1 American Antiquity, Vol. 11, No. 3, January, 1946.

2 It may be noted that Thompson's whole scheme of reconstruction of pre-Conquest Yucatan history, including his theory of identification of the Itzas with the “Mexican” conquerors of Chichen Itza (see his “A Survey of the Northern Maya Area,” in AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 11, No. 1 (July 1945), pp. 3–4, 12–18), requires the assumption that the record of the katun chronicles has been considerably garbled by the post-Conquest Maya compilers (as indirectly acknowledged by him in his review). Before attributing such extensive ignorance of their own history to these native Maya historians, we should be certain that their record as it actually stands is definitely contradicted by the archaeological evidence. This contradiction has not yet been demonstrated.

3 Ralph L. Roys, ed. and tr., The Booh of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, Washington, 1933, pp. 79–90.

4 Ibid., p. 115; see also Roys, loc. cit. footnote 4.

5 Ibid., p. 82.

6 Ibid., p. 140.

7 Chronicle of Mani, Brinton, 1882, and Martínez Hernández, 1927, eds., Sec. 5 (referring to a time before they became the idolatrous “heretics” of late Chichen Itza).

8 Roys, op. cit., pp. 70–72.

9 Since it is indicated in closely following passages of the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel (.ibid., pp. 81–83) that the end of the Itzas as a nation was held to be at their final abandonment of Chichen Itza, dated therein fifteen katuns before A.D. 1541, or A.D. 1246, we may consider this event as also that in mind here as terminating their pyramidbuilding activity, consequently dating the beginning of their construction of the mounds three score (i.e., three aktuns) and fifteen katuns before A.D. 1246, or ca. 233 B.C. (!).

10 See, e.g., Earl H. Morris, Jean Chariot, and Ann Axtell Morris, The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Ilsd, Yucatan, Washington, 1931, Vol. 1, Fig. 248, c, d; Vol. 2, Pis. 44, N; 49, N; 50, W; 90, S; 98, E; 119, W; 157, 6, d; 166, lower center.

11 For probable source references to this settlement of the Itzas in the pre-Mexican Period at Chichen Itza, see Chronicle of Mani, loc. cit.; Roys, op. cit., pp. 70–72 (an early migration of the Itzas from the east coast of Yucatan (“naming the wells” en route [see above]) to Cetelac (Yaxuna?) and apparently thenearby site of Chichen Itza (p. 74), perhaps to be identified with the Cental or “Little Descent” and not to be confused with the invasion of the “Mexican” conquerors from the west.

12 See, e.g., Chronicle of Mani, eds. cit., Sec. tetseq., in conjunction with the references of the preceding note (apparently a return of Itzas to Chichen Itza). This account, however, disagrees with the Chumayel passage cited and other references in assigning to the temporary abandonment a comparatively long period of some thirteen katuns. As the latter, however, is an arbitrary calendrical period, it is probable that the chronicle is in error on this point. The opposing references restrict this temporary abandonment to probably less than a century, which synchronizes the indicated first or pre-Mexican Period settlement of the Itzas at Chichen with the period of the early pure Maya architecture at that site.

13 Perhaps with some Itzas picked up by them on their route of invasion, as also indicated in the sources. The invasion of these “Mexicans” or “foreigners” and their conquest and political organization of the land and rule at Chichen Itza, after the late Old Empire or Transitional Period establishment of the Itzas at Cetelac and Chichen Itza (see footnote 11), is apparently recorded in the Chumayel passage beginning with “Zubinche, Kaua … “ on page 72, preceding the Hunac Ceel episode narrated on page 75.

14 See Roys, op. cit., p. 84.

15 Ibid., pp. 83–84.

16 Cf. the appellation of the early or pre-Mexican Period Itzas as the “holy men,” in the Chronicle of Mani, previously cited.

17 I.e., by the Itza priests to “us,” the Itza people? The compiler of the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel identifies himself further on (op. cit., p. 119) as a “Maya Itza.“

18 Cf. ibid., p. 169; also Antonio Chi, in his 1579–1581 account, reconstructed and translated by the writer in his book, p. 95, Sees. 1–2, 4a-4c (4c: “It is said that the first settlers of Chichen Itza were not idolaters until Kukulcan, a Mexican captain, entered these parts, who taught [them] idolatry“).

19 By the end of the period, however, the Itzas appear to have regained the rulership (as indicated by the Maya title Chac-xib Chac of the city's ruler in the war with Hunac Ceel and his “Mexican” mercenaries of Mayapan, and also by the latest sculptures of the period, which depict more frequently the Old Empire Maya physical type), either by absorption of their first “Mexican” conquerors or by a political coup. This was too late, however, to restore the ancient culture, except in a decadent form.

20 Book of Chilam Balam of Tirimin, cited by Roys, op. cit., p. 169, footnote 1. The term is also applied of course to the Spaniards.

21 I.e., evidently the party of Nacxit Xuchit or Quetzalcoatl and his companions, that of the “Mexican” mercenaries of Hunac Ceel, and that of the foreign mercenaries (Ah Canul) said by Landa to have been brought over by the last Cocom ruler of Mayapan; cf. p. 115 of the present source, where “the enemies” who introduced “heresy” among the Chichen Itzas are said to have brought force to bear on them and established their “religious festival” among them three times.

22 I.e., the teachings of the Spaniards show the falsity of the “words” or sinful and idolatrous teachings first promulgated by Nacxit Xuchit and his companions, the particular “foreigners to the land” before the arrival of the foreign Spaniards.

23 See pp. 64, footnote 38; 65, footnote 39; and 171–173 of the writer's work.

24 This is supported by the fact, noted by Thompson (op. cit., footnote 1, p. 9), that architectural elements and constructions of the Mexican Period are also found in these buildings.