The role of the Maya in Wdliam S. Burroughs's writing, though often noted, has not been extensively explored. Burroughs's readers may know that he studied Maya culture and language at Mexico City CoUege in 1950-1951, but those unversed in Maya archaeology of the last half-century cannot evaluate the extent or accuracy of his knowledge or its relevance to his life-long resistance to control. For instance, Burroughs radicady reworked the role of Maya priests to meet his own thematic needs, making them gods of death in command of a telepathic control system, whde, with the exception of the death god Ah Puch, completely ignoring Xibalba and the nine lords of the underworld in the Maya creation myth, the Popol Vuh. Burroughs's thematization of Maya priests as gods of death is not consistent with either the archaeological views of the 1950s or of the present, but for different reasons. In the 1950s when Burroughs studied the Maya at Mexico City CoUege, they were believed to have been a benevolent theocracy, but in the mid 1980s some leading Mayanists came to believe that there were no Maya priests at all. It requires a fine balancing act to keep straight the state of knowledge about the Maya in 1950 along with Burroughs's literary appropriation of that knowledge while at the same time distinguishing what he may have known in the 1950s from the radical changes in knowledge established in the mid-1980s. Since Burroughs's studies in Mexico City, archaeology has undergone a dramatic transformation in its interpretations of the Maya, showing Burroughs's appropriation of the Maya to be not only idiosyncratic but also curiously prescient. He anticipated a dramatic change in archaeological interpretation that began in the 1960s but crystallized only in 1986, recognition of the violence in ancient Maya culture-human sacrifice and exquisite tortures inflicted on victims before death. And within his idiosyncratic theories on language he anticipated Derrida's radical argument that writing preceded speech.Because students of Burroughs are not typicaUy grounded in Maya archaeology or in Burroughs's knowledge of the Maya, the literature on Burroughs includes occasional naive, credulous, even absurd comments on his Maya motif. Some are tempted to read Burroughs literally, resulting in conclusions like the foUowing from an anthropologist: "From Burroughs we can also glean perspectives on the uses of haUucinogenic drugs grown in Mexico, the power structure of Mayan society and the futuristic nightmares of Mexican megalopolises" (CampbeU 2003, 225). It is self-evident that the Maya priests' telepathic control "machine" (which can be reprogrammed to self-destruct) is pure fantasy. The extent to which Burroughs fabricated his priesdy gods of death out of his own imagination and thematic needs urges close examination of his related Maya motifs-hieroglyphs as "transparent language," priestly manipulation of the "secret" codices, or the sacrifice of the hanged man. For instance, he was romanticaUy naive in believing that hieroglyphic "picture" writing could communicate ideas directly without the intervention of language, bypassing the Word Virus. These critiques conclude this essay.Readers without some knowledge of Maya archaeology can easily be led astray while attempting to elucidate Burroughs, including the writers of two book-length critical studies, Eric Mottram, The Algebra of Need (1977), and Timothy Murphy, Wising Up the Marks (1997). Mottram's misconstrual of Maya archaeology is far more damaging than Murphy's. Mottram sets out to "ascertain Burroughs's bases" in Paul Westheim's The Art of Ancient Mexico (1965), a peculiar choice for a variety of reasons. Mottram first cites Westheim's Spanish language Mexico City edition published in 1950, the time when Westheim was active in the inteUectual life of Mexico City and when Burroughs studied there. Westheim could conceivably have influenced Burroughs, but there is no evidence to suggest that he did. …