San Gervasio, Cozumel – Quintanna Roo – Mexico

Main entrance to the Mayan site

Main entrance to the Mayan site

More on the Maya

San Gervasio, Cozumel

Location

The archaeological area of San Gervasio is situated on the island of Cozumel, or Cuzamil (‘place of swallows’) as it was called in ancient times. The pre-Hispanic settlement lies 7 km north-east of the present-day town of San Miguel de Cozumel and is easily reached by road. The site was built on a natural elevation just under 10 m high and nearby are a few cenotes and aguadas, as well as numerous ak’alches, natural hollows that fill with water in the rainy season. In the 19th century, the site formed part of a livestock ranch owned by a man called Gervasio, from whom it takes its present-day name. According to a reference in the Chilam Balam de Chumayel, the original name of the pre-Hispanic site may have been Tan Tun (place of rocks’).’

Pre-Hispanic history

The earliest traces of occupation correspond to the Late Preclassic, when the communities were grouped into small villages with rudimentary constructions whose inhabitants survived by fishing, hunting and farming. Evidence of this first period can be found at one of the groups at San Gervasio: El Ramonal. In the Early Classic, the population grew and began to produce masonry architecture. By then, the site had probably become a principal civic, administrative and ceremonial centre for the island. In the Late Classic, the site extended its constructions and achieved greater political and religious importance, exerting its influence over other nearby communities. During the Postclassic period, San Gervasio flourished as an important trading centre, mainly due to the existence of a major maritime trade route stretching from Tabasco and Campeche, in the Gulf of Mexico, to Honduras. In terms of its religious importance, it became a mecca for thousands of pilgrims who flocked to the temple of the goddess Ixchel, the region’s oracle, situated on the island. Although we do not know the exact location of the famous temple, San Gervasio is largely held to be the most probable site. In the 16th century, the expedition led by Juan de Grijalva was the first to disembark at the island of Cozumel on 3 May 1518, christening it Santa Cruz. A year later, Hernan Cortes would set foot there. Despite tenacious resistance from the indigenous population, the disintegration of the trade route and epidemics reduced the population. By around 1600, the island had lost its entire population. In 1847, the Maya uprising, known as the Caste War, obliged numerous indigenous peoples to seek refuge in distant places, and the island was gradually repopulated.

Site description

The site covers an area of 3 sq km and is divided into four architectural groups connected by pre-Hispanic causeways or sacbeob.

Manitas (‘little hands’) group.

The main building is called Manitas because of the hand imprints on the facade. Designed in the East Coast style, it corresponds to the Postclassic and clearly served a residential function, with two bays and a portico. At the east end of the group is a small ritual temple called Chichan Nah (‘little house’). To the west stands another building, this time with a square, talud-tablero (‘slope-and-panel’) building known as La Tumba, having once contained an elaborate tomb.

Central plaza group.

This is situated west of the Manitas Group and comprises ten civic and religious buildings that constituted the core area of the site until it was abandoned. Included among them are the constructions known as the Alamo (‘Poplar’), the Murals, the Palace, the Ossuary and the Pilasters. Three sacbeob commence at this group: one is 75 m long and leads to the Manitas Group; another leads to Punta Molas, 18 km from San Gervasio; the third one leads to the Potrero Group, 117 m away. Situated north-west of this group is a free-standing arch or gateway that defines the main entrance to the site. It was built at the beginning of Sacbe 1, which leads to the site of Punta Molas at the north end of the island. The same causeway also leads to the building known as Nohoch Nah (‘big house’), a temple with traces of mural paint that stands on a platform with stairways.

Bat group.

An irregular platform supports five buildings, the best preserved of which corresponds to the Late Classic (AD 600-1000). Its architectural characteristics are reminiscent of the Puuc style in the south-southwest region of Yucatan.

El ramonal group.

To date, this is believed to be the oldest architectural group at the site. It comprises a platform that once supported several civic buildings and a plaza. The latter is delimited to the south by a second plaza, built at a lower level, which is occupied by elite residences.

Ka’na nah (‘upper house’).

This is situated at the north-west end of the site and is thus called because it adopts the form of a platform with several stepped tiers and a two-chamber temple at the top.

Monuments and ceramics

The ceramic material recovered to date confirms that San Gervasio was occupied continuously and maintained cultural ties throughout its existence with various settlements in the peninsula and other regions in the Maya area. The ceramics from the Early Classic (AD 300-600) reveal links with sites in the north and in the north-east and east of the peninsula. It also had sporadic connections with the Peten-Belize region, despite being at its formative stage during this period. In the Late Classic, it shared the ceramic uniformity that reigned at the time in the north-east of the Yucatan Peninsula, the origin of which was probably the political capital of Coba. The ties with the Peten-Belize region waned considerably. Between AD 1000 and 1200, the Late Classic ceramics were gradually replaced by those of the Chichen Itza region, demonstrating the degree of the cultural and trading influence of the latter site over the east coast of Yucatan during this period. In the Postclassic, there was a notable uniformity throughout eastern Yucatan, characterised by locally made ceramics. San Gervasio was involved in the transition that affected sites such as El Cuyo on the north-east coast of Yucatan and Chunyaxche (Muyil) on the centre-north coast of Quintana Roo. Some authors have suggested that this uniformity was the result of the political and commercial integration between the governors in the region and other more distant regions such as La Chontalpa, in the states of Tabasco and Campeche. The ceramics from this final period continued to be used at San Gervasio until the 16th century, coexisting alongside pottery brought from the Old World during and after the Spanish Conquest.

Importance and relations

Of the 35 pre-Hispanic settlements recorded on the island, San Gervasio is the largest in size and importance and is regarded as a strategic Maya site during the Postclassic period. In its day, it was an important trading and political centre not only on the island but possibly also in the cultural region known as the East Coast. At its peak, Cozumel maintained ties with the largest political centres of the day, such as Mayapan, and with all the sites on the east coast of the Yucatan Peninsula.

Jose Manuel Ochoa Rodriguez

From: ‘The Maya: an architectural and landscape guide’, produced jointly by the Junta de Andulacia and the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, 2010, pp 440-442.

Map - San Gervasio

Map – San Gervasio

Getting there:

There’s no real public transport option so if you don’t have your own transport then it’s hiring a bike or a motor scooter (which needs a credit card as a deposit). I got my push bile from Best Bikes, to be found on 10th Avenue, No. 14, between Avenue Benito Juarez and Calle 2 North, cost M$250 for the day.

It’s then a straightforward route out of town east on Avenue Benito Juarez for about seven kilometres and then a left turn along the entrance road to the site for another seven or so kilometres.

Entrance:

M$216

More on the Maya

Cancun Maya Museum

Cancun Maya Museum

Cancun Maya Museum

More on the Maya

Cancun Maya Museum

If you find yourself unfortunate to be staying in Cancun you could do much worse than spend an hour or two in the Museo Maya de Cancún (Cancún Maya Museum). At the end of the long spit that contains, to me, some of the worst hotels ever created (especially when you take into account their concentration) an equally ugly modern building houses artefacts of a culture that had an understanding of aesthetics.

The items in the museum come from all parts of Mayan territory and from all periods from the earliest days until the demise of the Mayan civilisation until just after the arrival of of the Spanish invaders in the 16th century.

The images are presented here without comment and are in a relatively raw state. They are presented to give an impression of what this magnificent ‘pre-Colombian’ society produced when much of Europe fell into barbarism after the flowering of the Greek and Roman empires – not forgetting that the gains of those ‘civilisations’ were built upon slavery, war and imperial expansion.

How to get there:

Buses R1 and R2, to and from downtown Cancun, run regularly along the road through the hotel district. M$12 per journey.

Location:

Address:

Blvd Kukulcán Km 16.5

GPS:

21.04.29 N

86.46.38 W

Opening hours:

9am-6pm Tuesday – Sunday

Entrance:

Adult: M$90

Child under 13: Free

Sundays: Free for nationals and residents of Mexico.

More on the Maya

15th May – Nabka Day – a day of shame for the world

Deir Yassin 1948

Deir Yassin 1948

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’

More on Palestine

15th May – Nabka Day – a day of shame for the world

The 15th May in Palestine, and for Palestinians in the diaspora, is Nabka Day, the day following the unilateral declaration of independence by the State of Israel (on 14th May 1948) and the start of, now, 72 years of; persecution; murder; imprisonment; repression; theft of their land; denigration of their dignity; subjection to racist laws; ethnic cleansing; military occupation; and now, especially in Gaza, starvation.

The word ‘nabka’ can be translated as ‘disaster’, ‘catastrophe’ or ‘cataclysm’ – in the sense of 15 May all of them.

In fact, if you take all the sufferings of various peoples throughout the world, all the assaults that have been condemned by international bodies – principally the United Nations Organisation (UNO) – in those 72 years the cause of which, in the main, has been the attempts of the various imperialist powers to maintain or regain control in various parts of the world, and dump them on one nation, one group of people, then those people are the Palestinians.

This struggle between the imperialist powers didn’t start in 1948. In the modern era this issue was being played out before the fighting in the First World War was over and the guns on the Western Front went quiet. To keep the various Arab tribes on side in the war against the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany in the war and on the periphery initially but an important aspect of the main war nonetheless) promises were made but never kept.

Whilst to their faces the Arab forces were being told one thing behind their backs the British were making the promise of a Jewish State, with undefined borders, in the area which was known as Palestine and where the vast majority of the population were Arabs (90%). Although the British Government had been talking to Zionist representatives during much of the course of the war there was no consultation whatsoever with the Arab people’s who already lived in a thriving community on the land being given away.

In the same way the land that later became known as the United States of America wasn’t empty of people before the arrival of the European immigrants neither was the land of Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration

It might be worthwhile to briefly have a look at the wording of this short document, a mere 67 words but which has caused so much suffering and injustice to so many people for so many years.

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The main question to ask is; what right did the British have to assign someone’s land to another group of people – even if it was for the short term interests of the imperialist power – that is, Zionist/Jewish support and encouragement for United States involvement on the Western Front. Obviously the question is rhetorical – the British did because they could and as was their wont, the consequences of their decision on the local populace were not even considered.

For the Zionists then, and the State of Israel now, there’s nothing in the Declaration of any import after the second comma. They had achieved what they were after, the capitulation of a major imperialist power which various Zionist groups and organisations were able to play with in the years between 1917 and 1948.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s (and into the 1940s) there were constant conflicts between the Jewish ‘settlers’ and the indigenous population – from the very beginning the settlers assuming they had all the rights. At times the morally weak British forces were in the middle but after 1945 they also became the target of Zionist terrorist attacks, especially those organised by the Irgun and the Stern Gang – both organisations providing future Prime Ministers to the State of Israel.

On 29th November 1947 the plan for the partition of Palestine was taken to a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations (which had been formed two and a half years earlier with the UN Charter, which includes fine words such as peace, security and human rights) and passed by 33 votes to 13 (with 10 abstentions and one member absent). To give a flavour of the ‘new world order’ after the defeat of Fascism the people most effected by this partition, the Palestinians, weren’t even consulted – let alone invited to argue their case.

For reasons I have been unable to discover the Soviet Union both voted for the partition and two days after Israel declared independence recognised the new ‘state’.

Immediately following the vote in favour of the State of Israel the armed Zionist gangs began to make sure circumstances were the most favourable for themselves in the event of an uprising of the Palestinians that would certainly follow the proposed declaration on 14th May – this included a systematic recording of any military material the British would leave behind and identifying those points of conflict which would be most crucial in the coming battle.

This included the process of ‘ethnic cleansing’ even before the term was even coined. One notorious example was the expulsion and massacre of the inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin, a small Palestinian village a few kilometres to the west of Jerusalem, on 9th April 1948. The Zionist terrorist organisation, Irgun, boasted they had killed, in cold blood, 256 villagers, and far from being ashamed of this broadcast the fact far and wide and in so doing helped create the climate of fear that resulted in a mass exodus of Palestinians from their homes and land.

By March 1949 more than 750,000 Palestinians, who had once had reasonably secure livelihoods were made refugees by the Jewish settlers and invaders. Most of those who were forced to leave never returned home as has been the fate of the 3 generations (to date) of their descendants.

Deir Yassin wasn’t the only village to suffer massacre and destruction in 1948-49 or later, as at the time of the so-called ‘Six Day War’, of 1967, the villages of Zeita, Beit Nuba and Yalu suffered a similar fate.

This activity of the Jewish terrorist groups is reminiscent of the activities of the Nazis during the Second World War. There are examples where activities of Partisan groups fighting the fascist invaders led to retaliations, massacres and the razing of villages such as Lidice, in Czechoslovakia; Oradour-sur-Glane in France; Borovë in Albania and the hundreds of villages the SS wiped out in the eastern Soviet Union when they invaded in 1942.

It also reminds us of the destruction of the villages of My Lai, in Vietnam, on 16th March 1968, by the Americans. Coincidentally the numbers massacred in Deir Yassin and My Lai are very similar, 250 dead, including 30-50 babies.

It could be said the Zionists were even worse than the Nazis (and the American imperialists in Vietnam) as the Germans and the Americans carried out their slaughter as retaliation and revenge, the Zionists did it because they could and enjoyed it.

If it talks like a Fascist, if it acts like a Fascist, if it kills like a Fascist – then it’s a Fascist.

But it has to be said the Zionists have played it well in the intervening years since the establishment of their illegal state. In 1967 they were able to convince many they were the victim in the war against the neighbouring Arab countries. By being a willing tool of American imperialism they have proven their worth by destabilising the region and being a force which benefits the major oil companies and their various state sponsors. Whereas the Apartheid state of South Africa (with which Israel was on friendly military and trading terms prior to 1992) became an international pariah Israel gets away with following exactly the same policies. They’ve also been able to use the rantings of Holocaust deniers to use anti-Semitism to their own advantage and now criticism of the State of Israel has been classified as an act of anti-Semitism – the only state in the world which has been able to equate race to statehood.

Events subsequent to the Nabka of 1948-49, have only gone to prove that what the Zionist State of Israel learnt from the Hitlerite Nazis is to kill and oppress anyone you see as an enemy, that racism is the way forward, that ethnic cleansing is progress, that war is peace.

It is a stain upon the reputation of the world’s working class, and especially the International Communist Movement, the situation the Palestinians live under was allowed to last 72 days let alone 72 years.

Marx once said the British working class would never achieve freedom if the Irish remained enslaved. The same can be said about the Palestinians.

More on Palestine

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’