A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the hands of a person with a personal agenda or a particular theory to promote. This is especially true of people who write popular articles about ancient Mexico. In a recent magazine article the author advanced the theory that the Spaniards forced thousands of Indians to bury the pyramids and other stone monuments of the Maya with dirt. The theory is apparently based on the writer's observation that small artifacts in and around the archaeological site of Chichen Itza in Yucatan are not covered by dirt, whereas Maya pyramids and large stone structures have to be excavated by archaeologists. The writer asks how we know that the Maya civilization ‘disappeared' 500 years or so earlier than the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors in Yucatan. And why should we trust Spanish records or archaeologists on this point? Are they hiding something from us?
The writer says that it is recorded that the Spaniards burned ‘tons' of books, of which supposedly only three are left. First no one ever claimed that the Spaniards burned tons of books. We do know that Bishop Landa and others destroyed many pre-Hispanic Maya codices as the work of the Devil. Secondly, why supposedly? There is no doubt whatever about the survival of four (not three) pre-Hispanic Maya codices. The writer goes on to ask how these ‘tons of books' survived in the jungle 500 years after the Maya disappeared, but not the people or their culture. This implies that there were no Maya or remains of their culture upon the arrival of the Spaniards, which is obviously untrue because the author himself speculates that the Spaniards may have spent 200 years forcing the people to bury the ‘structures of the civilization' that the Spaniards were busy plundering at the time.
The writer claims to do a lot of reading but admits a lack of concrete documentation and begs the indulgence of the reader as to the proposed theory. The reader may well ask how the author can seriously offer a valid theory without even considering the evidence already available in the form of archaeological sites and documentation. This lack of basic research leads the writer into other similar speculations. For example, we are also taught, says the writer, that the Maya had no concept of the wheel; and yet their calendar, which predicts the end of the world in 2012, is round, just like a wheel. First, the Maya calendar does not predict the end of the world in A.D. 2012. That is the interpretation that people have read in to it in recent times. Secondly, what has the shape of the Calendar got to do with the presence or absence of the wheel in pre-Hispanic Mexico? Later on the writer, in support of the proposed theory, claims that with basic math we can estimate how many shovels and carts would be needed to cover up the pyramids. But how many carts and shovels have actually been found in archaeological sites in Mesoamerica? The reference to carts assumes what the writer has not proved, viz. that the Maya knew and made use of the wheel.
Based on the observation that old statues, stone structures, etc. around Chichen Itza are not covered with dirt, the writer asks why the large structures are covered with dirt when there would seem to be little accumulation of dirt in the jungle. The writer's answer: the Spaniards spent several hundred years forcing the Indians to cover them up, apparently on the grounds that conquerors sometimes try to obliterate and rewrite the history of a conquered people.
There are several immediate objections to the theory. First, the tall pyramids at Tikal were covered with jungle vegetation and trees as well as dirt when they were first excavated. If they had been purposely covered with dirt, the surrounding pile of dirt would have been massive in order to hide the pyramids whereas in fact the bare tops of the pyramids when first discovered could be seen rising above the engulfing jungle. Secondly, other large stone monuments, such as the temple of Quetzalcoatl at Xochicalco, were in more open areas and not covered with dirt.
As for the motivation for burying the ‘structures of the civilization' that the Spanish were plundering, looting, and murdering? (How do you ‘murder' a stone structure?), the writer quotes a letter from a Spanish priest around 1700 who wrote, "If the World knew what we were doing here, they would destroy us." The writer says that this letter was written at a time when the ‘Mexican Empire' of the Spaniards was closed off for some 200 years and very few people were allowed in or out, and consequently information was hard to come by in this part of the New World. However, the implication that the Spaniards were trying to hide their actions from the outside world does not seem to follow from the quoted letter. The Spanish rulers knew full well what their priests and soldiers were doing in the New World. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella sent soldiers and missionaries specifically to claim new lands, bring gold and other treasure back to Spain, and convert the natives to Christianity. The Spanish missionaries and soldiers had nothing to hide and no reason to force thousands of Indians to bury the stone buildings and other monuments. Moreover, the Spaniards were nothing if not good administrators. During the Colonial Period they kept copious records and sent regular reports back to Spain concerning conversions, land claims, and various administrative matters involved in ruling the territory. They had no reason to worry about public opinion.
Using basic math, the writer claims, we can determine roughly not only how many people lived in Mexico at the time of the arrival of Cortes but also estimate how many shovels, carts, etc. would be needed to cover up the pyramids. First, how does basic math help us determine the population of the New World upon the arrival of the Spaniards? Estimates by Mesoamerican specialists vary widely, depending on the criteria used in the estimate. Using these ‘estimates', the writer concludes that a massive labor force could cover up most of the structures in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala. In support of the theory the writer points out that it has taken archaeologists a long time to ‘unbury' these massive structures, presumably because of the stupendous efforts of the Spaniards to bury them in the first place. But there is no evidence that the Spaniards ever took the time or trouble to cover up a pyramid or a monumental structure. They had more effective ways to destroy native architecture than by covering the material remains with dirt. The destruction of Tenochtitlan after the Conquest in 1521 is proof of that. Further, by using the term unbury the writer has assumed (without proof) that the Spaniards spent 200 years deliberately burying the ruins of Classic Maya civilization.
As one small clue to the theory the writer quotes the following from an English Lord: "The purpose of Archaeology, since the year 1852, is to hide the truth from the public." The writer then asks if the Universities and Museums funded by government grants, etc. are in fact lying to the public. We are not told who the English Lord is or his qualifications for making this statement; nor are we enlightened as to the significance of year 1852. Presumably, the ‘truth; to which this gentleman was referring is the (supposed) later cover-up by academics concerning the (alleged) disappearance of the Maya. The writer apparently thinks it possible that Maya civilization was in full flower when Cortes arrived in 1519.
The aim of archaeology is to discover the facts about the past, not cover up the truth. What possible motive would archaeologists have for hiding the truth about the decline and fall of Classic Maya civilization? Besides, there is far too much evidence available now to hide anything from a serious researcher. The writer in question appears to have confused Classic Maya civilization, which ended around A.D. 900, with the Yucatecan Maya the Spaniards encountered when they first arrived. There are several theories regarding the collapse of the Classic Maya. In any case the Maya did not vanish. They were there when the Spaniards entered Yucatan and they have survived in large numbers to the present day.
Pseudo-archaeologists, on the other hand, complain that non-academics are barred by the ‘establishment' from research or from giving their opinions because they don't want the public to know the truth. The pseudo-archaeologist also claims to have a unique theory or new information that is not available to anyone else. However, they use established evidence in a non-scientific or illogical way to prove a point and in the process go far beyond the evidence itself, as Von Daniken did when he proposed that the Well of Sacrifice at Chichen Itza was in fact a launching pad for a space ship.
With all the sources of information available no one has a monopoly on knowledge. But if you are going to write on the ancient Maya at least do your homework before publishing it. Start with a standard reference book on the Maya, such as The Ancient Maya (ed. Morley, Brainerd, & Sharer, Stanford University Press, 4th edition, 1983). Then ask yourself if you have anything worthwhile to add. The moral of the story is: if you listen long and hard enough eventually you can hear the grass grow.
