English
Español
Français
Italiano
Deutsch
Русский
Português
Polski
Română
Svenska
Norsk bokmål
Suomi
Türkçe
العربية
简体中文
한국어
हिन्दी
ΕλληνικάINITIAL ATLAS · DIVISIONS AND REGIONS
Map of the Maya
Atlas of the Maya
Locates Maya regions and Olmec centres with which there was contact, without confusing the two peoples.
Museum documentation · free public access, no account required.
Editorial visualisation · Contextual correspondence
Declared editorial visualisation, based on the cartography and sources of the fact sheet; it is not an exact historical frontier.
History and context
The map begins in the Early Formative Mesoamerican period and allows progression through 8 phases. Documented places —San Lorenzo · Olmec horizon, Tikal, Palenque— appear only when they help to read the active period.
By editorial decision, the museum brings together two connected traditions; the Olmecs did not ‘simply become’ Maya and Maya peoples continue to live.
Evidence and interpretation
The coast is from Natural Earth. The layers distinguish origin, core, direct control, influence, networks, disputed territories and external domains; they are approximate curatorial envelopes, not modern borders. The faint outline preserves the previous phase to make each expansion, contraction or absorption visible. By editorial decision, the museum brings together two connected traditions; the Olmecs did not ‘simply become’ Maya and Maya peoples continue to live.
Catalogue facts
- Reading mode
- Regions and groups without a single frontier
- Sequence
- 8 phases · Early Formative Mesoamerican (c. 1800–1000 BCE) → San Lorenzo and La Venta (c. 1400–400 BCE) → Preclassic Maya (c. 1000 BCE–250 CE) → Early Classic (250–600 CE) → Late Classic (600–900 CE) → Terminal Classic (c. 800–1000 CE) → Postclassic (c. 900–1524 CE) → Conquest, reduction and living peoples (16th century–present)
- Nodes
- San Lorenzo · Olmec horizon (≈1400–1000 BCE) · Tikal (Preclassic–Classic) · Palenque (Classic)
- Range
- Formative context of Olmec-style centres.
- Caution
- By editorial decision, the museum brings together two connected traditions; the Olmecs did not ‘simply become’ Maya and Maya peoples continue to live.
A closer look
About 1 min to read · 1 section. Further reading and sources · free access. Editorial review recorded: .
Mapping buildings and dating their changes
LiDAR recognition of the Ceibal region in the Maya lowlands combines relief and excavation to reconstruct settlement distributions. The same architectural form may persist while its use changes: toward the end of the Middle Preclassic, green stone axe offerings on the axis of Group E gave way to deposits of pottery, obsidian and other rituals. A monument map alone cannot distinguish these transformations. Therefore, the territorial patches in this atlas are approximate: the building’s date, its modifications and the distribution of dwellings must be read as different layers, not as permanent political borders.
Location and territory
REGIONAL AREA
Gulf Olmec coast and Maya lands brought together in a museum; contact does not equal lineal descentGulf Olmec coast and Maya lands brought together in a museum; contact does not equal lineal descent. The footprint marks the orienting centre of the scope, not a boundary nor an exact point.TERRITORIAL ATLAS · REAL GEOGRAPHY · CHANGING EXTENT
Atlas of the Maya
Gulf formations and multiple Maya regions
Gulf and Maya area villages grow in parallel spheres; proximity and exchange do not prove linear ethnic descent.
WHAT CHANGES · OriginAgricultural communities emerge in the Maya area alongside formative Gulf networks, without a common political territory.
- 01 · San Lorenzo · Olmec horizon≈1400–1000 BCEEarly Gulf centre; influence, not linear biological progenitor.
By editorial decision, the museum brings together two connected traditions; the Olmecs did not ‘simply become’ Maya and Maya peoples continue to live.
Documentation for every period
The map is interactive. The full chronology is also available below without using any controls.
c. 1800–1000 BCE · Early Formative Mesoamerican
Gulf and Maya area villages grow in parallel spheres; proximity and exchange do not prove linear ethnic descent.
Origin · Agricultural communities emerge in the Maya area alongside formative Gulf networks, without a common political territory.
- Gulf Coast · c. 1800–1000 BCE
Formative context of Olmec-style centres.
Probable - Communities of the Maya area · c. 1800–1000 BCE
Broad and diverse ambit; not a political unit.
Probable
c. 1400–400 BCE · San Lorenzo and La Venta
Gulf centres project repertoires and exchanges across Mesoamerica; they are not an early Maya state nor a unique 'mother culture'.
Expansion · San Lorenzo and La Venta concentrate Gulf nodes and expand exchanges, without turning the entire network into a single kingdom.
- Gulf Olmec centres · c. 1400–400 BCE
Approximate archaeological core.
Probable - Formative networks · II–I millennia BCE
Circulation of materials and images, not political control.
Debated
c. 1000 BCE–250 CE · Preclassic Maya
Maya centres raise plazas, platforms and large complexes within several regions; there is no common empire.
Expansion · Maya centres grow and extend their own networks across lowlands and highlands, differentiating from the earlier Olmec focus.
- Preclassic Maya regions · c. 1000 BCE–250 CE
Cultural envelope with gaps and regional differences.
Probable
250–600 CE · Early Classic
Dynasties and city-states articulate networks of alliance, war and writing; Tikal is a centre among many.
Expansion · Settlement densifies in connected city-states, with alliances and rivalries that prevent a common border.
- Early Classic city-states · 250–600 CE
Constellation of polities, not a unitary state.
Probable
600–900 CE · Late Classic
Numerous courts reach high urban density and compete through alliances and wars; cultural extent does not define shared sovereignty.
Expansion and fragmentation · The urban space reaches great density, but fragments into multiple courts and competing political spheres.
- Late Classic mosaic · 600–900 CE
Total area of multiple cities and agricultural landscapes.
Probable
c. 800–1000 CE · Terminal Classic
Many courts of the southern lowlands reconfigure or lose population, while northern centres and rural communities continue.
Contraction · Numerous southern centres decline or are abandoned, while some northern foci gain relative weight.
- Southern lowlands in transformation · c. 800–1000 CE
Area of unequal crisis; not left empty.
Probable - Northern centres · c. 800–1000 CE
Continuities and new centres in the north.
Probable
c. 900–1524 CE · Postclassic
Chichén Itzá, Mayapán and highland kingdoms represent successive and parallel trajectories, not an imperial Maya restoration.
Fragmentation and expansion · Political activity reorients toward new polities and corridors, especially in the north and coastal zones.
- Postclassic Maya polities · c. 900–1524 CE
Multiple kingdoms and regional communities.
Probable
16th century–present · Conquest, reduction and living peoples
Colonisation alters territories and authorities, but Maya peoples and languages continue; the map must never be left empty after the Classic period.
Absorption and contraction · Conquest and reductions compress many territories, but Maya communities maintain and reclaim living spaces.
- Living Maya territories and communities · Present
Orientative ambit; contemporary rights and self-definitions require community sources.
Probable
Documented places
- San Lorenzo · Olmec horizon · ≈1400–1000 BCE
Early Gulf centre; influence, not linear biological progenitor.
- Tikal · Preclassic–Classic
City-State of the central lowlands.
- Palenque · Classic
Court, inscriptions and architecture in Chiapas.
Routes and contacts
- Documented historical connection
- Documented historical connection
By editorial decision, the museum brings together two connected traditions; the Olmecs did not ‘simply become’ Maya and Maya peoples continue to live.
Sources and references
Did you enjoy this exhibit?
Your opinion helps us improve the museum. You can change it whenever you like.
Loading your rating…