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. It is, 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 only weapon is the axe, which seems to be purely a religious emblem. The presence of subsidiary figures interpreted as prisoners may be thought perhaps to indicate secular might, but these only occur in any numbers at Naranjo. On the whole it seems reasonable to conclude that the early Maya lived under the sway of rulers in whom the priestly aspect predominated, and that the election of chiefs whose power rested on a secular basis was a later development.