiu ousted the Itzá and ended the joint rule at Mayapán. Most
scholars conflate the Xiu revolt with the final demise of Mayapán in the fifteenth century (A. P. Andrews 1993: 55; Milbrath and Peraza Lope 2003:
table 1; Ringle, Gallareta Negrón, and Bey 1998: 225n31). Here, I argue that
these may be two separate events, the former marking the end of the Triple
Alliance and the Xiu overthrow of the Itzá in AD 1204 (followed by their
migration to the Petén Lakes region) and the latter involving the abandonment of the site core of Mayapán by the Xiu 280 years later.
Bishop Diego de Landa notes the Xiu revolt at Mayapán, but does not
give a specific date (Tozzer 1941). He does indicate that the city of Mayapán
had been abandoned for 120 years as of AD 1566, which scholars have used
as supporting evidence for dating the Xiu revolt to AD 1461, but this connection is not explicit and confounds what we know archaeologically. Both the
Tizimin and Chumayel suggest that the Itzá were driven out of Mayapán in
8 Ahau but continued to occupy other parts of Northern Yucatán and also the
Petén Lakes region, to which a sizeable group of Itzá are said to have migrated
sometime following the Hunac Ceel episode. Using the original chronology
proposed by the translators of the BCB, ethnohistorian Grant D. Jones (1998)
dated the Itzá migration to the Petén Lakes region to the fifteenth century.
However, archaeologists working in the Petén Lakes region suggest that this
migration probably occurred much earlier based on the material evidence
that shows a population influx shortly after AD 1200 in the western half of
the Petén Lakes—­an Itzá territory, according to Spanish accounts (Chase
1990; Paxton 2004; Rice and Rice 2005: 144, fig. 9.2). The archaeological
data lend support to the chronology being proposed herein that suggests the
katun 8 Ahau Xiu revolt at Mayapán occurred in AD 1204 (not 1461) and
that the Itzá migration to the Petén Lakes region occurred shortly thereafter.
Notably, an earlier date for the overthrow and migration of the Itzá does
not preclude continued Xiu occupation at Mayapán through AD 1461, but
the proposed redating reconciles some of the chronological issues with the
archaeological record and what appears in many cases to be an artificially
long history. Further examination of the archaeological data from Mayapán
is necessary to cross-­examine the idea of an earlier date for the Xiu revolt and
its historical implications in terms of an earlier Itzá exodus.
History or Myth? Internal Structure and Transcription
Conventions of the First Chronicle
The First Chronicle uses the katun counts in the u kahlay katunob to temporally fix a series of events in the past. In the case of the mythographies
in the BCB, katun dates are anchored by the Maya creation date of 4 Ahau
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
698
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
8 Cumku, or 11 August 3114 BC, a katun cycle that predates the earliest
known Maya occupation by about two thousand years and places these narratives in mythical time. In contrast, the katun dates in the First Chronicle
are restricted to cycles that occurred during the Maya Epiclassic and Postclassic periods (AD 692–­1500). Timothy Knowlton (2012: 259–­60) notes
that the selective use of poetic framing devices, including certain metaphoric couplets (e.g., chab akab as “genesis and darkness”)—­devices also
present in ancient epigraphic contexts—­is one means of distinguishing
mythical narratives from the historical content of the u kahlay, such as in
the First Chronicle, where such verbal couplets referred to as “diaphrasic
kennings” are rarely used.
Knowlton (2012: 259) and others argue that the u kahlay katunob
found in the BCB likely descended from Classic period monumental inscriptions (see also Bricker 1989; Houston, Chinchilla Mazariegos, and Stuart
2001; Restall and Solari 2011: 23; Tedlock 1983: 126–­27). In her studies of
the Chumayel, Chan Kan, and Kaua, Victoria Bricker (1985, 1989) identified
certain patterns in the spelling irregularities, such as doubled consonants in
disyllabic words, that relate to Classical Yucatec and can “serve as clues to
the nature of the pre-­Columbian hieroglyphic writing system” (Bricker and
Miriam 2002: 8). For instance, on page 41 (page 75 in Gordon 1993 [1913])
of the First Chronicle of the Chumayel (Edmonson 1986: 53–­54, lines 78
and 92), Bricker (1989: 41) notes that Hunac Ceel is spelled both syllabically
(hun-­ac) and logosyllabically (hun nac), which suggests that this individual’s
name was originally written in Mayan hieroglyphic texts, where both spelling conventions are possible. The name was subsequently adapted to the
Latin alphabet in the BCB but retained the spelling inconsistencies, which
shows that the Maya scribes “were accustomed to a mixed writing system
that permitted words to be represented in several different ways” (ibid.).
The Hunac Ceel episode is reiterated again in the Third Chronicle of
the Chumayel, but this time there is also mention of another protagonist
named Kak u Pacal. While we have no preserved pre-­Hispanic hieroglyphic
texts with the name Hunac Ceel, the name K’ak’upakal is found in the hieroglyphic texts at Chichén Itzá, mentioned in a number of different accounts
between AD 869 and 890 (Kelley 1968; Grube and Krochock 2007: 221).
This prominent Itzá war captain is thought to have been a ruler of Chichén
Itzá for at least a katun or more. I believe the passage in the Third Chronicle
of the Chumayel marks the death of Kak u Pacal in AD 935 (Edmonson
1986: 61, line 298). While we cannot be sure that this is the same figure
mentioned in the glyphs at Chichén Itzá, the chronology proposed herein
makes this a tenable suggestion, placing K’ak’upakal in his eighties at the
time of his death. When examined together, the structure and transcription
conventions of the early chronicles combined with the archaeological evi-
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
699
dence suggest that these segments of the BCB were adapted from archaic
language originally transcribed in hieroglyphic script and that the content
is largely based on historical events deeply rooted in the pre-­Hispanic past.
Concluding Thoughts
“[The Books of Chilam Balam] have been attacked for their garbling of dates,
persons, myths, and real events, and it is certainly true that anyone reading
them cannot be impressed by the apparent utter confusion of their compilers” (Ball 1986: 381). This reassessment of the BCB questions whether the
colonial Maya scribes should be held solely responsible for the confusion
and historical inaccuracies surrounding these native copybooks. Reexamining the katun rounds in light of recent archaeological finds suggests that the
twentieth-­century translators may have misunderstood Maya conventions
of time and contributed to the garbling of dates, persons, myths, and real
events documented in these books. Yet many archaeologists today take the
approach that ethnohistoric documents like the BCB are a part of a literary
tradition that will tell us more about myth and language than about “real
history” (Kristan-­Graham and Kowalski 2007: 19–­20). Certainly, overreliance on any one piece of data is ill advised, and, as with any ethnohistorical document, it is important to approach the early chronicles with caution
when relating them to actual historical events, given that the compilers were
Christianized Maya. However, it seems equally unwise to wholeheartedly
reject the events in the First Chronicle as “flawed accounts” of history (M.
E. Smith 2007: 591), given their transcription conventions (stemming from
hieroglyphic texts), the quantity of archaic language (compared to other
passages with more Spanish doctrinal language), and the shared subject
matter in all three books (despite being recorded by competing factions).
This study suggests that the early chronicles may offer a larger measure of historical accuracy and reliability than is currently accepted. A careful examination of the katun dates and associated “historical” events in the
First Chronicle recorded in the Chumayel, Tizimin, and Códice Pérez suggests that a great deal of these early chronicles concern the pre-­Hispanic history of Chichén Itzá, Uxmal, Champotón, and Mayapán in the Epiclassic
and Early Postclassic and not just the Late Postclassic and colonial periods.
The revised dating of the katun chronology proposed for the BCB is based
on recent archaeological findings that align with the revised chronology for
northern Yucatán, which is now generally accepted among scholars. Like
Ball (1986: 382), I offer the above reassessment of the early chronicles not
as a formalized historiography but as a model based on the current archaeological finds that should be further cross-­examined through field excavations in the future.
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
700
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Appendix. Early Chronicles in the Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
Revised Dates
Event 1: The Arrival of the Tutul Xius in Petén
Uaxac Ahau
Uac Ahau
Can Ahau
Cabil Ahau
Ca kal hab
Ca tac
Hum ppel hab
T u hum pis tun
Ah ox lahun Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
8 Ahau (672–692),
6 Ahau (692–711),
4 Ahau (711–731),
Second Ahau (731–751)
Forty years,
And then followed
One year,
Which was the first tun
Of 13 Ahau (773)
It was 13 Ahau.
Event 2: The Arrival of Ah Mekat Tutul Xiu to Chacnovitan (the count repeats; in
this case Edmonson [1982: Footnote 11] does repeat the count and applies the same
chronological sequence as the prior event)
Uaxac Ahau
Uac Ahau
(Can Ahau)
Cabil Ahau
Kuchc i
Chac Na Bi Ton
Mekat
Tutul Xiu
Hum ppel hab
Ma ti ho kal hab
8 Ahau (672–692),
6 Ahau (692–711),
(4 Ahau) (711–731),
2 Ahau (731–751)
Then arrived
the East priest Bi Ton
The chief
Of the Tutul Xiu,
One year
Before it was one hundred
years.
Event 3: Bacalar Province established and governed for 60 years (only mentioned in the
Códice Pérez, source after Craine and Reindorp 1979:138)
Can Ahau
Cabil Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
4 Ahau (711–731),
2 Ahau (731–751),
13 Ahau (751–771)
Event 4: The Establishment & Destruction of Chichén Itzá (the count repeats; in
this case Edmonson [1982: Footnote 21] does repeat the count and applies the same
chronological sequence as the prior event)
Uaxac Ahau
Uchc u chicanpahal
Chi Ch’en Ytza
Uchc u chicpahal
Tzucub te
Sian Can la e
(Uac Ahau)
Can Ahau
8 Ahau (672–692)
Had been revealed,
Chichén Itzá
Had been manifested:
The grove
Born of Heaven there.
(6 Ahau) (692–711),
4 Ahau (711–731),
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
Cabil Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
Lai tzolc i
Pop
Buluc Ahau
Bolon Ahau
Uuc Ahau
Ho Ahau
Ox Ahau
Hun Ahau
Lahun kal hab
2 Ahau (731–751),
13 Ahau (751–771),
That was the counting
Of the mats.
11 Ahau (771–790),
9 Ahau (790–810),
7 Ahau (810–830),
5 Ahau (830–849),
3 Ahau (849–869),
1 Ahau (869–889),
Two hundred years
(692–889)
Chichén Itzá ruled
Then it was destroyed
Then they went
To the settlement
Of Champoton
Where there were then
The homes
Of the Itzá,
The gods who own men
C u tepal Chi Ch’en Ytza
Ca pax i
Ca bin ob
T cahtal
Chakan Putun
Ti y anh i
Y otochob
Ah Ytzaob
Ku y an unicob i
701
Revised Dates
Event 5: The Establishment and Destruction of Chak’anputun (the count repeats, but
Edmonson [1982:6–7] continues chronology in an unbroken sequence here)
Uac Ahau
Chuc cu
Lumil
Chakan Putun
Can Ahau
Cabil Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
Buluc Ahau
Bolon Ahau
Uuc Ahau
Ho Ahau
Ox Ahau
Hun Ahau
Lah ca Ahau
Lahun Ahau
Uaxac Ahau
Paxc i
Chakan Putun
Ox lahun kal hab
C u tepal Chakan Putun
T u men Ytza unicob
Ca tal ob
U tzaci ob y otochob
6 Ahau (948–968)
Completed the seating
Of the lands
Of Champoton
4 Ahau (968–987),
Second Ahau (987–1007).
13 Ahau (1007–1027),
11 Ahau (1027–1047),
9 Ahau (1047–1066),
7 Ahau (1066–1086),
5 Ahau (1086–1106),
3 Ahau (1106–1125),
1 Ahau (1125–1145),
12 Ahau (1145–1165),
10 Ahau (1165–1185),
8 Ahau (1185–1204),
Destroyed
Was Champoton.
Two hundred sixty years
Champoton was ruled
By the Itzá people.
Then they came on
And returned to their homes
(692–711)
4 Ahau (711–731),
Second Ahau (731–751),
13 Ahau (751–771),
11 Ahau (771–790),
9 Ahau (790–810),
7 Ahau (810–830),
5 Ahau (830–849),
3 Ahau (849–869),
1 Ahau (869–889),
12 Ahau (889–909),
10 Ahau (909–928),
8 Ahau (928–948),
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
702
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
T u ca ten
Ca u satah ob be
Chakan Putun
Ca tz’it u katunil
For the second time.
They destroyed the road
Of Champoton.
For two parts of the katun
cycle
The Itzá went on
Beneath the trees,
Beneath the bushes,
Beneath the vines,
Where they suffered.
6 Ahau (1204–1224),
4 Ahau (1224–1244)
Forty years,
Then they came
And established
Their homes again.
Then they destroyed the road
Of Chompoton.
Bi(n)ci ob Ah Ytzaob
Y alan che
Y alan haban
Yalan ak
Ti num yaob
Uac Ahau
Can Ahau
Ca kal hab
Ca talk ob
U hetz’
Y otochob t u ca ten
Ca u satah ob be
Chakan Putun
Revised Dates
6 Ahau (948–968)
4 Ahau (968–987)
Event 6: The Establishment of Uxmal (the count repeats, but Edmonson [1982: 8]
continues chronology in an unbroken sequence)
Cabil Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
Buluc Ahau
Bolon Ahau
Uuc Ahau
Ho Ahau
Ox Ahau
Hun Ahau
Lah ca Ahau
Lahun Ahau
U hetz’c i
Cab Ah Sui Tok
Tutul Xiu
Uxmal
Lahun kal hab c uch i
Ca hetz’h ob lum Uxmal
Second Ahau (1244–1263)
13 Ahau (1263–1283),
11 Ahau (1283–1303),
9 Ahau (1303–1323),
7 Ahau (1323–1342),
5 Ahau (1342–1362),
3 Ahau (1362–1382),
1 Ahau (1382–1401),
12 Ahau (1401–1421),
10 Ahau (1421–1441),
They established
The land of Zuy Tok,
A Tutul Xiu
Of Uxmal.
Two hundred years had
passed.
Since they established the
land of Uxmal.
Second Ahau (731–751)
13 Ahau (751–771),
11 Ahau (771–790),
9 Ahau (790–810),
7 Ahau (810–830),
5 Ahau (830–849),
3 Ahau (849–869),
1 Ahau (869–889),
12 Ahau (889–909),
10 Ahau (909–928),
Event 7: The Hunac Ceel Episode (the count repeats; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 8–9]
does repeat the count from the prior event but applies a later chronological sequence).
Buluc Ahau
Bolon Ahau
Uuc Ahau
Ho Ahau
Ox Ahau
11 Ahau (1283–1303),
9 Ahau (1303–1323),
7 Ahau (1323–1342),
5 Ahau (1342–1362),
3 Ahau (1362–1382),
Published by Duke University Press
11 Ahau (771–790),
9 Ahau (790–810),
7 Ahau (810–830),
5 Ahau (830–849),
3 Ahau (849–869),
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
703
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
Revised Dates
Hun Ahau
Lah ca Ahau
Lahun Ahau
Uaxac Ahau
Paxc i
U hal ach uinicil
Chi Ch’en Ytza
T u keban than
Hunac Ceel
Ah Sinteyut Chan
Tzum Tecum
Taxcal
Pantemit
Xuch Ueuet
Ytzcoat
Kakalcat
Lai u kaba
U uinicilob la e
Uuc tul ob
T u men u uahal
Uahob
Y etel Ytzmal
Ulil Ahau
Ox lahun uutz’
U katunilob
Ca pax ob
T u men Hunac Ceel
T u men u tz’abal
U nat ob
1 Ahau (1382–1401),
12 Ahau (1401–1421),
10 Ahau (1421–1441),
8 Ahau (1441–1461),
They destroyed
The governors
Of Chichén Itzá
By the sinful words
Of Hunac Ceel
Cinteotl Chan,
Tzontecome,
Tlaxcallan,
Pantemitl,
Xochihuetl,
Itzcoatl,
Cacalacatl:
These are the names
Of the people there,
The seven of them,
Because they were patting
Tortillas
With Izamal
And Ul Ahau.
Thirteen folds
Of the katun cycle,
Then they were destroyed
By Hunac Ceel
Because of the giving
Of the questionnaire (trans.
Roys 1933: 75 in the
Chumayel).
1 Ahau (869–889),
12 Ahau (889–909),
10 Ahau (909–928),
8 Ahau (928–948),
Event 8: Seizing of Mayapan by the Itzá and Ul Ahau (the count continues from the prior
event; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 9] continues chronology in an unbroken sequence
but applies a later chronological sequence)
Uac Ahau
Can Ahau
Ca kal hab
Ca chuc i
U lumil ych paa
Mayapan
T u men Ytza uincob
Y etel Ulmil Ahau
T u men u keban than
Hunac Ceel
6 Ahau (1461–1480),
4 Ahau (1480–1500):
Forty years,
Then it was completed (or
seized),
The land within the walls
Of Mayapan,
By the Itzá people
And Ul Ahau (Lord Ulmil?)
Because of the sinful words
Of Hunac Ceel.
6 Ahau (948–968),
4 Ahau (968–987):
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
704
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Dates and Translations1
Revised Dates
Event 9: The Establishment and Destruction of Mayapan (the count is an unbroken
sequence from prior event; in this case, Edmonson [1982: 10] repeats the count).
Cabil Ahau
Ox lahun Ahau
Buluc Ahau
Bolon Ahau
Uuc Ahau
Ho Ahau
Ox Ahau
Hun Ahau
Lah ca Ahau
Lahun Ahau
Uaxac Ahau
Uchc i
Puch’ tun ich paa
Mayapan
T u men u pach tulum
T u men mul tepal
Ich cah
Mayapan
Second Ahau (1244–1263),
13 Ahau (1263–1283),
11 Ahau (1283–1303),
9 Ahau (1303–1323),
7 Ahau (1323–1342),
5 Ahau (1342–1362),
3 Ahau (1362–1382),
1 Ahau (1382–1401),
12 Ahau (1401–1421),
10 Ahau (1421–1441),
8 Ahau (1441–1461),
There was
Crushed stone inside the walls
Of Mayapan
Because of the seizure of the
walls
By joint government (trans.
Roys 1933: 76 in the
Chumayel)
In the city
Of Mayapan
Second Ahau (987–1007).
13 Ahau (1007–1027),
11 Ahau (1027–1047),
9 Ahau (1047–1066),
7 Ahau (1066–1086),
5 Ahau (1086–1106),
3 Ahau (1106–1125),
1 Ahau (1125–1145),
12 Ahau (1145–1165),
10 Ahau (1165–1185),
8 Ahau (1185–1204),
There is a break here in the text with a missing katun date (4 Ahau) and the sequence
is confusing, but it is clarified in a later segment of the Tizimin (Edmonson 1982: 162)
that is presented below, which substantiates the AD 1204 (rather than AD 1461) date
applied to 8 Ahau for the overthrow of Mayapan under joint rule
Uaxac Ahau
Paxc i
Cah
Mayapan
T u men uitzil
Tz’ul
Lahun kal hab
Ca tac can kal hab i
Uac Ahau
Can Ahau uchc i
Ma ya cimlal ocnal
Kuchil Ych Paa
Cabil Ahau uchc i
Noh kakil
Ox lahun Ahau uchc
U cimil Ah Pul Ha
Uac ppel hab u binel
Ca tz’ococ u xoc ox
lahun
8 Ahau (1461),
There was destroyed
The city
Of Mayapan
By the Hummingbird
Foreigners [the Mexicans].
Two hundred years
And then eighty years
6 Ahau (1480)
4 Ahau (1500) passed.
Painless death was brought,
Appearing inside the walls.
Second Ahau (1520) passed
The great fire.
13 Ahau (1539) occurred
The death of Water Thrower.
Six years were to come:
Then came the end of the
count of
Published by Duke University Press
8 Ahau (1204),
(1204 + 280 = 1484)
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
Ahau c uchi e
Ti y an u xocol hab
13 Ahau.
It lay in the counting of the
year
That occurred in the east:
4 Kan was included
In Pop.
5 Kan
Was on the fifteenth of Zip.
So then
There were three.
9 Imix
Was the time of death
Of Water Thrower.
That was then the year 1536.
11 Ahau
Was the arrival
Of the foreigners,
The people of the gods.
From the east they came
When they arrived
Right here
In this land.
9 Ahau
It began:
Christianity occurred,
Second birth.
It was just in this katun
period
That there arrived
The first bishop,
Toral.
And this was the year he
came:
1544.
7 Ahau there he died
Bishop Landa on the katun
date.
5 Ahau the Father of our
town,
The priest of Mani.
This was the year he came:
It was 1550.
This was the year they came
And settled our town
Above the water:
It happened in 1552.
1559 was the year when there
arrived
Ti lakin c uchi e
Canil kan cumlahc i
Pop
Hool Kan
T u ho lhun Sip
Ca tac
Ox ppel i
Bolon Imix
U kinil cimi i
Ah Pul Ha
Lei tun hab 1536 c uch i
Buluc Ahau
Ulc i
Tz’ulob
Kul uincob
Ti lakin u tal ob
Ca ul ob
Uai
Tac lumil e
Bolon Ahau
Hoppc i
Xptianoil uchc i
Ca put si
Lai li ichil u katunil
Ulc i
Yax Obispo
Toral
He ix hab c u ximbal c
uchi e
1544
Uuc Ahau cimc i
Obispo Landa ychil u
katunil
Hoo Ahau ca yum cah i
Padre Mani
Lai hab c u ximbal c uch i
La 1550
Lai hab c u ximbal
Ca cahi ob
Y ok ha
1552 c uch i
1559 hab ca ul i
705
Revised Dates
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
706
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Events 1–9 in the BCB
Dates and Translations1
Oydor ca pak ispital
The Auditor (? Of our
hospital).
1560 was the year when there
arrived
The Doctor,
Quijada,
The first governor
Here
In this land.
1562 was the year when there
occurred
The hanging of the rope.
1563 was the year when there
arrived
The Marshal.
1569 was the year when there
occurred
The fire.
1610 was the year when they
knotted
The necks of the Tied Ones.
1611 was the year when there
was written
The settlement by the judge . . .
1560 u habil ca ul i
Doctor
Quixada
Yax hal ach uinic
Uai
Ti lum e
1562 hab ca uch i
Ch’ui tab
1563 hab ca ul i
Mariscal
1569 hab ca uch i
Kakil
1610 u habil ca hich i
U cal Ah Kaxob
1611 hab ca tz’ibtab i
T u mene jues . . .
Revised Dates
1 Source: After Edmonson (1982:3–20), unless otherwise noted.
Notes
1 Proportions in Table 1 were calculated using Munro Edmonson’s (1986) translation, which is presented in verse form and provides a more consistent, quantifiable
text compared to other translations, such as that of Ralph L. Roys (1967 [1933]).
2 In the Chumayel, the foundation date for Chichén Itzá is 6 Ahau (Edmonson
1986: line 13), and in the Códice Pérez it is 11 Ahau (Craine and Reindorp 1979:
138), but all other subsequent dates appear to align with one another.
References
Alvarez, Christina
1969
Descripción estructural del maya del Chilam Balam de Chumayel. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Coordinación de
Humanidades, México.
Andrews, Anthony P.
1990 The Fall of Chichén Itzá: A Preliminary Hypothesis. Latin American
Antiquity 1: 258–­67.
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
1993
707
Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 35–­69.
Andrews, Anthony P., E. Wyllys Andrews V, and Fernando Robles Castellanos
2003 The Northern Maya Collapse and Its Aftermath. Ancient Mesoamerica
14: 151–­56.
Andrews, E. Wyllys IV
1965a Explorations in the Gruta de Chac, Yucatán, México. Middle American Research Institute Publication no. 31. New Orleans, LA: Tulane
University.
1965b Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowlands: An Introduction. In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 2. Robert A.
Wauchope, ed. Pp. 288–­330. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews V
1980
Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatán, Mexico. Middle American
Research Institute Publication no. 48. New Orleans, LA: Tulane
University.
Ball, Joseph W.
1974
A Coordinate Approach to Northern Maya Prehistory: A.D. 700–­1200.
American Antiquity 39(1): 85–­93.
1979 Ceramics, Culture History, and the Puuc Tradition: Some Alternative
Possibilities. In The Puuc: New Perspectives. L. Mills, ed. Pp. 46–­51. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press.
1986 Campeche, the Itzá, and the Postclassic: A Study in Ethnohistorical
Archaeology. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic.
Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 379–­408. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo, and Silvia Rendón
1948
El Libro de los libros de Chilam Balam. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Bey, George J., Craig A. Hanson, and William M. Ringle
1997
Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatán: Architectural and Ceramic
Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American Antiquity 8:
237–­54.
Bolles, David
2003 Post-­Conquest Maya Literature: A Compilation of the Various Books of the
Chilam Balam. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.
Boot, Erik
2010
Chichén Itzá in the Mesoamerican World: Some Old and New Perspectives. In The Maya and Their Neighbours: Internal and External Contacts
through Time. Proceedings of the Tenth European Maya Conference, Leiden, December 9–­10, 2005. Laura van Broekhoven, Rogelio Valencia
Rivera, Benjamin Vis, and Frauke Sachse, eds. Pp. 73–­88. Acta Mesoamericana 22. Markt Schwaben, Germany: Saurwein.
Brainerd, George W.
1958
The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatán. University of California Anthropological Records, vol. 19. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bricker, Victoria R.
1981
The Indian Christ, the Indian King: The Historical Substrate of Maya Myth
and Ritual. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
708
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
1985
The Use of Logosyllabic Principles of Writing in the Book of Chilam
Balam of Chumayel. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(4):
351–­53.
1989
The Last Gasp of Maya Hieroglyphic Writing in the Books of Chilam
Balam of Chumayel and Chan Kan. In Word and Image in Maya Culture:
Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation. William F. Hanks
and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 39–­50. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Bricker, Victoria R., and Helga-­Maria Miriam
2002 An Encounter of Two Worlds: The Book of Chilam Balam of Kaua. Middle
American Research Institute Publication no. 68. New Orleans, LA:
Tulane University.
Brinton, Daniel G.
1969 [1882] The Maya Chronicles. New York: AMS Press.
Carmean, Kelli, Nicholas Dunning, and Jeff K. Kowalski
2004 High Times in the Hill Country: A Perspective from the Terminal Classic Puuc Region. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Arthur Demarest, Prudence M.
Rice, and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 424–­49. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
Caso Barrera, Laura
Chilam Balam De IXIL: Facsmiliar y estudio de un libro maya inedito.
2011
Mexico City: Artes De Mexico y del Mundo S.A.
Chase, Arlen F.
1986
Time Depth or Vacuum: The 11.3.0.0.0 Correlation and the Lowland
Maya Postclassic. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 99–­140. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1990
Maya Archaeology and Population Estimates in the Tayasal Paxcaman
Zone, Petén, Guatemala. In Prehistoric Population History in the Maya
Lowlands. T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 149–­165. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Christensen, Mark
2013
Nahua and Maya Catholicisms: Texts and Religion in Colonial Central
Mexico and Yucatán. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chuchiak, John F. IV
2010 Writing as Resistance: Maya Graphic Pluralism and Indigenous Elite
Strategies for Survival in Colonial Yucatán, 1550–­1750. Ethnohistory
57(1): 87–­116.
Cobos Palma, Rafael
2001
Chichén Itzá. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. Vol. 1.
David Carrasco, ed. Pp. 183–­87. New York: Oxford University Press.
2004 Chichén Itzá: Settlement and Hegemony during the Terminal Classic
Period. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and
Don S. Rice, eds. Pp. 517–­44. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
2007 Multepal or Centralized Kingship? New Evidence on Governmental
Organization at Chichén Itzá. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and
the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
709
and Cynthia Kristan-­Graham, eds. Pp. 315–­44. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Craine, Eugene R., and Reginald C. Reindorp
1979
The Codex Pérez and the Book of Chilam Balam of Maní. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Eaton, J. D., and Joseph W. Ball
1978
Studies in the Archaeology of Coastal Yucatán and Campeche, Mexico.
Middle American Research Institute Publication no. 46. New Orleans,
LA: Tulane University.
Edmonson, Munro
1982
The Ancient Future of the Itzá: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1986
Heaven Born Merida and Its Destiny: The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ek, Jerald D.
2006 The Champotón Regional Settlement Survey: Results from the 2005 Field
Season. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.
(FAMSI). www.famsi.org/reports/05061/index.html.
2012
The Political and Economic Organization of Late Classic States in the
Peninsular Gulf Coast: The View from Champotón, Campeche. In The
Ancient Maya of Mexico: Reinterpreting the Past of the Northern Maya
Lowlands, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, 141–67. London: Equinox.
Farriss, Nancy M.
1987 Remembering the Future, Anticipating the Past: History, Time, and
Cosmology among the Maya of Yucatan. Comparative Studies in Society
and History 29(3): 566–­93.
Folan, William J., A. Morales, Rosario Dominguez, R. Ruiz, R. Gonzalez, Joel D.
Gunn, Lynda Florey, M. Barredo, J. Hernandez, and D. Bolles
2002 La ciudad y puerto de Champotón, Campeche: Una encrucijada del
Gulfo de México y su corredor eco-­arqueológico. Los Investigadores de
la Cultura Maya 10: 8–­16.
Folan, William J., Abel Morales López, José Antonio Hernández Trujeque, Raymundo González Heredia, Lynda Florey Folan, David Bolles, and Joel D. Gunn
2004 Recientes excavaciones en el barrio de Pozo Monte en las ciuuidad y
puerto de Champotón (Chakan Putun) Campeche: Un lugar central del
Preclásico Medio a Posclásico en la costa oeste de la Peninsula de Yucatán. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12: 38–­53.
Forsyth, Donald W.
2004 Reflexiones sobre la ocupación Posclásica en Champotón a través de la
cerámica. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12: 32–­38.
Gordon, George B.
1993 [1913] The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean
Park Press.
Grube, Nikolai, and Ruth J. Krochock
2007 Reading between the Lines: Hieroglyphic Texts from Chichén Itzá and
Its Neighbors. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to
Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia
Kristan-­Graham, eds. Pp. 205–­50. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
710
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Hanks, William E.
2010
Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Houston, Stephen D., Oswaldo Fernando Chinchilla Mazariegos, and David Stuart
2001 The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Hurtado Cen, Araceli, Aleida Cetina Bastida, Vera Tiesler, and William J. Folan
2007 Sacred Spaces and Human Funerary and Nonfunerary Placements in
Champotón, Campeche, during the Postclassic Period. In New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice and Ritual Body Treatment in Ancient Maya
Society. Vera Tiesler and Andrea Cucina, eds. Pp. 209–­31. New York:
Springer.
Jones, Grant D.
1986
The Southern Maya Lowlands during Spanish Colonial Times. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians. Vol. 4, Ethnohistory. Ronald Spores and Patricia A. Andrews, eds. Pp. 71–­86. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
1989
Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1998
The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kelley, David H.
1968
Kakupacal and the Itzás. Estudios de Cultura Maya 7: 255–­68.
Knapp, A. Bernard, and Sophia Antoniadou
1998
Archaeology, Politics and the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus. In Archaeology under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Lynn Meskell, ed. Pp. 13–­
43. London:
Routledge.
Knowlton, Timothy
2008
Dynamics of Indigenous Language Ideologies in the Colonial Redaction
of a Yucatec Maya Cosmological Text. Anthropological Linguistics 50(1):
90–­112.
2010a Nahua Vocables in a Maya Song of the Fall of Chichén Itzá: Music
and Social Memory in the Construction of Yucatecan Ethnicities. In
Astronomers, Scribes, and Priests: Intellectual Interchange between the
Northern Maya Lowlands and Highland Mexico in the Late Postclassic
Period. Gabrielle Vail and Christine L. Hernandez, eds. Pp. 241–­59.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
2010b Maya Creation Myths: Words and Worlds of the Chilam Balam. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
2012
Some Historical Continuities in Lowland Maya Magical Speech Genres:
Keying Shamanic Performance. In Parallel Worlds: Genre, Discourse, and
Poetics in Contemporary, Colonial, and Classic Period Maya Literature.
Kerry M. Hull and Michael D. Carrasco, eds. Pp. 253–­70. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Kowalski, Jeff K.
2007 What’s “Toltec” at Uxmal and Chichén Itzá? Merging Maya and Mesoamerican Worldviews and World Systems in Terminal Classic to Early
Postclassic Yucatán. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epi-
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
711
classic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and
Cynthia Kristan-­Graham, eds. Pp. 251–­313. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Kristan-­Graham, Cynthia, and Jeff K. Kowalski
2007 Chichén Itzá, Tula, and Tollan: Changing Perspectives on a Recurring Problem in Mesoamerican Archaeology and Art History. In Twin
Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-­Graham, eds.
Pp. 13–­83. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Lincoln, Charles E.
1986
The Chronology of Chichén Itzá: A Review of the Literature. In Late
Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Jeremy A. Sabloff and
E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. Pp. 141–­96. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Milbrath, Susan, and Carlos Peraza Lope
2003
Revisiting Mayapan: Mexico’s Last Maya Capital. Ancient Mesoamerica
14: 1–­46.
2009 Survival and Revival of Terminal Classic Traditions at Postclassic Mayapán. Latin American Antiquity 20: 581–­606.
Morley, Sylvanus G.
1911
The Historical Value of the Books of Chilam Balam. American Journal
of Archaeology 15: 195–­214.
1917
The Rise and Fall of the Maya Civilization in the Light of the Monuments and the Native Chronicles. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists, Washington, DC, 1915. Pp. 140–­49.
Washington, DC: International Congress of Americanists.
Paxton, Merideth
2004 Tayasal Origin of the Madrid Codex: Further Consideration of the
Theory. In The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an
Ancient Maya Manuscript. Gabrielle Vail and Anthony Aveni, eds.
Pp. 89–­127. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Peraza Lope, Carlos, Marilyn A. Masson, Timothy S. Hare, and Pedro Candelario
Delgado Kú
2006 The Chronology of Mayapan: New Radiocarbon Evidence. Ancient
Mesoamerica 17: 153–­75.
Pérez de Heredia Puente, Eduardo J.
2012
The Yabnal-­Motul Ceramic Complex of the Late Classic Period at Chichén Itzá. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(2): 379–­402.
Restall, Matthew
1997
The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550–­1850. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
1998
Maya Conquistador. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Restall, Matthew, and Amara Solari
2011
2012 and the End of the World: The Western Roots of the Maya Apocalypse.
New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Rice, Don S., and Prudence M. Rice
2005
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-­Century Maya Political Geography in Central Petén, Guatemala. In The Postclassic to Spanish-­Era Transition in
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
712
Eleanor Harrison-Buck
Mesoamerica: Archaeological Perspectives. Susan Kepecs and Rani T.
Alexander, eds. Pp. 139–­60. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Ringle, William M.
2004 On the Political Organization of Chichén Itzá. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:
167–­218.
Ringle, William M., Tomás Gallareta Negrón, and George J. Bey III
1998
The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the Spread of a World Religion during the Epiclassic Period. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183–­232.
Roys, Ralph L.
1967 [1933] The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
1957
The Political Geography of the Yucatán Maya. Publication no. 613. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Schele, Linda, and Peter Matthews
1998
The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and
Tombs. New York: Scribner.
Sharer, Robert, and Loa Traxler
2008 The Ancient Maya. 6th ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Smith, Michael E.
2007 Tula and Chichén Itzá: Are We Asking the Right Questions? In Twin
Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-­Graham, eds.
Pp. 579–­617. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Smith, Robert E.
1971
The Pottery of Mayapan: Including Studies of Ceramic Material from Uxmal,
Kabah, and Chichén Itzá. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology. Vol. 66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Solari, Amara
2010
Circles of Creation: The Inventions of Maya Cartography in Early Colonial Yucatán. Art Bulletin 92(3): 154–­68.
2013
The Transfiguration of Space: Maya Ideologies of the Sacred in Colonial
Yucatán. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Solís Alcalá, Ermilo
1949
Códice Pérez : Traducción libre del maya al castellano. Mérida de Yucatán: Liga de Acción Social.
Tedlock, Dennis
1983
The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
2010
Two Thousand Years of Mayan Literature. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1970
Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Tozzer, Alfred M.
1941
Landa’s relacion de las cosas de Yucatán. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology no. 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
1957
Chichén Itzá and Its Cenote of Sacrifice: A Comparative Study of Contem-
Published by Duke University Press
Ethnohistory
Reevaluating Chronology and Historical Content
713
poraneous Maya and Toltec. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs. Vols. 11 and 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Vargas, Ernesto Pacheco
1997
Tulum: Organización político-­territorial de la costa oriental de Quintana
Roo. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.
2001 Itzámkanac y Acalan: Tiempos de crisis anticipando el futuro. Mexico
City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.
Voss, Alexander Wolfgang N.
2004 Chakanputun y Champotón: Nuevas Interpretaciones. Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 12(1): 131–47.
Published by Duke University Press