The author works to answer the mystery of why writing systems developed at Tikal, but not at coeval Teotihuacan. Both centers had clearly evolved highly complex political systems. [74]
Even in the late Classic Period, Teotihuacanos chose to use a very different "image" system, unlike the Mayan and Zapotec texts which was partly pictographic, logographic, ideographic and phonetic. Drawing on archeological evidence, the author theorizes that large sculpture facing open plazas versus stelae with restricted access, and the Long Count calendar as an expression of Maya political dynastic rule reflects a propaganda function. Gradually the enormous images became inaccessible, and abstract visualization of time was supplanted with depictions of named rulers. Quantifications of time and rule is focused on stelae, somewhat reminiscent of the "king lists" of ancient Sumer (and in turn, copied by the Hebrews) with similar evidence of re-writing. [80] In Tikal, one enormous hieroglyphic text appears which purports to trace back to a time when Tikal did not yet exist.

The shift from a cyclical calendar expressing qualitative time to the new lineal calendar expressing quantitative time may be an attempt to link lineal to cyclical rule by ruling groups [83]. The dated monuments reflect increasing anxiety about the validity of rulership. The Ah Cacau dynasty went to such extgraordinary trouble to construct awkward twin-pyramid assemblages, seeking to link the new with the old. By A.D. 790, the erection of stelae, temples, and twin-pyramid groups stopped. Apparently the architectural expression failed to influence the political reality.

The author explains the convergence of a dynastic rule, writing, and the Long Count quantitative calendar evidenced by the carved stone. These achievements were not the product of esoteric ponderings by cloistered mystics in ceremonial centers. The architecture, imagery, calendrics, and writing improvements were refined and put to real political ends. [90]