later and degraded manifestation). The family of the Cocomes, however, seem to have gained the supreme power, but in any case the government was for a time centralized. The tributary lords possessed residences at the capital which were under the charge of intendants appointed by them, and were supported by their respective provinces; the inhabitants of the actual district of Mayapan were exempt from tribute, but the members of the aristocracy served in the temples, assisting in the festivals by day and night. Eventually, however, the centrifugal tendency so characteristic of Mexican and Central American politics reasserted itself, and the "league" split up into a number of independent, and often hostile, princelings. It is probable that each important group of ruins marks the site of some former centre of power, and the buildings not definitely associated with religion may have been in part the residences of feudal lords.
But though the formation of the Mayapan "league" seems to indicate the paramountcy of the secular power, the priestly caste, as in Mexico, must always have possessed enormous influence, and the early traditions seem to imply that they were the actual directors of tribal policy. Kukulkan and Itzamna are both mentioned as leaders of migrations, and from this it is fair to infer that the latter were directed by the priests of the gods. Little indication as to the insignia of the early chiefs can be gleaned from the monuments, though the later reliefs of Chichen Itza show many figures bearing a diadem of Mexican pattern. Itis, in fact, almost impossible to distinguish between priests and rulers, and this very difficulty may perhaps be taken to imply that the rule had a religious basis. Possibly some of the armed figures may be taken to represent secular chieftains, but the arms themselves seem to be rather of a ceremonial nature, and at some sites, notably Copan, armed figures do not occur at all, while at Quirigua and Palenque the
