How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya

Since the ancient Maya have been added to the Key Stage 2 national curriculum for History (non-European Study) in the UK, there’s been a ‘mushrooming’ of online resources covering the topic, most of which are incorrect.

Here are 10 tell-tale signs that expose unknowledgeable sources.

1. The term ‘Mayan’ is used instead of ‘Maya’

Stucco frieze from Placeres, Campeche

The term ‘Mayan’ is ubiquitously used by ill-informed sources: ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids’, ‘Mayan civilisation’…

All Maya specialists – and for that matter, all non-specialists who’ve read a book or two on the ancient Maya, know that the right word is Maya.

Their calendar is called the ‘Maya calendar’, their civilisation is called the ‘Maya civilisation’, their art is called ‘Maya art’…

The only time you should use the adjective ‘Mayan’ is when you are talking about their languages, the ‘Mayan languages’.

So, if you see ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids, ‘Mayan art’, ‘Mayan civilisation’, etc., on a publication (website or magazine), you can be sure the person who wrote the article knows little about the ancient Maya.

2. The image of the Aztec calendar stone is presented as the Maya calendar

Unscrupulous sources will use the ‘Sun Stone’ to illustrate texts about the Maya calendar.

Unfortunately, the famous sculpture is Aztec, not Maya.

Using the ‘Sun Stone’ to talk about Maya calendar system is like using photos of Big Ben, which was completed in 1859, to illustrate time keeping in ancient Rome!

And yes I have even seen this image adorning the front cover of books on the Maya! 

This leads nicely onto point 3-

3. The Maya are identified as Aztecs

Map of Mesoamerica

This confusion is very common, but the truth is the Aztecs were very different to the Maya. They spoke a different language and had a different writing system.

Also, the Maya civilisation began at least 1500 years before the Aztecs.

The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan is as far away from the great Maya site of Tikal as London is from Milan, Italy!

Stating the Maya were the same as the Aztecs, is basically saying that all Europeans are the same, having the same language, culture and beliefs…

Would you like to see an image of Stonehenge on the front cover of a book on the French? I think not!

Then we get the Egyptians

4. Maya pyramids are said to be similar to Egyptian pyramids

I am afraid not!

Firstly, the ancient Maya and ancient Egyptians lived during different time periods. The time of pyramid building in Egypt was around 2000 years earlier than the earliest Maya pyramid.

Secondly, Egyptian pyramids have a different shape and function to those of the Maya.

Maya pyramids are not actually pyramidal.  They have a polygonal base, but their four faces do not meet at a common point like Egyptian pyramids. Maya pyramids were flat and often had a small room built on top.

Pyramids in Egypt were used as tombs for the dead rulers, for the Maya though, the pyramids were mainly used for ceremonies carried out on top and watched from below.

Lastly, they were built differently. Maya pyramids were built in layers; each generation would build a bigger structure over the previous one. Egyptian pyramids, on the other hand, were designed and built as a single edifice.

5. It is claimed that the Maya mysteriously disappeared in the 10th century AD


Uninformed sources talk about the ‘mysterious’ disappearance of the ancient Maya around the 10th century AD., which mislead people to think that the Maya disappeared forever

Firstly, the Maya did not disappear. Around 8 million Maya are still living today in various countries of Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador and Honduras); in fact half of the population of Guatemala is Maya.

Although they do not build pyramids like the ancient Maya did, modern Maya still wear similar dress, follow similar rituals and some use the ancient Maya calendar. I am sure they would all like to assure you that they have definitely not disappeared!

We know now that what is called the ‘Classic Maya Collapse’  was actually a slow breakdown, followed by a reconstruction of a number of political, economical and cultural structures in the Maya society.

Archaeologists see cities being abandoned over the course of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, and people travelling north into the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) building great cities such as Mayapan, which was occupied up until the 15th century.

Secondly, there was nothing mysterious about it! A number of associated factors were at play.

There was a severe drought in the rainforest area that lasted decades, so people moved north where water sources were more easily available. The competition between warring factions and cities for natural resources led to increased warfare, which in turn, led to the breakdown of trade networks.

All this was likely exacerbated by political and economical changes in Central Mexico.

So, very much like the French did not disappear after the French Revolution, although they stopped building castles and political, economical and cultural changes occurred in the French society, the Maya did not mysteriously disappear around the 10th century.

6. The Maya are portrayed as blood-thirsty sacrifice-loving psychos

Apocalypto movie 1

The Maya are often portrayed in the media and popular culture as blood-thirsty (see for example Mel Gibson’s 2006 Apocalypto), so the commonly accepted -and oft-repeated- idea is that the Maya carried out many sacrifices.

Actually, there is barely any trace of sacrifice in the archaeological record of the Maya area. The rare evidence comes from pictorial representations on ceramics and sculpture.

Warfare amongst the Maya was actually much less bloody than ours. No, they did not use a real skull as a ball in their ballgame and no, not all the players were put to death!

In warfare, they did capture and kill opponents, but it was on a small-scale. Rulers boasted of being “He of five captives” or “He of the three captives”.

The heart sacrifices that were recorded by the Spanish chroniclers were those of the Aztecs.

It is also important to keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors had many incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages.

It made conquest and enslavement easier to justify (see the Valladolid Debate) so many stories were exaggerated.

And who are we to judge when we used to have public spectacles of people being hanged or having their heads chopped off and placed on spikes on London Bridge!

7. The ancient Maya predicted that the world would end on 21 December 2012

2012 Movie

The 2012 phenomenon was a range of beliefs that cataclysmic events would trigger the end of our world on 21st December.

This date was regarded as the end-date of approximately a 5,128-year-long cycle in the Maya Long Count calendar and it was said that the ancient Maya had prophesied the event.

This is not true and all Maya people today and Maya specialists know this!

Very much like on 31st December 1999 people in the Christian world celebrated the end of a century and of a millennium (although technically it was ending only on 31 December 2000), on 21st December 2012 a great cycle of the Maya Long Count -the 13th b’ak’tun– was to end. A b’ak’tun is the equivalent of 394 years.

Only two Maya monuments –Tortuguero Monument 6 and La Corona Hieroglyphic Stairway 12– mention the end of the 13th b’ak’tun. None of them contains any speculation or prophecy as to what would happen at that time.

While the end of the 13th b’ak’tun would perhaps be a cause for celebration, the next day the Maya believed that a new cycle -the 14th b’ak’tun- would begin, much like our New Year’s Eve. 

In fact, in the Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque, where we find the tomb of King Pakal, it was written that in AD 4772 the people would be celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of their new King Pakal!

8. The Maya are described as primitive people

Apocalypto Movie 2

The Maya created an incredible civilization in the rainforest where it is extremely humid, with an arrray of bugs, dangerous animals and little water.

There they built spectacular temples and palaces without the use of metal tools, the wheel, or any pack animals, such as the donkey, ox or elephant.

The Maya were the only civilization in the whole of the Americas to develop a complete writing system like ours.

They were only one of two cultures in the world to develop the zero in their number system and so were able to make advanced calculations and became great astronomers.

The Maya were extremely advanced in painting and making sculptures, they played the earliest team sport in the world and most importantly, for me anyway, is that we have the ancient Maya to thank for chocolate!

So no, they were definitely not primitive!

The problem with this view of the ancient Maya is that their achievements are then explained by the help of extra-terrestrial beings or other civilisations.

9. The great achievements of the Maya are thanks to the Olmecs

San Lorenzo Monument 3

The Olmecs refer to an earlier culture located along the Gulf coast of Mexico.

The myth of the Olmecs being a ‘mother culture’ for the Maya and other cultures in Mesoamerica has been questioned over 20 years ago and long been put to rest. 

Excavations have shown that there were many other cultures, other than the Olmec living in Mesoamerica before the Maya and rather than a ‘mother culture’ we should be looking at ‘sister cultures’ all influencing each other.

Furthermore, Maya achievements in hieroglyphic writing and calendrics, which no other culture in Mesoamerica had seen or used, indicate that they were much more innovators than adopters.

So, if the resource mentions the above, then it is obvious that they are not specialists and are using redundant information written over 20 years ago. 

10. Chichen Itza is used as the quintessential Maya site

Chichen Itza

Chichen Itza was inhabited quite late during the Maya time period, about 1400 years after the first Maya city and is not purely Maya.

The city was quite cosmopolitan and greatly influenced by Central Mexico, particularly the Toltecs, who may have lived there.

Therefore, its architecture and art, such as the ‘chacmools‘ or the ‘tzompantli‘ (aka ‘skull-racks’) actually are Central Mexican, not Maya.

A much better example of a typical Maya city would be Tikal, which was occupied for more than 1500 years.

So, if all you see on a website is Chichen Itza, chances are this is not a reliable source of information about the ancient Maya.

Want to learn the real story behind the ancient Maya?

Maya schoolgirl

I have written detailed information about all aspects of the Maya world, which will be really useful for schools.  I have produced with teachers, who came on an CPD trip with me to the Maya area, lesson plans, slides and other media, which are freely available in this section.  Calendar converters, mythbusters, arts and crafts activities and quizzes for children are also included.

There is information on the Maya rainforest which can be used in the geography curriculum, as well as working as an archaeologist in such an environment.

For the public I have written detailed articles on the main areas that can cause confusion such as Maya writing, the calendar, and maths. I have also included papers on the Maya written whilst undergoing postgraduate research.

Finally, if you would like to help Maya children in receiving education, medicine, food and clothing, visit Chok Education, a UK charity.

*This blog has been translated into French by Anthrostory.

35 responses to “How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya”

  1. Eric says:

    Lovely piece, thank you for demystifying and arming people with some salvo to demystify what is all too common quasi-mystical mumbo jumbo found online.

  2. Chad Richardson says:

    Thanks for the clarifications. The only one I question is the first–Maya vs. Mayan. That sounds more like political correctness among anthropologists (who believe they get to pick the terms) rather than anything specific to the Maya themselves.

    But very helpful.

    • Diane Davies says:

      Dear Chad,

      Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. In regards to your “Mayan/Maya” comment, my article is specifically about spotting people/resources who don’t know much about the Maya but pretend to be experts. Using the adjective is a big red flag because experts wouldn’t use it (except
      for the languages). In addition, anthropologists didn’t particularly pick it up, it’s just “usage”. You don’t call the
      British “Britishians” or the English “Englians”. It’s not being politically correct, it’s just being correct to call the Maya “Maya” not

  3. I am sure you had to leave out many deserving red flags, but one that bothers me is the misuse of the word “glyph,” usually referring to a whole stela or inscribed panel. A glyph is a single hieroglyph. Or, less correctly, a glyph-block, which is a roughly square form composed of one or more glyphs (usually two or three), which comprise a single word. For example, the word for “jaguar” is Balam, which was sometimes spelled ba-la-ma. When spelling “jaguar,” these three glyphs almost always cling together into a single block.
    I wouldn’t mind a bit if you mentioned my books, “Reading the Maya Glyphs” and “2012: Science and Prophecy of the Ancient Maya.”
    The latter is one of only four books about the 2012 “Prophecies” which you can trust. This, among almost four *thousand* books that appeared *in print* in the years leading up to 2012 (never mind the websites!)
    I was shocked and amazed to see how credulous and illogical the 3900 other authors were. How could readers not see the holes in their logic, and accept without question these total fantasies?
    We tend to project our dreams and nightmares onto whatever is mysterious and unknown; I call this the “Here be Dragons” fantasy. The Maya are still “mysterious.” As long as we know so little about them, we shall continue to project onto them.

    • Diane Davies says:

      Thank you for you comments Mark. Actually, I have been advertising your work in all my teacher workshops (including your 2012 book), particularly the short videos you have which are great for children. Also, your “Reading the Maya Glyphs” book has been long on my website for recommended reading and is mentioned in all my classes, a really useful book.

  4. Ellis says:

    The study of the Maya along with conteporary Maya should be taught to the native inhabitants. There are so many misconceptions and it is only right that we as natives learn our culture so that as tour guides or trainers we can dispel some of these myths and falsehood within our country.

    • Diane Davies says:

      Thank you for your comment Ellis, much appreciated. The book that I have just published “A journey through the Maya world” mentions many of these myths and I presented to schools in both Guatemala and Belize this Spring about this, of which they were really appreciative. It is going to be translated into Spanish and later I am hoping in Kaqchikel

  5. Walt Bernacki says:

    I just love your summary. We “civilized” people of the 21st Century enjoy lumping people together based on misinformation.

  6. Steph Strauss says:

    This is a great post, and a wonderful resource to help steer students away from questionable (let’s face it, mostly online) sources. I am wary of the following, however: “[f]urthermore, Maya achievements in hieroglyphic writing and calendrics, which no other culture in Mesoamerica had seen or used, indicate that they were much more innovators than adopters.” You don’t have to be a “Mother Culture” hold-out (or even a champion of the Cascajal Block or San Jose Mogote Monument 3) to admit that the Zapotec and Epi-Olmec scripts likely developed without Maya influence. Indeed, archaeologists have yet to find a Long Count date from the Lowland Maya region that pre-dates the Cycle-7 monuments known from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the southern Highlands.

    • Diane Davies says:

      Hi Steph,

      I agree with your comment completely, I am not saying at all that the Maya influenced Zapotec and Epi-Olmec scripts, rather the Maya didn’t receive all their knowledge from the Olmecs. As mentioned, the ‘sister culture’ model is more appropriate. I am also, as you saw, being very pro-Maya here as there is much misinformation about them in the UK. It is a subject that has not been taught before, but in recent years it has been added to the Primary Curriculum and teachers need help!

  7. Mandy says:

    Great article, but it worries me as part of teaching is letting pupils do their own research and there are so many inaccurate websites and books being produced for KS2 teaching and so few accurate ones that their is little to teach with. HELP!!!

    • Diane Davies says:

      Hi Mandy,

      Yes, it is a problem, although this is what the pupils could research – it is important for children know that not everything you read on the internet is correct and they need to look at where the resource comes from, all part of historical enquiry. With that said, under my teacher resource section on my website I list all the websites that I have found that are accurate, so the children are welcome to use these. Also under the pupil section I have included information on the Maya as well as how to pronounce Mayan words, myths about the Maya and quizzes for the children to do. I have just released a book for schools on the Maya and a detailed scheme of work with media resources will be available for free on my website in September. This scheme of work has been created by myself and a group of teachers who came on a CPD session with me to the Maya area this year. Finally, both yourself and the children can always check with me about a resource or query – I have a dedicated area on my website where children can ask me questions. I hope this goes some way to alleviating the frustration!

  8. Jim Maffie says:

    Thanks very much for this. I enjoyed your informative and highly useful piece.

  9. […] mentioned in a previous blog post – How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya – the Maya seem to get a raw deal when it comes to the study of ancient […]

  10. […] Here are 10 tell-tale signs that expose unknowledgeable KS2 History resources about the Maya  […]

  11. […] coup, quand je suis tombĂ© sur l’article « How to spot untrustworthy resources on the Maya« , avec dix points trĂšs prĂ©cis pour faire un premier triage des sources, j’ai […]

  12. […] NB: specialists say “Maya calendar” and not “Mayan calendar” (see: 10 red-flags for spotting an unreliable online resources). […]

  13. Susan says:

    What a pleasure to find this webpage. I just visited Belize for the first time and that spurred me into learning more, much more, about the ancient and modern Maya than the pitiful smattering I already had. I’ve already hit the library for the opening round of books. As for the anarchic internet, your guidance on b.s. detection is much appreciated!

  14. furtdsolinopv says:

    Admiring the dedication you put into your blog and in depth information you offer. It’s nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed material. Fantastic read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  15. Kate Young says:

    As someone who has been adopted from Guatemala and recently took a DNA test to find out I’m 93% of maya descendant I enjoyed reading your blog.

  16. Siana May says:

    In am A student studying the Maya civilisation, and I found out A lot of helpful things on this website .But I have seen many untrustworthy websites, heck, my TEACHER CALLS IT THE MAYAN CIVILISATION!She her information should be trustworthy, right?

    • Diane Davies says:

      This is much misunderstanding about the Maya civilisation and many online resources are incorrect. Perhaps, you should tell your teacher that you found a useful website on the Maya and can direct her to it?

  17. Laurent T says:

    I am disagreeing with the point number 6.
    “Actually, there is barely any trace of sacrifice in the archaeological record of the Maya area. The rare evidence comes from pictorial representations on ceramics and sculpture.”
    This is not true: among other things, there are bodies that were found in cenotes – mostly children that were sacrificed. In quite a few ruler/ajaw tombs, bodies also can be found that were killed, most probably to accompany the ajaw in his death.
    That the Maya sacrifices are limited, in comparison to the Aztecs, yes. But to portray the Mayas as some kind of Greeks of the New World mostly focused on sciences and not practicing any kind of bloody ritual would be a mistake.

    “It is also important to keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors had many incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages.
    It made conquest and enslavement easier to justify (see the Valladolid Debate) so many stories were exaggerated.”
    Again, I disagree. A quick check on words such as “salvaje” or “barbaro” shows that most chronicles and works from the XVIth century rarely use these.
    CortĂ©s, Diaz del Castillo, Sahagun, Oviedo, Motolinia, Cieza de Leon. I found these words used 5 times – that is the higher number, for Oviedo. And, most of the time, when “barbaro” or “salvaje” is used, it is only for a specific event (CortĂ©s – only in his first letter by the way – or Diaz del Castillo), or for a specific indian population (Oviedo, Sahagun). A population that is, by definition, barbaric: the Chichimecas – as you probably know, the “chichi” sound has, like the “barbar” that we use, a rumbling, bestial connotation.
    The example you give of the Valladolid debate is actually the answer to the problem, opposing BartolomĂ© de Las Casas to Juan GinĂ©s de SepĂșlveda. But Juan GinĂ©s de SepĂșlveda never visited America. Fact is, the idea of the Indian as a savage is basically an idea that is European. Not American. Not from the conquistadores. If needed, the children of CortĂ©s, Alvarado, and many others prove it: the indigenous are not savages to them.
    That question is purely European, and Montaigne, I believe, gave one of the best answers to it. “All this does
    not sound very ill, and the last was not at all amiss, for they wear no breeches.”

    • Diane Davies says:

      Dear Laurent, Thank you for your comments. The reason why I wrote the blog was because in the UK I am always asked about the bloody sacrifice of the Maya over and above everything else. So I am trying to address the balance. I am not saying that the Maya never carried out sacrifice – of course in the 2,500 years of their history sacrifice was carried out but actually it was quite rare – it was not to the extreme that is popularised in the media.

      I am a bit confused by the second part of your question as you state that the idea of the Maya being savages is European and not American – this is exactly what I am saying – you mention not from the conquistadors but the conquistadors were from Spain, that we now seen as part of Europe.

      • Laurent T says:

        Well, that would be the question of modern time Mesoamerica; who does it start with? Indians, conquistadores, or their children?
        And I tend to believe that conquistadores, for a substantial part of them, already write from what is an American perspective. They even claim it, as they want to live, marry, work, or die and be buried in America.
        Again, CortĂ©s is a stunning example: his coat of arms that includes a Nahua symbol, the wish to have his body in Mexico, or the failed coup from his children…
        Also, many of the conquistadores spent most of their lives in America, as for example it is written in the list from Gonzalo Cerezo and AndrĂ©s de Tapia (1558) of over 200 names of conquistadores (the ones from the 1519 expedition) and their children living in Mexico. Some of them commonly use nicknames in Nahuatl, to the point that born in Spain, they become more famous with these new names – i.e. Motolinia.
        The article indicates that “the Spanish Conquistadors had many incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages”.
        But they don’t, as they almost never use such descriptions, or, when words as “salvaje” or “barbaro” are used, it is never for a generality that would apply to the Indians.
        Yes, many conquistadores are from Spain (or at least from Europe), but Spaniards are not all conquistadores. And that is my point: the most common use of the image of Indians as savajes is a construction, partly due to Christian authorities, but almost entirely due to Europeans. Europeans that did not travel to the New World for most of them (the first example that comes to my mind is, again, Juan GinĂ©s de SepĂșlveda). As it is also with Montaigne when he writes “Of moderation”, “Of cannibals”,… (using the word “savages” 18 times!)

    • enkivera says:

      Hi, Laurent, I am impressed about your knowledge but you are missing that the Chichimeca were the Aztecs’ fathers and have nothing to do with Maya. The word is Nahuatl and ChiChi means 1. dog, but the ancient mexican dogs were small and did not bark, they were used only as food or guides after death; 2. tit, breast, suck, suckle, it is because nursing babies or milk were also called chi. the repetition chi-chi means that at least you find them as a pair, cannot find it only one, as cocoa or cacahuate. So chichi is related to food and motherhood, not to barbaro/salvaje and I do not believe that you mean salvaje because the baby is not yet educated.

  18. Frank Menusan says:


    • Diane Davies says:

      Thank you so much for your comments. I am going to be writing more in-depth articles on each misunderstanding over the summer so stay tuned!

  19. AjMaar says:

    Thank you so much for dispelling the myths surrounding the Maya culture. I am a Maya-Q’eqchi’ myself and get quite offended when people provide misleading information.

  20. alberto says:

    thank you for this interesting article

Leave a Reply

© 2024 Maya Archaeologist Ltd | All Rights Reserved | Manage consent