Through the jungle and over the seas, Maya transportation technology systems enabled the movement of trade goods and materials over the roads of the Maya domain and to distant ports in the seas engulfing the Yucatán Peninsula. The transport systems of the Maya operated on raw manpower for transporting material between cities, building construction projects, and powering their seagoing cargo vessels. The lack of indigenous working animals in the Americas was overcome by Maya creativity. They innovatively applied manpower as an efficient substitute for animal power. Ingenious methods of manpowered transport systems on land and at sea enabled the Maya civilization to succeed and prosper during the Classic Period and beyond the conquest.
At the end of the Pleistocene Era (2,000,000 to 10,000 years ago), North and South America were populated with a wide variety of animals that have now gone extinct. The majority of the now-vanished species were large mammals, known as megafauna. The extinct animals were massive beasts, including the 20,000-pound mastodon, 6-foot-tall giant ground sloths, sabre-tooth tigers, 10-foot-tall short faced bear, and a range of other exotic animals. They included creatures that originally evolved in North America including equus, the modern horse, and camelops, the modern camel. The herds of these species had split into two groups. The Northern band migrated west across the Bering land bridge and the other traveled south into North America. The northern bands of horses and camels migrated to Siberia and then across Asia. These animals became domesticated and supplied the power and transportation for all the great civilizations of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The southern herds remained in North America and were victims of mass extinction at the end of the last Ice Age. Their demise deprived the Americas of beasts of burden. The majority of this extinction had occurred when man migrated to the continent. After the extinction, a great number of megafauna, defined as any animal more than 100 pounds in weight, survived to the 21st century. These include deer, bears, cougars, moose, alligators, and humans. The largest extant American land animal is the bison, which can weigh up to 2,200 pounds.
Humans migrating to the American continent found poor candidates for beasts of burden. It is interesting to point out the irony in the humor of Mother Nature. She sent herds of indigenous horses and camels from the Americans into Asia, where they served as the power source for the great conquering empires, and then, in the Americas, she extinguished the life of these same animals. When next seen in the Americas, the horse had a Spanish conquistador on its back.
The Classic Maya never became aware of Mother Nature’s practical joke played on the Americas. The Holocene extinction had erased all of the animals that could potentially be domesticated and used as beasts of burden. The Maya were not aware of the very existence of such an animal. Wild animals lack the traits of trustworthiness and mild temper that characterize the true domesticated working animal, and they cannot be tamed. However, the Maya were successful in the domestication of certain animals, including the dog, and animals with agriculture applications such as turkeys, ducks, and stingless bee.
In South America, llamas and alpacas were domesticated, in addition to guinea pigs. The llama used as a pack animal can carry up to 65 pounds. A Maya porter could transport more than 120 pounds. Feeding the llama requires a total of 8.8 pounds of corn a day whereas a Maya porter only requires 2 pounds per day of corn. The Maya used their creativity too find a feasible substitute for animal power. The alternate solution was a plentiful and economical source of kinetic energy: Maya manpower.
Along with being referred to as a Stone Age culture, archaeologists cast Maya technology in a negative light when they state that the civilization did not understand the concept of the wheel for transport. As the Maya culture progressed, hunter, and gatherers turned into farmers, and the need for powered transport increased. The need for power supply then ramped up with the rise of villages, towns, and cities. Maya farmers and technicians developed methods of using manpower to supply the kinetic energy to lift, transport, and mobilize loads required for the implementation of agriculture, construction, and transportation.
So if the Maya technicians were so intelligent, say doubters, why did they not use a wheeled vehicle for transport? Examples of small toys with wheels with axels crafted by Maya are exhibited in museums. Then why was this important invention not used in the fabrication and use of wheeled vehicles for transport? First consider that, because of the lack of dray animals, the only source of kinetic energy available for the Maya was manpower supplied by their own workforce. To take advantage of the properties of the wheel, the construction of a wheeled wagon or cart would be required. The wagon would be constructed with a trace connected to the front of the vehicle to accommodate men rigged in harnesses. Applying the same energy to weight formula that was used on the large freight wagons pulled by horses or mules in the 19th century to calculate the number of animals required to pull a heavily loaded freight wagon, the number of animals was calculated using the loaded weight of the wagon and the weight of the animals. Each dray animal was considered capable of pulling a load equal to its own weight. The loaded wagon weight divided by the animal’s weight calculated the number of animals needed to pull the wagon. This equation initiated the old expression “pulling their weight.”
The Maya wagon would be fabricated of timber just as the European wagon. Assume, for this example, that the wagon weighted 1,000 pounds and could transport a payload equal to 1,000 pounds. The sum of the load and wagon would be equal to a total of weight 2,000 pounds. Using the standard “pulling their weight” criteria for calculating the number of pulling beasts for a wagon load. The weight of the wagon and load equaled 2,000 pounds and the weight of Maya workforce required were 20 men weighing in at 100 pounds each. Then a total of 20 haulers/pullers weighing a total weight of 2,000 pounds would be required. To equal the weight of the wagon and its load, simplistically it would require 10 men to pull the weight of the cart and 10 men to haul the load. That would be an average of 50 pounds of net payload carried by each 20-man team. Not a very good efficiency rating when Maya technology had developed manpowered transport devices that enabled a porter to transport a load of 125 pounds each. That is a 250-percent advantage over the use of a wheeled transport. It is easy to see the advantage of transport by porter over pulling a manpowered wheeled vehicle. For the Maya, the lack of work animals was the difference between the use of the wheel and the necessity to use manpower for transport.
The Maya developed a man-powered transport device known as the tumpline. This device enabled a single man to carry more than 125 pounds with relative ease. Using the heavy wagon, 20 men could only transport 50 pounds each, or a total of 1,000 pounds, of useful load. On the other hand, 20 porters could transport 2,500 pounds of useful load using a tumpline. In addition to the poor load-carrying capacity of wheeled transport, travel over the rough terrain and muddy jungle tracks made the wagon an overall poor alternate. The tumpline-equipped team could easily negotiate the rough terrain while transporting more than twice the load as a wheeled vehicle. It is apparent that the Maya logically recognized the disadvantage of a wheeled vehicle. The wheel without the use of a heavy, hoofed beast of burden was a negative factor in the economic game plan of the Maya civilization. Pulling the wagon loads required more than twice the kinetic energy per pound compared with a man with a tumpline load. Thus, Maya technology was built around manpower, and utilized its capabilities and advantages in a wide variety of applications. The wheel was not unknown in the Maya world. The circular motif of the wheel was depicted in art and architecture and used on toys, but in the evolution of Maya transportation technology it was a dead-end branch.
The manpowered tumpline was the load-carrying mechanism that moved the Maya economy. The tumpline-equipped bearer transported trade goods, merchandise, and agriculture products, and carried construction material up and into the construction of the superstructure of monumental buildings without beasts of burden.
The tumpline consisted of a leather head strap that was positioned on the top of the head to direct loads from the skull and directly into the spinal column. The ends of the head strap were attached to a 3-foot-long tail or tension strap. The strap was connected to the frame or load container supporting the load. The tails were aligned with the center of the mass of the load to be transported. The head strap then carried the tension loads transmitted from the load to the top of the head.
The tumpline was a simplistic tension-based mechanism that distributed loading from the mass of the burden directly onto the load paths that frame the human body (Figure 11-1). The loads were vectored into the human skeletal structure from the skull, which supported the load, down the spinal column and directly into the pelvic arch, then into the bone systems of the legs and the support system of the feet. This interaction between loads and the human frame optimizes the natural resistance of the structural skeleton and reduces fatigue while minimizing the strain on muscles.
The advantage of the tumpline made the task of transporting material more efficient with the load aligned with the spine rather than being supported by muscles in the shoulders and back. Figure 11-1 details the pattern of load-bearing vectors of the tumpline and the load paths being transferred down through the skeletal system into the roadway surface. To position the tumpline, after placing the tumpline on top of the head, the bearer then leaned forward to balance and align the load, and started his march. The tumpline enabled the bearer with a heavy load to travel along level roadways at a pace of that could cover 15.5 miles (25 kilometers) per day. The pace in rough, rugged terrain would be slower, but a sure-footed porter would travel faster than a beast of burden.
The tumpline was used as a vertical lifter in construction operations, not unlike a modern material elevator. The bearer would place construction material such as stones, concrete, sascab, or soil in a container on his tumpline. The bearer would climb up ladders or scaffolding with the weight of construction material and his tumpline attached to his head, rendering his hands free to safely climb. These cargadores were the teamsters of the Maya culture.
The efficiency of the tumpline aided in moving large quantities of merchandise and materials at a low cost. Using a tumpline, the bearer could carry a load approximately equal to his weight. The ability to carry large loads relative to this small body size and the ability to pace himself was dependent on taking rest stops to regulate his heart rate and energy expenditure. He would rest by sitting his tumpline loads on load-resting platforms called lab. The bearers were multi-disciplined; in addition to being cargo carriers, the tumpline was a transportation device for passengers. A chair was attached to the tumpline of a single bearer. The occupant would sit in the chair facing backward. This type of manpowered transport continued to be used by the elite into the 18th and 19th centuries in Mexico and Central America.
Figure 11-1: Drawing of tumpline indicating distribution of forces from the weight of the load. Author’s image.
Figure 11-2 illustrates a mural at Calakmul that shows a rare view of everyday activities in Maya life. The painting depicts a Maya bearer supporting a large pot filled with goods supported by a tumpline. Note the intricate web of rope placement securing the pot to the tumpline. It is a brilliant study in vectors.
Teams of bearers carried large loads over great distances. They were easier to maintain than beasts of burden. Working animals would require feeding, water, and currying. However, the self-sufficient bearer raised his own food, fed, watered, and curried himself. He was the horse, cart, and stable hand all combined into a single, dynamic package. The tumpline is still employed as a cargo carrier in contemporary Latin America. It is a common sight to observe men, women, and even children carrying loads with tumplines as they travel along rural roads and in markets. Their payloads range from fire wood to packs of merchandise and agriculture products.
The tumpline was an important symbol of load-carrying in Maya culture. It is part of an ancient hieroglyphic symbol representing the burden of each solar year or 365-day Haab year transported by the ancient Maya time lords. The burden of each year is carried on the back by one of the four bearers of time. The burden and responsibility of that year is carried on the back of a time lord and supported by a tumpline stretched across the forehead. The time lord gives that year its quality, or personality. The tumpline is a prime example of comparative analysis; it was developed by other cultures throughout the planet and can be found in Nepal, India, and Africa. The other cultures also had beasts of burden for transport, but the tumpline was superior to work animals in the economics of transport and on mountainous terrain. The word tumpline is another outlandish name given to a native device by archaeologists. The Maya word for the device is mecapal. Tumpline is the word for the same device used by the native Mohegans of Connecticut.
Figure 11-2: Ancient tumpline bearer from mural at Calakmul. Author’s image.
An overview of the variety of cargo transported by the tumpline will show the integral part that the tumpline played in agriculture, trade, construction, and other cargo transport. A review of the wide range of material indicates the influence that the foot freighters of the Maya had on the construction and wealth of the city-states. The following wide range of goods, materials, and agriculture products were transported by tumpline:
Construction materials: cement, timber, worked stone, sascab, stone rubble, tools, rope, henequen, latex.
Vegetable products: sweet potato, tomato, pumpkin, Jerusalem artichoke, chili pepper, cassava, melon, cacao, arrowroot, yucca, guava, strawberry, peanut, numerous squash varieties, maize and corn, honey, pineapple, cherry, prickly pear, tomatillo, manioc, jocote.
Animal products: turkey, duck, deer, caiman, rabbit, turtle, fish, possum, quail, pheasant, dove, dog, iguana.
Trade goods: chicle, rubber, copal.
Because the Maya depended on manpowered transport based on the tumpline, loads were sized to be transported by a single bearer. In construction, the size of building stone was limited to the size and weight that could be easily transported by porters with tumplines. The standard size of worked stone in Maya structures was based on a weight of approximately 125 pounds. The coordination between stone size and weight/carrying capacity simplified the type of transport used for the construction process. With few exceptions, Maya engineers did not utilize large-size or heavy building stones, as was done with other ancient civilizations. The other ancient civilizations applied work animals or mass human labor for transporting large stones. The Maya used transportable-sized building stones as part of the management, efficiency, and ease of their construction process.
In the course of constructing a monumental building, the use of large stones as part of the art and architecture was sometimes unavoidable and became an absolute requirement when erecting large components or art works. The transport of large stone sections was carried out by shaping the stone into the form of long cylinders (Figure 11-3 and Figure 11-4). The methodology of moving large stone elements from the quarry to the building site used a combination of henequen rope, timber rails, the sacbe system, and the kinetic energy of Maya manpower.
The circular stone transportation cylinders were shaped at the quarry. The diameter and length of the cylinder depended on the dimensions required for the art and architecture at the destination construction site. Timber rails were placed on the paved surface of the sacbe (Figure 11-3). The stone cylinder was then placed on the rails, and a pair of henequen ropes were wrapped around the cylinders at equal distances from the centroid. Two teams of manpower pulled on the ropes, and the rotation of the mass moved the cylinder forward. The rope-pulling team moved the cylinder forward when the ropes unwound and rotated the cylinder clockwise. When the ropes were pulled, a distance of 7 feet (2.3 meters) would be advanced by each turn of the stone cylinder. A pair of 100-foot-long ropes would rotate the cylinder 14 turns and 100 feet (30.3 meters) in distance. The rope would be rewound and the cycle repeated until the destination site was reached. The large stones were moved by the energy of Maya manpower.
Historical parallels to the transport of large stones include the movement of large stones by contractors during the Roman Empire. Roman contractors transported large stones in the shape of cylinders The Romans had the advantage of beasts of burden and metal in order to assemble their transport system. A hole was drilled at the horizontal centroid of the cylinder. Molten lead was placed in the hole to set an iron axel. A rectangular frame with a tongue was attached to the axels, and oxen were harnessed to the tongue. The oxen pulled the cylinder from the quarry to the construction site.
Examples of several Maya stone cylinders have been found and investigated. The cylinders are often positioned on or adjacent to ancient sacbes. Figure 11-4 illustrates a stone cylinder encountered at Santa Rosa Xtampak. The cylinder, which is in excellent condition, was resting adjacent to a sacbe. Archaeologists have opined that these cylinders are road rollers used to compact the road surface. This is not an accurate description of the purpose of the cylinder. The surface of sacbe was paved in cast-in-place concrete, and road rollers are not required for placing cast-in-place concrete pavement. The use of the cylinder as a device for transporting large sections of stone is more appropriate to Maya construction practices.
Figure 11-3: Moving large stones in the shape of cylinders. Author’s image.
Figure 11-4: Stone cylinder investigated at Santa Rosa Xtampak in 1990. Author’s image.
In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond discusses the lack of animal-derived contagious diseases in the New World prior to the conquest. After the arrival of Europeans, numerous major infectious diseases of Old World origins became established in the New World. There is a likelihood that not a single major infectious disease reached Europe from the Americas. The sole possibility is syphilis, whose area of origin is controversial.
New World cities were as large as or larger than European cities. Why were infectious diseases in the form of lethal crowd epidemics unknown in the New World? Studies indicate that crowd diseases evolved out of Eurasian herd animals that had become domesticated. Domesticated animals in the Maya world consisted of the turkey, the Muscovy duck, and the dog. The few domesticates in Mesoamerica were not exactly breeding pools for passing on infectious diseases. The Maya did not domesticate beasts of burden or cattle. The domesticated animals in Mesoamerica were unlikely sources of crowd diseases compared with cows, horses, and pigs in the Old World. Domesticated animals of the Maya did not sleep in houses as they had in Europe, and their numbers were low. As a result, the domesticated animals of the Maya were not a source of human pathogens.
Diamond points out that the lack of animal-derived diseases in Mesoamerica eliminated outbreaks of deadly diseases during the Classic Period. The animal-borne diseases and epidemics did not deter or interrupt the growth and success of the Maya economic culture as they did with the economic climate when European cities were devastated by epidemics. The story was different after the arrival of the conquistadors. Great numbers of Maya were killed by European diseases evolved from Europe’s long intimacy with domestic animals. Without domesticated herd animals, the Maya path to success was not derailed by epidemic crowd diseases.
The natural environment of the Yucatán was a difficult place for producing high crop yields. The Maya relied on technology to increase their agriculture yields, considering the six-month dry season and poor soil. The Maya were successful with their agriculture systems and were able to produce a yield that fed the hinterlands and the non-producers in the city, as well as a surplus for export trading. They appeared to maintain a balance of supply and demand. However, the total of agriculture yield went for human consumption. What if the Maya actually had been able to domesticate beasts of burden and wished to optimize the usage of animal power for agriculture, travel, and transportation? A large portion of their agriculture yield would be required to feed their working animals, with a resulting shortage in the other sectors of the society.
What percentage of their maize might have been required for animal feed, we will never know. However, consider a modern parallel that involved accurate recordkeeping. To estimate the cost of feeding work animals, one can review the required amount of grain required for feeding working animals in the United States during the early 20th century. In 1931, the majority of grain grown in the United States went to feed domesticated animals: 80 percent of acreage that was used to grow grain was dedicated to feeding working animals. Only 20 percent of grain was for human consumption. As a comparison, if 80 percent of the Maya grain crop was diverted from human consumption and used to feed animals, it is apparent that a disaster would have taken place. It is known that grain was not being allocated by the Maya to feed domesticated animals.
Assets and effort were not required to feed and care for domesticated animals. The porters who supplied manpower for transporting the Maya economy only consumed 2 pounds of grain per day. The Maya porter grew his own food, secured his own water, and groomed himself. The mule or horse required 15 to 20 pounds of grain per day, plus a worker for attending the watering and care of the beasts. Application of the required care for domesticated animals would require time and food assets. It is apparent the Maya economy would suffer. Their science, technology, and the construction of monumental cities would react to the economic ripple effect and would suffer. To provide further examples of the impact of domesticated working animals on an economy, when the United States was converting from the use of draft animals to motorized vehicles (during the period of 1914 to 1939), the populations of horses and mules dropped by 13,500,000 head. The reduction in farmland dedicated to animal feed was reduced by 40,000,000 acres. The increase in farmland available for crops for human consumption successfully changed the course of American economic history. In the same manner, it can be seen that the presence of dray animals would have adversely affected the economic history of the Maya civilization.
The successful economy of the Maya civilization depended on its active trading partners, not only on the land mass of Mesoamerica, but in long-range, seagoing voyages that searched for trading partners along the shores of the Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean. Large Maya cargo vessels plied the open seas and ventured across the turquoise waters of the Caribbean to near offshore islands including Isla Mujeres, Cozumel, and the Belize Cays, but also sailed beyond the Yucatán, to the east across the Caribbean Sea to the 1,700-mile-long archipelago of the Caribbean Islands extending from Cuba to Antigua. Their seagoing cargo vessels traveled north to Mexico and south to Panama in Central America. Maya sea traders traveled afar and encountered trading partners with valuable resources that could be exchanged for the products of Maya industry, elite goods, and minerals that were unique to the Maya world. The long-range nautical trade in materials and ideas also had a great impact on the spread of Maya cultural influence.
The attraction of long-range trading partners available by sea routes influenced Maya engineering to expand their capabilities in nautical technology, and enabled the design and construction of large, stable, seaworthy cargo vessels. These large cargo vessels were swiftly propelled over the foamy waves by manpower in the form of paddlers. Maya shipbuilding technology combined their knowledge of seaworthy vessel stability, specialized tool design, and durable materials of construction. Maya woodworking skills produced hydraulically shaped, high-strength timber hulls that were compositely integrated with adhesive compounds, waterproof materials, and water-resistant caulking to construct stable seagoing vessels.
The wide-ranging and lucrative trading of the maritime commerce network promoted the founding of sea ports, riverine trading ports, and land-based navigation aids consisting of fixed, bearing landmarks, fire-illuminated lighthouses, and beacons. These were enhanced with a sophisticated system of celestial navigation enabled by their capabilities in mathematics and astronomy. Maya long-range trade continued well past the Classic Period and was an important part of Post-Classic Maya economy extending into the early 16th century, until the Spanish conquistadors banned their trading and took over the lucrative mercantile trade.
The Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean were the marine highways plied by the Maya sea traders. However, the Caribbean Sea was the principal seaway connecting the Maya to sea-based trading partners. Seaports were established along the seaboards of Honduras, Belize, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The Maya traded unique minerals including jadeite, obsidian, and cinnabar; valued materials including colorful feathers, cotton cloth, clothing, and cocoa; and manufactured goods including ceramics, obsidian swords, and knives. In turn they traded for gold, copper, and metal axes.
The Maya sea-trading network and its trademark cargo vessels, powered by 30 or more paddlers and crewed by sailors and navigators, are not the fanciful stuff created from folk tales or notions from archaeological whimsy. Maya art has revealed clues to the design and construction of their seagoing vessels. Furthermore, artifacts of the large craft have been uncovered and investigated by experienced archaeologists.
Nautical engineering of seagoing vessels is an example of Maya technology that had a European eyewitness of outstanding character. Descriptions of Maya seagoing vessels were documented by the most famous of Spanish navigators and explorers. The first and most notable written account describing Maya sea traders involved the great navigator Christopher Columbus, during his fourth voyage in 1502. While traversing the Caribbean off the coast of Honduras, Columbus’s fleet of galleys confronted a large Maya seagoing cargo vessel in the Bay of Honduras. Christopher Columbus’s son Ferdinand described the encounter in his journal, as quoted from J.M. Cohen’s The Four Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1969):
....by good fortune there arrived at that time a canoe long as a galley and eight feet wide, made of a single tree-trunk like the other Indian canoes; it was freighted with merchandise from the western regions around New Spain. Amidships it had a palm-leaf awning like that on Venetian gondolas; this gave complete protection against the rain and waves. Underneath were women and children, and all the baggage and merchandise. There were twenty-five paddlers aboard, but they offered no resistance when our boats drew up to them.
The large canoe was loaded with trade goods, the costliest and handsomest of which were cotton mantles and sleeveless shirts embroidered and painted in different designs and colors, long wooden swords edged with “flint knives that cut like steel” [perhaps obsidian]; copper hatchets and bells; and a crucible for melting copper. Notably, they also had “...many of the almonds [cacao beans] which the Indians of New Spain use as currency; and these the Indians in the canoe valued greatly, for I noticed that when they were brought aboard with the other goods, and some fell to the floor, all the Indians stooped to pick them up as if they had lost something of great value.” Impressed with “the great wealth, civilization, and industry of these people,” Columbus nevertheless continued east in search of “a strait across the mainland that would open a way to the South Sea and the Lands of Spices.” Columbus did retain from the canoe an older man and cacique named Yumbé, “who seemed to be the wisest man among them and of greatest authority, as an interpreter.”
This historic description of the Maya cargo vessel included the critical essentials to re-create a basic design of the craft: the size of the craft, its composite nature, fabricated from a single log, the cabin/palm leaf shelter, the number of paddlers, crew, and passengers, and the trading merchandise. Columbus considered some of the merchandise to be valuable assets and seized selected items in the cargo. Limited images of Maya vessels have been encountered that provide illustrations of their configuration and design elements. A mural from the temple of the warriors at Chichen Itza, a frieze from a Maya structure, and a carving on a bone unearthed at the ancient city of Tikal indicate significant details of nautical engineering features that provided the craft with stability in open seas.
Descriptions carried out by marine archaeologist Dr. Paul Petennude and sculptor Philippe Klinefelter provided additional details. Petennude investigated a partially degraded seagoing canoe at Paalmul on the east coast of the Yucatán. Dr. Petennude, in a personal conversation with the author, described the canoe as constructed of manilkara zapota wood. The remnants of the canoe consisted of two-thirds of the original vessel. He estimated the craft to be 60 feet (18 meters) in length and 8 feet (2.5 meters) wide.
Klinefelter, an expert on Maya tools, encountered a large seagoing canoe on the shores of Lake Atitlán, Guatemala, in the 1970s. The lake is known for high waves and a rough, sea-like surface. Canoes on this lake would be built as seagoing vessels in order maintain stability in the rough water of the vast lake. Klinefelter stated that the canoe was 80 feet (24 meters) long and approximately 8 feet (2.5 meters) wide; the craft included the design elements of a Classic Period Maya canoe. The specimen was made of a single log from an avocado tree.
The combination of eyewitness accounts, painted impressions by Maya artists, and in situ observation of artifacts of seaworthy vessels has presented forensic engineering with a wide range of clues for investigation of these craft. The various accounts agree on the size of the vessels, the nature of construction from a single log of high-strength timber, and configurations of the salient design features that were combined to construct a seaworthy cargo vessel. Studies of the design and construction of the fabled vessels of Maya sea traders could only extend to a certain point. The basic marine engineering configuration of the craft, proven materials of construction, specialized tools used to shape the hull, and methods of connection of the various component parts of the vessel were recognized by experts in marine architecture. The sum of the parts was the ability of the vessel to react in a seaworthy manner when traveling in heavy seas.
The capability to recognize the unique features of good boat-building practice was within the expertise of a professional experienced in marine architecture, Colonel Douglas T. Peck, U.S.A.F., retired. He is a historian of early seagoing vessels and navigation, experienced sailor, author, and investigator of the marine engineering of Maya cargo vessels. His identification of the principles of naval engineering in Maya cargo vessels, combined with the author’s knowledge of structural engineering and computer reconstruction using virtual images, enabled the development of criteria for design features and methods of construction of seaworthy Maya cargo vessels.
The historical and contemporary observations and Maya renderings of vessels illustrate salient design features of a prototypical Maya seagoing vessel. Their feats of marine architecture were developed over 1,000 years. Figure 11-5 is a naval engineering drawing and specifications of the design features that shaped Maya seagoing vessels and developed the hydrodynamic factors that enabled sea voyages.
Figure 11-5: Marine engineering drawing of Maya cargo vessel. Author’s image.
The entire vessel was carved from the trunk of a single high-strength hardwood tree. Chico zapote (manilkara zapota) was the preferred choice of timber. The timber from this dense tree has a tensile strength of 20,000 psi. This is equal to the tensile strength of low-grade steel.
The profile of the bow and stern was shaped from the tree trunk. The high vertical elements of the bow and stern were assembled from timber planks shaped for that purpose and joined to the timber base structure at the bow and stern. Connections would be implemented using slotted joints interfaced along the base hull structure, connected by latex adhesive, caulking, and high-strength tensile pegs along the intersections of the planks and timber hull. The elevated vertical features at the bow and stern are vertical stabilizers and provide displacement or buoyancy to prevent swamping by allowing the vessel to rise vertically in the event of a head or following sea. Another feature of the high-mounted stabilizer is to provide resistance to complete capsizing; the displacement in the bow and stern structures would stabilize the vessel and prevent complete rollover by limiting capsizing to 90 degrees.
The section through the hull in Figure 11-5 illustrates the vertical extension along the perimeter of the hull developed by the installation of a timber structural element. This vertical perimeter member is capped with a shaped wood cap rail. This vertical element increases the freeboard and depth of the hull, and significantly increases the displacement capabilities of the vessel. The vertical element installed along the longitude of the hull is constructed from a section of timber connected to the top edge of the hull structure. The composite shape is attached to the hull structure using high-strength wood pegs, latex adhesive, and caulk.
The same feature is found in modern vessels. The increased height of freeboard provides the hull with an added safety factor in providing righting displacement, preventing capsizing, or swamping in heavy seas. It must be noted that the vertical extension of the upper freeboard of the ancient vessels is common only to Maya vessels.
Figure 11-5 indicates the cross-section configuration of the hull of the vessel. The bottom of Maya vessels was flattened to provide athwart-ship stability about the longitudinal axis. The hard chime or flat-bottom hulls were common to early Greek and Roman vessels. Spanish chronicles report that flat-bottom canoes were used in the central Mexican Basin.
The completed cargo vessel was powered by paddlers kneeling or sitting amidships. This type of craft could accommodate 30 rowers. Some accounts describe 20–22 rowers. The specifications of the craft in the drawing had a gross displacement of 32.5 tons. Considering the size and weight of the construction and the paddlers, a net displacement of 21 tons was available for cargo. This was a lot of goods to be traded. The capacity offered the opportunity to ship a great quantity of goods using the ocean highway. A Maya cargo vessel could transport the equivalent load carried by 328 individual tumpline bearers.
Maya artists, including those who created the carved bone artifact found at Tikal, depict the rowers using an asymmetrical paddle. Recently an actual, intact Maya “paddle” was excavated by Dr. Heather McKillop. The dimension and configuration of the paddle provides a significant insight into its actual use. The asymmetrical paddle is 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 meters) in length. The length of the paddle would be excessive for the typical Maya paddler, who was of short height. The asymmetrical shape would create an imbalance of the hydraulic force generated by the movement of the paddle and would cause rotation in the hands of the paddlers. It appears to be a consensus of experienced marine architects that the asymmetrical paddle of more than 6 feet in length must be a steering oar for large Maya vessels. They are used as a rudder to keep the flat-bottom vessel on a straight course.
Other depictions by Maya artists indicate the use of pointed paddles of symmetrical shapes. This paddle configuration made entry and exiting the water easy. In the middle of the stroke, the wide part of the paddle would be fully immersed and would produce maximum forward force vectors. The pointed symmetrical paddle is hydrostatically superior to the blunt, rectangular paddle used in contemporary canoes. Maya paddlers on long sea voyages would kneel or sit amidships, and use a short paddle with a pointed symmetrical shape.
Black jadeite or chloromelanite tools for the construction of Maya cargo vessels were used to hollow out the interior of the half-cylinder shaped tree trunk and to shape the exterior of the giant logs. Certain scholars have argued that the Maya used bronze tools to carry out the carving of the giant hull. They cite the account of Christopher Columbus and his encounter on the fourth voyage as evidence of metalworking by the Maya. The copper hatchets and crucibles for smelting ore were described in the journals of the great navigator. This was the 16th century, and the Maya may have learned the techniques of smelting copper and the fabrication of copper or bronze tools from South American trading partners. Columbus’s encounter with the Maya vessel occurred more than 600 years after the collapse of the Classic Period; the design of Maya canoes was more than 1,500 years old at that time. (The prototypical design shown in this chapter was developed using typical design characteristics of Maya seagoing craft and technical capabilities in practice during the Classic Period.)
Chapter 5 presented the use of jadeite tools by Maya technicians. The appropriate tool for shaping logs has been the adze. The jadeite adze was mounted on a high-strength wood handle with a 45-degree contiguous element to connect the adze at the optimum angle for maximum cutting efficiency. The connection of the jadeite adze is made of latex adhesive and leather or henequen ties. The adze was the principal tool used in the hull-shaping operation of the vessel. Other critical tasks, including fine cutting of the composite components and drilling, were carried out using jadeite chisels and drills. The finished hull was completed by connecting the composite elements with wood pegs and latex adhesives.
The marine engineering drawing in Figure 11-5 illustrated the design for a basic vessel for seagoing trading. The drawing does not include the cabin structure as described by Columbus or other possible design features such as a sail. The use of a sail on this type of craft has been argued among maritime experts. It is highly possible that a civilization with sophisticated science and technology that independently conceived the number zero, calculated periodicities of the planets to minute accuracies, and created one of the five original written languages in the world could have conceived of a simple device as a sail for their seagoing vessels. In 2000, a French-Mexican team of sailors sailed a replica seagoing canoe with a square, rigged sail in the Caribbean near Belize. The team covered a distance of 30 miles per day under sail and determined that the sail was a logical progression of marine engineering.
The Maya seagoing cargo vessels traversed the tropical seas surrounding the Yucatán Peninsula. Their maritime trading network extended north along the Gulf of Mexico, south to Panama, and eastward to the islands of the Caribbean. Fleets of the trading vessels traveled up navigable rivers to trading posts that were connected to overland trading networks. Cities in Mesoamerica and south along the Caribbean were drawn into an “international,” Pan-American trading network with lively commerce and ideas spreading over large distances. Evidence of Maya long-distance trading has been encountered on the far-flung islands of Antigua and Barbados. Jadeite axes found on these islands have been traced to sources in Guatemala. This trading product found its way on a 3,000-kilometer voyage to the east of its source, the Montagua Valley. These long-range voyages that were out of sight of land required sophisticated celestial navigation. This was a specialty of Maya navigators. Maya navigators did not rely on the North Star but viewed the entire sky as a charted map to steer the way to distant islands.
The Maya seagoing vessel served the culture for 2,000 years as viable trading vessels. Trade was terminated during the conquest when Spanish conquistadors took over the lucrative trade routes. During the conquest, during Spanish colonial rule, and later on, they served as seagoing passenger and cargo vessels. These working seagoing vessels were used by the Maya until the 19th century, when industrialized modifications were made to produce larger-sized craft, and plank hulls were substituted for the traditional carved tree hull. The spirit of these hardy craft can be seen today as their direct descendants, cayucos, transport agriculture goods, cattle, and passengers in the Bay of Terminus, over the mighty Usumacinta River and other rivers of the Yucatán. Today, however, the paddlers have been replaced by a 200-horsepower Mercury outboard engine.
