Why go
This guide helps make sense of uncertain dates and rulers encountered around the site. Buildings and pottery show long-term change, inscriptions emphasize elite acts, and later chronicles preserve memories shaped by different authors and purposes. Comparing them prevents one source from carrying more weight than it can bear.
The full story
Three broad kinds of evidence inform the history of Chichen Itza. Archaeological work examines buildings, burials, pottery, surface finds and the layout of the city. Such material traces were not written to praise a ruler, yet survival and excavation favor some activities over others. Pottery may reveal occupation where a named political event leaves no physical trace. Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions are closer in time to many events they describe. They are selective, however: leaders commissioned texts about themselves, their kin and deeds they wanted remembered. The known dated inscriptions also cover only a limited span, so they cannot supply a continuous history. Maya and Spanish texts written after the conquest offer another perspective. Village scribes, clergy and officials worked in different settings and for different purposes, often centuries after the events under discussion. Apparent contradictions among the three groups need to be weighed against those differences. A confident date or simple story of conquest may rest on a later interpretation rather than on one direct record.