The archaeological site of Chichén Itzá is not only one of the best known Maya sites in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, it reflects political change in the contrasting styles of two kinds of architecture: the delicate, elaborate roof combs of Chichen's Puuc founders and, 250 years later, the straight martial lines of her Toltec invaders.
Perfectly Puuc: Puuc House at Chichén Itzá. Photo by Leonardo Palotta
Chichén Itzá [Chee CHEN Eeet ZA] was built by the Puuc (pronounced Pook) Maya emigrants into northern Yucatan peninsula from the southern Yucatan about 700 AD. The architecture associated with the Puuc is lacy and filigreed, with these elaborate roof combs illustrated on the little house shown in the above illustration. About 950 AD, a new style appeared at Chichén Itzá, along with the people who brought it: the Toltec, entering into Chichén Itzá during their empire-building push from Tula.
The 20-stop Walking Tour of Chichén Itzá includes several Toltec and Puuc houses, a glimpse at the Tzompantli or Wall of Skulls, the interior of a sweat bath, the great Ball Court and Temple of the Jaguars, and a peer into the mysterious green waters of the sacred cenote.
The architecture is a fascinating artifact of what was an enormous cultural shift at Chichén Itzá during what archaeologists call the late post classic period in precolumbian Mexico. Oh, go ahead. Take a look and see if you can't learn to spot the architectural flair of the Maya and their conquerors and amaze your friends and family when you finally get down there to visit.
- A Walking Tour of Chichén Itzá
- Chichén Itzá (Mexico), a brief history
- More on the Maya Civilization
Note: I confess: I wrote this old walking tour of Chichén Itzá several years ago. Since reposting it this week, I discovered via a faithful reader that scholars are no longer convinced that the "Totally Toltec" architectural elements were derived from an actual occupation of Chichén Itzá by Toltecs from Tula, but rather represent an adoption of the Tula style by the leaders of Chichén. One source I've discovered on that is called Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the epiclassic to early postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham and published by Dumbarton Oaks in 2007. At some point I will get enough reading completed to update this walking tour, but in the meantime, bear in mind that the interpretations of any archaeological site are subject to changes in the scholarly world. That's how science works.
Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the epiclassic to early postclassic Mesoamerican World, listing at Dumbarton Oaks.
Comments
Chichen Itza was never invaded by Toltecs. This is an old idea that no longer is supported. Ringle and others rather suggest that the site became part of a “Epiclassic world religion” focusing on the “Quetzalcoatl cult”. This would be the explanation of why Tula and Chichen share some similar architectural features. In some cases they are actually older at Chichen and this site is way larger than Tula itself. Both sites may have been a “tollan” (a great metropolis). Some archaeologists suggest that the Toltecs have never existed as such but rather is a later Aztec mixture of the people preceding them and the older site of Teotihuacan. The original Tollan would then have been Teotihuacan rather than Tula.
Really! How interesting. Please pass along some references so I can get up to date on this finding!
Thanks!
Kris
Aha, I’ve found some stuff and will do some reading and update this old Walking Tour. Thanks for the note!
Kris
I would also suggest:
TWIN CITY TALES
by Lindsay Jones
University Press of Colorado
1995
As a participant in the Dumbarton Oaks Mesa Redonda that led to the book Twin Tollans, I beg to differ with Johan. The debate is far from over, especially now that we have considerably earlier c-14 dates at Tula than before. In fact, the evidence is moving in the opposite direction of what most Mayanists have wished to believe. And, I wish David Morgan the best in reading Lindsay Jones’ book. I found it utterly incomprehensible, as I stated in my review of it in the American Anthropologist a few years ago.
Dick