SLOLO G/6E

Sey

aes

ie

ARTHUR'DEM ARE
OSLO

Kanal
=
E
 LIBRARY
MILWAUKEE AREA
TECHNIGAd: bea
5555H.
y iat Road
Ancient Maya
The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization

In this new archaeological study, Arthur Demarest brings the lost pre-
Columbian civilization of Maya to life. In applying a holistic perspec-
tive to the most recent evidence from archaeology, paleoecology, and
epigraphy, this theoretical interpretation emphasizes both the brilliant
rainforest adaptations of the ancient Maya and the Native American
spirituality that permeated all aspects of their daily life. Demarest draws
on his own discoveries and the findings of colleagues to reconstruct the
complex lifeways and volatile political history of the Classic Maya states
of the first to eighth centuries. He provides a new explanation of the
long-standing mystery of the ninth-century abandonment of most of
the great rainforest cities. Finally, he draws lessons from the history of
the Classic Maya cities for contemporary society and for the ongoing
struggles and resurgence of the modern Maya peoples, who are now
re-emerging from six centuries of oppression.

ARTHUR DEMAREST is the Ingram Professor of Anthropology at Van-

derbilt University, Tennessee. For more than twenty-five years he has
directed archaeological field excavations at ancient sites in the highlands,
coasts, and rainforests of Central America and is considered a leading
authority on the Olmec, Aztec, Inca, and, particularly, the ancient Maya
civilizations.
Case Studies in Early Societies

Series Editor
Rita P. Wright, New York University

This series aims to introduce students to early societies that have been
the subject of sustained archaeological research. Each study is also
designed to demonstrate a contemporary method of archaeological
analysis in action, and the authors are alt specialists currently engaged
in field research. The books have been planned to cover many of the
same fundamental issues. Tracing long-term developments, and
describing and analyzing a discrete segment in the prehistory or
history of a region, they represent an invaluable tool for comparative
analysis. Clear, well organized, authoritative and succinct, the case
studies are an important resource for students, and for scholars in
related fields, such as anthropology, ethnohistory, history and political
science. They also offer the general reader accessible introductions to
important archaeological sites.

Other titles in the series include:

1 Ancient Mesopotamia
Susan Pollock
2 Ancient Oaxaca
Richard E. Blanton, Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski,
Linda M. Nicholas
3 Ancient Maya
Arthur Demarest
4 Ancient Fomon of Fapan
Junko Habu
5 Ancient Puebloan Southwest
John Kantner
6 Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians
Timothy R. Pauketat
Ancient Maya
The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization

Arthur Demarest

O72 l\
DdIs

LIBRARY
ae Hiss AREA
TECH
NORTH CAMPUS
$555 ALG. ate Ff Road
WATS:
Dab sagyp
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/978052 1533904

© Arthur Demarest 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2004

Fourth printing 2007

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication ts available from the British Library

ISBN-13 978-0-521-59224-6 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-53390-4 paperback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or approriate.
 Contents

List of figures page viii

Acknowledgments XV

The mystery and the challenge of the

ancient Maya
Images and realities of the ancient Maya bok

True mysteries and central themes in Maya archaeology

Background: geography, chronology, and

theoretical perspective
Geographic setting
Chronological frameworks: an overview of Mesoamerican culture
history
The nested civilizations of Mesoamerica: interpretive frameworks
Theoretical perspectives
The search for regularities and theories of cultural evolution

The exploration and archaeology of the Maya:

a brief history
The Spanish and Colonial historians and explorers
The nineteenth-century explorers and archivists
The genesis of early scientific archaeology: 1880 to 1920
Modern multidisciplinary archaeology begins
Traditional views of ancient Maya civilization
Revisions and breakthroughs: 1955 to 1990

Obscure beginnings and the Preclassic florescence

New World antecedents: before 12,000 to 3000 BC
The beginning of village life, ceramics, and complex societies:
3000 to 1300 BC
The “Olmec civilization” and the “Olmec problem”
The southern “corridor” of interaction
The Late Preclassic highland Maya centers
The beginnings of lowland Maya village life
Suddenly civilization
The coalescence of the Maya state in the lowlands: theories and
the new evidence
vi Contents

5 The splendor of the Classic Maya florescence in

the lowlands 89
The elusive essence of Classic Maya civilization 89
The Classic Maya centers 92
The search for patterns in Classic Maya settlement and society 99
The broad sweep of Classic Maya culture history 100

6 Settlement and subsistence: the rain forest adaptation Ws;

The Maya household group ms
Urban landscape and settlement patterns ALF
Population sizes and distribution 118
The rain forest adaptations: the true secret of Maya civilization 120
Ancient Maya agricultural systems 130
Minor and major hydraulic systems and the Maya state 13)
Arboriculture and timber exploitation 144
Animal husbandry, hunting, and fishing 145
Subsistence and the Classic Maya state 146

7 Classic Maya economics 148

Local products and raw materials 149
Local and regional markets and exchange systems 150
Commodities trade: salt, chocolate, textiles, and hard stone 2
Long-distance trade in high-status goods 160
Routes of trade and exchange 162
Craft production and specialization 163
Warfare and tribute W772
Maya economics and the state UZ

8 Religion and ideology: beliefs and rituals of the

theater-states WTS)
Ancestor worship 176
Gods and the cosmos Ti
Shamanism 183
Royal bloodletting 184
Sacrifice 188
Divination on
Astronomy and astrology 192
The 365-day “Haab” and 260-day ritual cycle 19)3)
The Calendar Round 194
The great cycles of time 196
Other sacred cycles and astronomical knowledge 198
Architecture, astronomy, and sacred geography 201
Ceremonial centers as sacred stages 205
Ideology and the Maya theater-states 206

9 Classic Maya politics and history: the dynamics of the

theater-states 208
Maya history and the forms of the Classic Maya state 208
The dynamics of the Classic Maya galactic polities OZAUSS
 Contents vil

Regional histories of the Maya states 2G

Overview 238

10 The end of Classic Maya civilization: collapse, transition,

and transformation 240
Concepts of causality in the decline of civilizations 240
Structural problems of the Classic Maya political order 243
Infrastructural stress and counterproductive responses 245
The nature of the “Classic Maya collapse” 246
The beginning of the end: political devolution and warfare in the
Petexbatun collapse 249
Causality in the Petexbatun collapse: alternative hypotheses 255
Collapse in the western Petén 257
Migration and enclave formation in the Pasion Valley and
other regions 260
Decline of the Classic tradition in the central Petén 262
Decline, transition, or transformation in the eastern Petén 265
Florescence, conflict, and decline in the northern lowlands 268
Rethinking the “collapse” of ancient Maya civilization 274

11 The legacy of the Classic Maya civilization: Postclassic,

Colonial, and Modern traditions 277
The Postclassic: what ended, what continued, and what changed Tl
The lowland Postclassic 279
Postclassic Conquest states of the southern highlands 284
The Spanish Conquest of the highland and lowland Maya kingdoms 286
The continuing tradition and the impact of Conquest: the Colonial
and modern Maya 289
The enduring and resurgent Maya 291

12 The lessons of Classic Maya history and prehistory 294

Bibliographical essay 298

References 303
Index 3604
 List of figures

Fallen monuments at the Petén site of El Peru page 2

Map of eastern Mesoamerica
Catherwood drawing of the ruins at Palenque,
Chiapas
Mesoamerica, showing major geographical features
Map of Mesoamerica showing cultural
macro-regions
Chronological periods for eastern Mesoamerica
Schematic interregional chronology using the
“horizons” concept
Schematic chronology based on assumption of continuous
interregional interaction
Catherwood drawing of the site of Tulum, Quintana Roo,
Mexico
Castafieda’s drawing of the palace and tower at
Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico
James Churchward map showing the lost continents of
Atlantis and Mu
Page of the Dresden Codex
Maudslay in tower in Palenque palace
Edward Thompson and divers at the sacred cenote
of Chichen Itza (courtesy of the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University)
Profile of a temple at Holmul showing cache placement
and construction levels
Landa’s recording of a “Mayan alphabet” (actually a
syllabary)
Glyphs phonetically readable in ancient Maya using
CV-CV or CV-C(V) syllabic combinations
Map of settlement in greater Tikal (courtesy University of
Pennsylvania Museum [neg. #61-5-5])

Vill
 List of figures

Clovis and Folsom style spearheads

Map of Mesoamerica showing some zones of Archaic and
early village finds
Some Locona and Ocos phase ceramics
Map of Mesoamerica showing Early Formative sites
Colossal head from Olmec site of San Lorenzo,
Veracruz, Mexico
Reconstruction of a portion of La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico
ceremonial center
Olmec jade celt (courtesy of the Trustees of the British
Museum [MMO33969])
Sherd from El Mesak, Guatemala, with “Olmec”
were-jaguar figure
Map of eastern Mesoamerica with some Preclassic
sites
Stela 5; “Maya style” monument at Abaj Takalik,
Guatemala
Stela 25 from the site of Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico
(courtesy of the New World Archaeological
Foundation) 70
“Potbellied” style monument from Santa Leticia,
E] Salvador (courtesy of Middle American Research
Institute, Tulane University) fel
Reconstruction drawing of a portion of the site of
Kaminaljuyu 13
Irrigated gardens at Preclassic Kaminaljuyu 76
Monument 65, Seated Preclassic rulers at
Kaminaljuyu 77
Reconstruction drawing of terrace and artificial
monuments at Santa Leticia, E] Salvador
(courtesy of Middle American Research Institute,
Tulane University) 78
Cross-section of the North Acropolis of Tikal (courtesy of
University of Pennsylvania Museum
[neg. #67-5-113]) 80
Mamom style ceramic vessel 81
Monumental stucco mask at Nakbe (courtesy of
Richard Hansen) 84
Tripartite style Preclassic temple from El] Mirador,
El Tigre Group (Frontispiece, courtesy of
Richard Hansen) 85
Dad Stela and altar at Tikal 91
 List of figures

Tikal epicenter in jungle 92

Range structure at Uxmal 93
Reconstruction drawing by Tatiana Proskouriakoff of the
Late Classic epicenter of Copan (courtesy of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University) 94
Cross-section of corbelled vault construction 95
Excavation of a royal tomb at Dos Pilas, Petén,
Guatemala (© Enrico Ferorrell) 97
Hieroglyphic text, Copan, Honduras (courtesy of Matt
O’ Mansky) 98
Early Classic (Tzakol style) vessel 101
Late Classic polychrome (Tepeu style) vase (courtesy of
Vanderbilt University Press) 102
5.10 Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan, Mexico 106
53 | Map of grid system of Classic Mexican city of
Teotihuacan 107
bl OY Drawing of Teotihuacan diagnostics: (a) talud-tablero
architectural facade; (b) slab-tripod vessels; (c) ruler with
Teotihuacan style “Tlaloc” eye treatment and Mexican
headdress (Stela 32, Tikal) (courtesy University of
Pennsylvania Museum [lower right field of Tikal
neg. #69-5-22]) 108
Maya thatched-roofed residence (photo courtesy of Matt
O’ Mansky) 114
Typical Maya household courtyard group Ltd
Modern Maya hamlet (photo courtesy of
Matt O’ Mansky) 14)
Residences, box terraces, dam, and reservoir at the Late
Classic site of Tamarindito, Petén, Guatemala (courtesy
of Vanderbilt University Press) 118
Maya lowlands, showing principal environmental features
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 122
Schematic view of the layers of subtropical forest canopy
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 23
Petén rain forest vegetation (courtesy of Andrew
Demarest) 124
Howler monkey (courtesy of Andrew Demarest) 125
Clearing and burning of forest milpa ot
6.10 Cross-section of simple terrace forms 134
6.11 Possible agricultural terraces near the site of Caracol,
Belize (courtesy of A. Chase and D. Chase, University of
Central Florida Caracol Archaeological Project) 135
 List of figures xi

642 Cross-section of raised field agricultural systems 136

63 Stone box gardens at the site of Punta de Chimino,
Petexbatun, Guatemala (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 139
Fragments of typical Late Classic striated water jars
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 141
Water control systems at the site of Edzna, Campeche,
Mexico (courtesy of the New World Archaeological
Foundation) 142
Canal systems around the site of Calakmul, Campeche,
Mexico 143
Modern highland Maya market at Santiago Atitlan,
Guatemala 11
Maya use of a spindle whirl to prepare thread iss)
Grinding chili with a stone metate and mano 156
Obsidian and chert eccentrics from Dos Pilas
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 157
Some major trade routes of the Petén 159
Point-plotting of craft production evidence at the site of
Aguateca, Petén, Guatemala (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 168
TESTE Scene from Late Classic polychrome vase showing elites
with serving vessels (courtesy of Vanderbilt University
Press) 170
8.1 “Plaza Plan 2” residential group from Punta de Chimino
with east side household shrine al
8.2 Burial with modest grave goods, from Cancuen (courtesy
of Andrew Demarest) 178
8.3 Schematic representation of one Classic Maya conception
of the cosmos, showing world tree (axis mundt) 180
8.4 Some glyphs for Maya deities and sacralized units of
time:
a) K’inich Ajaw, “sun-faced lord”
b) Night Jaguar, sun of the night
c) a Pawahtun
d) a Chaak
e) Bak’tun
f) K’atun 181
8.5 Cosmogram of Preclassic temple at Cerros, Belize
(© David Schele) 182
8.6 Drawing of Lintel from Temple 1, Tikal, Guatemala
(courtesy of University of Pennsylvania Museum
Ineg. #69-3-96]) 185
Xl List of figures

8.7 Ruler making a blood offering (Lintel 2 from La Pasadita)

(© David Schele) 186
8.8 Maya queen experiencing a vision (Lintel 25 from
Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico) (courtesy of The Trustees of
the British Museum [MMO33711]) 187
8.9 Ruler Wataklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil (sometimes referred to
as “18 Rabbit”) after a blood autosacrifice (Stela H from
Copan) 189
8.10 Maya queen making an autosacrificial blood offering
(Lintel 24 from Yaxchilan) (courtesy of The Trustees of
the British Museum [MMO33783]) 190
Schematic of the meshed “Calendar Round” cycles of the
260-day ritual almanac, or Tzolkin, and the 365-day
“vague solar year” or Haab 5905
Long Count date from Quirigua, Stela F nO”?
Circular Caracol temple/observatory at
Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico (courtesy of
Mark Ochsner) ; 202
Drawing of “E-group temple” showing solar alignments at
solstices and equinoxes 209
Cosmogram at Dos Pilas, showing central position of the
Murcielagos royal palace 204
Emblem glyphs of some Classic Maya centers 210
Some glyphs for political titles of lords, vassals, and
overlords 211
Glyphs for major events in rulers’ life histories 212
Royal court scene on Late Classic Maya vase
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 212
Some major Classic Maya centers 219
Stela 1, Tres Islas, Guatemala Zo
Caana temple at Caracol (courtesy of A. Chase and D.
Chase, University of Central Florida Caracol
Archaeological Project) 224
Dos Pilas Hieroglyphic Stairway 4, discovered in 1990 225
Dos Pilas Panel 19 (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 226
Late Classic subregions and sites of the Maya
lowlands (courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 22h
Western entrance to the sprawling royal palace of
Cancuen, Petén, Guatemala (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 230
 List of figures Xill

9.12 Battle scene from the Bonampak murals (© Bonampak

Documentation Project) 21
9.13 Part of the Late Classic epicenter of Palenque, Chiapas,
Mexico Zoe
9.14 The Copan epicenter (with ballcourt and hieroglyphic
stairway) 253
9515 Stela E from Quirigua, Guatemala 234
2.16 Puuc style arch at Labna, Mexico (courtesy of Nicholas P.
Dunning) 237
al Puuc stone mosaic decoration on the facade of the House
of the Governor at Uxmal, Yucatan (courtesy of Nicholas
P. Dunning) 238
10.1 Levels of causality in the decline of civilization 241
10:2 Some salient characteristics of most Classic Maya
states 243
10.3 Some structural problems of Classic Maya states
(courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press) 247
10.4 Petexbatun region and some major sites (courtesy of
Vanderbilt University Press) 250
10.5 Dos Pilas Western Group (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 2o1
10.6 Eighth-century defensive systems around the E] Duende
complex, Dos Pilas, Guatemala (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) PIDfe
LOs7 Portion of the fortification system at Aguateca (courtesy
of Vanderbilt University Press) Zoo
10.8 Fortified hilltop village in the Petexbatun (courtesy of
Vanderbilt University Press) 254
BOrS Late Classic site of Punta de Chimino with defensive
moats and protected intensive garden zones (courtesy of
Vanderbilt University Press) 254
10.10 Schematic interpretation of causality in the collapse of the
Late Classic Petexbatun kingdom (courtesy of Vanderbilt
University Press) 258
1021 Monument 3 of Seibal showing unusual Terminal
Classic iconography and garb (courtesy of John A.
Graham 1973) 262
| 10.12 Tikal in ruins in the (Eznab) Terminal Classic
period 264
10.13 The Nunnery Quadrangle at Uxmal (courtesy of Nicholas
P. Dunning) 270
XIV List of figures

10.14 Map of defensive walls around Cuca, Yucatan, Mexico

(courtesy of David Webster) 272
10.15 Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico
(courtesy of Mark Ochsner) PR:
Map of the Postclassic capital of Mayapan (courtesy of the
Carnegie Institution of Washington) 281
Ruins of Postclassic temple complex at Tulum 282
Map of the Postclassic highland Kaqchikel capital at
Iximche’ . 285
Colonial map of the center of Iximche’ 288
A modern Q’eqchi’? Maya Wa’atesink ritual (courtesy of
Christopher Talbott) 291
Archaeologists participating in a Q’eqchi’ Maya Hac
ritual at the archaelogical site of Cancuen (courtesy of
Andrew Demarest) 292,
 Acknowledgments

I found it very difficult to synthesize more than thirty years of reading

and research on the ancient Maya into a short, general text. I was finally
able to construct this extended essay only with the help of many people.
My first thanks go to virtually all of my colleagues in the field for their
advice and information (much unpublished) on the Classic period of
Maya civilization. To all, I apologize for the necessarily brief coverage of
their discoveries and interpretations demanded by the length and format
of a general overview. To those scholars working in the Postclassic period,
I express my regret that their work was not more fully covered, as my
text was intended to focus on the nature, prehistory, and history of the
Classic Maya kingdoms. Special appreciation for reactions, suggestions,
and critique on sections of this text goes to David Freidel, Don and Pru
Rice, Federico Fahsen, Rita Wright, Sarah Jackson, and Ron Bishop.
My own ever-shifting views on the ancient Maya were refined with the
help and inspiration of these scholars, as well as Bill Fash, Bob Sharer,
Will Andrews, Richard Hansen, Juan Antonio Valdés, Diane and Arlen
Chase, Pat Culbert, Hector Escobedo, Takeshi Inomata, Nick Dunning,
Norman Hammond, Peter Mathews, David Stuart, Mike Love, and the
late Linda Schele. These and others whose works are cited in this text
were generous with feedback on specific and general points and access to
unpublished data, drawings, and photos.
Rita Wright, the series editor, deserves heartfelt thanks for her sup-
port, ideas, feedback, and incredible patience with my writing of this
text. Special thanks are also due Simon Whitmore and Jessica Kuper at
Cambridge University Press, as well as Allison Price, Matt O’Mansky,
Brigitte Kovacevich, George Higginbotham, Arik Ohnstad, and Michael
Callaghan, whose help was critical with all aspects of the completion of
the book.
I hope that any future references will cite the full title of this book,
Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rain Forest Civilization, so as not
to confuse this extended, interpretive essay with The Ancient Maya by
Robert Sharer (with previous editions by Sharer, Morley, and Brainerd;

XV
XVl Acknowledgments

Morley and Brainerd; and Morley), which is a much longer and more
comprehensive (almost encyclopedic) text. That work has been for
many decades, and continues to be, an essential reference work for our
sub-field.
As always, I am grateful to the late Robert Wauchope and Gordon
Willey, who (through their mentorship and guidance) are partly to blame
for inflicting me and my intense perspective upon the field of Maya
archaeology and my Mayanist colleagues.
Finally, I thank my sons, Andrew and Matthew, and all the dogs —
for the constant interruptions, distractions, and crises that have greatly
interfered with the writing of this book, but that have made life much
more entertaining!
] The mystery and the challenge of the
ancient Maya

Buried beneath the jungle vegetation lie sprawling ruined palaces of fine
masonry architecture, still magnificent and beautiful despite the ravages
of over a millennium. Scattered between the palaces rise great stone
temples, some towering over the level of the dense jungle canopy of
mahogany, cedar, and ceiba that reaches two hundred feet above the forest
floor. On and between the palaces and temples lie scattered slabs of stone
exquisitely carved with elaborate scenes and inscriptions (Fig. 1.1). On
these eroded and broken monuments, the complex imagery that remains
intact struggles against time to reveal its esoteric secrets. The scattered
masonry and rubble of what were once the warm family homes of peas-
ants and the elegant palaces of nobles are strewn for miles into the sea of
jungle that stretches in all directions...

Images and realities of the ancient Maya

Such is the popular image, and the physical reality, of the ruined centers
of the ancient Maya. From many centuries before Christ to about AD
900, the lowland Maya civilization achieved its apogee in the Petén forest
of northern Guatemala and the adjacent portions of Mexico, Belize, and
western Honduras, what today we call the “Maya lowlands” (Fig. 1.2).
For over 1,500 years, this region was covered by a network of kingdoms
dominated by “holy lords,” sacred kings who were linked by complex ties
of kinship, ritual, trade, and military alliance. Their political and religious
centers included great acropoli of massed palaces, temples, stone tombs,
and ballcourts. These centers of power and pageantry were supported
by nearby populations of thousands of farmers who practiced a complex
system of rain forest agriculture — a system which only now is beginning to
be understood. Maya monuments displayed remarkable achievements in
astronomy, mathematics, and calendrics, as well as an elaborate cosmol-
ogy and a volatile and violent political history. The accomplishments of
the ancient Maya still astonish us today and the decline and disappearance

1
2 Ancient Maya

Figure 1.1 Fallen monuments at the Petén site of El] Peru

of this society continues to challenge the imaginations of the public and

the efforts of scientists.
For nearly two centuries we have been fascinated by the mystery and
romance of the archaeology of the ancient Maya civilization. Nineteenth-
century explorers found the Maya stone palaces, temples, ballcourts,
and monuments buried beneath the dense vegetation of the jungle
canopy (Fig. 1.3). The romantic popular scenario was completed by
the ancient Maya’s enigmatic, only partially deciphered, hieroglyphic-
inscribed monuments, and by their royal tombs filled with treasures of
art and precious jade. Then we have the evidence, much debated, of a
sudden and unexplained collapse for this sophisticated, literate civiliza-
tion. The mysteries of ancient lowland Maya civilization have inspired
the many “lost jungle cities” of fiction and film, which combine Classic
Maya features with an incongruous montage of stylistic elements from
other cultures.
Many essays and texts on Maya archaeology begin with a debunk-
ing of these melodramatic renderings of ancient Maya civilization and
its mysteries. It is true that the popular obsession with the mysterious
elements of Maya archaeology has led to wild versions of the Maya past.
Some have linked the ancient Maya with the lost tribes of Israel, colonists
from the sunken continents of Atlantis and Mu, extraterrestrial visitors,
 The mystery and challenge of the ancient Maya 3

YUCATAN

oO
rc & CAMPECHE ia
5 mn

FA @
MAYA LOWLANDS , 2
CLS i <
» a eB

A a

&
, BELIZE <
i ©

i Ss

(
AYA * 6
HIGHLANDS
>
BO ¢ GUATEMALA

PE SALVADOR<270 8

Figure 1.2 Map of eastern Mesoamerica (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

or presented millennial predictions from the Maya calendar of the future

as variously heralding a “New Age” or the Apocalypse. Recent theory in
the social sciences has emphasized that the ancient past is a “text” into
which those in the present “read” their own meanings and reflect their
own concerns (e.g. Hodder 1986). Such reflexive uses of the past are
certainly characteristic of Maya archaeology and its popular representa-
tions. Lost Maya cities, jungles, secret scripts, and tombs have provided
the raw material for a wide range of colorful popular interpretations that
4 Ancient Maya

Figure 1.3 Catherwood drawing of the ruins at Palenque, Chiapas

(from Stephens 1841)

sometimes have little or nothing to do with the ancient Maya and, in some
cases, have been quite condescending toward their modern oppressed
descendants (Montejo 1991; Castaneda 1996; Hervik 1999).
Still, while scholars may be amused or offended by these misuses of
the Maya, even careful professional studies usually portray the archae-
ology of the Maya as a series of challenges or problems, many of those
enigmas broadly similar to those addressed by popular presentation and
speculation. Perhaps beneath the public’s naive fascination with the Maya
there always has been an intuitive grasp of some elements which are the
genuine intellectual challenges that Maya archaeology presents to social
science.
One such central challenge has been the very presence of this high civi-
lization in a “rain forest” (technically not a true rain forest but a “humid
subtropical forest”). In general, jungles have been perceived by the public
as the realm of less complex peoples — “tribes” or even “savages.” Theory
in the social sciences has differed from this popular perception more in
style than in substance, since scholars, too, have been puzzled by the
presence of this complex society in a rain forest environment. Historians
and archaeologists traditionally had looked to highland basins or to desert
river valleys for the heartlands of civilizations. Such environments had the
proper settings to apply the alleged “prime movers” for the development
 The mystery and challenge of the ancient Maya 5

of complex society; that is, settings with factors that demanded central-
ized management, such as irrigation, conflict over limited land or water,
control of trade routes, and so on. The rise of civilization in a rain forest
was baffling, given the few navigable rivers, no obvious need for irrigation,
and no apparent need for centralized forms of agricultural management.
The rain forest setting of the Maya continues to challenge our interpreta-
tions and an understanding of this environment is central to any accurate
view of Maya civilization and its long history.
Other major aspects of research on the ancient Maya also began with
initial impressions that were unfocused, but nonetheless insightful. The
popular appeal of Maya archaeology has always been enhanced by the
beauty and complexity of the vast corpus of ancient Maya art, includ-
ing artifacts, murals, monuments, and architecture. As scholars began
to interpret Maya iconography, hieroglyphics, and art, they also were
seduced by the complexity of Maya art and the sophistication of their
calendrics, mathematics, and cosmology. As we shall see, this vast invest-
ment of ancient lowland Maya society in monuments, architecture, and
other manifestations of elite culture may reflect the distinctive political
structure of this civilization and the “cultural capital” of its elites (Bour-
dieu 1977). Again, beneath the romantic images lie basic truths about
the intellectual challenges presented by our “readings” of this ancient
society.
Another element in the popular fascination with the ancient Maya is
the mystery of the sudden “collapse” of their greatest cities in the south-
ern lowland Petén rain forest. The first explorers found massive acropoli
of public architecture and extensive domestic ruins that had been long
abandoned. Other sites were only occupied by small groups of Lacandon
Maya, who offered incense and prayer before the remnants of the ancient
temples, stelae, and altars. The mystery of the abandonment of these
ancient Maya cities has spawned several generations of speculations and
theories on its causes — ranging from epidemics and earthquakes to elite
decadence, peasant revolts, and foreign invasions.
The enigma of the decline and abandonment of the Maya cities of
the Classic period (AD 300 to 900) not only fed public fantasy, but
also helped stimulate a century of serious archaeological research. The
controversy on the nature, causes, and even the existence of the so-called
“Classic Maya collapse” remains hotly debated.
Some presentations ofthe “Classic Maya collapse” have tended implic-
itly to denigrate the later achievements of the Postclassic kingdoms or
even the continuing vigorous cultural traditions, resistance, and activism
of the millions of Maya peoples living today (see Montejo 1991; D. Chase
and A. Chase 2004; Demarest and Garcia 2003; P. Rice er al. 2004). It
is critical to circumscribe and define what exactly happened to many of
6 Ancient Maya

the lowland Maya cities of the Classic period, rather than to speculate
vaguely on some general “collapse” of the Maya.
In this text we will review the interpretations of this complex phenom-
ena, the evidence, and the beginnings of a consensus on some issues.
In some parts of the southern lowland region of the Maya world, the
decline of the Maya cities at the end of the Classic period was a relatively
rapid process with a dramatic drop in the level of political complexity
and drastic population decline. In other regions Maya states were more
gradually transformed into a different form of society. In the past decade,
approaches to understanding the mystery of the decline of the jungle cities
of the Maya have moved beyond simplistic and uniform characterizations.
The end of Classic period lowland Maya civilization has proven to be one
of the most exciting aspects of Maya archaeology for scientific studies
that touch upon universal questions about the causes of the decline of
complex societies. Despite the existence of exaggerations and wild theo-
ries, scholars should concede that popular perceptions helped to propel
scientific research on the collapse in directions that have revealed the
central, distinctive themes of Classic Maya civilization.

True mysteries and central themes in Maya archaeology

Three themes will be emphasized in this brief overview of the nature of

ancient lowland Classic Maya civilization. One is the issue of the funda-
mental connection of all aspects of Maya society to its ecological and
economic adaptation to the rain forest environment. Up until a few years
ago, international conservation agencies had argued that such environ-
ments can only be saved by holding human populations down to a very
low level. Contrary to this modern wisdom, the ancient Maya raised a
remarkable, complex civilization in the Petén rain forest with populations
in the millions, and they sustained it for nearly two millennia. What were
the secrets of the ancient Maya adaptation to the rain forest? How did they
achieve a sustainable rain forest civilization? The answers are complex,
but recent studies have begun to reveal the nature of Classic Maya ecolog-
ical adaptations. In turn, these new characterizations of Maya ecology and
economy have implications for understanding their volatile and dynamic
political structure, their vast investment in political ideology and ritual,
and the inherent instability that facilitated the ninth-century decline of
many of their cities in the lowland regions.
Another central feature of Maya archaeology, also reflected in public
interest, is the vast and complex corpus of Maya art, monuments, and
hieroglyphic inscriptions, and the elaborate ideology that it presents.
The complexity of ancient Maya astronomy, astrology, calendrics, and
 The mystery and challenge of the ancient Maya 7

cosmology has mesmerized modern scholars and devoted lay followers.

Yet this emphasis on the detail of Maya esoterica has sometimes lacked
any real grasp of the fundamental nature of the Classic Maya investment
in ideology. With the decipherment of many inscriptions, more systematic
study of political history, and comparative study to parallel institutions
in other civilizations, we are now beginning to discern the political ratio-
nale in the mystical haze of Maya cosmology and elite culture. Later we
will explore some aspects of Maya religion and political history, and how
Maya elite dependence on ideology and imagery for power can be related
to their unstable political dynamics.
Finally, a third theme of intellectual import, as well as popular fasci-
nation, is the long-standing mystery of the so-called “Classic Maya
collapse.” Later we will review the rapid decline of many Maya cities in
the southern rain forest zone of the Maya civilization. Recent researches
have demonstrated the great variability of Classic Maya civilization in art,
architecture, économics, and political developments. It is not surprising,
then, that we have discovered variability in the regional manifestations of
the ending of this Classic Maya culture. Still, some common processes
and structural features have begun to emerge in the histories of the Maya
states of the different regions of the lowlands between AD 750 and 1000.
These parallels will also be linked to the other two themes: the Classic
Maya rain forest adaptation, and their rulers’ dependence on ideology
for political power.
Modern scholars, who have had the benefit of hindsight and a century
of new evidence, should concede the perceptiveness of some of the
early explorers and the public on these “mysteries” of the Maya civi-
lization. Ethnocentrism, and reflexive and personal romantic readings
of the ancient Maya ruins, abound both in early scholarship and even in
recent popular presentations. Yet each of the popular “mysteries” did arise
from the underlying problems that still challenge archaeology. The scien-
tific exploration of these questions has highlighted the very areas where
Maya archaeology can make a general contribution to social science. Two
centuries of investigation of these themes has made Classic Maya civiliza-
tion somewhat less mysterious. Instead, Classic Maya archaeology has
become a source of potential insights into the general study in the social
sciences of the nature, the rise, and the struggles of all civilizations. In our
own subjective, personal readings of the story of this civilization, which
was very complex and very different from our own, we as readers can also
find our own reflexive philosophical meanings — speaking perhaps not so
much about the ancient Maya as about ourselves.
Z Background: geography, chronology, and
theoretical perspective

Geographic setting

The setting of Maya civilization is the eastern portion of what archaeolo-

gists call “Mesoamerica.” Geographically, Mesoamerica is simple enough
to define. It covers most of what is today Mexico and the countries of
Upper Central America: Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, and western
Honduras (Fig. 2.1). Anthropologists and archaeologists use this desig-
nation to refer to a “culture area,” a region of similar culture traits and
features. For several millennia the various societies and civilizations of
most of Mexico and Central America were in constant interaction through
trade, migration, conquest, and other contacts. These interactions, as well
as some common linguistic and ethnic origins, resulted in a sharing of
many features across this vast and geographically diverse region.
Some of the features traditionally listed as characteristic of the
“Mesoamerican culture area” (e.g. Kirchoff 1943; Helms 1975) included
specific features, such as forms of a game played with a rubber ball in
a rectangular court and “codex” books made of sheets of bark paper
or deerskin coated with stucco and folded like screens. More impor-
tant common traits were beliefs and concepts shared by the societies of
Mesoamerica, such as the ritual importance of blood offerings and human
sacrifice. Another trait was a shared concern with astronomical knowl-
edge, and the recording and worship of the calendric cycles of the sun,
the moon, the planet Venus, and the stars. Most societies in Mesoamerica
also shared a common diet dominated by maize corn, beans, squashes,
and chiles. Maize was ground on stone querns (metates) with stone hand
pestles (manos) and then either grilled as flat tortillas or steamed or roasted
in the familiar thicker tamales. (The latter were more common in Classic
Maya cuisine.)
Being defined by cultural traits and traditions, the exact boundaries
of Mesoamerica as a “culture area” shifted over time with the shifting
distribution of those traits, so archaeologists debate its precise limits
(Helms 1975; Boone and Willey 1988; Porter-Weaver 1993). In general
 Yucatan
i gPeninsula
10)

9 1 ¥€
° i)
2 v

Poca
os

eee
= oS
.
ane a
ee
aS 12)
= fo)

sours auth
Sat agra
UR
EP
My?
A=
SMO"
1a
AneAW
ligt

AUNLa eS
Ke

illera
d a
YZ
Mmor,
er
West
n
—

wl.

i
100
200
400
300
500km
E
M

0
Figure
Mesoameric
2.1
showing
features
geographica
major
by
(drawn
Luin)
F.
Luis
(uIN’y “J stn Aq uMeIp) suOTSaI-osOKUWU [eINI[NS Jofew BurMoYs volIsWBOSay Jo deyy 7°Z NST
Veen ee el eS IN ava On Ss See WHO00S Moor OuetecTnoo ume:
00F 00£ 002 OOF O
SGNVTHOIAH
NVYOIXaAW

a
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 11

its western and northern boundary is drawn somewhere across the deserts
of the northern part of the Central Plateau of Mexico. The southern
boundary of Mesoamerica is traced from northwestern Costa Rica up to
western Honduras, where this complex of shared features and concepts
begins to become diffuse in the archaeological and ethnohistoric record
(Fig. 2.2).
Defining cultural subregions within Mesoamerica (Fig. 2.2) is more
arbitrary, since regions of greater cultural similarity, shared language,
ethnicity, or political unity changed with each period. Generally, the high-
land cultures of modern central Mexico and the Mexican state of Oaxaca
had distinctive cultural traditions with a high degree of continuity. Each
of these areas had a sequence of civilizations centered on rich highland
basins, most notably the Valleys of Mexico and Oaxaca. Other basins
and valleys lie nestled within portions of the great western and eastern
mountain ranges (cordilleras) that frame the natural geography of Mexico
(West 1964). ~
‘To the northeast and east another broad culture area could be defined
by the regions which define and border the Isthmus of Tehuantepec: the
Mexican Gulf Coast states of Tabasco and Veracruz, the state of Chiapas,
and the Pacific coast of southern Guatemala (Fig. 2.2). Together these
formed a corridor of communication and population movement in pre-
Columbian times. This “Isthmian Zone” (Lowe 1978; Parsons 1978)
was a varied landscape of coasts, swamps, valleys, and hill ranges that
separated the Maya world from western Mesoamerica, while also provid-
ing natural routes of contact, trade, and migration across Mesoamer-
ica. Within this Isthmian region a variety of cultures flourished with
great changes from period to period in ethnic, linguistic, and political
groups.
The Maya cultures inhabited the eastern portion of Mesoamerica from
the volcanic mountain ranges of southern Chiapas and Guatemala, north
across the central highlands of Guatemala, and down into the lowland
rain forests that extend to the north from northern Guatemala, western
* Honduras, and Belize, across the Yucatan peninsula to the Gulf of Mexico
(Fig. 2.2). The geography of the Maya world itself in eastern Mesoamer-
ica is generally divided ecologically and culturally into “highlands” and
“lowlands” (Sanders 1973; Coe 1966). To the south the “Maya highland”
zone is of particular importance to any discussion of the early stages of
Maya civilization. The earliest known sedentary village societies of east-
ern Mesoamerica have been found on the southern Pacific coastal plain
of Guatemala and Chiapas. Much of the evidence on the evolution of
early Maya writing, art, high chiefdoms, and early states has come from
the Pacific slopes and intermontane basins of the southern highlands.
12 Ancient Maya

The “Maya lowland” region (see Fig. 6.5) consists of flat to slightly
rolling limestone plain and hills that cover Guatemala’s Department of
Petén, Belize, and the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico (Siemens 1978;
Harrison and Turner 1978). This Maya lowland zone was covered by
the subtropical rain forest environment that sustained Maya civilization
for over two thousand years. Its complex geography and ecology, and
the ancient Maya adaptations to them, are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6. Together, the varied mix of coasts, jungles, volcanic ranges,
and basins in eastern Mesoamerica gave rise to the great states and centers
of the Classic Maya civilization and to the indigenous Maya cultures that
still flourish today.

Chronological frameworks: an overview of

Mesoamerican culture history

Definitions of historic or prehistoric periods in any field are subject

to constant debate and revision since they often combine two distinct
functions: the convenient lumping of blocks of time for description versus
the defining and characterizing of presumed “stages” of development.
Problems with chronological “stages” quickly arise as new discoveries
shift the dating of cultural developments and as differing sequences are
found for the rise of complex societies in different zones (Willey and
Phillips 1958; Sabloff 1990). Ultimately, archaeologists and historians
accept some odd mix of terms that largely serve as arbitrary units of
time, but still have residual implications (accurate or not) regarding level
of development.
Mesoamerica and the Maya world are no exception to this pattern,
and several similar alternative chronological terminologies are common
(Willey and Phillips 1958; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979; Sharer
1994). All of them are flawed in that the terms used originally referred
to perceived developmental periods, such as “Formative” or “Preclassic,”
“Classic,” and so on. New evidence has moved back in time the perceived
periods of development and florescence in the Maya area, but the chrono-
logical framework continues in use. The period designations that follow
(Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic) reflect this
inevitably awkward mix of neutral temporal divisions and developmen-
tal designations. Overall temporal frameworks and broad characteri-
zations are listed below and in Fig. 2.3. A more detailed discussion
of these periods and the rise of Maya civilization are given in subse-
quent chapters, but here it should be useful to preview the chronology
broadly.
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 13

A.D. 1542

POSTCLASSIC

TERMINAL
A.D. 900 | CLASSIC
LATE CLASSIC

ae a CLASSIC-— — ~— —- -——-

EARLY CLASSIC

PROTO
A.D. 300 CLASSIC ?

LATE PRECLASSIC

r 400 B.C.

MIDDLE PRECLASSIC

1000 B.C. |

EARLY PRECLASSIC

2000 B.C. |

ARCHAIC

|
|
| |
| |

Figure 2.3 Chronological periods for eastern Mesoamerica (drawn by

Luis F. Luin)

Paleo-Indian period (before 12,000 BC to about 7000 BC)

Most chronologies of Mesoamerica begin with a long period during which

social groups were primarily small nomadic bands that subsisted on the
collection of wild plants and the hunting of animals. Chronologies vary as
to the beginning of this epoch, depending on the dating of the settlement
of the New World by the groups that crossed the Bering Strait (Willey
14 Ancient Maya

1971; Fagan 1987; Lynch 1978, 1991; Dillehay and Meltzer 1991). Some
would see such a crossing from Asia as early as 100,000 years ago, but all
agree that by no later than 12,000 BC bands of hunters and gatherers had
crossed into the New World and were rapidly filling up the varied environ-
ments of this hemisphere (Jennings 1978; Willey 1971; Lynch 1991).

Archaic period (7000 BC to 2000 BC)

Climatic changes, corresponding shifts in ecology, and the extinction of

important species of megafauna occurred between 10,000 and 7,000 BC.
By the latter date, hunting and gathering groups had begun a series of
gradual adaptations to a wider range of eco-niches through more varied
subsistence strategies. During this period emphasis on systematic collect-
ing of wild plants and hunting or trapping of small game, birds, and fish
set the stage for the beginnings of agriculture. In some areas this transi-
tion had occurred by as early as 5000 BC. By 3000 BC in most regions,
populations were larger, with sedentary or semi-sedentary villages, and
increased dependence on farming. By 2000 BC there were settled farm-
ing villages in most of Mesoamerica.

Early Preclassic (2000 to 1000 BC)

As in many other world regions, agriculture and sedentism were followed

relatively rapidly by population increases and the development of socially
and politically more complex societies. In the millennium after 2000 BC,
early chiefdoms with religious and political leadership began to appear in
central Mexico, the Valley of Oaxaca, the Pacific coasts of Chiapas and
Guatemala, and the Gulf coast swamps and highlands of Veracruz and
Tabasco. By 1500 to 1200 BC some Mesoamerican societies had public
constructions, long-distance exchange systems, differential access to
power and wealth, and complex information systems. The latter included
the beginnings of monumental art, iconography, and the calendric and
writing systems used later by the Classic Maya and other Mesoamerican
societies. The events and processes of this Early Preclassic (or alterna-
tively “Early Formative”) period are still very poorly understood, partic-
ularly in the southern Maya lowlands, where there is little archaeological
evidence before about 1000 BC.

Middle Preclassic (1000 to 400 BC)

Between 1000 and 400 BC incipient complex societies in many regions

of Mesoamerica evolved into “archaic states,” with more centralized
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 15

-political and religious authority, public architecture, monumental art,

economic complexity, and social stratification. During this period there
was continued development of the pan-Mesoamerican complex of icono-
graphic, astronomical, calendric, and writing systems. These informa-
tion systems varied regionally, but shared similar structures and even
many individual elements. During this period the “Olmec civilization”
flourished in Veracruz and Tabasco, and there were complex societies in
other regions that shared elements of Olmec art and ideology (Sharer
and Grove 1989). Again, the processes are poorly understood, but inter-
regional interaction between emerging elites was clearly central to these
developments.

Late Preclassic (400 BC to AD 300)

By 400 BC states with distinctive regional variants of Mesoamerican

civilization had emerged or were emerging in central Mexico, Oaxaca,
the Maya region, and elsewhere. This period saw the rise of the great
urban center of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico and Monte Alban
in the Valley of Oaxaca. Comparable centers in both the Maya highlands
and lowlands had large populations, political complexity, and monumen-
tal architecture. In the last three centuries of this period, interregional
contacts and still poorly understood events led to the distinctive complex
of artifactual traits and political ideologies characteristic of the “Classic
period” of the Maya lowlands.

Classic period (AD 300 to 900)

This period, along with its archaeological manifestations (especially in

the southern half of the Maya lowlands), is the principal chronologi-
cal and regional focus of this text. Traditionally, the Classic epoch was
defined as the period of the use in the lowlands of distinctive forms of
the ancient Maya writing and calendric systems in carved stone texts, as
well as polychrome ceramics, corbeled vault or false vault stone archi-
tecture, the stela-altar monument complex, and a series of other specific
traits (Sabloff 1985; Willey 1987). This epoch was once believed to be
the period of cultural florescence of the ancient Maya. Now we know that
most of these traits predated the “Classic” period and that there were
several “florescences” of Maya civilization, evidenced by the presence
of urbanism and monumental architecture on a large scale in the previ-
ous Late Preclassic period, as well as urban centers in the subsequent
Postclassic era. Still, the Classic period does appear to have some degree
of integrity (or, at least, utility) as a concept because all of the traits
16 Ancient Maya

referred to above were present at a large number of centers associated

with widespread, shared ceramic styles. More recently, some scholars
have emphasized the dominance of the ideology of divine kingship in art,
iconography, and politics throughout this Classic period — the so-called
“Ajaw complex,” as discussed below in Chapters 8 and 9 (e.g. Schele and
Freidel 1990; Freidel 1992).
Traditionally, the Classic period has been divided into an Early Classic
(circa AD 300 to 550) and a Late Classic (circa AD 600 to 900) originally
with a “hiatus” or period of cultural recession between the two (Prosk-
ouriakoff 1950; Willey 1974). Now, from more specific hieroglyphic deci-
pherments of historical texts, we know that the “hiatus” between the Early
and Late Classic was probably merely a period of defeat and decline for
some important states in the central Petén, while elsewhere competing
states flourished (Chase and Chase 1987; Schele and Freidel 1990; Chase
1991; Martin and Grube 1996). Nonetheless, a broad separation between
Early (AD 300 to 600) and Late (AD 600 to 900) Classic is a convenient
tool for synthetic summaries, and the Late Classic period does corre-
spond to rapid changes in ceramic styles and an acceleration of important
economic and political developmental trends in most subregions of the
Maya world (Culbert 1991; Sabloff and Henderson 1993).

The Terminal Classic and the “Collapse” (AD 800 to 1000)

Though seldom designated as a specific period, the last century of the

“Classic period” and the first of the so-called “Postclassic” were centuries
of change and transformation in the Maya lowlands. This controversial
epoch of collapse, transition, and transformation is given special atten-
tion in this text (Chapter 10). Intensification of interregional contacts,
radical population changes, migrations, and economic and political
transformations characterized the AD 750/800 to 1000/1050 period in
most areas of the Maya world, although in differing ways in each zone
(Culbert 1973; Sabloff and Andrews V 1986; Demarest, Rice, and Rice
2004a).

Postclassic period (AD 900/1000 to 1542)

The focus of this text is on the Classic period in the lowland rain forest
regions. Consequently, I will give only a brief summary of the Postclassic
and the Conquest periods. As we will see, recent discoveries and interpre-
tations in some regions have blurred the distinction between the Classic
and the Postclassic periods (Chase and Rice 1985). In northern Yucatan
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective ey,

and other areas the political and economic transformation of Maya society
after AD 800 was a process that involved foreign influence and ambitious
experimentation. At the end of these two centuries, the Maya of the
Yucatan peninsula in the north and the Guatemalan highlands in the
south were dominated by new forms of conquest states. While arguably
producing less spectacular art and architecture, these populous Postclas-
sic states thrived in northern Yucatan, the central Petén lake district, and
the southern highlands. The institutions and economies of the Postclassic
states allowed them to expand into even larger competing alliances until
the sixteenth-century Spanish Conquest.

Alternative chronologies

There are, of course, many alternative chronological schemes. In the past,

a “Protoclassi¢” epoch was proposed somewhere between AD 150 and
350 as a period of coalescence of Classic Maya civilization (Gifford 1976;
Willey 1977). Recent studies have failed to demonstrate any consistent
chronological definition for such a proposed period (Pring 1977; Brady
et al. 1998). The presence of great centers and political complexity by
the beginning of the Late Preclassic period, several centuries earlier, also
invalidates the original Protoclassic concept.
We should also note that the beginning and the ending dates for every
period or sub-period vary between authors by a century or more. Such
inconsistencies are of little real importance in interpretations of Maya
archaeology, where we have a fairly reliable absolute chronology based
on dated hieroglyphic monuments and associated specific polychrome
ceramic styles. Often Maya archaeologists can date Classic historical
events or cultural phenomena to the century, year, or even day, regardless
of how we name these periods.

The nested civilizations of Mesoamerica:

interpretive frameworks

A more substantial disagreement exists between Mayanists and some

Mesoamerican archaeologists working in central Mexico or Oaxaca.
Some scholars (including authors in this series) have accepted an alter-
native chronological scheme (Price 1978; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley
1979; Blanton et al. 1999). Such a system is structured by the premise
that gradual developmental sequences in each region were periodi-
cally crosscut by periods of intensified pan-Mesoamerican interregional
contacts, migrations, or conquests. These so-called “horizons” are often
18 Ancient Maya

characterized as periods in which dominant core areas radiated influences

that stimulated rapid changes in other regions (e.g. Rowe 1956, 1962;
Sanders and Price 1968; cf. D. Rice 1993a).
Thus, an “Early Horizon” of influences from the precocious Olmec
chiefdoms of the Gulf Coast of Mexico is believed by some to have been
responsible for widespread shared motifs and ceramic modes, as well as
some specific iconographic elements present across much of Mesoamer-
ica between about 1200 and 800 BC. Similarly, this perspective posits a
“Middle Horizon” beginning at about AD 350, a time of great commer-
cial and military interactions across Mesoamerica. Architectural forms,
ceramic styles, and central Mexican iconography are found at many sites
in each region of Mesoamerica between about AD 300 and 500 and
have been attributed to influence from the great city of Teotihuacan in
the Valley of Mexico (Sanders and Santley 1983). Finally, a Late Hori-
zon was defined based on solid historical documentation recording the
fifteenth-century expansion through conquest of the Aztec Empire from
its Valley of Mexico homeland.
There are great problems with such a chronological scheme and the
interpretive framework that underlies it (D. Rice 1993a; Demarest and
Foias 1993; Braswell 2003a, 2003b). The model implicitly envisions
regional cultural sequences as somewhat isolated territorial developments
episodically punctuated by stimulating periods of pan-Mesoamerican
influence in the form of these “horizons” (Fig. 2.4). The horizon-
interpretive framework actually reflects better the structure of contem-
porary academics — with regional experts conceding evidence of contact
in certain periods to indicate “horizons” of pan-Mesoamerican contact
connecting their zones. It tends to focus proposed periods of intensified
exchange and cultural advance into narrow chronological bands.
It is more probable that communication was continuous, intense, and
unbroken between most regions of Mesoamerica from the beginning of
the Preclassic era to the Conquest. From the origins of theMesoamerican
civilizations, the ancient patterns of contact formed more of a lattice of
ongoing exchanges of information, iconography, and scientific knowl-
edge, moving in multiple directions between emerging elites in each
region (Fig. 2.5). Such patterns of multidirectional interregional contact
have been found to be characteristic of the coevolution of the distinc-
tive civilizations of the Near East and central and south Asia, as well
as other world regions (see Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975, 1989, and case
studies in this series, e.g. Pollock 1999; Wright in press). Again, scholars
of those world regions initially resisted notions of continuous interre-
gional communication and the coevolution of civilizations. Now we are
beginning to appreciate the degree to which regional civilizations can
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 19

|
—s;

i
asi
|
1S)
A
3 1500 AD
~4-»Aztec Horizon
oO

3Z
BL 1000 aD -~»Toltec Horizon

2)
“a2
&
is) 500 AD

F -PTeotihuacan Horizon
oe
‘B
3 0
Lateas)
FERIUVDS
o|
|
Pale
8
ma 500 BC
z
s
rs)
Middle
oO
9)
= 1000 BC ---*Olmec, Horizon

Sj Locona Horizon
23
ye] 1500 BC
: eae
a8 iH
ra “ 1
'
H
'
4 1
4 5
= 2000 BC = 7 sas
CENTRAL OAXACA GULF PACIFIC MAYA MAYA
MEXICO COAST COAST HIGHLANDS LOWLANDS

Figure 2.4 Schematic interregional chronology using the “horizons” concept

(drawn by Luis F. Luin). Heavy vertical bars indicate periods in which that
region was precocious in development and particularly influential on other
regions

absorb or project specific concepts and traits without dramatic changes in

other aspects of material culture or symbolic systems. Indeed, acceptance
or rejection of “foreign” styles, symbol systems, or other cultural contacts
often can be better explained by the needs oflocally evolving elites, rather
than by reference to conquest, migration, economic dominance, or other
external factors.
In any case, one interpretive bias of this text is my view that civiliza-
tions in most world regions, including Mesoamerica, arose in a coevolv-
ing lattice of multidirectional innovation, communication, and influ-
ence. As presented in Fig. 2.5, certain zones of Mesoamerica were
more precocious or influential in given periods. Yet even such asym-
metrical cultural influences and exchanges were variable in their inten-
sity and in the extent of their pan-Mesoamerican impact, and they do
not correspond to the template of “horizons” of influence projected
from presumed “core areas” or “nuclear zones.” For the same reasons
the interpretations here do not follow the more sophisticated, but simi-
larly flawed, “world systems” theories. In practice, world systems theory
often guides archaeologists to presuppose economic interdependence as
a central force behind interregional contacts. Borrowed from modern
20 Ancient Maya

=f 1500 AD

= 1000 AD
Colonial
Postclassic

varararare
500 BC

Middle

UAL
A
= 1000 BC

| 1500 BC
Early
Preclassic

“ 2000 BC
CENTRAL OAXACA GULF PACIFIC MAYA MAYA
MEXICO COAST COAST HIGHLANDS LOWLANDS

Figure 2.5 Schematic chronology based on assumption of continuous

interregional interaction. Heavy vertical bars indicate periods in which
that region was precocious in development and particularly influential
on other regions (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

political science, world systems theory has a tendency to shape views of

ancient world regions into “core areas” and “peripheries.” While there
were continuously interacting and coevolving cultures in Mesoamerica,
there is no reason to assume a prior: that economics was the principal
force for interaction and integration, nor that “core areas” stimulated
cultural advances elsewhere. Instead, here the Maya world is viewed
as having been nested within a continuous lattice of mutual commu-
nication and influence between the various regional civilizations of
Mesoamerica.

Theoretical perspectives

In addition to controversies concerning chronology and frameworks for

culture-historical interpretation, there are also broader theoretical issues
and positions which underlie any synthetic discussion of ancient civi-
lizations. Such theoretical perspectives are best stated explicitly, allowing
open critique of our necessarily subjective interpretations.
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective PAA

The question: why civilization?

Perhaps the greatest question addressed by anthropology, archaeology,

and history is the mystery of human “cultural evolution.” Why have many
human societies over the past 10,000 years changed from small, simple,
egalitarian hunting and gathering groups to vast, complex, hierarchically
organized, urban civilizations? What are the processes, tendencies, or
circumstances that have caused this transformation again and again in
different parts of the globe? While these questions have long concerned
philosophers and historians, modern anthropologists have systematically
explored them through the study of comparative history, ethnography,
ethnohistory, and, especially, archaeology. These disciplines examine
“cultural change,” “historical development,” or “cultural evolution” by
studying present and past societies — positing evolution or historical devel-
opment from so-called “less complex” societies to chiefdoms, states, or
empires with variously defined higher levels of complexity in economic
systems, social stratification, and forms of governance. The grand theo-
ries of history and anthropology on the causes of the rise and fall of civi-
lizations have been tested by looking at cultural change within regions
as it is actually recorded in the archaeological and historical record. The
theorizing, research, testing, and debates that have been involved in this
process of research on “cultural evolution” have created much of modern
anthropological theory. Yet much of this thinking has been challenged in
recent years.

The search for regularities and theories of

cultural evolution
Theories of cultural evolution or historical development such as cultural
materialism and Marxism try to address the “big questions” of what
factors or processes have led, again and again, in many world regions,
to the development of economically and politically complex societies.
Some of these became “civilizations” or states, which had institutions
that nucleated political power in the hands of a leadership group and that
stratified individuals into differing levels of wealth and power. In the Near
East, Egypt, Pakistan, Peru, China, the American Southwest, and many
other regions including Mexico and the Maya area, most scholars see a
broadly parallel sequence of development. First came the domestication
of animals and the origins of farming and village life, then the rise of soci-
eties with some degree of differences in access to power and resources
(e.g. ranked societies or “chiefdoms”), and, finally, the emergence of
states with urbanism, monumental architecture, hereditary wealth and
22 Ancient Maya

power, intensive systems of food production, large-scale warfare, and

complex economic institutions. Another parallel between civilizations is
the repeated cycle of rise, florescence, and fall — the “fall” being manifest
either by conquest, transformation, or disintegration. In the case of the
Classic Maya civilization, the question of the “fall,” decline, or transfor-
mation has been a particularly powerful stimulus to the development of
Maya archaeology and to continuing controversy and debate.
In seeking to discover the regularities and common processes in these
broadly parallel sequences of civilizations, anthropologists and archaeol-
ogists have traditionally tended to emphasize broad economic or ecologi-
cal regularities, trends, “processes,” or even “laws” that could explain the
parallels in the development of civilizations. Based on analogy to biolog-
ical evolution, nineteenth-century thinkers such as Herbert Spencer,
Lewis Henry Morgan, Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels struggled to
create a comparable set of scientific principles and mechanisms to explain
the regularities and parallels in human historical development or evolu-
tion. Racist or politically unacceptable aspects of these early “grand narra-
tive” theories of cultural evolution led to their rejection in twentieth-
century American anthropology until the 1950s.

Evolutionism and processual archaeology

The return of evolutionism to American archaeology came with the work

of Julian Steward (1955), Leslie White (1959), and others who empha-
sized cultural ecology and economic adaptations in their revival of theo-
ries of cultural evolution. This materialist orientation viewed human soci-
eties in an evolutionary competition in which social groups survived,
reproduced, and spread through more ecologically or economically adap-
tive technologies, ecological strategies, or economic institutions (e.g.
White 1959; Harris 1964, 1968, 1979). Such ecologically and econom-
ically oriented evolutionism was enthusiastically accepted and applied
in American archaeology as a set of guiding principles for explanation
of ancient culture change and for the formulation of research designs
(e.g. Binford 1962, 1965; Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman 1971; Schiffer
1976).
This general acceptance of an ecologically oriented version of theories
of cultural evolution reflects the realities of the nature of archaeology and
its development in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. During that period there
were many technological and methodological breakthroughs in archaeol-
ogy. Most of these related to dating and chronology or to the recovery of
subsistence evidence and the reconstruction of ancient ecological systems
(e.g. Brothwell and Higgs 1970; Butzer 1982). It was natural, then,
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 2B

that ecological and economic models captured the interest and efforts of
archaeologists. In turn, archaeological research successfully applied these
concepts to recover evidence of the role of economic factors in cultural
evolution, including innovations in subsistence techniques or new culti-
gens, increasing populations, warfare over limited resources, the deve-
lopment of irrigation systems, and the formation of marketing networks.
Such ecological and economic approaches were particularly success-
ful in Mesoamerica, especially in central Mexico. There interpretations
were based on environmental features and constraints, ecological hetero-
geneity, irrigation, and demographic pressure, which were applied to
explain many aspects of the archaeological record and the develop-
ment of complex societies and, subsequently, of states (e.g. Sanders
1968, 1972; Sanders and Price 1968; Palerm 1973; Parsons 1974; Wolf
1976; Santley 1983). Archaeologists had convincingly identified regu-
larities in the patterns of agriculture, population growth, further inten-
sification of agriculture, and parallel increasing complexity in trade,
‘craft specialization, and the power of political and economic leaders.
As in other world regions, Mesoamerican archaeologists carried out
systematic regional “settlement pattern” studies of the location of sites
and their relation to ancient ecology. Researchers have also recovered
much subsistence evidence, reconstructed ancient environments and
economic networks, and related these to changes in population size,
wealth differences, and political institutions. In the 1970s and 1980s, field
researches often applied a scientific (or pseudoscientific?) format of test-
ing specific hypotheses'derived from broader theories — in general, theo-
ries which stressed the role of ecological adaptation, economic advances,
and competition between groups in this materially guided social analogue
of biological evolution.
In archaeology this systematic, scientific, and predominantly economic
form of evolutionary theory came later to be designated as “processual
archaeology” by some of its practitioners and most of its critics. In truth,
this designation actually covers a wide range of approaches, and only a
small cadre of archaeologists explicitly accepted any specific dogma of
scientific, deductive, and rigid materialist theory. There did seem to be,
however, a largely implicit consensus among archaeologists that ecology
and economics had guided cultural evolution. There was also a sense that
some factors in human behavior were too complex or too idiosyncratic
to be accurately perceived and interpreted in the archaeological record.
These included such elements as the role of religion, ideology, and indi-
vidual action in culture change, as well as the internal complexities and
subgroup struggles that do not allow human societies to be accurately
modeled as ecologically adaptive collective “organisms.”
24 Ancient Maya

Materialist theory and the Maya problem

The Maya area was more problematic for cultural materialist and ecolog-
ically deterministic theory. The success of this high civilization in a rain
forest with thin soils, fertile — but fragile — ecosystems, few navigable
rivers, and no need for irrigation challenged some of the more popular
causal scenarios of economically oriented archaeology. Attempts to apply
conventional processual, materialist explanations to the enigmas of the
rise and fall of the Classic Maya were strained and involved somewhat
circular arguments. Some of these theories stretched relative terms like
“environmental heterogeneity” (e.g. Sanders 1977) or “circumscription”
to fit the Maya region (e.g. Carneiro 1970), while other interpretations
assumed, without strong evidence, that rulers or the state had controlled
early intensive agriculture or trade systems (e.g. A.P. Andrews 1980a and
1980b; Santley 1983; see critique in Demarest 1989a). Still others main-
tained a culture-materialist dogma in the Maya area only by forced under-
estimation of the scale, level of development, or duration of lowland Maya
civilization (e.g. Meggers 1954; Sanders and Price 1968) or by attribut-
ing its rise to external stimulus from the more ecologically “appropriate”
civilizations of the Mexican highlands (Sanders and Michels 1969; Price
1978).
By the 1980s, Maya archaeologists had begun to point out problems in
the application ofa rigid materialist evolutionism to explanation of the rise
and fall of Classic Maya civilization. Challenges to ecologically determin-
ist interpretations were posed by the massive ancient Maya investments
in ritual and religion, their weakly developed market systems, their largely
decentralized economy and agriculture, and yet their surprisingly large
early populations (e.g. Andrews IV 1965; W. Coe 1965a; Matheny 1987).
Evidence for Mexican stimulus for Maya state development became
largely discredited with new discoveries (described in Chapter 4) pushing
back the rise of complex Maya centers to at least 600 to 400 BC (Freidel
1979; Matheny 1980; Hansen 1984, 1989, 1996; Demarest and Foias
1993).
Finally, archaeologists began to find increasing evidence that religion,
ritual, and cosmology were themselves an actual major source of ancient
Maya political power, rather than just a “legitimization” of authority
based on control of agricultural systems, trade, or economic resources
(Haviland 1970; Freidel 1979; Freidel and Schele 1988a; Demarest
1989a, 1992a, 1992b; Hansen 1992, 1998; McAnany 1995). Indeed,
evidence was — and remains — spotty and weak for state involvement in
the basic agricultural or economic infrastructure of the Classic Maya
realms of the southern lowland rain forests (Demarest 1992b; Dunning
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective DS,

ét al. 1997). All things considered, the Maya case fit poorly with standard
forms of materialist theory and processual archaeology.

The postprocessual identity crisis in archaeology and the quest for

new approaches

Of course, the problems of interpreting ancient Maya cultural history

were but one small element in a general theoretical transformation in
world archaeology. The ancient Maya — with their rain forest environ-
ment, massive investment in religious ritual, and specific political institu-
tions — simply represented an acute version of the challenges confronting
materialist theories of cultural evolution. In other world regions, as in
Mesoamerica, archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s had concentrated on
innovative approaches to settlement patterns. Great success was achieved
through the regovery and recording of settlement distributions and pale-
oecological evidence and the interpretations of patterns in that data in
terms of population dynamics, irrigation systems, and trade (e.g. R. McC.
Adams 1965; Wright and Johnson 1975; Wolf 1976; Sanders et al. 1979;
Spooner 1972). Yet even within those economically oriented evolution-
ary schools, doubts had arisen that population dynamics, subsistence
systems, and ecological adaptations were sufficient as “prime movers”
in the explanation of culture change and the rise of states and civiliza-
tions. Instead scholars began to realize that a complex interaction between
social, political, and ecological factors was involved in the rise of state
societies (e.g. RMMcC. Adams 1965, 1969, 1981, 1984; Flannery 1972,
1976; Willey 1976; Blanton 1976, 1980; Cowgill 1979).
One concern was that important aspects of society and human behav-
ior had been ignored by theories of cultural evolution and the archae-
ological investigations that they inspired. Ideology (beliefs, symbolic
systems, cosmology, etc.) had been given little attention in the expla-
nation of culture change or was explicitly dismissed as “epiphenomenal,”
i.e., derivative in its role (e.g. Harris 1968). Yet evidence from history,
ethnohistory, and archaeology provided many examples in which religious
beliefs, rituals, political ideologies, or cosmologies were critical factors in
long- and short-term culture change (e.g. Flannery 1972; Drennan 1976;
Flannery and Marcus 1976; Willey 1976; Freidel 1979, 1981; Conrad
and Demarest 1984; Demarest 1987a, 1989a; Miller and Tilley 1984;
Demarest and Conrad 1992). Some Marxists and structural Marxists,
although themselves proponents of an economic theory of history, were
also concerned about the absence of ideology from the processual models.
While Marxist theory emphasizes the importance of the development of
the economy and economic relations, it also explores the role of religion
26 Ancient Maya

and ideology in “legitimating” the power and privilege of elites. Many

modern Marxists also have seen ideology as a potentially dynamic force
for political action (e.g. Friedman 1974, 1975; Godelier 1977, 1978a;
Miller and Tilley 1984).
Another source of dissatisfaction with ecologically oriented evolution-
ary theory was its deterministic quality, which ignored the role of the
individual and the internal dynamics of groups within societies. ‘There
was little consideration of the active role that individual and group deci-
sions and actions must have played in the past, the true initial sources
and agents of change (Giddens 1979; Bourdieu 1977; Hodder 1985).
Instead, theories of cultural evolution broadly “explained” how whole
societies adapted to their environments and competed with each other
as they evolved more politically and economically complex institutions.
This “processual” approach, while it successfully guided broad descrip-
tions of cultural history and adaptation, glossed over the very dynamics
of culture change itself, and the conscious or unconscious human actions
within that created those adaptations and cultural history.
Thus, criticism of processual archaeology, cultural materialism, and
broadly generalizing theories of cultural evolution came from a vari-
ety of different perspectives and generated a series of differing critiques
and theoretical alternatives. Some scholars have referred to this range of
new concerns and approaches as “postprocessual archaeology.” Others
refer to it as “postmodern” anthropological theory. The latter designa-
tion acknowledges the influence on archaeology during the 1980s and
1990s of “postmodern” theory from philosophy, art, literary analysis, and
history. Truly postmodern approaches in archaeology today also include
much broader concerns with theory of knowledge: awareness of the biases
that we bring to research and the way in which the ancient past and
our “scientific” studies reflect our own worldview and political agendas
(e.g. Foucault 1965, 1972, 1973). Critical theory, feminist theory, radical
theory, hermeneutics, and other new perspectives in the social sciences
and humanities reached archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s, initiat-
ing our own “postmodern” period of soul-searching and self-critique
(Preucel ed. 1991; Hodder 1986, 1987; cf. Knauft 1996). Meanwhile,
within Maya archaeology itself some scholars have challenged the ways
in which modern archaeology and ethnography have projected conde-
scending or ethnocentric interpretations of the Maya (e.g. Castaneda
1996; Hervik 1999; Montejo 1991, 1999).
At their best, all of these new perspectives help us to refine our recon-
structions of the past and make them more complex and realistic. We are
also more conscious of the weaknesses in our interpretations regarding
issues such as individual actions, subgroup ideology, women’s roles in
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective OAT

“ancient society, and the belief systems that motivated past actions. At
their most extreme, however, postmodern approaches attempt to wres-
tle with philosophical issues such as the subject/object distinction, the
possibility of knowledge, the relativity of all truth, and the very exis-
tence of the past (see Preucel ed. 1991; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Bell
1987, 1991; Feyerabend 1988). In these latter manifestations, archaeo-
logical theory drifts into profound debates about the relativity of knowl-
edge and truth that began with the dialogues between the Sophists and
Socrates in the fifth century BC and have remained unresolved through
the entire history of Western thought (e.g. Derrida 1976, 1981; cf.
Tilley ed. 1990). It seems a bit unrealistic (if not immodest) to believe
that archaeology will contribute much to these broader philosophical
debates. I do not question the importance of these deeper epistemo-
logical issues — only our ability in archaeology to add much new to the
dialogue. .
Nonetheless, the last two decades of “postmodern” self-questioning
have allowed us to sharpen our concern with inherent problems in our
presentations and our understandings of the past. It has also returned
archaeologists to a realistic perspective regarding the degree to which our
interpretations of the ancient past are not purely “scientific” but rather are
subjective and interpretive — reflecting individual and cultural concerns
and biases. Such a more humble and cautious perspective can allow us
to study ancient Maya archaeology with greater awareness of the highly
reflexive nature of our own perspectives on ancient societies.

Theoretical position: the Maya, ecology, ideology, and social identity

In keeping with the nature of this series, I draw heavily in this text on my
own three decades of research and theoretical writings on pre-Columbian
civilization. Consequently, like myself, the theoretical perspective of this
book is unrepentantly eclectic, drawing upon both the traditional proces-
sual “grand narrative” theories and recent “postprocessual” concerns.
It shares with the postprocessual view an interest in the role of individ-
ual practice and group action or agency in the dynamics of power that
form and maintain complex societies or “civilizations” (Bourdieu 1977;
Giddens 1979; Hodder 1982, 1985; Shanks and Tilley 1987, 1988).
Such ancient Maya decisions, actions, and dynamics were clearly greatly
influenced by religion or the more general forms of belief referred to as
“ideology” or “worldview” (Giddens 1979: 188-194; Bourdieu 1977:
183-190; Mann 1986; Hodder 1982). It is argued here that, in the
Maya civilization, there was a seamless relationship between ecology,
religion, and the forms and sources of power in the ancient Maya states
28 Ancient Maya

(cf. Freidel 1981; Demarest 1992a, 1992b; McAnany 1995; Flannery

and Marcus 1976; Willey 1976).
This text, nonetheless, maintains a strong ecological perspective. While
cultural materialists and “processual” archaeology may have ignored too
many other factors, it remains certain that ecology and ecological adapta-
tions were central to Maya cultural history. Even those most skeptical of
extreme materialist approaches agree that environment — and our adapta-
tions to it — is critical to the history of civilizations, since “the materialist
matrix . . . is where life begins, where populations are sustained, and where
certain limits are set on sizes and groupings of human societies” (Willey
1976: 203). The lowland Maya civilization of the Late Preclassic and
Classic periods (circa 400 BC to AD 900) had a distinctive configuration
of traits that related the power of the rulers to their ecological adaptations
to the rain forest. The interplay — still incompletely understood — between
ancient Maya political institutions and the rain forest economy and ecol-
ogy generated the form of ancient Maya states and alliances, their volatile
and complex political histories, and their collapse or transformation in
the ninth century.
This ecological perspective must be combined with some of the insights
of recent postprocessual or postmodern anthropology: that historical
events and actions, successes and failures were all created by individuals’
decisions, which in turn were motivated and guided by many nonecolog-
ical factors, including the cosmological and philosophical perspectives
of that society, what anthropologists sometimes call their “worldview.”
These beliefs or ideologies, and the rituals that reinforce them, provide
answers to the questions and enigmas that confront all individuals, fami-
lies, and social groups. The Maya, like all peoples, wished to know: who
are we? how do we create a social identity for ourselves? how do we
confront death and the central enigmas of human existence? A society’s
worldview, ideology, and religion provide some answers to these ques-
tions of individual and collective identity and security. A society’s answers
to these “unanswerable” existential questions, particularly about death,
form much of its culture.
In turn, worldview can define aspects of the economy of a society
(Godelier 1978a; Demarest and Conrad 1983; Conrad and Demarest
1984), as well as the acceptable limits, forms, and sources of political
power (Godelier 1978b; Haas 1982; Tilley 1984; Miller and Tilley 1984;
Demarest 1989a). For example, the worldview and beliefs about death
of the Quechua peoples of the Inka empire of South America led them
to expend much of their wealth and energies in maintaining and venerat-
ing the mummies of their ancestors. Indeed, Inka political and economic
institutions and the history of that civilization can only be understood
 Geography, chronology, and theoretical perspective 29

‘through knowledge of their cult of the dead and its relationship with all
aspects of that society (Conrad and Demarest 1984). For the Mexican
Aztec empire of central Mexico, cosmology and cults of sacrifice were
a central political force that legitimated the power of Aztec rulers while
driving their armies to the victories and conquests of their expanding
hegemony (Demarest and Conrad 1983). Ideological factors have also
been identified as central to the economic and political structure of the
Harappan civilization of early Pakistan and India (Miller 1985) and many
other prehistoric societies (e.g. Miller and Tilley 1984).
In the modern world it is obvious that political systems and agen-
das of many non-Western nations and groups are driven by religious
fervor and broader ideology. To Europeans and North Americans (other
than social scientists and philosophers), it is sometimes less apparent
that our own Western civilization is not a purely “rational,” economically
driven system. Our government and economic systems devote massive
resources to the care of the poor and the aging and other ethical concerns
that have their roots in predominantly Judeo-Christian ideological values.
Our foreign policies, involvements, and even wars have been motivated
to some degree by concerns (however misplaced) for human values or for
idealized concepts of “freedom.” Meanwhile, our most vigorous inter-
nal political debates revolve around unresolved religious or ethical details
of our loosely shared common ideology (abortion, the death penalty,
assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, etc.). Political power in America
derives from ideology as much, or more than, from economic agen-
das. Recent sociological approaches show how in practice individuals act
within cultural structures and systems of behavior in which economic,
political, aesthetic, or ideological elements are all engaged. Indeed, the
very distinction between economic, political, and religious behavior may
not — in practice — be a meaningful one (cf. Giddens 1979; Bourdieu
O77):
As individuals today, the forces that motivate us, that inform our
decisions, and that fuel our economy include the search for symbols
of identity, achievement, and security. Philosophers and social scientists
have argued that these motivations (and the bustling economy that they
produce) are displaced from the universal search for individual and group
identity and from the search for answers to (or distractions from) the
existential questions of life and death. Anthropologists and archaeolo-
gists have come to recognize that such philosophical, cosmological, and
ideological views are (and were) central to the rules of thought and action
that guided ancient behavior, just as they influence us today. To explore
ancient, non-Western civilizations, and to Jearn from those civilizations,
we must examine such aspects of individual and societal worldviews,
30 Ancient Maya

without ignoring the systematic study of ancient ecological and economic

adaptations. As Clifford Geertz (1973: 30), a proponent of broadly inter-
pretive anthropology, has observed:

To look at the symbolic dimensions of social action — art, religion, ideology,

science, law, morality, common sense — is not to turn away from the existential
dilemmas oflife . . . ; itis to plunge into the midst of them. The essential vocation
of interpretive anthropology is not to answer our deepest questions, but to make
available to us answers that others . . . have given, and thus to include them in
the consultable record of what man has said. x

It is with this perspective, and these sensitivities, that I have tried here to
explore the Classic period civilization of the ancient Maya.
The Classic Maya responded to some basic human existential questions
with a complex ideology and investment in rituals, art, and architecture
to express and support these beliefs. As we will see, the great Classic
Maya stone temples, monuments, ballcourts, causeways, and elaborate
artworks were stages, settings, and props for the spectacular state displays
and the more routine daily rituals that defined for the Maya their place
in the universe and their relationship to their ancestors, their gods, and
the natural forces and temporal cycles of the cosmos. The political power
of the rulers rested, to no small degree, on their role as “holy lords,” as
sacred intercessors with those entities and forces. Their power also came
from their leadership in orchestrating the rituals that satisfied the Maya’s
need for identity, security, and for a definition of the universe and their
place in it. Yet they also responded to the requirements, potentials, and
limitations of their rain forest environment and their need to compete
economically, and militarily, with their neighbors. These two themes of
ideology and environment — the physical demands of survival and the
cultural definition of identity — were the warp and weft that together
wove the tapestry of ancient Maya society.
This extended essay, then, is based on archaeological and historical
data on Maya cultural evolution in “scientific” and “processual” terms.
Yet from a postmodern perspective it also is a reflexive interpretation of
the ancient Maya record as a “text” that allows us today to speak to intel-
lectual and personal issues. Like the ancient Maya — and with no greater
wisdom — we struggle with these same, at times irreconcilable, aspects
of the human condition: our material need for physical well-being, and
our individual and collective need for identity. The decisions about these
struggles, and the outcomes of those decisions, delineate the histories of
all societies.
3 The exploration and archaeology of the
Maya: a brief history

The history of Maya archaeology really begins with the first European
contact and continues to develop unevenly into the systematic archaeol-
ogy of the past century. Often popular presentations on Maya archaeology
do not trace back to initial European contact but begin with a description
of the famous explorations of the American writer John Lloyd Stephens
and his gifted artist, Frederick Catherwood. In their expeditions from
1839 to 1842, Stephens explored the ruined sites of Yucatan and Central
America, while Catherwood penned the romantic drawings (e.g. Fig. 3.1)
that captivated the public’s imagination. Their work defined, even until
today, the popular image of the “lost jungle cities” of the Maya. Stephens’s
anecdotal tales of travel and lively speculations on the ruins, together with
Catherwood’s striking art, became bestsellers and created great interest
in the ancient Maya civilization (Stephens 1841, 1843).
Yet such an astute entrepreneur and publicist as Stephens was not really
carrying out risky explorations of an unknown world. Rather he was care-
fully following the less widely publicized reports of several centuries of
investigation by Spanish and Creole priests, soldiers, bureaucrats, and
scholars. Through a series of earlier publications, some of the discover-
ies of European and Colonial scholars had become known in England,
providing Stephens, an experienced travel writer, with an itinerary for his
romanticized literary journey.

The Spanish and Colonial historians and explorers

The study of ancient Maya culture had begun four centuries before
Stephens and Catherwood’s expeditions. It began with the detailed
recording of native history and beliefs by clerics in their vigorous efforts
to conquer and convert the Colonial-period Maya to Catholicism. Metic-
ulous recording by Colonial priests and inquisitors was a necessary step
in their modification of native culture to absorb it into the Spanish empire
and its Catholic regime. Despite these distinctly nonanthropological

31
32 Ancient Maya

RSS

Figure 3.1 Catherwood drawing of the site of Tulum, Quintana Roo,

Mexico (from Stephens 1843)

motives, the descriptions left by those clerics were remarkable in their

detail and their utility to later research.
The writings of Bishop Diego de Landa have been especially important
in the history of Maya studies. Landa was a fanatical and sometimes
brutal bishop and inquisitor. In fact, he wrote his Relacion de las Cosas de
Yucatan in 1566 while on trial for his abuses of power during his tenure as
Bishop of Yucatan (Bernal 1977; Hammond 1983). His most infamous
act was the burning of many of the Maya painted books, or codices.
Yet Landa’s writings were remarkable in their careful — at times, openly
admiring — recording of Maya culture, including aspects of their oral
history, beliefs, rituals, writing, calendar, and economy. His volume was
rediscovered in a Madrid archive three centuries later. It would provide
scholars of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries with critical keys
to understanding Maya civilization. Though flawed, his descriptions of
the writing and the calendar systems of the Maya grasped enough correct
detail to facilitate, even today, the decipherment of the ancient Maya
inscribed stone monuments and their hieroglyphic texts.
Other Spanish priests and administrators visited the ruins in Yucatan
and Central America, leaving their subjective, but not inaccurate,
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya B38;

- impressions in various reports and letters (Bernal 1977; Hammond

1983; Brunhouse 1973; Deuel 1967). Perhaps because they worked so
closely with the native Americans, these Spanish priests and writers never
doubted that the ruined cities had once been inhabited by the ancestors
of the Maya. It was only later that fanciful speculations began about
lost races or tribes of “mound builders” from Israel, Egypt, or from the
imagined lost continents of Atlantis or Mu (Wauchope 1962, 1965). By
contrast, Spanish officials such as Antonio de Ciudad Real and Diego
Garcia de Palacio left remarkably accurate early descriptions of Maya
sites like Uxmal and Copan. These reports set the stage for the begin-
ning of a period of systematic investigations in the late eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries by royal and later Colonial officials (Ciudad Real
1872; Bernasconi and Calderon 1946).
Early rumors about the magnificent ruins of Palenque led to the first
of these expeditions in the late eighteenth century. Descriptions of the
ruins found their way to the desks of the closest advisors to the King of
Spain. They recommended royal expeditions that produced the reports
that constituted the beginning of Maya archaeology. Some of these inves-
tigations were, at least in concept, truly “scientific.” One, led by the royal
Spanish architect Antonio Bernasconi (Bernasconi and Calderon 1946)
had specific, explicit goals, collected materials, and recorded architec-
tural plans at the site of Palenque, Chiapas. Captain Antonio del Rio
directed another official exploration to Palenque (del Rio 1822) accom-
panied by his artist Ricardo Alméndariz, marking the first such pair-
ing of explorers and artists that led to the tradition later followed by
Stephens and Catherwood. A few years later, Captain Guillermo Dupaix,
accompanied by his artist, Jose Castafeda, would travel across Mexico
and Central America on a more extensive investigation ordered by the
Spanish Crown. Yet another government expedition to Maya ruins was
led by Juan Galindo, governor of the Petén province, who visited the
great sites of Tikal, Copan, Yaxha, and others. The discoveries and draw-
ings of these famous eighteenth-century royal projects (Fig. 3.2) were
later published or reported in European journals or in somewhat more
popular and widely distributed books like those of French traveler and
self-designated archaeologist Jean-Fréderick Waldeck (Waldeck 1838).
Lord Kingsborough of England published the nine-volume Antiquities
of Mexico (Kingsborough 1831-48) with such high “production values”
and lavish illustrations that it helped to drive that eccentric, but devoted,
enthusiast into bankruptcy. The work and drawings of these early trav-
elers and official expeditions eventually made their way to Stephens and
Catherwood, giving them a guide for their own better financed and more
widely published “explorations.”
34 Ancient Maya

Figure 3.2 Castaneda’s drawing of the palace and tower at Palenque,

Chiapas, Mexico (from Kingsborough 1831-1848)

The nineteenth-century explorers and archivists

While Stephens and Catherwood’s work merely continued the tradition

of the earlier reports and Spanish expeditions, there is no doubt that the
publication of Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan
in 1841 found a new, larger audience and gave fresh impetus to explore
the ruins, art, and inscriptions of the Maya. The work became a best-
seller, was reprinted many times and quickly followed by a bestselling
sequel. Recall that this was also the period of the popularization of early
archaeological exploration and decipherment in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
The antiquarianism of the period, fueled by Stephens and Catherwood’s
books, led to an intensified interest in the Maya by the public and scholars
alike.
Some of the writers of the period, such as Augustus le Plongeon and
Désiré Charnay, were prone to imaginative digressions and drawn to wild
speculations on the ancient Maya (Wauchope 1962, 1965; Brunhouse
1973; Deuel 1967). Le Plongeon, James Churchward, and many others
attributed the origins and achievements of the Maya and other New World
civilizations to lost tribes from the Old World or from sunken continents
(Fig. 3.3). Unfortunately, such fantastic speculations are very effective
in capturing public interest. Just as this epoch of popular antiquarian
writings had launched modern scientific archaeology, it also seeded the
development of the lunatic fringe of Maya archaeology (who even today
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 35

Figure 3.3 James Churchward map showing the lost continents of

Atlantis and Mu (redrafted by Matt O’Mansky after Churchward
1932)

besiege archaeologists with letters and emails on extraterrestrial influ-

ences, Atlantis, and the lost Semitic tribes!).
Out of the nineteenth-century ferment of discovery, recording, popu-
larization, and bizarre imaginings was born the beginnings of legitimate
scholarship and the academic tradition in archaeology. Two serious schol-
arly paths emerged — usually, but not always, followed by different individ-
uals. One led to exploratory archaeology, while the other was the approach
of the archivist and textual scholar who meticulously studied the draw-
ings of monuments and hieroglyphs, the few surviving bark paper books
or “codices” of the Maya (Fig. 3.4), and the conquest and early Colonial
accounts ofclerics and conquistadors, such as Bishop Landa. This second
tradition led to the present professions of the Maya ethnohistorians who
study the Colonial documents and sixteenth-century oral traditions, the
epigraphers who decipher and interpret the ancient Maya hieroglyphic
texts and codices, and the art historians who struggle to decode the mean-
ings of the complex and esoteric images that cover ancient Maya monu-
ments, buildings, pottery vases, and other artifacts. These latter textual
scholars have been as critical to our reconstructions of these vanished
36 Ancient Maya

Figure 3.4 Page of the Dresden Codex (from Spinden 1924)

societies as the work of the teams of field archaeologists that unearth the
ancient cities and survey their hinterlands.
An early and extraordinary figure of the archivist tradition was Abbe
Brasseur de Bourbourg, a young French priest who traveled to Mexico
and Central America, recorded highland Maya oral traditions, and
returned to Europe, where he pored over the archives for documents
and reports from the Conquest and Colonial periods (Brasseur de Bour-
bourg 1866). It was Brasseur who rediscovered in the archives of Madrid
a copy of Bishop Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan and published it
in 1864 (Tozzer 1941). The rediscovery of Landa’s descriptions of Maya
culture and folklore of the sixteenth century and his descriptions of Maya
calendric and writing systems were quickly followed by breakthroughs
in the interpretation of the hieroglyphs, calendric systems, and religion.
These decipherments were made by a host of brilliant amateurs, such as
the librarian Ernst Forstmann (1904, 1906), the newspaper proprietor
Joseph Goodman (1897), Boston businessman C.P. Bowditch (1910),
and others. Their natural gifts and tenacious interest led to the estab-
lishment of a basic understanding of the Maya dating system, writing,
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 37

religion, legends, and oral history that structured and guided all of the
subsequent field and archaeological explorations.
The British, German, and American archaeologists and explorers of
the late nineteenth century followed in the footsteps of Antonio de Ciudad
Real, Galindo, and Stephens. They did so, however, with a heightened
understanding of what to look for and how to record what they found —
a mission (today antiseptically referred to as a “research design”) that
was informed and invigorated by the breakthroughs of the less romantic
archivists and epigraphers. With the unintended guidance of the long
deceased inquisitor Landa and the insights of his nineteenth-century
interpreters, the explorers returned to the field with a more sophisti-
cated understanding of what they needed to discover and why. Through
the fusion of the library studies and the more colorful field explorations,
Maya archaeology had been born. Yet it should not be forgotten, as it
often has been, that both the field and textual approaches built upon
three centuries of even earlier explorations by Spanish and Latin Ameri-
can officials (Bernal 1977).

The genesis of early scientific archaeology: 1880 to 1920

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries these two traditions,
the gentlemen explorers and the library scholars, rapidly developed in
precision and purpose into the beginnings of the modern fields of Maya
archaeology, ethnohistory, art history, and epigraphy. The explorers of
the Maya world were consciously imitating the widely publicized break-
throughs in Old World archaeology. Artifacts and monuments from Egypt
and the Near East had filled the museums of Europe, provoking intense
public and scholarly interest in the ancient past. The decipherment of the
Rosetta Stone opened up Egyptian history, exemplifying the importance
of the careful recording or copying of inscriptions and monuments. While
the publications of Stephens and Catherwood drew world attention to the
Maya, it was the work of the archivists and early epigraphers, as well as
the development of Old World archaeology, that set the new standards
for the fieldwork of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries.
The explorers Alfred Maudslay and Teobert Maler were determined
to meet this new standard in their explorations in the 1880s and 1890s.
They took careful field notes and precise measurements in recording their
visits to the Maya sites and used casts, artwork, and, above all, pioneering
photography to return with more precise images of Maya architecture, art,
and inscriptions. Maudslay’s publications are considered by some schol-
ars to mark the first modern archaeology in the Maya world, although he
38 Ancient Maya

Figure 3.5 Maudslay in tower in Palenque palace (from Maudslay

1889, vol. 4: plate 26)

undertook little excavation beyond clearing of vegetation from temples

and monuments for his photographs (Fig. 3.5).
German explorer and archaeologist Teobert Maler worked indepen-
dently in the same period and even at some of the same sites as his British
counterpart Maudslay. At Tikal, Seibal, Altar de Sacrificios, Coba, and
other great centers Maler cleared, described, and photographed carved
monuments and temples. Much of his work was published in the Memoirs
of Harvard’s Peabody Museum, one of the first of the institutional mono-
graph series that later would form the core data sets of twentieth-century
Maya archaeology (Maler 1901, 1903, 1908, 1911).
The Peabody Museum also sponsored and published the first “digging”
expeditions by George Gordon in the exquisite temples and palaces of
the Copan Valley of Honduras (1896; Gordon and Mason, 1925-43) and
E.H. Thompson’s excavations in Yucatan (1932). Thompson even used
divers and dredged the famous Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza (Fig. 3.6).
From the murky depths of this deep, natural karstic sinkhole, his divers
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 39

Figure 3.6 Edward Thompson and divers at the sacred cenote of

Chichen Itza

and pumps recovered ancient Maya treasures of jade, gold, wood, bone,
and even rubber balls that had been hurled into the sacrificial well as
offerings a thousand years earlier (Coggins and Shane 1984). Many
of these treasures were smuggled out of Mexico by diplomatic pouch
to Harvard’s Peabody Museum, where they remain today. Obviously,
neither the methodology nor the diplomacy of these scholars was of
modern standards, but their efforts went beyond the survey, clearing,
and recording to actual recovery of artifacts.
In the early twentieth century the decoding of the secrets of Maya
calendrics, writing, and religion progressed with the help of these imper-
fect efforts at archaeology and, more importantly, the systematic recovery
of monuments, codices, and Conquest-period records by explorers and
archivists. By 1910 to 1915, scholars of the ancient Maya had come to
understand many of the basic principles of the Maya numbering system,
calendar, dates, deities, and religious concepts and were beginning to be
able to historically relate the sites to each other through the Long Count
dating system (described in Chapter 8).
As the archivists and epigraphers began to create a chronol-
ogy for ancient Maya history, scholars like Raymond Merwin and
Sylvanus Morley took the steps necessary to raise the quality of the
40 Ancient Maya

Figure 3.7 Profile of a temple at Holmul showing cache placement

and construction levels (redrawn by Luis F. Luin after Merwin and
Vaillant 1932)

explorer/recorder tradition of fieldwork to the level of true, scientific,

stratigraphic archaeology. At Holmul in Guatemala, Merwin carried out a
Peabody Museum-sponsored excavation of a buried sequence of temples,
one construction superimposed over another and each containing sealed
tombs and caches (Fig. 3.7). The innermost, earliest temples and tombs
had sealed within them early “monochrome” vessels of a single ceramic
style. The later, outer temples had tombs and caches containing more
complex and elaborate pots slipped and painted in many colors, espe-
cially black, orange, and red (Merwin and Vaillant 1932). Later such
sequences of ceramic styles, together with the monuments dated in the
Maya Long Count system, would define the periods of the Preclassic,
Early Classic, Late Classic, and Postclassic. At other sites scholars also
began to excavate, including Edgar Hewett at the site of Quirigua (1912,
1916) and others at Copan and in Belize.
Meanwhile, a young, devoted North American Mayanist, Sylvanus
G. Morley, further transformed the gentleman-explorer tradition of
Stephens and Maudslay into a relentless, systematic effort carefully to
compile photographs and drawings of every possible Maya monument
and their hieroglyphic texts in his Inscriptions of the Petén (Brunhouse
1971, 1973). His many published volumes provided more detailed hiero-
glyphic texts that would lead to better decipherments, including some of
his own (e.g. Morley 1915, 1920, 1937-38). His work also recorded for
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 41

posterity the texts of monuments that have long since been damaged or
destroyed.

Modern multidisciplinary archaeology begins

Sylvanus Morley’s greatest contribution to Maya studies may have been

his instigation of the first great team projects in the 1920s and 1930s
(Brunhouse 1971). These large-scale projects, first sponsored by the
Carnegie Institution of Washington, pulled together the tradition of the
explorers, and that of the museum scholars who studied the ethnohistor-
ical accounts and ancient Maya codices and texts. The Carnegie project
teams also included experts on flora and fauna, and ethnographers. Stud-
ies by the ethnographers of the modern descendants of the Maya sought
surviving beliefs, cultural practices, and lifeways that might be used to
elucidate the ancient evidence.
Multidisciplinary modern archaeology had been born, and projects
like the Carnegie Institution explorations to Chichen Itza, Copan, and
Uaxactun combined outstanding scholars from different disciplines with
artists, photographers, and workmen to survey, map, excavate, record,
and interpret the ancient sites (Willey and Sabloff 1974; Sabloff 1990).
They explored not only the elite temples, palaces, tombs, and monu-
ments, but also the surrounding residences of craftspeople and farmers.
The Carnegie Uaxactun Project team members, all later renowned lead-
ers in the field, began a series of sophisticated studies and debates on
ancient Maya agriculture, population sizes, and urbanism. While Maya
archaeology has a reputation (generally well deserved) for an overempha-
sis on elite culture, monuments, tombs, and museum artifacts, it should
also be noted that even these earliest Carnegie multidisciplinary projects
paid great attention to counts of house mounds (e.g. Ricketson and Rick-
etson 1937), to commoner house forms (Wauchope 1934, 1938), and
even to the ecological enigma of how the ancient Maya sustained such
large populations in the fragile rain forest (Lundell 1933, 1938). Indeed
the healthy disagreements between the scholars on these first early great
projects covered most of the issues that still bedevil and inspire archae-
ological researches and debates today — including questions of Maya
origins, ecology, demography, political form, and the enigma of the so-
called ninth-century “collapse” of Classic Maya civilization in the south-
ern lowlands.
Thus by the 1920s and 1930s most of the broad outlines of Maya
archaeology were already in place. The nineteenth- and early twentieth-
century explorations had compiled a vast corpus of hieroglyphic texts, and
scholars had already deciphered the Long Count dating system and most
42 Ancient Maya

of the other features of Maya calendrics and astronomy. Broad aspects of

ancient Maya religion, mythology, and ritual also had been reconstructed
by studies of the Conquest- and Colonial- period chronicles and the oral
literature of the sixteenth-century Maya groups of the southern highlands
and Yucatan (e.g. Thompson 1970). The different versions of the Popol
Vuh, Chilam Balam, and other Maya oral histories recorded by the Colo-
nial clerics and later scholars described the calendric and writing systems
with sufficient accuracy as to facilitate later decipherments (Tozzer 1941;
Roys 1949, 1965b, 1967). This ethnohistory also helped with the deci-
pherment of dates on the monuments recorded in the photographs and
drawings of Maudslay, Maler, Morley, and others. By the era of the great
Carnegie projects of the 1920s and 1930s, the Maya stone monuments
could give precise dates for the ancient cities. Meanwhile, also with the
help of ethnohistorical and ethnographic evidence, art historians were
able to begin interpreting the imagery of the exquisite sculptures, carved
jades, and painted vessels that were being recovered from caches and
tombs of the Maya nobles and kings (e.g. Spinden 1913).
In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, large-scale Carnegie Institution
projects added to the ethnohistorical and textual evidence with their
extensive surveys and excavations in all corners of the Maya world.
Major multidisciplinary large-scale projects were carried out during this
period at Uaxactun in the heart of the Petén rain forest (Smith 1937), at
Chichen Itza in northern Yucatan (Ruppert 1931, 1935, 1943), at Copan
in Honduras in the far southeastern frontier of the Maya world (Stromsvik
1942, 1952; Longyear 1952), and at Kaminaljuyu, a mile above the rain
forest in the cool volcanic highlands of southern Guatemala, near modern
Guatemala City (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946). Other large-scale
projects and regional surveys were sponsored by the University of Penn-
sylvania and Tulane University, institutions that remain centers of Maya
studies today. Maps of sites, excavations of tombs and houses, counts
of house mounds, and recovery of new monuments and artifacts led to
an explosion in our knowledge of the material culture and sequence of
monuments, ceramic styles, and public architecture that marked the rise,
florescence, and decline of the great Maya centers (Willey and Sabloff
1974; Sabloff 1990).
At sites like Uaxactun and Holmul, the basic lowland Maya ceramic
sequence was established: simple Preclassic monochrome “Mamom” and
“Chicanel” pottery from 1000 BC to AD 300, followed by the poly-
chrome painted plates and vases of the AD 300 to 900 Classic period,
followed by diverse Postclassic wares after the decline of many Classic
Maya centers in the Petén itself. Methodological approaches were stan-
dardized for the excavation of architecture and the classification and
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 43

interpretation of the thousands of potsherds and artifacts recovered. Early

discussion of economic and demographic issues began, based on the
regional surveys and house mound counts around centers and also on
comparative studies of modern Maya agriculture.

Traditional views of ancient Maya civilization

Together, this evidence began to allow scholars to present a synthetic

vision of ancient Maya civilization. This picture, while it drew from a
wide range of sources, was still flawed by the biases of the tradition of
“gentlemen scholars” that had dominated the early field explorations and
the archival scholarship. Such an elitist perspective was further reinforced
by the seductive complexity and beauty of Maya art, iconography, and
hieroglyphic inscriptions. Early scholars could not resist (as we still cannot
today) an overemphasis on the elegant and exotic imagery of the Maya
nobles, kings, and deities as presented on their carved stone monuments,
palaces, bas-relief panels, murals, and incised jade and bone treasures.
The museum sponsorship of these expeditions and the desire for exhibi-
tion pieces also led to a bias in discussion towards the high culture and
ideology of the Maya kings and their courts. In a sense, this seduction of
Maya scholarship is a testament to the effectiveness of ancient Maya art
and public monuments, whose original function (consciously or uncon-
sciously) was to legitimate the power of the elites and aggrandize the
achievements of the rulers.
Since the first Carnegie projects at Chichen Itza, and especially after
the Uaxactun project, Mayanists attempted to broaden their research
and sampling to emphasize the demography, economics, and ecology of
this ancient society. Yet in the textbooks and synthetic articles of the late
1940s through the 1960s, an idealized view of ancient Maya civilization
came to be accepted. The picture was drawn from an incomplete view
of Maya elite culture, as found in temples, palaces, and only partially
deciphered monuments, combined with a stereotype of modern Maya
“peasant” society and economy based on ethnography and the Colonial
historic record. Some of the results of the field studies then available on
ancient Maya non-elite populations already seemed to contradict aspects
of this traditional perspective on ancient Maya agriculture and commoner
settlements (Ricketson and Ricketson 1937; Lundell 1933, 1938). Yet
such hints were ignored in favor of reconstructions based more heavily on
somewhat stereotyping (“essentializing”) ethnographies of the lifeways of
modern Maya villagers (Redfield and Rojas 1934; cf. Castafieda 1996).
This traditional view of ancient Maya culture was best described
and popularized by Sir J. Eric S. Thompson, a dominant figure in
44 Ancient Maya

Maya archaeology for decades. A leading archaeologist, ethnohistorian,

and epigrapher, Thompson’s elegantly written syntheses presented the
ancient Maya as the most civilized of peoples J.E.S. Thompson 1966,
1970). Site epicenters with their massive acropoli of concentrated temples
and public buildings were believed to be ceremonial centers where priests
presided over periodic rituals and where the peasantry congregated from
small villages scattered across the countryside. Based on comparison
to modern Maya agriculture, Thompson believed that this peasantry
subsisted almost exclusively on “slash-and-burn” jungle farming (also
called swidden or rosa) in which forest plots were cut, dried, and burned.
This system allows only a few years of productive farming of maize, beans,
and squash before soil exhaustion requires farmers to move to a new plot
of jungle. This swidden system would explain, indeed it would require,
the perceived dispersed population at ancient lowland Maya sites J.E.S.
Thompson 1971; U. Cowgill 1961). The leadership of these dispersed
farming societies was believed to be purely theocratic in nature, with
public life focused on ceremonial centers dedicated to the worship of
great cycles of time and the astronomical bodies that marked them (J.E.S.
Thompson 1966).
Such a perspective arose from the fact that the hieroglyphs of the Maya
writing system that had been deciphered at that time were those glyphs
dealing with Maya calendrics and astronomy. Their measurements and
conceptions of time were based on the cycles of the sun, the moon,
Venus, and other astronomical bodies. Only later would decipherments
reveal that these lengthy texts of dates and calendric inscriptions were
reference points for descriptions contained in the undeciphered portions
of the texts. These detailed historical events, including the coronations,
marriages, alliances, births, and deaths of kings. Similarly, the view of
the Maya centers as sparsely occupied loci for periodic rituals reflected,
to a large degree, the paucity of systematic excavation and survey of the
suburbs and countryside beyond the great acropoli. Viewed with post-
modern cynicism, we may also suggest that this view of the Maya as a
peaceful, highly civilized society dominated by a priestly scientific elite
may be a direct, albeit unconscious, reflection of the social milieu of early
Maya studies with its gentlemen scholars and explorers sponsored by the
best museums of Europe and the North American Ivy League.
In fairness, it should be noted that there was never a monolithic consen-
sus on the nature of ancient Maya society, and there were both field
studies and art historical interpretations that presented variations from
Thompson’s views. We should also acknowledge (after several decades of
pendulum swings in positions) that there was some basis, however exag-
gerated, for aspects of the traditional model popularized by Thompson.
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 45

Today, hieroglyphic breakthroughs and decades of settlement pattern and

ecological studies have detailed the complex nature of Classic Maya soci-
ety, with its densely populated cities, extensive warfare, and rulers who
were as concerned with their own earthly ambitions as with the cycles of
time and the propitiation of the deities. Still, as detailed below, Maya cities
were more dispersed than the urban formations of highland Mesoamer-
ican cities and most other ancient states. Maya states were not theoc-
racies in any sense, but many scholars now believe that these polities
were, indeed, very heavily dependent on religion, ritual, and monumen-
tal propaganda as “ideological legitimation” to bolster their rulers’ rather
insecure hold on power. The periodic mass pageants and rituals in the
temples and great plazas of the Maya sites were a major source ofpolitical
authority, and the calendric cycles of time were associated with many of
these empowering events.
In some ways, then, Thompson’s model of the Classic Maya as a
non-urban theocratic society dominated by religion had stereotyped and
hyperbolized a few selected features of this ancient civilization. Yet it is
certain that the theocratic ceremonial centers idealized by J.E.S. Thomp-
son and others were also a creation of systematic gaps in the archaeological
data and hieroglyphic decipherments, enhanced by the elitist worldview
of the early scholars themselves.

Revisions and breakthroughs: 1955 to 1990

The unraveling of the traditional theocratic “vacant center” model of

Maya society began in the late 1950s and 1960s as the inevitable result
of changes in each of the two traditions of Maya scholarship: new field
strategies by the archeologists, and new insights by the students of Maya
art and writing into the decipherments and content of the Classic-period
texts and images.
In the textual studies of the late 1950s and early 1960s, scholars
like Heinrich Berlin (1958, 1959) and Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1960,
1961, 1963, 1964) began to make breakthroughs in decipherment. ‘These
moved our understanding of the Maya hieroglyphics beyond the level of
the previous century, when scholars could read only ancient Maya dates,
calendrics, and astronomical information (e.g. J.E.S. Thompson 1950).
These new developments proved that the ancient Maya monumental texts
were not merely concerned with astronomy and religion, but rather were
self-aggrandizing records by ancient kings and their descendants of their
wars, marriages, alliances, and deaths (see Chapter 9).
At the same time the Russian linguist Yuri Knorozov had begun to
discover that Maya hieroglyphs were not purely “picture writing” but had
46 Ancient Maya

SIGUESE SU A BC,

Signos, Valor
; Signos. Valor Signos. V
fonctico. : fonetico. ean,
fonetico.

a 10. a 19. —_ —
— stttae——

1, - ontpor]

b 1 “ bt

Le ao

”
IIBO
*.
afte

«4 *
wt ‘mae

Ls

6ve&
BOOGe 6)
ca
5)
”Q
om.
20
®@>
Ne)
bomeal

Figure 3.8 Landa’s recording of a “Mayan alphabet” (actually a

J
|
Cz
S

syllabary) (from Landa 1864)

a phonetic component. Using Landa’s flawed recording of a Conquest-

period Maya “alphabet” (Fig. 3.8), Knorozov (1958, 1967) decoded the
ancient Maya system of combining syllabic signs to produce phonetic
words [see Box 1]. Subsequently, American scholars such as David
Kelley, Floyd Lounsbury, Linda Schele, and David Stuart were able to
decode many such syllabic glyphs, which when combined with nonpho-
netic “logographic” symbols (in which a sign stands for a whole word ora
concept) together formed the Maya texts (e.g. Kelley 1962, 1976; M. Coe
1992; Bricker 1986; Schele 1982; Stuart 1987). Then newly deciphered
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 47

- Classic-period Maya texts on monuments, ceramic vases, and artifacts

were found to record not only ancient Maya religion, astronomy, and
cosmology, but also the rulers’ earthly political activities, rituals, and life
histories. The picture revealed was one of “holy lords” who lived in a
cosmologically defined universe, but who also carried out the activities
and exercised the powers of true kings (e.g. Schele and Miller 1986;
Schele and Freidel 1990; Culbert 1991).

Box 1

The decipherment of calendric and numeric glyphs

At the end of the nineteenth century (e.g. Forstermann 1906; Good-

man 1889, 1905; Bowditch 1901, 1910), the first glyphs deciphered
were those which represented number and units of time (days, months,
years, twenty-year periods, etc.) in the Maya solar, lunar, and Venus
calendars, as well as their ritual 260-day year (see Chapter 8 and Figs.
8.4, 8.11, 8.12). The periodicity and patterning of these symbols facil-
itated their early decipherment and the dates on monuments allowed
archaeologists to establish a detailed chronology for the Classic period.
Their early decipherment, unfortunately, also misled scholars into the
belief that all Maya inscriptions concerned only calendrics, astronomy,
and ritual.

The initial decipherment of emblem glyphs and historic texts

A major series of breakthroughs in the 1950’s and early 1960’s by

Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1960), Heinrich Berlin (1958), and others
identified glyphs that seemed to name Maya kingdoms and their rulers
and that specified dates for the ruler’s birth, accession to the throne,
death, and so on (see Chapter 9 and Figs. 9.1, 9.2, 9.3). These
elements were still phonetically unreadable, but nonetheless could be
used to begin to reconstruct the Classic period histories of major Maya
centers.

The phonetic breakthroughs

Perhaps the most critical breakthroughs occurred in the last forty years,
beginning with the work of Russian linguist Yuri Knorozov (e.g. 1958,
1967), later refined by Floyd Lounsbury (e.g. 1984, 1989), David
48 Ancient Maya

Kelley (e.g. 1962, 1976), Linda Schele (e.g. 1980), David Stuart (e.g.
1984, 1995), and others. Knorozov first realized that the so-called
Maya alphabet recorded by Bishop Landa was in fact a flawed and
partial “syllabary” with each symbol representing a syllable of the form
“CV” or Consonant-Vowel. These glyphs could then be combined as
CV- C(V), with the last vowel usually dropped to form phonetic stem
words in the Maya language (Fig. 3.9). Using this key and studying
modern and Colonial Mayan languages, scholars have gradually been
able to decipher over 70 to 80 percent of the ancient Maya glyphs,
allowing readings of many Classic period historical texts.

™b (a)

cv - cv - c(v) cv - cv - c(v) cv - cv - c(v) cv - cv - c(v)

ba - ka - b(a) sa - ja - l(a) chu - ka - j(a) ch'a - jo - m(a)
"bakab” "sajal" "chukaj" "ch'ajom"
= bakab = sajal = he is = censor
captured

Figure 3.9 Glyphs phonetically readable in ancient Maya using

CV-CV or CV-C(Y) syllabic combinations (note: “bakab” and “sajal”
are Office titles — see Chapter 9)

Meanwhile, in archaeology a revolution in field approaches had led to

an even more dramatic transformation of Maya studies and a radically
different view of ancient Maya society, ecology, history, and prehistory.
The introduction by Gordon R. Willey of formal regional settlement
pattern studies to Maya field work in the 1950s and 1960s led inevitably
to the revision of our views of ancient Maya demography, population
distribution, and ecological adaptations. First developed by Willey in
Peru (Willey 1953), settlement pattern archaeology begins all aspects of
investigation with the survey and mapping of the sites of different sizes ina
region, and then the mapping of structures, including low house mounds,
within a site. Then, chronological control is established through excava-
tion and study of sites and structures of apparently different scales or
types. Next, patterns of center and residence location in a given period
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya 49

-are plotted and compared to ecological features, soil types, defensibility,

or other factors allowing a more systematic and holistic perspective on
human/land relationships in a given period. Finally, changes between
periods in site size, number, scale, distribution, spacing, and relation to
the environment can be identified and interpreted in terms of internal
events, invasions, change in economic or ecological strategies, or other
social processes in the ancient past (Willey 1953; Willey ez al. 1965;
Sabloff 1990).
While the introduction of settlement pattern studies, with their implicit
ecological rationale, had a great effect on archaeology in many regions,
it was particularly transformative in Maya fieldwork. It forced archaeolo-
gists out of the exquisite architecture of the epicenters and obliged them
to develop techniques of surveying in the dense vegetation of the rain
forests that cover most of the Maya world. Mayanists have often been
criticized for their field techniques by archaeologists who work in the
sparsely vegetated, arid regions of Mexico or in the government-owned
deserts of the US southwest where settlement survey, aerial reconnais-
sance, and sampling strategies are comparatively easy to apply. Willey’s
settlement pattern approach forced Mayanists to confront the consider-
ably greater challenges of regional studies in the dense rain forests and
swamps of Guatemala, Belize, and Yucatan.
Settlement research provided a central axis for a new generation of
multidisciplinary team projects that built upon the tradition begun by
Morley and the Carnegie projects several decades earlier (Sabloff 1990).
In moving outside the ceremonial centers with their dated stone monu-
ments, the archaeologists had to develop better methods of dating the
low earth and stone platforms of the ancient Maya villages and smaller
centers. This challenge led Maya archaeologists to systematize and stan-
dardize the classification and comparison of non-elite ceramics and arti-
facts using systems like the formal “type-variety” scheme and the statis-
tical analysis of ceramic style traits and type distributions (Willey and
Phillips 1958; Willey ez al. 1967; Smith and Gifford 1965).
Initially, the multidisciplinary projects directed by Willey with his
settlement pattern strategy did not seem to contradict the traditional
ceremonial center model. Indeed, his Belize River Valley project and
related surveys by William Bullard in the northeastern Petén concluded
that dispersed populations were serviced for their religious needs by a
hierarchy of large, medium, and small ceremonial centers for periodic
gatherings for rituals (Bullard 1960; Willey and Bullard 1965). Still, the
outcome of this settlement survey strategy in the Maya area was inevitable.
Willey’s subsequent Peabody Museum projects at Altar de Sacrificios
and Seibal in the southwestern Petén (Willey 1973, 1975) and a large-
scale Tulane University project at the sprawling site of Dzibilchaltun
50 Ancient Maya

Figure 3.10 Map of settlement in greater Tikal

in far northern Yucatan (Andrews IV 1965), further refined field tech-

niques and revealed greater densities of house platforms near centers and
evidence of the considerable complexity at these large sites.
The deathblow to the vacant ceremonial center model was delivered by
the Tikal project of the University of Pennsylvania. There Edwin Shook,
William Coe, and a virtual army of archaeologists, specialists, and work-
men undertook regional survey, sampling, and major excavations of all
sections of this vast site of over sixteen square kilometers (Fig. 3.10)
(Shook et al. 1958; W. Coe 1962, 1965a, 1965b, 1968). Their findings
 The exploration and archaeology of the Maya Dil

proved, once and for all, that Maya centers could, and often did, have
concentrated commoner populations and a fully resident large population
of elites, officials, priests, and craftspersons, organized in a political and
economic system far more complex than previously believed. Further-
more, the counts of the low platforms of house mounds that supported
the commoners’ perishable huts were so dense around Tikal as to indicate
an urban center with a population of over 50,000 — quite sizable for any
preindustrial city (Haviland 1970). In turn, these demographic estimates
cast serious doubt on the notion that Maya populations were primarily,
if not exclusively, supported by slash-and-burn maize agriculture, which
today can only sustain small and scattered Maya populations.
‘These various settlement survey projects then stimulated the last three
decades of researches on Maya agriculture and ecology in our efforts to
explain how the Maya had sustained such large populations (Harrison and
Turner 1978; Puleston 1974; Sabloff 1990). As discussed in Chapter 6,
these researches revealed a highly complex picture of Maya agriculture,
which contradicted the simple slash-and-burn regime proposed by earlier
archaeologists. The first generation of scholars who had rejected the
traditional model of small, scattered populations ruled by theocracies
had expected to find instead state-managed intensive agricultural systems
(R.E.W. Adams 1980; Turner and Harrison 1978). Such state-controlled
systems would explain the high populations of the ancient Maya cities of
the Petén and would also provide a functionalist rationale for the emer-
gence of Maya elites and state institutions. As discussed in Chapter 6,
these expectations were not fully met, leaving us still somewhat puzzled
about the economic role of the ruling class in ancient Maya society.
The new findings of the settlement surveys of the 1950s, 1960s, and
1970s also led us to look more closely at the internal organization of
these cities and their trade and political relations with each other and
with their adjacent highland and coastal neighbors. These issues were
explored through new techniques, such as neutron activation and other
compositional analyses that can suggest original clay sources of traded
vessels and the volcanic sources of hard stones like obsidian (Sabloff
1975; Bishop 1980). The exploration of Maya economics also began to
use technological analyses and statistical interpretations to look at local
and regional manufacture and exchange of ceramics, chert, worked bone,
and other artifacts (e.g. Hester and Shafer 1984; P. Rice 1984; Ball 1983,
1993b). Though still incomplete, we now have some understandings of
Classic Maya economy and trade (see Chapter 7).
The settlement surveys at Tikal and other sites had challenged all of
the demographic, political, economic, and ecological parameters of the
previous half-century of thinking on Classic Maya society (W. Coe 1965a;
By Ancient Maya

Puleston 1974; Haviland 1970). Other field projects made unexpected

discoveries simply by virtue of the great increase in the size and breadth of
our sample of ancient Maya civilization. New evidence was found bear-
ing on the Preclassic beginnings of Maya civilization, foreign contacts
and influences, fortifications and warfare, and the nature of the decline
of many Classic Maya city-states during the ninth century. The major
excavation and settlement survey projects in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s
provided us with a broader view of the variations in time and space of
ancient Maya civilization. Such investigations included projects in the far
western Petén at Palenque, at the Pasion River sites of Altar de Sacrifi-
cios and Seibal, and work by many projects in the northern Yucatan at
Dzibilchaltun, Mayapan, Becan, Sayil, Komchen, Cozumel, Coba, and
elsewhere (Willey 1981, 1982, 1987; Sabloff 1990; Fash 1994). A host
of excavation and survey projects virtually invaded Belize with major digs
and regional surveys at Cuello, Lubaantun, Altun Ha, Lamanai, Nohmul,
and hundreds of other sites (Hammond 1981; Adams and Hammond
1981). These and other projects revealed the great variability of ancient
Maya civilization from region to region, as well as its long span of survival
and change. We now know that complex states were present during the
Preclassic period, long before the Classic-period Maya florescence, and
that other forms of states continued into the Postclassic after the southern
lowland decline. The new early sites were different in form and probable
nature from what we had held to be the Classic-period “norms” of Maya
centers in the lowlands.
It is now much more difficult to describe succinctly the ancient Maya
civilization than it was in J. Eric S. Thompson’s time (and it is even more
difficult to be as elegant in our descriptions!). The great regional variabil-
ity and temporal dynamism of Maya political and economic forms defy
simple and concise description. Indeed, many of the disagreements in
modern Maya archaeology today, touched upon in the following chapters,
are really caused by archaeologists arguing from differing regional or
temporal segments of Maya civilization — like the tale of the three blind
men and the elephant!
4 Obscure beginnings and the
Preclassic florescence

In the study of any civilization, a major set of issues in archaeology and

social theory concerns initial development, the “rise of civilization” — or,
more properly, the development of politically and economically complex
society. For the ancient Maya there have been a large number of theories
on and interpretations of the “causes” of the development of Maya states.
The topic is of special interest because of the rain forest environment in
which the Classic Maya states arose. The problem has not been a short-
age of theories, but rather the scattered, incomplete, and contradictory
nature of the archaeological evidence. In the past two decades, exciting
finds have pushed back by six or seven centuries the dating of the rise of
great Maya ceremonial centers, but we have little evidence on the devel-
opments that led to these early centers. At this moment in the history
of Maya archaeology, new discoveries have toppled traditional views and
overturned even more recent interpretations on the beginnings of Maya
civilization. Yet, we do not have sufficient information to construct new
models. Here we can only review the current state of the evidence and the
prospects and possibilities for future research. Conclusions on processes
or even chronology are, at this point, pure speculation.

New World antecedents: before 12,000 to 3000 BC

Despite the many fanciful theories mentioned in Chapter 3 that traced the
ancient Maya to Atlantis, Mu, or the lost tribes of Israel, archaeologists
are guided by the overwhelming evidence from archaeology, linguistics,
and physical anthropology indicating that the ancestors of all New World
peoples, including the Maya, migrated from Asia as bands of nomadic
gatherers and hunters. We debate whether those migrations across what 1s
now the Bering Strait occurred at about 12,000 BC, 40,000 BC, or even
earlier (e.g. Lanning 1970; Lynch 1990, 1991; Taylor and Meighan 1978).
In any case, the first archaeological evidences in eastern Mesoamer-
ica are scattered spearheads (Fig. 4.1) left by bands of Paleo-Indian
hunters and gatherers over 10,000 years ago (M. Coe 1960). From other

2%)
54 Ancient Maya

Folsom Clovis
Figure 4.1 Clovis and Folsom style spearheads (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

regions of the New World we know that such groups, moving in small
nomadic bands, hunted bison, horse, and other megafauna with stone-
tipped spears and later spear-throwers (Lynch 1978, 1990). The core
subsistence of these “big game hunters,” as they have been traditionally
known, was, in fact, the systematic collecting of wild plants and the trap-
ping of small game. Mastodon or bison kills leave the most dramatic
remains and probably provided the best fireside stories in Paleolithic
times, but the wider range of daily gathering, fishing, and trapping tech-
niques provided most of their food (Tankersley 1998). Such broad-based
subsistence methods could be modified, developed, and expanded in
response to seasonal shifts, different environments, and long-term envi-
ronmental change.
It was this collecting and small game hunting subsystem of the Stone
Age technologies of the Paleo-Indians that was able to survive the great
climatic changes of 11,000 to 7000 BC. These food-collecting strategies
became the core of a new series of ecological adaptations sometimes
referred to as the “Archaic.” In a number of areas in Mexico (Fig. 4.2),
including the Tehuacan Valley, the Valley of Oaxaca, and the northern
Mexican state of Tamaulipas, drier conditions have allowed preservation
of a full range of evidence on the gradual transition from the Paleo-Indian
bands to the Archaic gathering societies, and, later, to the introduction of
 vole

papeys

VE
leheuD
‘spuy

eke

4)
ssey]IA

jg ¥
b AjIva

Se
eur)
yy
SC pue
>
»

ey g sIeyoIY
OSB

JO
&
eea

soUOZ
ee

(@) 2) =) we
sedijnewey

o7xaW

DUIOS
aaypoA
t

rT.

Oo
saneg
VU

SUIMOYS
fo
_

BoTIOWIeOS
a

W4O00S
004

JO
0O€

deyy
002
N

7p
001

WINS
“a
Ruy
13
SW
eae
SOS
oe
NV
GCC
O

SODG
soTUTVIDD
UMBIP)
Aq
stny
J
(uimy
JO
A[IV_
oIssepooI
BUODOT
PUR
solVoIpUl
UONNIIs
56 Ancient Maya

some cultigens and the beginnings of New World agriculture (MacNeish

1964; Stark 1981).
In the Maya lowland area the rain forest environment creates prob-
lems of preservation as well as difficulties for survey and discovery of the
lithic scatters and small camps that would be characteristic of this period.
Archaeological remains recovered from Belize and caves in Chiapas
demonstrate the presence of Paleo-Indian and Archaic groups in the
Maya hills, lowlands, rain forest, and coast (MacNeish, Wilkerson, and
Nelken-Turner 1980). Yet the evidence is too meager to provide a clear
picture of the transition from the Paleo-Indian bands to Archaic collecting
and hunting societies, and, finally, to settled agricultural villages. We must
rely primarily on archaeology in the Mexican highlands and the Pacific
and Gulf coasts for our understanding of these earlier periods. Indeed,
scholars debate whether such a full transition from hunting and gathering
to settled farming villages occurred in the Maya lowland area, or if agri-
culture and village life spread into the lowlands from elsewhere (R.E.W.
Adams 1977; Andrews V and Hammond 1990; Lowe 1977, 1978).

The beginning of village life, ceramics, and complex

societies: 3000 to 1300 BC
By 3000 to 2000 BC, settled agricultural villages growing maize, beans,
squash, chiles, gourds, and other cultigens are found in several areas of
Mesoamerica. In eastern Mesoamerica, bordering the Maya highlands
and lowlands, the best evidence for such villages comes from the Pacific
and Gulf coasts of Mexico, Guatemala, and El] Salvador, where consider-
able research has been completed (Lowe 1978; Blake et al. 1995). There
the evidence shows that Archaic cultures combined collecting and hunt-
ing with extensive exploitation of the fish, shellfish, and birds of the coast
and estuaries. Probable house platforms have been found in association
with extensive shell middens at some sites (Voorhies 1976; Stark and
Voorhies 1978). The reliance on this broad spectrum of resources may
have allowed some communities to become permanent or semipermanent
villages even before heavy reliance on farming.
Between 2000 and 1300 BC these coastal villages and others farther
inland began to rely more heavily on agriculture and also grew in size
and perhaps economic complexity (Coe and Flannery 1967; Grove 1981;
Lowe 1978). During this period there was also a rapid growth in popula-
tion and spread of agricultural villages and related technologies across all
of eastern Mesoamerica. The mechanisms and causes of this are unclear.
An improvement in maize hybrids and other cultigens may have led to
more reliance on agriculture, as well as greater sedentism and population
increase (Stark 1981). Together with these changes there was an increase
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 57

- in the economic and political complexity of societies in many regions of

eastern Mesoamerica, leading to the rise of chiefdoms, if not early states,
in some zones of Mesoamerica possibly by as early as 1300 BC. [See
Box 2 for discussion of the typologies and rationales for assessing relative
political complexity. ]

Box 2 Traditional typologies of “level” of political

complexity in human societies
Traditionally archaeologists and anthropologists sought to classify
ancient or modern societies in order to facilitate comparison and
discussion. The most popular traditional typologies have been those
proposed by Morton Fried (1967), based on the degree of stratifica-
tion, i.e. social inequality, in societies, and by Elman Service (1975),
based on the degree of political and economic integration of societies.

Service: integration typology

Bands: Small, loosely integrated groups of hunters and gatherers that

possess a common territory in which they move nomadically. They
have few differences in wealth or status and are characterized by recip-
rocal economic relations. Integration is through kinship and marriage.

Tribes: Larger societies, often with agricultural and/or pastoral

economies, living in permanent (sedentary) locations. Tribes are often
multi-settlement societies integrated by theoretical descent groups and
voluntary association organizations (for example, warrior clubs, reli-
gious cults, fraternal organizations, etc.).

Chiefdoms: Often larger societies in which social integration is facili-

tated by the existence of prestigious leaders who direct warfare and
storage or redistribution of food. Individuals often are ranked in their
status according to their degree of kinship relation to the chief. Chief-
doms sometimes have ceremonial centers as the focus of religious
activities, redistribution, and social integration.

States: Societies with highly integrated, organized, and centralized

leadership with a governing body or rulers. The power of the ruler
is backed by coercive force, law, and/or religious sanctions.

Fried: stratification typology

Egalitarian societies: Simple societies with as many positions of status

as there are people to fill them. Wealth, status, and power are acquired,
58 Ancient Maya

not inherited. There are relatively small differences in wealth, and

economic relations are reciprocal in structure.
Ranked societies: Societies in which there are fewer positions of status
than individuals to fill them. In some cases there are a fixed number
of offices, but the competition to fill them is not entirely hereditary.
Economic differences are somewhat restricted by expectations of
redistribution by the societies’ leaders.

Stratified societies: Societies in which positions of status are fixed and

largely hereditary. A class structure and coercive force maintain these
differences.
[The state]: A special function institution of some stratified societies
that legitimizes stratification through governing bodies, laws, and
police structures to maintain internal order and control class conflict.

Current debate on evolutionary typologies

More recent discussion in archaeology has been highly critical of such

universally applied typologies, since they ignore many characteristics,
mask internal variability in societies, and, arguably, impose an ethno-
centric, evolutionary scheme. Others argue that these designations are
useful in practice, if only as loose, broad, comparative designations.
Alternative approaches include multivariate assessments of soci-
eties based on many different variables, including degree of inequal-
ity, heterogeneity, centralization, and other traits (e.g. Montmollin
1989; McGuire 1983). Many contemporary “postprocessual” theo-
rists reject linear evolutionary typologies of any kind as stereotyping
and potentially racist generalizations that pigeonhole societies into a
Western materialist presumed hierarchy of development (see for exam-
ple Shanks and Tilley 1987, 1989; Giddens 1981; Hodder 1986).
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), in the case of the rise of Maya civi-
lization, such typological, terminological, and epistemological debates
seldom arise; the data on the early development of lowland Maya
civilization is currently so poor that it virtually defies synthesis and
interpretation. The earliest Preclassic societies in the Maya lowlands
are identified primarily by ceramic deposits. The first sites with public
architecture (e.g. Nakbe and Cerros) were left by societies that were
already at a fairly high level of complexity (however that might be
designated). Here terms such as bands, chiefdoms, or states are used
as only very broad, convenient descriptive terms.
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 59

Figure 4.3 Some Locona (above) and Ocos (below) phase ceramics
(drawn by Luis F. Luin)

Shortly after 2000 BC (Fig. 2.3) on the Pacific coast of Chiapas and
El Salvador, one change in material technology is of particular utility to
archaeologists for tracing culture change and culture contact: the devel-
opment of ceramics (Fig. 4.3). The first tiny, thin-walled ceramics of the
Barra period have been convincingly argued to be craft items, an artis-
tic miniature supplement to the more practical, less fragile gourd vessels
(Clark and Blake 1989, 1994). The complex forms and elaborate incised
and carved designs on these ceramics of the Barra and subsequent Locona
phase led to theories that the sophistication of this first pottery indi-
cated an introduction from elsewhere, possibly South America (e.g. Lowe
1975; Lathrap 1977, 1982). It seems more likely that the sudden appear-
ance and complexity of these earliest ceramics of eastern Mesoamerica
were due to the adoption of forms and complex designs from an older
tradition of carved gourd vessels (Demarest 1989b; Clark and Blake
1994).
Gradually, in the subsequent Locona and Ocos phases (circa 1500 to
1100 BC), these ceramic forms became larger, heavier, and more popular
(Fig. 4.3) as Early Preclassic-period populations realized the advantages
in size and durability of ceramics as a new means of cooking and storage.
60 Ancient Maya

Increased sedentism due to a heavier reliance on agriculture and the

needs of farming for grain storage probably also contributed to the
increased popularity and distribution of pottery — first on the coasts and
later into the highland and lowland regions of eastern Mesoamerica (see
Locono/Ocos distribution, Fig. 4.2).
While in itself the development and distribution of ceramic styles is
not of central importance to the culture and survival of any group, it is
an important diagnostic of changes in many other aspects of society —
such as increased sedentism, reliance on agriculture, and storage. From
an archaeological perspective, pottery provides a critical new source of
direct or indirect evidence on chronology, cultural contact, trade, produc-
tion, and status. We should not, however, over interpret ceramics. Many
theories have gone too far in seeing the spread of ceramic forms and art
styles as indicators of the success and physical expansion of hypothet-
ical ethnic and linguistic populations. Such “ethnic” interpretations of
ceramic or artifactual similarity ignore the many alternative mechanisms
for the dissemination of styles and technologies between peoples.
In any case, between 2000 and 1000 BC settled village life, ceramics,
and related technologies and styles had spread or had coevolved in all of
Mesoamerica (Figs. 4.2, 4.4) (Blake et al. 1995; Demarest et al. 1988;
Pye et al. 1999). Some Early Preclassic cultures developed into politically
and economically complex societies, perhaps “chiefdoms” [see Box 2].
For example, by 1500 to 1400 BC centers like Paso de la Amada, Chiapas
had large structures that some archaeologists argue were used for spon-
sored ritual feasts (Clark 1994; Lesure 1997; Blake and Clark 1999).
These proposed early chiefdoms may also have had attached special-
ists in craft production and controlled exchange systems in obsidian,
the natural volcanic glass that was the razor-sharp cutting tool par excel-
lence of prehistoric times (Clark and Lee 1984). While other archaeol-
ogists believe that these coastal societies were somewhat less advanced,
certainly by 1300 BC settled populations using eastern Mesoamerican
ceramics of the Barra-Locona-Ocos tradition had evolved into complex
societies in some areas. Scattered sites in the Isthmian Zone of the Pacific
coasts of Guatemala, El] Salvador, and Chiapas, and across Tabasco and
Veracruz (Fig. 4.4), had public architecture, regional and interregional
exchange systems, material goods, and art — all suggesting the develop-
ment of social inequality and complexity (Lowe 1978; Demarest 1989b;
Blake et al. 1995; Lesure 1997, 1998, 1999).
The most prominent of these evolving complex societies were the
centers of the so-called “Olmec civilization” of the Gulf coast of Tabasco
and Veracruz. Sites that shared some elements of “Olmec” material culture
have been found scattered across Mesoamerica, including Chiapas,
 Y

<
,
OOMLVIL
Vv
¥

=
& ad Mi VI VINA

a
NVTLINVN OFINVAOAL-

SAUL
NVS OZNIUOT
¥ ¥ NVS ONCISI

SSLOdVZ
NVS aSOr ALODOW
V Vv YOAUVUIN

ODNIZLVOTVHO
OL v =yoNvig WIVAVL
Ww Td TVAVHO
re) oO a b em

oO
1 Ta

T
i aT

oO!
r

00

00g
00€
W4O00S
(uIny “7 stnq Aq uMeIp) sous sANVUIIO, AjJeq Surmoys vosuleossy= jo dey-= Ff sins
62 Ancient Maya

the Pacific coast of Central America, and even into the Maya highlands
and lowlands (Lowe 1978; Demarest 1989b). Through poorly under-
stood contacts and influences, the “Olmec period” sites of 1300 to
600 BC introduced many of the symbolic elements and concepts that
were later elaborated in the Classic Maya civilization.

The “Olmec civilization” and the “Olmec problem”

Overall, the evidence indicates that in eastern Mesoamerica after the

formation of settled agricultural villages there was a rapid development
of complex societies from 2000 to 1300 BC, along the coasts and in some
inland zones. The record in the rain forest lowlands of the Maya area, the
focus of this study, is almost silent for this entire period. A few scattered
Archaic-period finds in Belize and elsewhere (MacNeish, Wilkerson, and
Nelken-Turner 1980) are insufficient to give us even a sketchy view of
cultural developments in the Maya lowlands during this period of the
initial rise of complex societies in eastern Mesoamerica. In the surround-
ing zones, however, including Chiapas, the Pacific and Gulf coasts of
Mexico, and the coasts and highlands of Guatemala and El Salvador, by
1300 to 900 BC centers appeared with monuments, public architecture,
intricate art, and symbolic systems with some elements shared across
Mesoamerica. Economies arguably had elite-controlled long-distance
trade, as well as regional trade. Based on the archaeological evidence,
scholars debate whether these more complex societies were high “chief-
doms” or “early states” — traditional typological distinctions [see Box 2]
that are of less interest than a deeper understanding of the changes and
processes under way.
Judging from public architecture and monuments, the most politically
advanced of these societies, if measured in terms of control of labor
(e.g. Clark 1997a), were the great centers of the Gulf coast of Mexico
such as San Lorenzo, La Venta, Tres Zapotes, and other sites that are
usually collectively referred to as the “Olmec civilization.” The most
spectacular monuments of the Olmec ceremonial centers are gigantic
carved basalt heads up to 60 tons in weight (Fig. 4.5) and rectangular
stone “altars” (actually thrones) with images of leaders and deities (e.g.
M. Coe, 1965). Public architecture at these centers includes courts delim-
ited by basalt columns, stone-lined ritual watercourses running through
centers, and earthen temple mounds (Fig. 4.6). Within large platforms of
the ceremonial centers archaeologists have uncovered buried floors with
layered strata of fine sands of different colors and buried “offerings” of
mosaic floors of serpentine and other fine stones, some forming enor-
mous faces usually identified as deities. There are “caches” of portable
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 63

Figure 4.5 Colossal head from Olmec site of San Lorenzo, Veracruz,
Mexico (70" x 46" x 37", 6 tons) (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

Figure 4.6 Reconstruction of a portion of La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico

ceremonial center (drawn by Luis F. Luin after Coe 1994: Fig. 43)

art which include “were-jaguar” figures and carved adzes combining

human and animal features. Bas-relief monuments also repeat certain
themes including combined human/animal features, seated figures with
headdresses emerging from caves, jaguars, “were-jaguars,” and serpents
64 Ancient Maya

Figure 4.7 Olmec jade celt

(Fig. 4.7). Some more complex incised or carved iconography and motifs
are believed to include some precursors to later Maya iconography and
writing (Quirarte 1977).
Beyond the Gulf coast “heartland” of Olmec centers, other ceremo-
nial centers with public art and architecture appear before 900 BC, if not
earlier (see map, Fig. 4.4). Many of these sites also have earthen mounds,
stone monuments, and portable art. In most cases artifacts are of regional
styles, but some elements, motifs, and themes are shared with the Olmec
“heartland” art of the Gulf coast. Centers like Chalcatzingo in More-
los, Coapexco and Tlatilco in central Mexico, Teopantecuantitlan in far
western Guerrero, San José Mogote in Oaxaca, Mirador and San Isidro
in Chiapas, and La Blanca, Abaj Takalik, and El Mesak on the Pacific
coast of Guatemala, all display elements of cultural complexity in art,
ceramics, or monuments that share features of the “Olmec” style, with its
“were-jaguars” and other specific anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and/or
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 65

Figure 4.8 Sherd from El Mesak, Guatemala, with “Olmec”

were-jaguar figure

geometric designs (Fig. 4.8). Yet many of these centers also have distinc-
tive material culture assemblages, and some show evidence of gradual
local developments with considerable time depth (e.g. San José Mogote
and El Mesak). Thus, eastern Mesoamerica from 1300 to 600 BC did
not have a single coherent “Olmec civilization” but rather a wide range of
complex societies. Each of these had a distinctive local pattern and devel-
opment, yet they shared enough elements in common to demonstrate
ongoing interaction and influences.
For over three decades, debate and discussion on the archaeology of
this Early to Middle Preclassic period has centered around the issue
of whether the Gulf coast Olmec ceremonial centers were the “mother
66 Ancient Maya

culture” that developed and then spread most elements of complex soci-
ety to other regions (e.g. Covarubias 1957; M. Coe 1968; Campbell and
Kaufman 1976; Clark and Blake 1989; Tolstoy 1989). This position fits
with the concept of “horizons” of pan-Mesoamerican influence critiqued
in Chapter 2. Another school of thought holds that parallel developments
occurred in each region, mutually stimulated by a “lattice of interac-
tion between evolving chiefdoms” (Demarest 1976, 1989b; Grove 1981,
1989; Marcus 1989; Sharer 1989). The truth probably lies somewhere
between these positions. Perhaps the Olmec centers of the Gulf coast and
Chiapas were the most precocious and influential centers, contributing
considerably to parallel but locally defined developments elsewhere. In
any case, our understanding of the origins of these complex societies in
most regions (especially the “Olmec heartland”) is so poor that this debate
about local developments versus interregional influences is still impossi-
ble to resolve. Ongoing intensive excavation and survey projects in the
Gulf coast region, Chiapas, and southern Guatemala should soon lead to
a better informed and more meaningful understanding of the processes
that led to the rise of these complex societies in the second millennium
BC (e.g. Arroyo 2001; Pye et al. 1999; Blake et al. 1995; Blake and Clark
1999; Lesure 1998).
Meanwhile, in the Maya lowland region we have almost no evidence
whatsoever concerning the participation of Early Preclassic societies
in the network of interactions and influences of this Olmec period.
Except for a few caches of Olmec-style jades and other sporadic finds
(Andrews V 1986; Willey 1978: 96-97; Smith 1982), our understand-
ing of the connection between the Maya civilization and these earlier
antecedents is based, not on coeval evidence, but on the appearance
of many “Olmec” elements later in Late Preclassic- and Classic-period
Maya art, iconography, and writing (Coe 1968; Quirarte 1977). For the
past several decades archaeologists have traced the origins of later Classic
Maya art and symbol systems to the Maya highlands to the south and to
the Middle to Late Preclassic “Olmec,” “Olmec related,” “Olmecoid,”
or Izapan monuments and sites of the southern highlands — forming a
hypothetical indirect link with the more ancient Early Preclassic cultures.
The truth, however, is that we do not know what may have been going
on in the Maya lowlands before about 1000 BC and whether that region
had its own precocious Early Preclassic centers with their own original
local developments and direct contacts with the other evolving cultures of
this period, including those of the Gulf coast Olmec region. This possi-
bility of yet undiscovered highly complex Early Preclassic societies in the
Maya lowlands must now be seriously researched given the new evidence
of urban or semiurban centers in the lowlands by 500 BC, if not before
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 67

-(Hansen 1991b; Hansen 2001). The only alternative possibility is that

the Maya lowlands were occupied (or reoccupied) after 1200 to 1000 BC
by already complex colonizing societies moving in from the surrounding
highland and coastal zones.

The southern “corridor” of interaction

In the period from 900 to 200 BC many ceremonial centers and some
truly “urban” sites appeared in the southern Maya highlands and coast.
The study of these early southern Maya centers has been under way in
archaeology for over a century, since some of these sites are near modern
communities. Yet our overall thinking has been changed by the recent
discoveries of early urban centers in the lowlands and new evidence from
the south coast and highlands. The current state of the evidence on the
Preclassic of the south coast and Maya highlands is a confusing profusion
of diverse sites, art styles, and artifacts.
“On the “boca costa” or lower piedmont of the Pacific south coast,
several long-studied centers have carved stone monuments with extensive
earthen temple mounds and terraces. Each of these sites had distinctive
regional ceramic traditions. Among the Middle to Late Preclassic south-
ern sites are Izapa, Chiapas; Abaj Takalik and Monte Alto on the Pacific
piedmont of Guatemala; and Kaminaljuyu and Chalchuapa in the high-
land valleys of Guatemala and El Salvador (see map, Fig. 4.9). Many other
large Middie and Late Preclassic centers have only recently been exca-
vated, and interpretations are just beginning at such sites as La Blanca,
Ujuxte, Buena Vista, and Balberta on the south coast of Guatemala.
Some of these centers have a phase or component that indicates involve-
ment in the Olmec symbolic system and art style of the period from
1300 BC to about 600 BC, as well as later components in distinctive
local art styles in the later Middle to Late Preclassic period from 600 BC
to AD 300 (see chronology, Fig. 2.3). While monuments at some sites
have styles displaying continuity in motifs and themes from the Olmec
era, art at other sites is more similar to the earliest lowland Maya bas-relief
iconography of stelae and altars (Fig. 4.10). Some highland monuments
share early calendric dates in the Maya cyclical and Long Count systems
(discussed in Chapter 8).
These glyphs, the poses of figures, and the general style of some monu-
ments have been used to argue for the origins of a proto-Maya art style
on the coast and highlands at sites such as Kaminaljuyu, Chalchuapa,
and Abaj Takalik (cf. Parsons 1981, 1986; Graham 1982; Boggs 1950;
Sharer 1974). Yet carvings at other sites show complex and fluid
narrative sequences with figures representing esoteric rituals or myths
68 Ancient Maya

KOMCHEN
4 pzIBILCHALTUN

O Loltun Cave

<
aa}

CERROS a al
NOHMUL
CURT LOA ME a R)
: EL MIRADORA \ nf a LAMANAI
: x o

(UAXACTUNa ss
TIKAL4 xe

Fd Cage OE FIC H AY AL ae
ABAJ an ey aK AMINALJUYU
s \
, CHALCHUAPA
mate che Wy ESS
a
4 SANTA LETICIA
* /lopango
Volcano

Si tanrtp

OP 2550 N 7 5a LO0Mmiles
eS el Se

Figure 4.9 Map of eastern Mesoamerica with some Preclassic sites

(drawn by Luis F. Luin)
Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 69

“gs

Figure 4.10 Stela 5, “Maya style” monument at Abaj Takalik,

Guatemala
70 Ancient Maya

Figure 4.11 Stela 25 from the site of Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico (drawn
by Ayax Moreno)

(Fig. 4.11). Monuments of the latter type are especially common at the
site of Izapa in Chiapas and are often referred to as the “Izapan” style
(Quirarte 1973). Izapan style also has been considered by some to be
ancestral to elements in later Maya art, but most scholars now consider
it to be part of a distinctive non-Maya subtradition (e.g. Parsons 1981,
1986).
If this coastal and piedmont mix of sculptural traditions and informa-
tion systems was not confusing enough, other, presumably earlier, sites
have monuments and some artifacts in typical “pure Olmec” style. Prior
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 71

Figure 4.12 “Potbellied” style monument from Santa Leticia, El

Salvador, height 1.6 m. (from Demarest 1986) (drawn by LeRoy
Demarest)

to its recent destruction, the Olmec-period site of La Blanca had such

elements and a 25-meter-high temple mound rivaling that of La Venta in
the Olmec Gulf coast heartland (Love 1991, 1999a). “Pure” Olmec-style
bas-reliefs are found in reset or undateable contexts at other coastal and
highland sites. Furthermore, this southern “jumble” of artistic traditions
and styles also includes primitive full-round boulder sculptures, includ-
ing crude jaguars, giant heads, and many nearly spherical “potbellied”
monumental figures (Fig. 4.12). These cruder boulder sculptures had
been proposed by some to be possibly ancestral to the monuments of
the Olmec Gulf coast sites; however, they have since been dated at Santa
Leticia, El Salvador, and Monte Alto, Guatemala, to between 500 BC
and AD 200, proving that they were “epi-Olmec” or derivative from the
earlier Olmec style (Parsons 1976, 1981; Demarest et al. 1982; Demarest
1986).
From this tangle of Olmec, “Olmecoid,” Izapan, proto-Maya, epi-
Olmec, and local styles, archaeologists have tried to derive various simpli-
fied schemes of evolution from the Middle Preclassic (1000 to 400 BC)
TZ Ancient Maya

styles and proto-writing to the highland and lowland Maya stela-altar

complex, calendric systems, iconography, and early inscriptions (Parsons
1986). Some have gone further to try to associate particular styles and
influences with specific ethnic or linguistic groups. For example, Olmec,
epi-Olmec, and Izapan art styles have often been associated with hypoth-
esized Mixe-Zoquean speaking peoples presumed to have moved into the
Pacific coast and piedmont of Guatemala from the Olmec core area of
the Gulf coast and Chiapas (Campbell and Kaufman 1976; Lowe 1977,
1983). Yet most sites show a mix of several ‘styles in the monuments
present with only a slight predominance of a certain style. Furthermore,
recent excavations have shown that sites such as Izapa, La Blanca, Abaj
Takalik, Ujuxte, and Kaminaljuyu have very different material culture
assemblages, especially in domestic ceramics and even in elite artifacts
(Love 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Love and Castillo 1997; Lowe 1978, 1992;
Lowe et al. 1982; Hatch 1991, 1997; Hatch et al. 2001).
Scenarios for the evolution of the canons of Classic Maya art in
the south are further complicated by the probable mix of ethnic and
linguistic populations on the Pacific corridor throughout the prehistory
and history of Mesoamerica (Bove 1989). This Pacific coastal plain
and southern piedmont made a natural corridor for the movement of
people and ideas (Lee and Navarrete 1978) that was at different times
occupied by many ethnic and linguistic groups, including speakers of
languages of the Zoque, Maya, Xinca, and, later, Nahua language families
(Campbell 1976; Kaufman 1973, 1976). Preclassic trade, exchange, and
cross-fertilization of cultural inventories in art, information systems,
and ideology were probably built upon parallel economic, subsistence,
and political alliances and exchanges — not just common ethnicity or
language (Flannery 1968; Grove 1981; Hirth 1984; Demarest 1986;
Demarest and Sharer 1986; Demarest 1987b; Sharer and Grove 1989;
Bishop et al. 1989; Schortman and Urban 1991).

The Late Preclassic highland Maya centers

From this rich interaction of culture groups in the Middle to Late Preclas-
sic coast and highlands emerged the highland Maya art and ceramic styles
best known from the great site of Kaminaljuyu (Fig. 4.13). This impor-
tant center is covered today by the suburbs of modern Guatemala City,
and its burial mounds, temple mounds, monuments, and dwellings have
been systematically excavated or inadvertently discovered for a century.
The history of the exploration and interpretations of Kaminaljuyu,
perhaps the largest Preclassic site in the highlands, can be viewed as an
example of the general problems and the recent shifts in thinking on the
san3IJ
Pp E[ UONONNsuUOcDY
SuIMVIP
JokB UONIOd
Jo oy] o1IsJo nAn{jeurueyy
umMesp)
Aq sinq
“4 (uInyT
74 Ancient Maya

rise of the state in the Maya highlands and lowlands. Carnegie Institution
projects in the 1930s and Penn State projects in the 1960s focused on the
central acropolis and adjacent elite residential zones and lithic production
areas (Kidder et al. 1946; Sanders and Michels 1977). From these and
other researches emerged a provisional cultural history of the site that
viewed it as an advanced form of “chiefdom” [see Box 2].
It was assumed that this chiefdom and ceremonial center was supported
by its control of nearby obsidian sources and obsidian production,
together with the natural agricultural wealth of the volcanically enriched
soils of the basin of the Valley of Guatemala (Michels 1979). During
the Late Preclassic period of 400 BC to AD 300, Kaminaljuyu was
believed to have transferred the early art styles, calendrics, and writing
systems of precocious epi-Olmec coastal centers to the lowland Maya
sites to the north in the Petén rain forest (then believed to be less devel-
oped). Archaeologists had hypothesized that the chiefdom of the Valley
of Guatemala centered at Kaminaljuyu was, in turn, later transformed
into a true state between about AD 250 and 400 through colonization,
conquest, or commercial control from the great mercantile city of Teoti-
huacan far to the west in the Valley of Mexico [see Box 3]. Teotihuacan
contact was marked by central Mexican talud-tablero style architectural
facades on acropolis buildings, as well as artifacts in Teotihuacan style.
Theories then posited that Kaminaljuyu and other highland sites were
intermediaries for historical contacts or for the transference of Mexican
influence, and that this helped in turn to stimulate state formation in the
Maya lowlands to the north at sites like Tikal and Uaxactun (Santley
1981, 1983; Sanders and Price 1968; Coggins 1979).
The problem with all of these traditional interpretations is that they
were based on a perspective that viewed the Maya highlands and Pacific
coast as regions that merely mediated contacts between Mexico and the
Maya lowlands. New discoveries of vast complex ceremonial centers in
the lowlands dating to before 400 BC have rendered such interpreta-
tions obsolete. As described later in this chapter, some lowland centers
were well along in their political, economic, and cultural evolution by
the end of the Middle Preclassic period and may have had their own
direct contacts with the centers of central Mexico and the Gulf coast
(Demarest and Foias 1986; Hansen 1994, 2001; Braswell 2003a). More
importantly, recent excavations at the highland and lowland Maya centers
of the Middle to Late Preclassic periods have shown that local evolu-
tion had led to the formation of large populous centers with monumen-
tal architecture, complex regional economies, political institutions, and
related information systems long before the hypothesized “stimulating”
influences, contacts, or intrusions from central Mexico. Contacts with the
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence U5

Olmec Gulf coast sites during the Middle Preclassic and with Teotihua-
can at the beginning of the Classic period did communicate important
ideas and in the latter case certainly involved significant historical events
(see Chapter 9). However, as discussed in Chapter 2, a “lattice” of contin-
uing, mutually stimulating contacts and cultural exchanges better models
the relationship between the Preclassic and Classic societies of Mexico
and the Maya highlands and lowlands. The evidence is strong in most
areas of Mesoamerica, including Oaxaca, the Maya highlands, and the
Maya lowlands, for coevolution of states with the rise of complex political
and economic institutions. These parallel changes were brought about by
a complex interplay of regional developments and international contacts.
In the case of the Maya highlands, underpublicized excavations of the
past decade have quietly overturned many earlier characterizations of the
Middle and Late Preclassic periods. Kaminaljuyu has been the subject
of many salvage excavations supervised by the Guatemalan Institute of
Anthropology and History. Salvage excavation projects in Guatemala City
have received little attention, perhaps because of their publication in
Spanish and their unromantic names, which translate as the “Channel
3 site” or the “Metro Centro Mall site.” These conservation archaeology
projects have raced before the bulldozers of the construction companies
to salvage pieces of this ancient city. In fact, when taken together these
excavations demonstrate that Kaminaljuyu was not merely a Maya chief-
dom but a sprawling city (Fig. 4.13), and a state well before AD 300 (see
Hatch 1997 and bibliographic essay at end of chapter).
While the early projects had uncovered Late Preclassic tombs of lead-
ers with rich grave goods and sacrificed retainers (Kidder et al. 1946),
new tombs, temple mounds, and residential areas have now been uncov-
ered scattered beneath many parts of modern Guatemala City. Through-
out the Valley of Guatemala, Late Preclassic potsherds have been found
and some ceramics, including ornately incised vases and fine-paste wares,
were exported to other areas of the highlands and coasts and even into the
Maya lowlands to the north (Bishop et al. 1989). Some areas of ancient
Kaminaljuyu were workshops for ceramic production. Craftpersons of
Kaminaljuyu also produced obsidian cores and tools from the volcanic
glass of the nearby El Chayal deposit (Michels 1979). Salvage projects
also have recovered zones of specialized food production, including giant
ovens and associated work areas that may have been involved in prepa-
ration of food, perhaps including roasted chocolate beans from cacao
pods imported from the groves of the Pacific coast to the south (Hatch
1997). Most importantly, recent salvage projects in the western suburbs of
Guatemala City have discovered a complex irrigation system (Fig. 4.14)
with large clay-lined canals that fed gardens for intensive cultivation
76 Ancient Maya

a
ie it}

|
a3 ft Af A $7qt

ps FR ee

oS: Atte ~
Figure 4.14 Irrigated gardens at Preclassic Kaminaljuyu (after Hatch
1997: Fig. 91)

(Hatch 1997; Valdés 1997a; Barrientos 1997a, 1997b). These hydraulic

works could have made this highland center a breadbasket of food produc-
tion and export throughout, and perhaps even beyond, the Valley of
Guatemala.
This new evidence of economic complexity in production and exchange
can now be coupled with previous and recent discoveries of carved monu-
ments and public architecture that indicate a parallel development of
political institutions. Monuments at the site in the first centuries AD
show signs of a well-developed Maya calendric system and some of the
elements of an ideology shared with centers in the lowlands to the north.
Altar stones and stelae bear glyphs and iconography (Fig. 4.15) that some
scholars have interpreted as showing enthroned rulers (Valdés and Hatch
1996; Fahsen 2001). It is probable that an archaic state was in place at
Kaminaljuyu before the end of the Preclassic period.
This revised understanding of Kaminaljuyu is more in keeping with
evidence from other large Middle and Late Preclassic centers in the
highlands, such as Chalchuapa in El Salvador and Balberta, Abaj Taka-
lik, Ujuxte, and other sites on the southern piedmont slopes of the
Pacific coast (Sharer 1978; Graham 1977; Bove 1989; Bove et al. 1993;
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence UU

Figure 4.15 Monument 65, Seated Preclassic rulers at Kaminaljuyu

(drawn by Luis F. Luin)

Orego 1998; Love and Castillo 1997; Love 1991, 1998; Schieber de
Lavarreda 1998; Whitley and Beaudry 1989). These centers also display
great complexity in public architecture and monuments in a variety of
styles — some with elements of later Maya hieroglyphic, calendric, and
iconographic systems. There is also considerable evidence of complex
78 Ancient Maya

ma os, PRPS
Ci a
Ao te
Figure 4.16 Reconstruction drawing of terrace and artificial
monuments at Santa Leticia, E] Salvador (from Demarest 1986:
Fig. 40) (drawn by LeRoy Demarest)

economic exchange systems in the Late Preclassic highlands. Some of

these south coast and highland trade networks may have been based on
the Pacific coastal wealth in groves of the precious cacao. Cacao beans
were the source of the chocolate that was so popular as a drink with all
Mesoamerican peoples, and they were not only traded as a commod-
ity, but sometimes served as a medium of market exchange (primitive
“money”). Highland centers like Kaminaljuyu, Santa Leticia (Fig. 4.16),
and Chalchuapa had similar ceramics, figurines, and other artifactual
assemblages and an overlapping set of monumental art styles, including
early Maya stelae and altars, “potbellied” monuments, mushroom stones,
and pedestal sculptures (Demarest 1986; Demarest and Sharer 1986;
Parsons 1981, 1986). Compositional analyses of lithics and ceramics also
show that there were close exchange systems between these centers of
the highlands of western El Salvador and eastern and central Guatemala
(Bishop et al. 1989). Certainly by 500 to 400 BC this entire zone was
occupied by Maya-speaking peoples with close cultural ties.
Meanwhile, the large centers on the Pacific slopes such as Balberta,
Buena Vista, Abaj Takalik, Ujuxte, and Izapa had great variability
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 79

- in settlement, architecture, ceramics, and monuments. Some of these

centers have been posited to have been occupied by speakers of other
language groups such as Mixe-Zoque or Xinca (e.g. Lowe 1978, 1992).
Initial ceramic studies at Abaj Takalik, however, show ceramics of prob-
able highland Maya style (Castillo 1991; Orego 1998), though this site
has a wide range of monuments of every type and style, from “Olmec”
to “Izapan,” and “proto-Maya” to boulder sculptures (Graham 1979;
- Parsons 1986, 1988). Long-term projects in Esquintla at the great centers
of Balberta, Alta Vista, and other sites have focused on regional economic
and political development rather than the usual overemphasis of long-
distance ties or ethnic affiliations (Bove 1989, 1991; Bove et al. 1993).
The ongoing projects there and at Abaj Takalik (Orego 1998) and Ujuxte
(Love and Castillo 1997; Love 1998) soon should give us a better view of
the complex mosaic of regional polities on the south coast. Only then can
we assess the nature of their affiliations, their cultural debt to the earlier
occupations’of the so-called “Olmec horizon” sites, and their influence
on Kaminaljuyu and the highland centers, as well as on the emerging
Maya lowland centers to the north.

The beginnings of lowland Maya village life

In the north, on the great limestone lowlands of Yucatan, the Petén, and
Belize (see map, Fig. 4.9), the nature of the archaeology and its problems
contrast as dramatically with the archaeology of the highlands and coast
as do their respective physical environments. In the southern highlands
we have just seen that we have more information than we can accurately
evaluate on the Early and Middle Preclassic from 2000 to 400 BC. By
400 BC ceremonial centers and highly complex regional societies had
developed in the highland and Pacific zones, but we have yet to sort out
the overlapping art styles, information systems, ceramic traditions, and
external forces involved in that transformation to high chiefdoms and
then states.
By contrast, in the north the Early Preclassic evidence from the rain
forests of the Petén, Yucatan, and Belize is too scanty to allow cred-
ible initial interpretations. Deposits from about 1200 to 700 BC are
from very small sites or from small excavation units at the very bottom
of great trenches dug into the massive acropoli and temples of much
later Classic-period ceremonial centers (Fig. 4.17). We have some scat-
tered and incomplete evidence on the pre-agricultural “Archaic period,”
barely sufficient to demonstrate some occupation of the Maya area during
the Mesoamerican Archaic transition to agriculture. Then, after about
1000 BC, we have evidence of simple agricultural villages with maize,
 Wit
—— 087“W
‘W062 —

1v3¥9 Vivid
WO

aDV¥BIL HLYON
SITOdOYDV

9%-aS
HLYON

N
zU-aS
wis
bs

jo
YON
stpodosoy
Jo
[eYLL,
YUM
A[doop
poling
[Jews
JO
woweyy
uonednss0
polvorpul
IYI]
UONDIS-ssoID,
dN
LTP
Bore
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 81

Figure 4.18 Mamom style ceramic vessel

beans, and squash farming and perishable huts built on low clay and
cobble platforms. Occasionally, somewhat larger platforms can be argued
to have more public functions (e.g. Hammond 1977). Such “Mamom”
villages (or segments of them), dating back to 1000 BC, have been
found buried under later architecture at many sites all across the Maya
lowlands, including Uaxactun, Tikal, Seibal, and Altar de Sacrificios in
Guatemala; at Cuello, Nohmul, and many other sites in northern Belize;
and at Komchen, Dzibilchaltun, Loltun Cave, and elsewhere in northern
Yucatan (see map, Fig. 4.9).
The characteristic artifact assemblages of the period are simple, but
there is evidence for technologically excellent monochrome pottery of
the style called Mamom, with thick walls, limestone temper, and colors
in monochrome orange, black, and white slips on simple flat-bottomed,
flaring-walled bowls, some cylindrical bowls, and jars (Fig. 4.18). The
modest Middle Preclassic assemblages of most of these early lowland
site components include thin-walled water jars with striated decoration,
simple figurines, chert and some obsidian stone tools, and an occasional
exotic artifact of shell, bone, or jade. The ceramic tradition of the Maya
lowlands was in place by about 1000 BC and then evolved, with many
changes but with great continuity, until the very end of lowland Maya
civilization. Petén Maya ceramics were simple but clearly distinctive, and
82 Ancient Maya

more uniform regionally in the Preclassic than the ceramics of the high-
lands and coasts of Mesoamerica. The gradually developing household
pottery of the lowland Maya peoples was one indicator of the cultural
unity and continuing contacts between groups in this “southern lowland”
or Petén region.
To the north and all across the Maya lowlands between 1000 and
400 BC villages appeared, including Middle Preclassic occupations at
Becan and in far northern Yucatan at Komchen, Loltun Cave, Dzibilchal-
tun, and other sites. They have a similar material culture with simple
Mamom ceramics, but with distinctive northern lowland variations in
pottery and artifacts. Some incipient degree of social stratification was
present in slight differentials in grave goods, and some large structures
that might have had public functions. At some sites there was some degree
of economic specialization. For example, at Komchen, a large coastal
village in far northern Yucatan, there was probably involvement in salt
production and trade to farming populations farther inland, such as the
sprawling Middle to Late Preclassic city of Dzibilchaltun (Andrews V
et al. 1984; Andrews IV and Andrews V 1980). Despite these hints of
economic complexity there is little in the archaeological record that fore-
shadows the massive architecture and monumental art that appears after
600 BC at some lowland sites.
This picture of simple village life in the Early to early Middle Preclas-
sic period in the Maya area is obviously very incomplete. This descrip-
tion will soon be replaced, we expect, by discoveries of either substan-
tia] lowland Early Preclassic ceremonial centers comparable to those in
Chiapas and the Gulf coast or by evidence of colonization of the Petén
by already complex societies from adjacent regions — or perhaps by a
combination of these two scenarios. The Middle Preclassic villages in the
Maya lowlands, even those with a few public structures in the form of
modest temples, were limited in scale, complexity, and architecture —
in no way foreshadowing the radical transition to enormous ceremo-
nial centers like Nakbe after 600 BC (see next section). In the 1980s,
controversial carbon-14 analyses from the site of Cuello in Belize were
believed to have pushed back the dating of early Maya village cultures
to before 2000 BC (Hammond 1977). Such a chronology would have
been much more compatible with the evidence that we now have on the
period after 600 BC in the lowlands. After dating corrections, however,
even those Belizean villages have been redated to about 1000 BC or a
bit earlier (Andrews and Hammond 1990; Kosakowsky and Pring 1998),
leaving us with an apparent leap in complexity at the beginning of lowland
Maya cultural history. So, we still have no convincing explanation of
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 83

how these simple village cultures of 1000 BC to about 600 BC could

have developed into the spectacular and gigantic centers that quickly
followed.

Suddenly civilization

The site of Nakbe in the far northern Petén (see map, Fig. 4.9) is
perhaps the most striking and earliest of these Petén centers to have enor-
mous public architecture (Hansen 1991b, 1992, 2001). Evidence for the
period prior to 600 BC is just now being unearthed, but some recent
finds suggest even earlier evidence of political and economic complexity
(Hansen 1997). At about 600 BC, the inhabitants of Nakbe constructed
huge architectural platforms, some nearly twenty meters high. During the
following centuries platforms and temple substructures were constructed,
each with three small temples atop them and gigantic plaster masks
with zoomorphic faces adorning the facades of the substructures. After
400 BC even larger structures were raised at Nakbe and similar complexes
began to appear at other sites. At El Mirador, Cerros, Lamanai,
Calakmul, Cuello, and Nohmul, similar complexes were constructed
between 400 BC and AD 100 that have the same general pattern of
massive substructures with plaster masks, topped by a triad of temples
(see Hansen 2001 and the bibliographic essay at the end of this volume).
At Nakbe this new phase of construction included stepped earth and
stone temple substructures with giant plaster masks with even more elab-
orate imagery. One temple substructure rises in terraced platforms to over
forty-six meters. One plaster mask at Nakbe is over five meters high and
eleven meters wide (Fig. 4.19) and portrays a deity believed by some
scholars to represent the Celestial Bird of later Classic Maya art and
mythology (Hansen 1991b, 1994; M. Coe 1993: 68-69). Early stone
stelae at Nakbe, El Mirador, and other Late Preclassic sites (Hansen
1991a) also show the early presence of the Maya stela-altar complex with
its calendric system, early versions of hieroglyphic texts, and stiff portraits
of standing rulers. These monuments reveal the early development of the
Maya state with the central role of ideology, ancestor veneration, and the
worship of a complex pantheon of deities.
At many sites in the Petén rain forest of Guatemala and Belize, similar
early variants of lowland Maya elite architecture and monuments appear
after 400 BC. El Mirador is the most gigantic of these early Maya cities yet
found. There hundreds of residential platforms and two great acropoli
cover a 16-square-kilometer area (Dahlin 1984; Matheny 1980, 1986,
1987; Demarest et al. 1984). The eastern and western acropoli of El
84 Ancient Maya

Figure 4.19 Monumental stucco mask at Nakbe (redrawn by

Luis F. Luin after Coe 1993: Fig. 33)

Mirador had massive temples (Fig. 4.20) rising up to 70 meters (Howell

and Copeland 1989). These had characteristic Late Preclassic plastered
facades over coarse masonry with a triad of temple structures above them
(Hansen 1984; Matheny 1980). The scale of construction demonstrated
the power of early rulers to mobilize mass labor (Matheny 1987; Hansen
1984; Hansen 2001) and architectural and iconographic details of the
temples show a complex ideology shared by these early lowland sites.
Other important features of these Preclassic centers were their inter-
nal complexity in urban occupation and regional interdependence. The
site of El] Mirador had a dense western epicenter of temples, residential
palaces, and plazas walled as a distinct precinct, which was connected by
a kilometer-long causeway to the massive, largely ritual, eastern acropolis
complex. In the Late Preclassic period large populations and ceremonial
complexes at E] Mirador were connected by long causeways running in
several directions to Nakbe and other centers (Dahlin 1984).
The details of the images, iconography, and hieroglyphics of these
great centers direct us to search for earlier external influences on the
formation of Maya lowland ideology, art, and writing. Indeed, many
specific elements of stone and plaster art, individual glyphs and symbols,
calendric elements, general formats, and even concepts of the Preclassic
lowland Maya may have been derived from the elite material culture and
monuments of the earlier “Olmec period” centers of the Gulf and Pacific
coasts. Even more specific links can be seen with Middle to Late Preclassic
centers of the southern highlands and south coast, such as Abaj Takalik,
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 85

Figure 4.20 Tripartite style Preclassic temple from El Mirador,

El Tigre Group (drawn by Luis F. Luin after Hansen 1990)

Izapa, Chalchuapa, and Kaminaljuyu. As critiqued above, archaeologists

have traditionally identified outside influences on the lowland Maya as
presumably coming from the highland variants of “Olmec,” “Olmecoid,”
“Tzapan,” or “Proto-Maya” cultures to the south and west. Yet, we should
also note that the Middle Preclassic Mamom and Late Preclassic Chicanel
ceramic assemblages and other artifacts of the Petén lowland centers
were distinct from the assemblages of the highlands, Chiapas, and the
Gulf coast, and were more closely similar between the sites of the Maya
lowlands themselves, clearly delimiting a “culture area” of more intense
interaction in the Preclassic Maya lowlands (Freidel 1979). In the rise
of Maya civilization, invasion, colonization, or dominating external influ-
ences may have been linked with internal developments or processes —
again, an interactive “lattice,” rather than unidirectional flow, of influ-
ences. The large and complex ceremonial centers at Nakbe, El Mirador,
and other Petén sites suggest that by the end of the Middle Preclassic
the southern Maya lowland centers might have been active participants
in such networks of interaction between elites in different regions. The
great similarities in the public temple complexes and symbol systems of
the Preclassic sites of the Maya lowlands between 600 BC and AD 100
demonstrate that interaction between the emerging elites wzthin the Maya
lowlands may have been as important as any external influences (Freidel
1979; Freidel and Schele 1988a; Matheny 1987; Hansen 1992, 2001).
In any case, the massive constructions of later periods may still cover
the evidence of the earlier Preclassic origins of complex society in
the Maya lowlands or evidence of the external factors that stimulated
86 Ancient Maya

the rise of Nakbe, El Mirador, and the other great lowland Preclassic
centers.

The coalescence of the Maya state in the lowlands:

theories and the new evidence

By the latter part of the Late Preclassic period (circa 200 BC to AD 200),
if not earlier, states ruled by divine kings had arisen in several regions
(Matheny 1987; Hansen 1992, 2001; Freidel and Schele 1988a). By that
period the iconography, images, and hieroglyphs on plaster masks, early
stone stelae, and carved artifacts all show that the symbol system and
specific beliefs that defined and legitimated divine kingship were in place
at early city-states throughout the Maya lowlands (Freidel and Schele
1988a, 1988b; Hansen 1992). These polities also had large populations,
massive public architecture, and complex site organization.
For decades archaeologists explained the development of the early state
in the Maya lowland rain forest based on the limited lowland evidence, the
better known sequences of other regions, and logical arguments. Initially
these theories appeared to fit well with the Maya data to explain the
emergence of state-level societies in the Maya lowlands, then believed to
have occurred between about AD 200 and 400. Now, however, with the
chronology pushed back by five or six centuries for these developments,
most of these theories are invalid.
For example, some interpretations had stressed external influences
or events as catalysts for the final coalescence of Maya societies into
states at the end of the Late Preclassic and the beginning of the Clas-
sic epoch, including influence from the great Mexican city of Teotihua-
can between AD 200 and 450 (Sanders and Michels 1977; Price 1978;
Michels 1979). Now we know that while relations between the Classic
Maya and that impressive Mexican city-state (see Chapter 9) were impor-
tant in Early Classic Maya history, these influences occurred long after
the Maya centers had already achieved great size and complexity and
had the institutions of divine rulership. Another theory had linked the
initiation of the Classic-period lowland florescence to a proposed AD 150
to 300 “Protoclassic Intrusion” of highland influences from movements
of populations after the eruption of the Ilopango volcano in El Salvador to
the south (Sheets 1979; Dahlin 1979; Gifford 1976). Again, these events
are now placed centuries after the rise of probable state centers in the
lowlands. The new chronologies show that Maya civilization at highland
centers like Kaminaljuyu and at lowland Maya centers such as Nakbe,
 Obscure beginnings and Preclassic florescence 87

El Mirador, Tikal, and Cerros probably coevolved through continuous

contacts and mutual exchanges.
Earlier scenarios regarding internal factors in the lowland states have
also been negated by the new chronologies and discoveries. Most of these
were processualist and “functionalist” theories that explained the origin
of Maya states in terms of leaders’ functions in managing intensive agri-
cultural projects, defense systems, trade, or a combination of these activ-
ities (e.g. Wittfogel 1957; Carneiro 1970; Rathje 1971; Sanders 1968;
Wright and Johnson 1975; Flannery 1972). Such processualist theories
have been criticized by Marxists for ignoring the often “parasitic” nature
of early elites (e.g. Gilman 1981) and by postprocessualists for ignoring
the role of worldview, ideology, and other non-ecological factors (e.g.
Hodder 1982, 1987; Miller and Tilley 1984; Freidel 1979; Mann 1986;
Conrad and Demarest 1984; Demarest and Conrad 1992; Demarest
1987a, 1989a). Now, however, they face a more direct problem: they
are chronologically out of alignment with the data.
For example, several hypotheses were based on the concept that grow-
ing populations had led to pressures for centralized management of
agricultural intensification (e.g. R.E.W. Adams 1977, 1980; Ball 1977;
Turner and Harrison 1978; Carneiro 1970; Webster 1976, 1977). Others
argued that the “environmental heterogeneity” (e.g. Sanders 1977) or the
“resource deficiency” (Rathje 1971, 1977) of the Petén rain forest stim-
ulated state management of regional or interregional trade. All of these
theories of population pressure, agricultural intensification, warfare, and
trade aligned well with the data from settlement surveys by major projects
in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s that posited population growth and the
rise of states at the end of the Late Preclassic period in the first few
centuries AD (e.g. R.E.W. Adams 1977; Webster 1977). Sadly (as so
often occurs in science), the recent discoveries have overturned these
beautifully aligned theories by finding large and complex centers, prob-
ably states, by the fourth century BC or earlier.
The internal and external forces leading to the rise of the Maya
states now are totally open to debate. Future interpretations will need
complex scenarios that combine some weak economic pressures for inter-
nal management originating from demography and warfare, but stim-
ulated by both external influences and the class interests of emerging
shamanistic leaders. This last ideological element was clearly reflected in
Late Preclassic symbolic systems, architectural features, and artifacts that
were later associated with the doctrines of sacred power of the Classic-
period kings. At Cerros, El Mirador, Nakbe, Lamanai, and other early
centers, the images and iconography of power already display the ruler’s
88 Ancient Maya

role as the “axis mundi,” the personified axis of the universe (see Freidel
and Schele 1988a, 1988b and bibliographic essay). These canons defined
the Maya rulers as shaman-kings who acted both as leaders in war and
politics and as intermediaries in the veneration of ancestors and the
worship of gods. The stucco masks, temples, early texts, and sculptures
show that this Classic Maya construct of combined ideological and polit-
ical power in the K’uhul Ajaw was in place by the first few centuries BC.
As we shall see, this form of divine royal kingship would guide the volatile
history of the lowland Maya for the next thousand years.
5 The splendor of the Classic Maya florescence
in the lowlands

During the Classic period the Maya lowland forests of northern

Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatan Peninsula were covered with clusters
of ancient Maya house groups, villages, and centers. The centers ranged
in size from minor ceremonial complexes with one or two masonry resi-
dences and shrines to great sprawling cities with large populations and
“epicenters” with massive acropoli of towering, superimposed temples,
palaces, and public buildings with fine masonry, painted plaster facades,
and stone monuments. In each region these were organized into local
city-states ruled by “holy lords” who were in turn linked by diverse and
complex bonds of kinship, exchange, and political alliances. This network
of jungle cities and centers and their local populations generated the
splendor of Classic Maya elite culture as well as its brilliant rain forest
adaptations.

The elusive essence of Classic Maya civilization

The Classic period traditionally has been viewed as the “golden age” of
ancient Maya society in the lowlands. Monumental art and architecture,
writing, advanced mathematics and calendrics, and other hallmarks of
sophisticated civilization were believed to have first appeared in this AD
300 to 900 era. Yet we now know that most of these features actually
appeared centuries earlier at some centers in the highlands and lowlands,
and some of these earlier centers had huge architectural complexes and
large populations. The Classic period is distinctive in prehistory, not so
much for an increase in the scale of architecture or the size of sites, as for
the much more extensive use of information and symbolic systems.
The Maya civilization of the Classic period was one of the few early state
societies — like those of Mesopotamia and Egypt — whose interpretation is
enriched by both modern multidisciplinary studies and the visions of that
civilization left by its own rulers and scribes. During the Classic period
the widespread use of hieroglyphic writing and calendric dates on stone
monuments has left a well-preserved body of information: dates, polity

89
90 Ancient Maya

names, dynastic records, and indications of elite behavior, alliances, and

interactions. The elaborate and beautiful art of the Classic period, partic-
ularly the polychrome painted ceramics, provides yet more information
in the form of interpretable images and brief, but revealing, texts about
elite life, ritual, and religion. The prevalence of easily dateable monu-
ments and ceramic styles allows us to correlate this information about
Classic Maya leaders and elite culture with new archaeological evidence
on the sustaining populations, settlements, and economic systems.
Traditional definitions of the Classic period were based on a list of
specific diagnostic traits: Maya hieroglyphic writing; the recording of the
Long Count and other calendric and chronological systems; mathematics
using zero and a base twenty system; corbeled vault (or “false arch”) stone
architecture; and polychrome ceramics in orange, black, red, and white.
The Classic-period ceremonial complexes have stone temples, palaces,
ballcourts, and a distinctive monument complex of standing rectangular
stone stelae and circular altars (Fig. 5.1), often carved with elaborate
images and hieroglyphic texts. Many of these features appeared earlier,
but in the Maya lowlands beginning at about AD 300 these elements
were Common at many ceremonial centers and cities that were linked by
interaction and exchange between their ruling elites.
In defining the Classic period, archaeologists now reject the vision of
Maya civilization held by some earlier scholars — that of a dispersed popu-
lace of slash-and-burn farmers only periodically united at the temples
and plazas of ceremonial centers for rituals presided over by their priests.
Having overturned this stereotype, it has been difficult for contemporary
archaeologists to reformulate an understanding of the common charac-
teristics of Maya sites because of differing interpretations of the evidence
on Maya agriculture, economic systems, and the size and scale of states.
Many of these differences reflect the actual variability of Classic-period
culture between subregions of the Maya lowlands. Geological and land-
form diversity in the lowlands is less pronounced than in other regions
of Mesoamerica, and geographical barriers between areas are fewer and
less formidable. Nonetheless, geographic and cultural factors were suffi-
cient to lead to diversity in architectural and ceramic styles and, over
time, to somewhat different regional cultural formulations. Even the
mix of agricultural practices and systems (e.g. swidden, terraces, raised
fields, gardening) varied between regions (e.g. Harrison and Turner 1978;
Dunning and Beach in press).
Archaeologists today try to look beyond the material culture trait lists
to identify the distinctive configurations of cultural, economic, and polit-
ical forms characteristic of Classic-period Maya civilization. In seek-
ing common factors between Classic Maya regions, some have looked
Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 91

Figure 5.1 Stela and altar at Tikal

92 Ancient Maya

Figure 5.2 Tikal epicenter in jungle

to a widespread political ideology that emphasized the central role of

divine kings, the K’uhul Ajaw (e.g. Freidel 1992; Freidel and Schele
1988a; Schele and Freidel 1990). First developing at some sites in the
Late Preclassic period (Freidel and Schele 1988b), this cult of rulership
included a host of specific rituals presided over by holy lords. As discussed
in Chapter 8, these rituals were a principal source of power for local
elites and a basis of the networks of interaction and alliance between
these rulers (Sabloff 1986; Freidel 1986b; Schele and Freidel 1990).
Despite differences in many aspects of material culture and economics
in the Classic period, lowland centers shared symbolic systems, religion,
science, mathematics, and these common canons of rulership, warfare,
and alliance. This shared ideology bound together the history and the
fates of the Classic-period lowland states.

The Classic Maya centers

The core area of each Classic Maya site, its epicenter, possessed much of
the stone architecture and monuments that so impressed the early explor-
ers and that still fascinate modern visitors. Today these epicenters consist
of clusters of eroded white limestone structures separated by stretches of
jungle (Fig. 5.2). Their appearance would have been quite different in the
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 93

Figure 5.3 Range structure at Uxmal

Classic period. Then, epicenters were plastered with thick stucco which
formed gleaming white courtyards and towering stepped stone temples,
the latter sometimes coated in red plaster with ornate stucco sculptures
in red, yellow, black, and blue. Lower-range structures (Fig. 5.3) with
peaked stone vaulted roofs were the receiving chambers or the homes of
the elite — nobles, priests, scribes, and administrators — and their fami-
lies. At first these “palace” structures were placed in simple rectangular
groupings around courtyards or plazas. Over time, the stone dwellings
and reception chambers of the royal families and the highest elites often
agglomerated into “acropoli,” irregular multilevel complexes of architec-
ture (Fig. 5.4).
The beauty of the Maya centers was not the result of careful urban
planning or highly ordered design. Rather, Maya centers had a seemingly
random quality that reflected their growth and the gradual accretion of
public architecture. The temples and acropoli of the older centers had
numerous construction phases, usually beginning in the Late Preclas-
sic and continuing with some gaps until the ninth-century end of the
Classic period. These multiple levels of construction built up massive
platforms and towering edifices, which incorporated within them the
temples and palaces of previous generations of rulers. Through patient
excavation with tunnels and trenches, teams of archaeologists have peeled
94 Ancient Maya

NS

Figure 5.4 Reconstruction drawing by Tatiana Proskouriakoff of the

Late Classic epicenter of Copan

through the construction sequence of these architectural puzzles and

correlated them with the associated burials of rulers, cache offerings of
artifacts, and carved stone texts (Fig. 4.17). Together these evidences
often give us an accurate chronology of construction and activity in these
epicenters.
The Classic-period Maya architecture of these centers had well-defined
features of construction and style. The use of the “false arch,” more
properly known as “corbeled vault,” determined both the elegant look
and the structural limitations of Maya architecture. The tall narrow
rooms of Maya palaces and temple chambers were the result of corbeled
vault construction in which chambers were roofed by placing blocks
on either side closer and closer together and then capped by a single
flat stone (Fig. 5.5). The technique required massive walls to support
the tall arches, which were still structurally weak. The ancient Maya
turned this structural weakness into a stylistic strength — as they did
with many aspects of their civilization (in politics and economics, as
well as in architecture!). The tall, narrow rooms required by structural
weakness were further extended to give structures an elegant appear-
ance. In most regional variants of Classic Maya architecture, the tall,
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 95

Figure*5.5 Cross-section of corbelled vault construction (drawn by

Luis F. Luin)

narrow profiles of their stone structures were further exaggerated by

adding elaborate “roof combs” which reached up toward the heavens.
The roof combs were decorated with stone and plaster images of gods,
venerated ancestors, or sacred symbols. The result was a cathedral-
like elegance to the temples at many Maya sites, which still today
often project above the high jungle canopy (Fig. 5.2; see also cover
photo).
The construction and maintenance of these Classic Maya centers
required a variety of craft skills and techniques including the produc-
tion of fine plaster from limestone and the extraction, preparation, and
trade of a variety of pigments, fine clays, and other raw materials. Depen-
dent classes of full- and part-time specialists labored on painting, stone
carving, the manufacture of fine ceramics and figurines, and archi-
tecture. The less skilled mass labor needed for construction projects
was probably a periodic contribution by the general population of the
kingdom.
The major epicenter architectural complexes were the administra-
tive and economic cores of Maya kingdoms. Goods and produce were
exchanged in their great plazas at the time of periodic gatherings and ritu-
als, as occurs on market and ritual days of the modern highland Maya
today. The royal palaces and courtyards were also administrative and
social centers. Elite visitors from other states, local leaders with petitions,
and leaders of subordinate polities bearing tribute would be received
96 Ancient Maya

in formal audiences, rituals, or feasts in the palaces and plazas of the

epicenters. ~
While the palaces and courtyard groups served as the offices and
dwellings of the living kings and nobles, the temples housed the tombs
of the preceding generation of rulers. They served as the foci of rituals
and sacrifices to honor and propitiate the ancestors, the royal version of
the general Maya practice of ancestor worship. In the tombs within the
great temples, the noble dead were accompanied by beautiful polychrome
ceramics, stone ornaments, carved bone and shell, and the elaborate jade
jewelry and feathered headdresses of their burial attire (Fig. 5.6). Most
of the treasures of Maya art found in the museums of the world were
ripped destructively from these tomb chambers by looters. In contrast
to the sumptuous royal tombs, average Maya families interred even their
esteemed deceased patriarchs with only a pot or two beneath the floors
of their homes. Many were buried with no grave goods at all. Between
these extremes were many burial cysts and small tomb shrines with arti-
facts representative of the status of intermediate groups of administrators,
craftspersons, or family leaders.
In the courtyards near the temples and tomb shrines, the Classic Maya
erected great carved rectangular slabs (stelae) with circular stone altars
before them (Fig. 5.1) as settings for ancestor veneration. The rituals
of ancestor worship included prayer, sacrifice of animals and human
captives, and, more commonly, “autosacrifice,” self-laceration and the
offering of blood by the pious descendants of the dead kings and their
followers. Many of the stelae and altars were carved with images of
the rulers and hieroglyphic texts that cite their births, accessions, wars,
marriages, deaths, and the rituals over which the holy lords had presided
(Fig. 5.7). The key elements in all of these texts are the inscribed dates
recorded in the Maya calendric systems. Our understanding of Maya
elite culture, religion, and history is structured by these texts on stone
stelae, panels, and some hieroglyphic stairways. The texts, though gener-
ally brief, give us a glimpse of some Classic Maya events, political rela-
tionships, and beliefs. The inscriptions also provide secure anchor points
for archaeological chronologies. They can be used to date the ceramic
and artifact styles of associated caches and tombs, which in turn can
be related to similar materials in the surrounding houses, middens, and
burials of the general population.
‘Taken together, the temples, palaces, courtyards, ballcourts, and stone
monuments provided a dramatic setting for the public rituals that peri-
odically brought the populace together and reinforced the identity of the
Classic Maya polities and the legitimacy of their rulers.
Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 97

Figure 5.6 Excavation of a royal tomb at Dos Pilas, Petén, Guatemala

98 Ancient Maya

Figure 5.7 Hieroglyphic text, Copan, Honduras

 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 99

The search for patterns in Classic Maya settlement

and society

Surrounding the great palaces and temples of the centers were the
household groups of nobles, craftspersons, and farmers. Occupation was
dispersed for many miles into the surrounding rain forest with neighbor-
ing smaller ceremonial complexes forming secondary nuclei of occupa-
tion and activity. Classic-period kingdoms included one or more major
centers, satellite minor centers, and surrounding farms and residences.
Populations of polities varied from a few thousand to over 50,000 inhab-
itants. A nested web of these major and minor centers stretches in an
irregular but continuous occupation across all of the Maya lowlands.
Maya settlement patterns and site designs were also structured by
the successful Maya adaptation to their rain forest environment, as
described in Chapter 6. Between the residential groups, major architec-
tural complexes, and minor centers were field systems, gardens, terraces,
and reservoirs. Like architectural and artifact styles, different regions
had variants of ancient Maya ecological and subsistence strategies and
agricultural forms. With few exceptions all of these variants involved resi-
dential dispersion, blurring the urban-versus-rural and town-versus-farm
distinctions so deeply ingrained in our own contemporary Western settle-
ment designs and worldviews.
Many patterns of layout and activities were shared between the great
stone complexes and spacious plazas of the elite and the plaza groups
of huts on low platforms occupied by the most humble families in the
countryside. The architecture of each of the different levels of ancient
Maya society shared elements in the symbolic positioning of structures,
burials, and caches, and in the nature and loci of activities. As discussed
in Chapter 8, this repetition in patterning was also guided by a common
ideology of ancestor worship and a shared cosmology that structured time
and space for the ancient Maya.
Maya archaeology has shown unusual promise in revealing the pattern-
ing of a vanished non-Western society and the lessons that such patterns
might have for contemporary social science. Repetition in architectural
layouts, symbols, and activities provides one key to understanding Maya
political structure and ideology. This ideological structuring of ancient
material culture is more easily interpreted in the case of the ancient Maya
because the ethnohistoric and modern Maya continued modified forms
of these ancient traditions, beliefs, and rituals. Archaeological interpreta-
tion of patterning is now also being aided by the hieroglyphic texts found
on artifacts and stone monuments, which provide information otherwise
unattainable by the best archaeological research. Most such epigraphic
100 Ancient Maya

insights concern elite culture and society, and only some features and
practices can be extrapolated to the entire population. Yet, if we are care-
ful not to naively accept and overemphasize their elite perspective, the
inscriptions reveal particular aspects of Maya culture and thought, and
they provide a timeline for major political events and influential trends of
the Classic period.

The broad sweep of Classic Maya culture history

The archaeology and history of the Classic period is richly detailed due to
the combination of different sources on this epoch. The result is a series
of complex alternative accounts of the political histories of the Maya
states, dynasties, and alliances, and the ancient Maya’s own perspective
on their society and universe. Voluminous published interpretations of
Maya history and religion are numerous, contradictory, and subject to
monthly revision by scholars. The inexhaustible arcana of Maya history
and religion has entranced scholars, often leading us to lose sight of
the broad patterns of Maya history and the ecological and economic
formations that supported ancient Maya society. To avoid this myopic
perspective, it might be useful to broadly overview Classic-period archae-
ology and history and then turn to Maya subsistence and economics
(Chapters 6 and 7).

Chronology

In the southern Maya lowlands, the Classic period has traditionally been
subdivided into Early (AD 300 to 600) and Late (600 to 900) periods
based on calendric dates on monuments and specific sequences of dated
ceramic styles (Fig. 2.3). Monuments dated in the Long Count system
allow reconstruction of dynastic history from the late third century on,
especially in the northeastern Petén region. There, sites like Tikal and
Uaxactun have been extensively excavated, and our interpretations and
chronology of the Early Classic period are heavily skewed toward that
region. The division between Early and Late Classic periods was partly
based on a gap in the sequence of construction of dated monuments at
Tikal, Uaxactun, and related sites in the north central Petén between AD
534 to 593 (9.5.0.0.0 to 9.8.0.0.0 in Maya Long Count chronology —
see Chapter 8). We once believed this “hiatus” to be a period of general
decline in the Maya lowlands. Now, we know that Tikal and its network
of allied kingdoms experienced a political crisis in the sixth century, while
other centers such as Caracol and Calakmul thrived during this period.
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 101

Figure 5.8 Early Classic (Tzakol style) vessel (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

In the Late Classic, stelae and other monument dedications became far
more common and we have many detailed dynastic sequences. Conse-
quently, secure chronologies anchored by Maya Long Count dates are
available for many southern lowland centers and regions. In northern
Yucatan, dated monuments are less common, and most of those use an
abbreviated dating system called the “Short Count” calendar which lists
only a portion of the date, thus creating ambiguities in interpretation (see
Chapter 8). The past century of debate and confusion on many major
aspects of the chronology in the northern lowlands demonstrates the great
advantages that dated inscriptions have given archaeology of the southern
lowland kingdoms.
Yet the extension of chronologies from the epicenters to the site periph-
eries and to entire regions continues to rely most heavily on the fragments
of broken pottery that are found by the thousands across the surface of
sites and in the middens (domestic garbage heaps) behind household
groups. Most useful for dating are buried vessels or potsherds of the poly-
chrome ceramic styles diagnostic of the Classic period. The Early Classic
“Tzakol” ceramics began the widespread use of polychrome painting in
red and black on orange to cream slips, with a characteristic “glossy”
surface. Designs on these fine Tzakol ceramics were primarily of geomet-
ric patterns or bands or highly stylized images of animals, lords, or deities.
The most diagnostic Early Classic forms were basally flanged bowls, ring
based bowls, and (somewhat later) cylindrical vessels with tripod feet
(Fig. 5.8).
For the Late Classic, dating is largely based on potsherds of the Tepeu
ceramic style of the northeastern Petén and a variety of coeval styles in
other regions. In the Late Classic, stylistic emphasis was placed on more
elaborate polychrome painting rather than complexity of forms (Fig. 5.9).
Perhaps the most diagnostic forms of the Late Classic were simple tall
cylinder vases and open plates. The fine painted polychrome burial vases
102 Ancient Maya

Figure 5.9 Late Classic polychrome (Tepeu style) vase (drawn by Luis
F. Luin)

of elites in the Late Classic are also an important source of information

on the ideology, social practices, and politics of the highborn families of
the Maya states.
There are difficulties that result from the heavy reliance on dated monu-
ments and elite ceramics for chronology, especially at the beginning and
at the very end of the Classic period. Early Classic and Terminal Clas-
sic population estimates and interpretations for residential areas may be
unreliable because of the paucity, outside of site centers, of the diagnostic
fine ceramics and dated monuments in those periods. Yet with each year
of research, site and regional chronologies improve with more detailed
study of household ceramics and the decipherment of more inscriptions.
In many regions we are now able to date even nonelite household contexts
to periods of less than a century.

The problematic transition to the Early Classic

The end of the Late Preclassic was a period of rapid demographic growth
and cultural florescence in both the highlands and lowlands. Incipi-
ent states had formed, as indicated by complex economies, massive
public architecture, and the symbols and information systems associated
with rulership. In the highlands, Kaminaljuyu had become a sprawling
center of trade and intensive agricultural production. Other highland and
coastal centers, such as Chalchuapa, Abaj Takalik, and Izapa, controlled
exchange systems in ceramics, lithics, and other goods. The various art
styles of these centers had given rise to the stela-altar complex and perhaps
the hieroglyphic and chronological systems that became central features
of the lowland Classic Maya society.
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 103

- Meanwhile, in the lowlands, even more precocious colossal centers

such as Nakbe and El Mirador dominated the northern Petén, while
Dzibilchaltun, Komchen, and other sites in the northern Yucatan had
large populations supported by regional economies. These sites shared
symbolic systems and early forms of the cult of the K’uhul Ajaws with
centers of more modest scale such as Cerros, Lamanai, Tikal, and Uaxac-
tun. Throughout the lowlands, population levels were high, as indicated
by vast quantities of Late Preclassic monochrome potsherds in these early
components of many sites.
Then, at the beginning of the Early Classic between AD 250 and 450,
there was an apparent dramatic reduction in population and construc-
tional activities at many lowland centers. Nakbe, El Mirador, and other
northern Petén sites have reduced occupations, and a similar decline is
observed at sites as distant as Seibal on the Pasion River to the west,
Komchen in northern Yucatan, and Cerros in Belize. Some archaeolo-
gists have speculated that global or regional climatic change, overpopu-
lation and soil exhaustion, or even the explosion of the lopango volcano
in El Salvador had disrupted the Late Preclassic florescence and caused a
reduction or shift in populations. More complex theories look to changes
in trade routes or political processes for the alleged cultural recession of
the third and fourth centuries. Others note that regional centers, such as
Calakmul north of the E] Mirador Basin and Tikal to its south, continued
to grow, exhibitting major architectural constructions and large popula-
tions in the Early Classic period.
The apparent Early Classic decline might be, to some extent, a method-
ological illusion. Commoners outside of the elite epicenters may have
had little access to the Tzakol-style polychromes used to date house
groups to the Classic period. Most households might have continued
to use variants of Late Preclassic ceramics into the fourth or even early
fifth centuries. Archaeologists could be incorrectly dating such occupa-
tions as Late Preclassic rather than Early Classic. Such an explanation is
especially plausible for sites that are far from the northeastern Peten, in
zones where the traditional Tzakol Early Classic ceramic diagnostics are
less common (e.g. Lincoln 1985). Nonetheless, it is certain that in some
zones there was a very real fourth-century population decline (Culbert
and Rice 1990).

The ascendance of the Early Classic dynasties and the

“Mexican problem”

While other centers may have declined, the northeastern Petén center
of Tikal rose to dominate Early Classic Petén regional politics in the
104 Ancient Maya

southern lowlands. The Tikal holy lords left a record of their achieve-
ments inscribed on architecture, monuments, and on the artifacts in the
royal tombs of that site’s so-called “North Acropolis,” a conglomeration
of superimposed funerary temples and tombs (Fig. 4.17).
Recently deciphered history, as discussed in Chapter 9, has shown
that at sites such as Tikal and Copan, Preclassic and initial Clas-
sic rulers were followed by new dynasties in the late fourth century
that had ties with the great distant Mexican metropolis of Teotihuacan
[see Box 3]. It remains unclear to what degree these Teotihuacan contacts
consisted of military expeditions, commercial exchanges, indirect influ-
ences through intermediary centers, marriage alliances, or the spread
of religious concepts or cults. It was most likely a combination of such
mechanisms (Braswell 2003). In some cases, local rulers and competing
princes might have relied on exotic symbols of contact with this distant
great center to enhance prestige or emphasize their own participation
in geographically wider information spheres — a universal legitimating
tool of rulers, shamans, and even modern politicians (for example, pres-
idential photo-opportunity “summits” near election time). Alternatively,
Mexican commercial or political impact may have been more forcefully
projected by Teotihuacan or its allied centers in search of exotic goods,
tribute, or religious converts. Recent epigraphic evidence (see Chapter 9)
does indicate Mexican involvement in establishing new ruling dynasties
at Tikal, Uaxactun, Copan, and other centers (Stuart 2000; Sharer 2003;
Schele 1992; Martin and Grube 2000; Fash and Fash 2000; Fahsen and
Demarest 2001). Meanwhile, ongoing excavations at the Pyramid of the
Moon at Teotihuacan have found rulers buried in tombs there dressed in
Classic Maya style, with Maya costumes and jade jewelry (Sugiyama and
Cabrera 2003).
Ongoing investigations at Teotihuacan itself will elucidate the political
and economic nature of that Mexican metropolis and the motives and
mechanisms that drove the projection of its symbols and styles to other
regions (Sugiyama 1992; Sugiyama and Cabrera 2003). What is certain
is that the founding of important dynasties at Tikal, Uaxactun, Copan,
and possibly other Early Classic states can be connected to contact
with Teotihuacan. Mexican symbols and ideas were, however, always
reworked into the canons of Maya culture and the lowland cult of divine
kingship.

Growth, interaction, and alliance in the fifth to seventh centuries

Perhaps bolstered by status-reinforcing support from Mexico, the late

fourth- and fifth-century Tikal dynasty exerted great influence over many
centers throughout the lowlands. Subordination, alliance, or interaction
Box 3 Teotihuacan: colossal neighbor of the
Classic Maya
By the first century AD, a huge and unique Mesoamerican city had
developed at Teotihuacan in Mexico (near modern Mexico City).
Dominated by its massive temple pyramids of the Sun and Moon
(Fig. 5.10), this city was laid out on a gigantic grid pattern of streets
and alleys (Fig. 5.11), with much of the population living in walled
compounds — in contrast to the dispersed and loosely organized nature
of cities in the Maya lowlands and most of Mesoamerica.
By the second to fifth centuries, Teotihuacan had become a highly
organized city-state in the Valley of Mexico and a pan-Mesoamerican
commercial and military power. Teotihuacan and its allies interacted
with newly consolidated state-level societies in the Valley of Oaxaca,
the Gulf coast region of Mexico, west Mexico, and the Maya high-
lands and coast. Teotihuacan-style artifacts, fine ceramics, and their
trademark “talud-tablero” architectural facades (Fig. 5.12a) appear in
the late fourth and fifth centuries at the highland Maya city of Kami-
naljuyu, in great plastered temples housing rich burials. Some archae-
ologists believe that this area at Kaminaljuyu represents an intrusion of
‘Teotihuacan warriors or merchants into the politics of the growing city,
perhaps to control the nearby El Chayal obsidian source and to utilize
the Valley of Guatemala to coordinate interregional exchanges (Sant-
ley 1983). Others have noted that the primarily Mayanized versions
of Mexican architecture and artifacts at Kaminaljuyu may suggest a
less direct exchange between the Maya highlands and central Mexico
(Demarest and Foias 1993; Braswell 2003a, 2003b). Classic Maya
sites such as Tikal and Copan also have elements of Teotihuacan archi-
tecture and direct historical evidence of Mexican involvement in the
founding of their early Classic dynasties (see Chapter 9).
In the highlands and Pacific coast of Guatemala, the influence
of Teotihuacan is visible in elite burials and caches with character-
istic central Mexican-style assemblages, including thin orange ware
bowls, stuccoed vases with rectangular tripod feet (Fig. 5.12b), little
Teotihuacanoid pitchers, and large ornate ceramic censers with styl-
ized Mexican symbols in clay applique. Early Classic caches and
tombs sometimes contain blades of distinctive pale green volcanic
glass, obsidian traceable to the Pachuca source in central Mexico.
Iconography of the goggle-eyed Teotihuacan deities (Fig. 5.12c) and
Mexican-style headdresses, shields, and spear-thrower weapons adorn
the monuments of Maya rulers at Tikal, Uaxactun, and other sites.
It should be noted that at Teotihuacan itself, royal burials in Classic
Maya style, murals with Maya glyphs and symbols, and “neighbor-
hoods” with many Maya style potsherds and artifacts show that the
Classic Maya also had a strong reciprocal influence on their great west-
ern neighbor (Sugiyama and Cabrera 2003; Taube 2003; Ball 1983).
106 Ancient Maya

Figure 5.10 Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan, Mexico

with Tikal’s rulers is manifest in Early Classic inscriptions and art styles
at Uaxactun, Rio Azul, Caracol, Quirigua, Copan, Tres Islas, and other
sites. A mix of militarism, commercialism, and kinship ties were used by
capable Tikal rulers. Some newly established Early Classic dynasties, like
that of Copan, may have had links to both Tikal and to Teotihuacan or
to the Teotihuacan-related elites at Kaminaljuyu in the highlands.
The nature and importance of the interregional networks of interac-
tion between these centers in the Early Classic period is difficult to deter-
mine, since it is based largely upon elite perspectives as presented in their
hieroglyphic texts, iconographic imagery, and exotic burial goods. It does
appear that during the Early Classic, warfare, exchange systems in elite
goods, and royal marriages and visits helped to bind together the divine
kings of the lowlands and consolidate their common canons on cosmol-
ogy, calendrics, writing, warfare, and political institutions (Culbert ed.
1991; Sabloff 1986; Freidel 1986a).
In most regions populations gradually increased during the fifth and
early sixth centuries, and more centers began to erect monuments with
carved texts proclaiming the ancestry of their holy lords and their super-
vision of rituals. The most common public ceremonies recorded were
coronations, funerals, the sacrifice of captured nobles and kings of rival
centers, and, above all, rites and temple dedications at the time of
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 107

a
Oren Oh she SOO aneters

Figure 5.11 Map of grid system of Classic Mexican city of

Teotihuacan (after Millon 1993: 19, Fig. 3)

period endings in the Maya calendric cycles. At sites like Tikal, Cara-
col, Palenque, and Copan, repeated rebuilding of temples and expansion
of palaces began to create the great sacred hills of accumulated public
architecture that we today call epicenters or acropoli.
Trade for jade, shell, quetzal feathers, and other high-status imports or
“exotics” also intensified in these centuries to meet the growing demands
of new centers and the increased numbers of elites. Production and
108 Ancient Maya

ax
“raspy

Jy:
Payer TNA INS

es tas Ne
MOY hey NUN
ONNoted el
lad TOUS rm Sh ne »\yn\h

a ALS th. N

Figure 5.12 Drawing of Teotihuacan diagnostics: (a) talud-tablero

architectural facade (redrawn by Luis F. Luin from Kidder, Jennings,
and Shook 1946); (b) slab-tripod vessels (redrawn by Luis F. Luin
from Coe 1994: Fig. 76 a and b); (c) ruler with Teotihuacan style
“Tlaloc” eye treatment and Mexican headdress (Stela 32, Tikal)

exchange systems had to grow to create the headdresses, ornaments, and

equipment required of holy lords, priests, scribes, and others involved
in ritual and bureaucracy. Contact with distant highland neighbors like
Teotihuacan, Kaminaljuyu, and various Gulf and Belizean coastal Maya
cities probably resulted more from the Maya rulers’ own need for status
goods and symbols than from highland expansionism.
By the mid-sixth century the many kingdoms of the southern lowlands
had developed networks of marriage, trade, and war that linked sites
across the Petén. As detailed in Chapter 9, recent breakthroughs in
epigraphic decipherment indicate that some powerful kingdoms began to
coordinate their efforts with other centers in military or political alliances.
Scholars have identified at least two probable alliances of centers that
often acted as military allies. One powerful hegemony was formed by the
Petén sphere of influence of the great center of Tikal. Another was domi-
nated by the enormous, but poorly known, city of Calakmul in south-
ern Campeche, Mexico. Tikal and its hegemony suffered several military
Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands 109

Wi7
A L
yM77,
FB
SE. UL W
EN aie ann

_ O

Figure 5.12b (cont.)

‘s

Figure 5.12c (cont.)

110 Ancient Maya

defeats from this rival alliance early in the sixth century. By the mid-sixth
century, Tikal went into a period of decline for 150 years. —
While the meaning of these sixth- and seventh-century political events
remains unclear, they represented some type of experimentation with
larger political associations, perhaps conquest states. The effect of the
ultimate disintegration of these political associations may have set the
stage for the intensified status rivalry and the proliferation of regional
kingdoms in the Late Classic period. .

Regionalism and florescence in the Late Classic period

In the late seventh century, Tikal experienced a striking renaissance.

Invoking ancient Teotihuacanoid symbols and aligning the calendric dates
of their activities to the successes of the Early Classic, the revitalized
Late Classic Tikal dynasty carried out a 150-year program of construc-
tion of spectacular palaces, lofty funerary temples, stone causeways, and
so-called twin-temple complexes where 20-year “K’atun” endings were
celebrated with royal bloodletting and other rites (see Chapter 8). Other
northeast Petén centers such as Yaxha, Uaxactun, Nakum, and Xultun
shared in this florescence and had similar trends in architecture, monu-
ments, and ceramic styles.
In the seventh through mid-eighth centuries many other regions,
not just the central Petén, had their own epochs of spectacular public
construction, frequent monument dedications, and the establishment
of many new satellite centers. Elite interaction, trade in exotic goods,
investment in public and royal art, and warfare all increased dramatically
along with increasing populations and areas of occupation. Status rivalry
among the growing population of elites was manifest in the establish-
ment of vigorous and internally competitive regional cultures in all parts
of the Maya world. Centers throughout the lowlands developed their
own regional styles in architecture, ceramics, and other aspects of mate-
rial culture. Such regional styles can be defined for Belize, the Motagua
valley, the Copan Valley of Honduras, the western regions of the Pasion
and Usumacinta Rivers, the south central Petén, and the far western
kingdoms of Palenque and its neighbors in Chiapas. In the Late Classic,
especially after AD 700, more distinct architecture and ceramics flour-
ished in Yucatan, including the northern Puuc cities, the related Rio Bec
and Chenes area, and the eastern Yucatec zone of the great sites of Coba
and Yaxuna (see map, Fig. 9.10).
This regionalization was reflected in distinctive architectural and arti-
factual styles and, more importantly, in probable differences in some
 Classic Maya florescence in the lowlands Ut

‘aspects of political and economic institutions. Nonetheless, the many

Maya kingdoms — especially in the southern lowlands — were linked by
networks of exchange, communication, kinship, and alliance through
cultural mechanisms ranging from marriage to funerary visits and war.
Chapter 9 sketches in more detail some of the cultural variability, link-
ages, and conflicts of these Late Classic regional cultures and some of
their rapid, but very different, trajectories of florescence and decline. As
we shall see, this Late Classic period of magnificence in art, science,
architecture, and politics — together with the expansion of the economic
infrastructure that supported it — was both the apogee of lowland Maya
civilization and the foreshadowing of the ninth-century collapse of many
of the southern cities.

Collapse, transition, and transformation: the end of

Classic Maya civilization

One of the greatest mysteries of Maya civilization, and perhaps the

most renowned aspect of ancient Maya history to both academics and
the general public alike, is the enigma of the ninth- and tenth-century
“collapse” of many great lowland cities. In the late eighth and early ninth
centuries, Classic Maya civilization began to unravel in many regions. A
proliferation of ceremonial centers, many of them newly constructed in
the eighth century, was accompanied in some regions by an increase in
both warfare and ritual activities. In the early ninth century, shortly after
this period of rapid expansion, Maya civilization in much of the southern
lowland region of the Petén went into decline. In some areas, this was a
swift and even violent process, while in others the decline was slower and
more gradual. Yet in still other areas, such as Belize and northern Yucatan,
many sites actually experienced a florescence in the ninth century, with
population growth and new architectural styles.
Obviously, with so much variability in the evidence on the Classic Maya
way of life and on the end of their Classic-period cities, there are many
different explanatory theories. Much of the archaeological research of
the past two decades has tried to tackle this inscrutable problem. The
most recent evidences from excavations and inscriptions are described
and debated in Chapter 10. It is an exciting time in Maya archaeology,
as scholars are beginning to close in upon the solution of one of the long-
standing questions of New World archaeology: Why, after two millennia
of success, were many of the great Classic Maya cities of the southern
lowlands abandoned?
Wy Ancient Maya

The Postclassic period and the continuing Maya tradition

This work is primarily a study of the Classic period of Maya civilization

in the lowland rain forests of Mexico and Central America. Still, it is
important to note that the Maya tradition did not end, or even decline,
after the tenth century. While many of the southern lowland cities were
abandoned, in other regions Maya civilization transformed itself in the
ninth and tenth centuries. Very different, vigorous Maya kingdoms in
Yucatan, Belize, and the southern highlands continued to grow and evolve
until the cataclysm of the Spanish Conquest.
Chapter 11 provides a quick glimpse of this continuing Maya tradition
which survived even the Conquest, the Colonial period, and modern
oppression to persist in various forms of resistance, identity, and social
practice in the communities of the millions of Maya living today. The
lessons of the survival, resistance, and adaptation of the Maya are even
more compelling than the enigmas of the ruined jungle kingdoms of
Classic-period civilization.
6 Settlement and subsistence: the
rain forest adaptation

Central to our understanding of societies and to the comparative study of

civilizations are their economic and ecological adaptations. The ancient
Maya of the lowland areas of Central America and Yucatan are of special
interest because of their occupation of a rain forest environment — an
unusual setting for the rise of civilization. The ancient Maya occupations
of the Preclassic and Classic periods were structured to survive and thrive
in this rich, but fragile, environment. Interpretation of Maya society has
developed through archaeology and epigraphy. Yet we have only now
come close to grasping the true nature of ancient lowland Maya civiliza-
tion through using new understandings from the disciplines of ecology,
geography, and soil science.

The Maya household group

The Classic Maya centers with their tombs, temples, palaces, and inscrip-
tions long dominated scholarly discourse. Yet we now know that the basic
building block of Maya society through all periods was (and remains
today) the household group. It is also the basic unit for all archaeological
interpretation and debate on social organization, economy, and popula-
tion size.
Today, as in ancient times, Maya families live in humble, but comfort-
able, large huts constructed of poles and dried mud (“wattle and daub”)
with peaked roofs of ingeniously woven thatch (Fig. 6.1). In the lowlands,
these perishable structures are often set upon low platforms, twenty to
forty centimeters high, of stone and clay to raise their floors above the
wet jungle soils. Other even more modest modern dwellings or store-
houses are sometimes placed directly on the earth, without a platform.
Modern house groups also have small sweat baths for ritual purification,
shrines for periodic housing ofidols or saints, corns cribs for storage, and,
sometimes, small corrals for animals and small wooden huts for smoking
meats. In general, the weaving of textiles on backstrap looms, ceramic
production, and stone tool-making all occur within these households.

1B)
114 Ancient Maya

Figure 6.1 Maya thatched-roofed residence

Usually, several houses of closely related families are placed facing each
other around open courtyard living areas (Fig. 6.2). In turn, several of
these “plaza groups” are often placed together to form tiny hamlets of
related extended families (Fig. 6.3). After a few decades of abandon-
ment, the only remaining evidence of such plaza groups and hamlets are
the very low mounds formed from their buried foundation platforms and
the associated debris.
In the ancient Maya lowland sites in pre-Columbian times, such perish-
able dwellings and associated structures often were placed in somewhat
more regular rectangular arrangements of two, three, or four platforms
with huts facing each other around an open courtyard or plaza. The latter
served as a living and work area for the family, as did platforms or level
areas behind and near the plaza group. Kitchens, storage rooms, sleeping
areas, and areas for the production of textiles, stone tools, or ceramics
were sometimes separated by internal rooms or placed in separate struc-
tures. Classic Maya households show variability in construction form
and details, with different household plans and forms reflecting variabil-
ity in family size, status, and the craft activities present in the group —
as well as regional and temporal variation. This greater variation in the
archaeological fossils of Classic-period household clusters is due to the
more complete and more complex social and political structure of some
Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 115

te, ; \
Fado et
Payee

Figure 6.2 Typical Maya household courtyard group (drawn by Luis

F, Luin)

Figure 6.3 Modern Maya hamlet

116 Ancient Maya

pre-Conquest Maya societies. Maya society had its elites reduced by

disease and political and religious suppression before and during the
Spanish Conquest. After the Conquest, general repression, specific reset-
tlement policies, and indigenous responses and resistance led to a great
reduction in differences in wealth and power within many communities.
Some of the social patterns of Classic Maya society were “fossilized”
in architecture and artifacts in the ruins of household groups. For
each household group the amount of stone masonry (versus mud and
thatch) often varied with the social rank of the ancient inhabitants.
Height and area of household platforms, the presence or absence of
monuments, distance from the nearest epicenter, the number of court-
yards, presence of plastered floors, and the types of pottery and arti-
facts in burials are all clues to the social and political standing of a
group’s ancient inhabitants. Evidence from recent settlement pattern
studies shows that Classic Maya families varied almost continuously in
social standing and wealth (A. Chase 1992; Palka 1995; Kovacevich
2001, 2002) — in contrast to earlier depictions of ancient Maya soci-
ety as starkly divided between elites and commoners. Instead, Classic
Maya households ranged from isolated huts without even a basal plat-
form to plaza groups of noble families with fine stone masonry, plas-
tered floors, rich tombs, and sculpture. Most household groups fell
between these extremes. The Classic Maya had a complex social struc-
ture with few sharp divisions between “levels” or classes of Maya society,
despite the great contrast between the poorest huts and the richest royal
palaces.
The basic pattern of the simple Maya family household group was
replicated at all levels of society and seems to have formed a symbolic
template for Maya society and its relationship to its ecology and cosmol-
ogy. Even the royal palaces of the great capitals like Tikal, Caracol,
and Dos Pilas followed the template of Maya household clusters with
corbeled-vaulted structures in the form of stone “huts,” facing across
open courtyards, where noble families lived and entertained prestigious
visitors. The architecture of different levels of ancient Maya society shared
many elements in the symbolic positioning of structures, burials, and
caches, and in the nature and loci of activities. As in the most plebeian
groups, the family dead were usually buried under floors of the house
platforms or in nearby shrines (McAnany 1995). In the case of royal
families, however, some of these shrines were enormous temple struc-
tures. As discussed in Chapter 8, the principles of ancestor worship and
their vision of sacred geography and cosmology permeated all levels of
Maya society as preserved in these parallel architectural patterns.
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation Wy

Urban landscape and settlement patterns

To Western eyes, the ruins of Maya sites seem to have a haphazard layout,
but in fact they have a settlement pattern generated by the complex struc-
ture of ancient Maya society itself. The epicenters of the sites usually had
several distinct clusters of public architecture often connected by plaster-
coated stone causeways for ritual processions between these temple and
palace complexes. Scattered between and around these centers of public
culture and elite residence were the more modest household groups of
lesser nobles, craftspersons, and farmers.
Often within a few kilometers (or less) from the major architectural
complexes were other minor epicenters of public architecture, shrines,
and elite residences. These smaller complexes served as secondary loci for
religious rituals and elite guidance, as well as residences for the local lead-
ing families, sometimes kin of the royalty in the site core. Small funerary
temple shrines in these outlying elite groups were periodically enlarged
and became foci for local ancestor worship. Thus, the outlying elite repli-
cated on a small scale the great rituals of the centers and reinforced the
ideological and political unity of Classic Maya culture. This settlement
system helped form lines of connection between rulers and the populace
through kinship, through movement to the epicenter for construction
projects and rituals, and through periodic visits by the central elite to the
minor centers.
While its nested and replicative urban settlement system contributed
to the political and ideological linkages in Maya society, this dispersed
urban settlement was even more critical for the ancient Maya ecological
adaptation. At most sites, settlement became more dispersed away from
the site core, with areas for fields and gardens between clusters. A vari-
ety of agricultural systems were sometimes placed between and within
household clusters, as well as in site peripheries. Household waste and
debris became an asset, rather than the nuisance that it is in modern cities,
since it provided compost for productive Maya urban gardens (Dunning
1992, 1993). This mix of farm and residence probably made most Clas-
sic Maya cities self-sufficient in the basic elements of Maya diet — maize,
beans, squash, and chiles. Regional and interregional exchange systems
were only necessary for distribution of commodities such as cacao (choco-
late), salt, hard stone, ceramics, crafts, and exotic goods.
Site core zones had more continuous areas of stone and plaster archi-
tecture. Yet special agricultural features have been found in the very heart
of some centers. At sites like Cerros, Tamarindito, and Caracol, garden
zones, terraces, and even small areas of raised fields in artificial canals
118 Ancient Maya

Figure 6.4 Residences, box terraces, dam, and reservoir at the Late
Classic site of Tamarindito, Petén, Guatemala (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

conveniently furnished vegetables and fruits to highborn families, while

chultunes (bell-shaped wells), sinkholes, or large clay-lined stone reser-
voirs assured a convenient water supply (Fig. 6.4). It is also very likely
that such site core landscaping and food production areas had an impor-
tant symbolic value, reaffirming through repetition the close symbiosis
between house group and garden, between the Maya cities and the rain
forest, between the Maya and their sacred natural landscape.

Population sizes and distribution

Since the innovative work of the Carnegie Institution at Uaxactun in

the 1930s and Gordon Willey’s more systematic settlement surveys in
the 1960s, archaeologists have argued over the methods of interpreta-
tion of ancient household groups. Most of the clues have been based on
observation of household groups among the modern Maya and from the
ethnohistorical sources such as Bishop Landa’s descriptions of sixteenth-
century Yucatec Mayan life. Based on these sources, some archaeol-
ogists have estimated that each residential structure was the domicile
of a nuclear family of four to ten or more members. Average figures
used by most archaeologists for demographic estimates range from four
to seven individuals per structure. Most population estimates for sites
and regions are based on counting the number of these house mounds.
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 119

Styles of potsherds from the surface and from excavations near these resi-
dences are used to date them. Then, the number of mounds for a given
period is multiplied by the average estimated family size, usually about 5.6
members.
Obviously, such demographic calculations can only be taken as the
most general estimates as there remain controversies about even the
most basic unit of Maya society. The number of individuals per structure
may have varied by region, by chronological period, and with the social
standing of the family involved. In areas of lower population density or
among families of higher status, the space per individual might have been
higher and a single nuclear family could have occupied several structures.
Recent evidence from unusually well-preserved house groups found not
only such variability in residential space, but also evidence that many
structures might have had special nonresidential functions (e.g. Sheets
1992; Sheets and McKee 1989; Sheets et al. 1990; Inomata 1995, 1997).
Some platforms may have supported work or storage areas, or shrines for
shamanistic rituals or ancestor veneration (Sheets 2000). Assumptions
of uniformity in family size and structure use might be inflating many
population estimates (Inomata 1995).
On the other hand, other recent archaeological excavations and ethno-
graphic observations have raised the “invisible structure” problem: the
presence of structures, including residences, that were not raised on low
platforms and would be overlooked by Maya archaeologists and omitted
from their calculations (D. Chase 1990; Johnston et al. 1992; Johnston
1994). The presence of such structures can lead to underestimation of
population sizes. Archaeologists try to adjust for “invisible structures”
by randomly testing around visible household groups and in level areas
between compounds to discover such structures and try to ascertain their
size, function, and frequency in a given period at a site. Then demo-
graphic estimates based on house mound groups can be adjusted by a
specified factor.
Regardless of which estimates are used, Classic Maya urban popula-
tions, though dispersed, were still remarkably high for a preindustrial soci-
ety. Even moving away from the site centers to intersite areas, substantial
populations were still present. Rural areas between Classic-period Maya
cities had estimated populations of up to 200 people per square kilome-
ter (see Ashmore 1981; Culbert and Rice 1990). Indeed, archaeological
settlement survey of transects between centers shows almost continuous
occupation for some regions in the Late Classic period, and the bound-
aries between major sites can only be drawn arbitrarily across areas of
slightly more sparse occupation. Western civilization’s urban-versus-rural
distinction is inapplicable to the Classic Maya world.
120 Ancient Maya

As centers grew in the Late Classic period, some sites became more
densely populated, contradicting the generally dispersed nature of Maya
urbanism. Some huge sites such as Caracol, Tikal, and Calakmul may
have had populations of over 109,000 persons. In such cases, networks of
road and river transport may have been used to move even basic foodstuffs
to site core areas. At sites in the Petén, and especially in the drier regions
of the northern and eastern Yucatan peninsula, the density of architecture
and plastered plazas in epicenters allowed for collection and storage of
water supplies in reservoirs and chultun wells. By the end of the Late
Classic, populations in some “greater metropolitan areas” (as we would
conceptualize them today) numbered in the tens of thousands at many
sites. Given high occupation levels even in the intersite areas, regional
populations in large zones such as the central Petén numbered in the
millions (Culbert and Rice 1990). Such numbers again raise questions
about the ancient Maya agricultural adaptation to the rain forest.

The rain forest adaptations: the true secret

of Maya civilization

Ancient Maya civilization in the lowlands existed in a complex environ-

ment that varied from the steamy high rain forest in the Petén region in
the south to the drier, lower, and more scrubby pine and palm forest of
northern Yucatan. Even in the southern lowlands where soils are often
deeper, rainfall heavier, and the jungle canopy higher, the rain forest is
a fragile environment and human adaptations to it must be sensitive to
the details of variability in soils, surface features, and natural vegetation.
As our understanding of the nature and complexity of rain forests has
evolved, so has our understanding of ancient Maya economy and subsis-
tence systems.

Changing perspectives on the limits and potential of the rain forest

For ten thousand years Western civilization has been based upon a subsis-
tence economy of overproduction of grains through farming in temper-
ate zones of modest rainfall but high soil quality (Pollock 1999). Surplus
grain was then used to trade for other needed products. No subsistence
strategy or ecological setting could be more different from this than the
complex mixed adaptation of the ancient Maya in their rain forest envi-
ronment of heavy seasonal rains, thin soils, and careful local adaptations
to the specific requirements of each eco-niche. Perhaps it was because
their agricultural regimes and their environment were both so alien to
our own economy that archaeologists and ecologists long misperceived
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation Al

the potential of the rain forest. Most of our own government-sponsored

programs to protect rain forests in Guatemala, Mexico, and elsewhere
have attempted to keep people out, based on the assumption that even
modest settlement would damage, if not destroy, the forest.
It is not surprising, then, that archaeologists once insisted that Maya
cities were only periodically occupied “vacant” ceremonial centers. Some
prominent interpretations proposed that the collapse of many Classic
Maya centers in the ninth century was the inevitable consequence of
the “environmental limitations of tropical rain forests” (Meggers 1954).
More intensive settlement surveys in the 1960s and 1970s led archaeolo-
gists to realize that many Maya centers had populations so large that we
had to rethink our views of Maya farming methods, settlement patterns,
and the rain forest itself. Now we are beginning to understand (as did
the ancient Maya) that, while fragile, the rain forest is as rich in potential
as it is complex in nature. If properly managed, rain forest subsistence
systems can support large and complex societies.

The rain forest and its life forms

As described in Chapter 2, the ancient and contemporary speakers of

the Mayan language families occupied an area of eastern Mesoamerica
that stretched across eastern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, and western
Honduras and El Salvador. The environment of this area includes: 1)
the rich southern Pacific coastal plains; 2) the high fertile basins of the
volcanic highlands of southern Guatemala and central Chiapas; and 3)
the vast lowland rain forest region of northern Guatemala, Belize, and
Yucatan (see Fig. 2.2).
It is the third zone, the lowlands of the Petén and the Yucatan peninsula,
which was the heartland of Maya civilization in the Classic period and is
the focus of this text. There the environment is defined by the limestone
karst landscape that underlies the entire region. The lowlands generally sit
at less than 100 meters above sea level, although hilly regions in Chiapas,
the southern Petén, and southern Belize rise up to as many as 200 meters
or more. In general, the lowlands are characterized by a flat to slightly
rolling terrain with fairly thin soils above the limestone bedrock.
In the southern lowlands of the Petén and adjacent zones of Chiapas
and Belize, rainfall is heavy and sharply seasonal. In the May to January
rainy season, from 2 to 3 meters of rain falls on most parts of the Petén.
Farther north, in the Yucatan peninsula, rainfall is significantly lower,
ranging from about 180 centimeters in southern Campeche at the base
of the peninsula to less than 50 centimeters in far northern Yucatan near
the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 6.5). There is, nonetheless, a dry season of
122 Ancient Maya

COZUMEL

Figure 6.5 Maya lowlands, showing principal environmental features

(drawn by Luis F. Luin)

six months in the north to little over a month in the far south, at the
base of the highlands. For this reason, the Maya lowland forest is techni-
cally considered a “humid subtropical forest” rather than a true perennial
rain forest.
The nature of the jungle canopy corresponds closely to level of rainfall,
drainage patterns, and local soil conditions. In the south, in the heart
of the Petén region of Guatemala, a dense triple-canopied rain forest
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 123

Figure 6.6 Schematic view of the layers of subtropical forest canopy

(drawn by Luis F. Luin)

anchored by massive mahoganies, cedars, and ceibas rises up to 70 meters

in height (Fig. 6.6). The heavy rainfall and better surface drainage in this
southern lowland region also supports a second, slightly lower canopy of
trees including matapalo (strangler fig), cedars, and the gum-producing
sapodilla (chicle) trees. A bottom tier includes the useful rubber, ramon
(bread-nut), and avocado trees, as well as many fruit trees rising from
just above the jungle floor to about 20 meters in height. A lattice of vines,
lianas, orchids, bromeliads, and ferns laces together the trees of all levels
of the canopy into a continuous luxuriant mass (Fig. 6.7).
A wide range of animal life flourishes within and below the rain forest
canopies of the southern lowlands. Jaguars, ocelots, deer, fox, and rabbits
inhabit the floor of the rain forest and were all utilized by the Maya
for food, pelts, and bone ornaments or tools. Agoutis (small rodents),
ant-eating tapirs of various sizes, turkeys, and herds of small wild boar
(peccaries or havile) also abound in the rain forest and were important in
the ancient Maya diet, as well as in their representations in ceramic art and
sculpture (Benson 1997). The canopies above are home to lively troops
of spider and howler monkeys (Fig. 6.8) and to a noisy host of exotic
birds, including the familiar toucans and parrots in many varieties (Murie
124 Ancient Maya

Figure 6.7 Petén rain forest vegetation

1935; L.C. Stuart 1964). Especially important in Maya ideology and

imagery were the ever-present hummingbird and the stunningly beautiful
giant macaws, with their long bright red or blue-green plumage (Griscom
1932). The latter, along with the quetzal from the highland slopes to the
south, provided much of the plumage for the elaborate headdresses that
were a critical marker of status for Maya elites, especially rulers.
The reptiles and amphibians of the rain forest are even more
omnipresent in Maya ideology and art, especially the caiman (alligator),
symbol of the earthly plane of existence, and many varieties of snakes,
including boas, corals, rattlesnakes, pit vipers, and the most deadly
barba amarilla (fer-de-lance) and xalpate (bothrops numifer) (Schmidt
and Andrews 1936). Toads, frogs, and turtles are found in the forest’s
lakes, swamps, and rivers. The ancient Maya made effective use of these
animals as well, employing the carapaces of turtles for useful tools rang-
ing from musical instruments to hard surfaces for shields, cotton armor,
and mosaics in headdresses. The lakes, rivers, and swamps also provided
important elements in the Maya diet, including fish such as mojarra,
catfish, and robalo, and many types of shellfish. Fish bones were utilized
by the ancient Maya for needles, awls, and other tools while fragments of
shell (some imported from the Caribbean or Gulf coasts) were employed
for the complex mosaic imagery on Maya headdresses, shields, and
Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 15

Figure 6.8 Howler monkey

126 Ancient Maya

ornaments, as well as in necklaces and ear spools. Even the insect life
gave the Maya both symbols and useful products, including incenses and
honey from wild and domesticated hives.
The density of life in the Petén rain forest remains impressive even after
two centuries of misguided modern settlement and exploitation. In those
zones not yet leveled by lumbering or settlement, the cacophony of rain
forest life — the mingled cries, howls, calls, and buzzing of birds, monkeys,
frogs, and insects — rises in the mornings and evenings to a roaring pitch.
Taken together, the wildlife and vegetation of the rain forest gave the
ancient Maya a nearly unlimited supply of useful products for subsis-
tence, construction, ornament, and imagery — even without considering
the agriculture that produced the bulk of their diet. The wealth of the
rain forest was well understood by the ancient Maya. They stood in awe
of the jungle and utilized its structure and its inhabitants as models for
many aspects of their ideology (Chapter 8).

Lowland landforms and regional variation

The landforms of the southern lowlands are primarily defined by a karst

limestone geology, high rainfall, and good surface drainage which created
the large rivers, streams, and lakes that were critical to ancient Maya life,
subsistence, and transport. Large rivers and their tributaries defined the
boundaries and the communication arteries of the Maya (Fig. 6.5). In the
west, the Pasion and Usumacinta river system runs from the highlands to
the Gulf of Mexico. Most major western sites and satellite centers were
closely related to these rivers, their fertile levee soils, and their natural
canoe portages. Similarly, in the east the Rio Hondo, the Belize River,
and other streams run from the Petén to the Caribbean coast and defined
the ancient trade routes in salt, shell, and other sea products, as well as
transport for exotics from even farther north and south. Many of these
waterways also deposited and renewed thick, rich soils along their levees
and floodplains.
The salient feature of the central Petén is a series of lakes and their asso-
ciated drainage basins. The largest of these, Lake Petén-Itza, was always,
and remains today, a center of population due to its natural ecological
potential for fishing, hunting, and especially productive farming. Nearly
a dozen other lakes form smaller basins. Between these stretched the rain
forest and — in the Classic period — some of the largest Maya cities and
their satellite centers, hamlets, and farms. In the Petén the higher rain
forest canopies, or the richer farms in cleared zones, were located on
the more elevated, well-drained soils of the gently rolling landscape of
this region. Lower zones include seasonally inundated bajos, which today
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 127

-are considered unusable for cultivation. We now know, however, that the
ancient Maya utilized even these zones for seasonal farming and as a
source of rich soils for box gardens and terraces (Dunning and Beach in
press; Culbert er al. 1996; Kunen et al. 2000). The drier low-lying zones
are grassy savannas with few trees and dense red clay of limited utility for
cultivation (D. Rice et al. 1985).
In general, regardless of the local landform, soil type, and vegetation,
the Classic and Preclassic Maya inhabitants skillfully utilized the local
microenvironments. The limestone itself provided a malleable, easily
worked building material for their masonry and when burned gave them
the lime powder base for their concrete and mortar. In some areas,
nodules and beds of fine, hard, cryptocrystalline chert, or flint, form in
the limestone. The Maya worked these into tools for construction, wood-
work, agriculture, ornament, or war. Clay deposits near lakes, rivers, and
bajos provided the material for the Maya ceramics, including both utili-
tarian and fine wares.
~ Moving northward from the central Petén, the environment has lower
rainfall (Fig. 6.5), higher average temperatures, and generally thinner
soils. The jungle canopy becomes lower and agricultural potential may
have been somewhat more limited. The salient problem is a lack of
surface water, since in most areas of the Yucatan peninsula the eroded
karst topography has absorbed most drainages into deep subterranean
passages. Water-filled sinkholes or cenotes, springs in caves, and artificially
excavated and maintained reservoirs and wells were the principal sources
of water for the ancient Maya of the northern lowlands. Note that despite
this characterization, the ancient Maya also managed to utilize even the
driest portions of the northern lowlands to support impressive cities with
large populations (Dunning 1992). Differing adaptations in the north,
as yet still imperfectly understood, have helped to shape aspects of the
various northern regional forms of Classic Maya civilization.

The rain forest agricultural strategy

While hunting and gathering activities added important sources of protein

to the Maya diet and provided raw materials for their craftspeople, the
bulk of the Maya diet was based, of course, on agriculture.
Rain forest farming is a very tricky business, despite the ample rainfall
and favorable tropical climates of such zones. Soils in the rain forest are
thin, as much of its biomass is in its multiple canopies above. As a conse-
quence, most forms of clearing and farming can quickly exhaust the nutri-
ents in soils and upon exposure to the intense tropical sun soils can turn
into nearly rock-hard laterite surfaces. Modern agricultural exploitations
128 Ancient Maya

that employ Western farming techniques have destroyed vast stretches of

rain forests in the Petén and Yucatan.
As discussed above, the fragility of rain forest ecology att especially,
the delicate nature of its soils, were long misperceived by Western scholars
as indicating that rain forests were almost incapable of supporting civiliza-
tions or even large populations. This influenced previous interpretations
of the rise and the fall of Classic Maya civilization. The former was char-
acterized as a “secondary state formation” stimulated by Teotihuacan,
Kaminaljuyu, or other highland polities (whose primary state evolution
had taken place in environments more acceptable to traditional ecological
interpretations). The decline or collapse of southern Maya cities in the
ninth century was seen as the inevitable consequence of the limitations
of the rain forest (e.g. Meggers 1954).
The rain forest does present many specific challenges and problems,
but the Maya were ingenious in confronting them. We have begun to
understand ancient Maya agricultural strategies due to a series of recent
collaborations between ecologists, geographers, and archaeologists work-
ing in the lowlands (see bibliographic essay at the end of this volume).
While popular perspectives talk of the “secret” of the lost civilization of
the Maya in terms of hidden treasures or hieroglyphic inscriptions, the
true secret of Maya civilization was their successful, sustainable adapta-
tion to the rain forest, a feat we have not been able to duplicate today.
In broad terms, the “secret” of the Maya adaptive strategy was simply
to structure their agricultural regimes to imitate the nature of the rain
forest itself. As described above, the two central characteristics of the
rain forest are its biodiversity and the wide dispersion of individuals of
any given species over a wide area. In their gradual adaptation to the rain
forest ecological regimes, the growing populations of the Maya learned to
adapt their agricultural systems to mimic the diversity and the dispersion
of the rain forest (Nations and Nigh 1980; Dunning and Demarest 1989;
Dunning et al. 1992).
4 The Maya used a variety of farming systems, each adapted to local
“soils and landforms. This diversity in exploitation techniques parallels the
structure of the forest and allowed farming systems on each parcel of
land to be well suited to the drainage patterns, soil type and depth, slope,
rainfall, and other microenvironmental characteristics of that particular
plot. Problems of soil exhaustion, erosion, leeching of soils, and lateriza-
tion were avoided by this application of a diversity of farming techniques,
each sensitive to local conditions (Harrison and Turner 1978; Dunning
1996; Fedick 1996). Cultigens were also varied to suit local soils and
conditions with maize-beans-squash farming alternating with stands of
fruit trees, cultivation of tubers and other crops, overgrown fallow zones
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 129

. (guamil) used for hunting, and large stands of rain forest left as sources
of wood and for hunting and collecting.
The second general aspect of Maya agriculture was to mimic the other
major characteristic of rain forests: the dispersion of individual species
over a wide area. The Maya farming strategy, with its varied techniques,
scattered any individual form of field system over a wide area — inter-
spersed with other forms of agriculture, fallow zones, or rain forest. Just
- as important to this strategy was the dispersal of the Maya population
itself. We now know that Maya cities had substantial populations, but they
were dispersed over a wider area than Western centers, or even than the
cities of their contemporaries in the highlands of Mexico and Guatemala.
Noble and non-elite household groups were more concentrated near the
ceremonial architectural epicenters, but even there household gardens,
reservoirs, stands of fruit trees, and even intensive farming systems were
interspersed between the temples, palaces, and grand plazas, and the
household groups (Fig. 6.4). Moving out from the epicenters, clusters
of houses were more widely scattered between areas of gardens, farms,
fallow zones, and stands of rain forest (Killion 1992; Fedick 1996).
The effect of this dispersion of populations, together with the diver-
sity in subsistence systems, was to maximize the productive potential of
the rain forest without exhausting its soils or otherwise contradicting the
delicate ecological balance of any one area. This diversity and dispersion
allowed ancient Maya civilization to maintain populations numbering in
the millions in the Petén region alone — far beyond modern populations
there, and well beyond our earlier estimations of its carrying capacity.
In recent years archaeologists and paleoecologists also have plotted
the periods of overexploitation, deforestation, and resulting ecological
damage from ancient Maya agricultural systems, and they have related
these to periods of decline in specific regions (e.g. Abrams and Rue 1988;
Santley et al. 1986; Culbert 1977, 1988; Dunning and Beach 2000). Such
problems certainly existed in some areas, especially at the end of the Late
Preclassic and Late Classic periods. Yet we should not lose sight of the
generally amazing success of the ancient Maya lowland adaptations which
sustained huge populations in this rain forest for two millennia.
From this description of ancient Maya subsistence systems, it should
be apparent why archaeologists and even ecologists had for so long failed
to grasp Maya population sizes, settlement strategy, and subsistence tech-
niques. The ancient Maya approach to rain forest agriculture could not
have been more different from Western monoculture, in which a single
technique for farming one cultigen is applied to a large area. Our mono-
culture farming techniques are appropriate for application to vast, rela-
tively undifferentiated areas of thick soils, such as the rich loess plains of
130 Ancient Maya

Kansas and Central Europe, or the thick, annually renewed floodplains of

Mesopotamia. In a rain forest, however, with its thin soils and variability
in rainfall, slope, drainage patterns, and soil quality, such monoculture
would have been a disaster. Indeed, today, as Westernized highland Maya
have settled the Petén, they have rapidly destroyed the rain forest and left
large stretches of it unusable for any purpose.
A chief advantage of Western monoculture is the overproduction of a
single crop, allowing sale or exchange of that product in a market econ-
omy. Again, this economic rationale works well for the well-developed
market economies of Western civilization, or those of.our ancestors in
Mesopotamia. It would not have been suited to the ancient Maya econ-
omy which, as discussed in Chapter 7, had only weakly developed markets
with local self-sufficiency in subsistence products for most communities.
Perhaps it is because of this striking contrast in physical structure and
economic logic that Western scholars were unable for a century to fathom
the “secrets” of ancient Maya ecological strategy.

Ancient Maya agricultural systems

Our understanding of ancient Maya farming has been guided — some-

times astray — by the contemporary agriculture practiced by millions of
Maya today. Recent studies, however, have proven that important prac-
tices and strategies have changed since the Classic period due to the
impact of the Spanish conquest and the incorporation of the Maya into
the Colonial market economy and administrative structures. Spanish poli-
cies concentrated populations into more controllable towns and empha-
sized the production of staple crops, especially corn, that could be easily
transported and stored. Nonetheless, some lowland groups, such as the
isolated Lacandon Maya, maintained some of the Classic Maya tech-
niques and strategies in their rain forest subsistence systems (e.g. Nations
and Nigh 1980; Netting 1977). These clues, together with the recent
archaeological and paleoecological researches, are now beginning to give
us a view of the much wider range of Classic- and Preclassic-period
approaches to agricultural production in the lowlands.

Swidden farming

‘Today the most common form of Maya rain forest agriculture is “slash-
and-burn” or “swidden” farming. An extensive, rather than intensive,
system, swidden begins with the cutting of trees and other vegetation in
the chosen plot or milpa. After months in the tropical sun of the dry season
in late March, April, and May, the dried vegetation is burned, leaving a
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 13)

Figure 6.9 Clearing and burning of forest milpa

rich deposit of carbon and ash (Fig. 6.9). With a simple wooden digging
stick, seeds of corn, beans, and squashes are placed into this newly created
soil. The heavy rains of June and July germinate these crops and begin the
cycle of care, weeding, and harvest. While initially productive, swidden
mulpa soils become exhausted after several years of this cyclical burning
and reseeding of growth. Then the field must be left fallow for a number
of years — depending on local soils and the number of seasons it had been
cultivated. As a consequence, only a portion of potential rain forest land
can be used at any given time, reducing carrying capacity and population
density. Early studies of Maya civilization assumed that all agriculture
was of the swidden type practiced by many Maya today (Cook 1921;
Meggers 1954). We now know Maya agriculture was more multifaceted,
more productive, and less destructive (e.g. Fedick 1996; Harrison and
Turner 1978; Dunning et al. 1998, 2000).

Sustainable swidden systems

The archaeological evidence led ethnographers and ethnohistorians also

to re-examine their assumptions about Maya milpa or swidden farm-
ing itself (Nations and Nigh 1980; Helmuth 1977). Lacandon and early
Colonial milpa was often practiced in a less destructive manner. In such
milpa systems, some large trees were left standing, facilitating more rapid
162 Ancient Maya

recovery in fallow periods. Some plot areas also may have been smaller.
Cultigens were more varied, including tubers, greater reliance on fruit
trees, and hunting and gathering in fallow zones and adjacent rain forest.
Plots could be more intensively and continuously exploited because of
the use of “night soils” (human waste) as fertilizer. Also, more continu-
ous use may have been possible because of the less cleared, less eroded
form of such plots and their alternation with other systems.
Pre-Columbian milpa farming was more sustainable for longer periods
of time because it developed gradually over the centuries of initial farming
occupations in the Petén and was more carefully adapted to the needs
and limitations of jungle soils. It is also true that the highly destructive
“clear-cut” forest clearing used in milpa agriculture today (e.g. Fig. 6.9)
would be difficult and costly without modern steel axes and chainsaws.
Leaving some areas in rain forest, clearing more irregular plots with stone
axes and adzes, and avoiding cutting the massive ceiba and mahogany
trees may have been both the least demanding and the most productive
approach to rain forest clearing utilized by the ancient Maya. In any case,
the resulting form of swidden was more productive for a longer period
and could more quickly recover from fallow periods.

Household gardening

The ancient Maya used small, intensive garden plots placed behind and
around house platforms, as observed by Landa during the Conquest
period (Tozzer 1941). The potential importance of such “infield” garden-
ing systems only became apparent after the application of phosphate
isotope studies to wide areas of some sites (Dunning 1992, 1993, 1994,
1996; Killion 1992). These studies discovered that at sites like Sayil,
in the northern lowlands, and Tamarindito, in the Pasion region, even
areas within the very epicenters had remnant phosphates in the soils,
with isotope profiles indicating heavy agricultural usage with frequent
fertilization with night soils, and, sometimes, with swamp muck brought
in from nearby. These intensive, fertilized gardens around and between
residences could have been very productive, with a major impact on Maya
diet and population carrying capacity. Gardens, cultivated and harvested
year round, also took pressure off of the swidden system, allowing appli-
cation of more sustainable, but less productive, forms of swidden.

Terracing

Another important technique practiced extensively in the lowlands in the

Classic period, but not as common today, was the use of various types
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 133)

of terrace walls to retain soil, retard erosion, and conserve moisture. The
term “terracing” covers a huge spectrum of activities involving construc-
tion of retaining walls (Dunning and Beach 1994, in press). Many pre-
Columbian terraces that had a critical impact on farming productivity
were simple rows of unworked rock (Fig. 6.10) piled by a family to
reduce erosion on a slightly steep slope (Beach and Dunning 1995). Other
terrace systems were extensive, possibly state-controlled, and involved
remodeling the contours of the ancient landscape (Fig. 6.11) for kilome-
ters around major centers such as Caracol (Chase and Chase 1987) and
even throughout some entire regions, like the Rio Bec zone in Campeche
(R.E.W. Adams 1975, 1981). Some careful studies have, however, found
that vast areas of contour terracing — such as that found in the Upper
Belize River Valley — probably were not centrally planned or controlled
(Fedick 1994).
This variability in the extent of intensive agricultural systems — as well as
variability in state involvement — has caused much confusion and debate
about the “true nature” of Maya agricultural systems. In fact, subsis-
tence strategies (like economic and political systems) varied greatly from
region to region, especially during the Late Classic apogee of Maya civi-
lization in the lowlands. As we shall see, the sixth through ninth centuries
witnessed rapid population growth in many regions, accompanied by
experimentation with various economic and political forms. Extensive
state-planned or -managed agricultural systems (especially terraces) may
have been part of such experimentation in Belize, Campeche, and a few
other zones (Dunning and Beach 1994; Dunning ez a/. 1998). In general,
terracing at Maya sites was less formal, locally constructed, and controlled
by farming families (Fedick 1994; Neff et al. 1995; Beach and Dunning
1995; Dunning and Beach 1994). Nonetheless, even such simple local-
ized terraces greatly increase productivity and protect the thin lowland
soils from erosion.

Raised fields

The ancient Maya also modified landscapes to farm in low-lying terrain

considered unusable today. Some seasonally inundated swamps or bajos
were transformed into productive fields by excavating drainage channels
and piling up soils between them. This created artificial ridges or islands
that could be continuously refertilized from the water and organic muck
of channels and the surrounding swamp (Fig. 6.12). Year-round inten-
sive cultivation and continuous harvests were possible from such plots.
Channels and lagoons around the raised fields were used for intensive
fishing, as well as the collection of mollusks and other swamp life. These
134 Ancient Maya

CEG
See

i
I
i
SS 10)
SE ececestidincremrenmnedineneminineie
meter
|

'
i
H

'
i
ASS recnesetsemcersrnnoteertrinrifeesiaemetcre ns ehcp eamesOoh
1
N

Sianeli nnnnoun ONE ONN NASHTaN

Figure 6.10 Cross-section of simple terrace forms (from Beach and

Dunning 1995: Fig. 4)
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 15

terraces sot mapped

Figure 6.11 Possible agricultural terraces near the site of Caracol,

Belize (from Chase and Chase 1998)

raised fields (or chinampas, as the Aztecs called them) were virtual
food factories that could disproportionately contribute to the subsistence
support of centers and populations nearby.
Extensive raised-field systems have been investigated in Belize at Pull-
trouser Swamp (Turner 1978, 1983; Turner and Harrison, 1983), the
southeastern corner of the Yucatan peninsula in the state of Quintana
Roo, Mexico, and in northern Belize (Harrison 1981, 1990; Harrison
and Turner 1978). In the 1970s and 1980s, after the discovery of
such systems, archaeologists and paleoarchaeologists overreacted. Some
enthusiastically hypothesized that state-controlled raised-field agriculture
in bajos and lakes may have been the primary agricultural system and
136 Ancient Maya

Chinampa lake-bed agriculture

Figure 6.12 Cross-section of raised field agricultural systems (drawn

by Luis F. Luin)

the key to understanding the Maya ability to sustain large populations

in the rain forest (e.g. Turner 1978, 1983; Harrison 1977; Hammond
1978). Aerial surveys, including satellite imagery and side-angle radar,
were then used to identify vast stretches of raised fields and canal systems
in the southern lowlands (e.g. Adams et al. 1981; R.E.W. Adams 1980).
Subsequent ground survey has demonstrated that most of these proposed
systems were illusions created by “bugs” in the aerial techniques or statis-
tical data processing which misidentified natural geological patterns for
field constructions.
Re-evaluation of landforms and hydrology in the Petén now indicates
that raised-field systems can only be successful in areas with restricted
annual fluctuation in water levels (Pope and Dahlin 1989; Dunning 1996;
Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997). Such a restriction would imply that
most areas of the major river systems had little potential for annual raised-
field agriculture. Instead, it is now believed that ancient Maya subsistence
strategies did not rely on one or two intensive technologies, but on a
complex mosaic of different types of field and subsistence systems (Fedick
1996; Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997; Dunning et a/. 1998). The Maya
subsistence strategy was such a “managed mosaic” of many different plots
with various cultigens that together provided a more secure subsistence
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 187,

~ than heavy reliance on a single method. Thus, raised fields — and their high
productivity — were an important element in many local farming systems,
but most areas of such fields were relatively few, small, and localized.

Seasonal bajo agriculture

A less dramatic, but probably more common, use of bajos and swamp
areas was their exploitation for seasonal agriculture. While these areas are
inundated every rainy season, many bajos stay dry for a sufficient period of
the year to potentially allow for a single dry season crop of maize, tubers,
or other cultigens. Bajos also are rich areas for collecting wild plants and
for hunting game in the dry season. Paleoecologists have known for some
time of the potential of bajo zones for seasonal use, including farming
(Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1995).
Recent excavations and paleoecological studies (Culbert et al. 1996;
Kunen et al. 2000) have demonstrated that the Maya did, indeed, utilize
this potential with agriculture and even some occupation within the bajos
near some major Classic Maya centers. Dense occupations along the
edges of bajos near the great center of Tikal were critical to its support
of large populations. The fact that bajo use is very limited today misled
archaeologists to assume that such areas are “unusable.” With the high
population densities of the Classic period, however, and with over a
millennium of close adaptation to all of the rain forest microenviron-
ments, the ancient Maya knew how to effectively utilize the bajos.
Again, regional variability must be central to any characterization of
Classic Maya culture and subsistence regimes. In some areas, population
densities were not so high as to require utilization of bajos. In other zones
the specific soils or hydrology of bajos rendered them difficult to use even
on a seasonal basis (Dunning 1996). Other areas, such as the central
Petén zone of Tikal and Uaxactun, had regional ecological conditions and
settlement density that led to heavy utilization of the bajos, not for raised
fields, but for seasonal swidden farming (Culbert er al. 1996; Kunen
et al. 2000). Finally, as discussed above, in those areas with controllable
or stable water levels, bajos and lakes were used for intensive raised-field
gardens.

Other localized intensive agricultural systems

Ancient Maya adaptations were tailored in some zones to very specific

landforms and soils — some of which are considered unusable today. For
example, paleoecologists have identified a form of ancient Maya agricul-
ture in sunken zones, also called rejolladas, where subterranean erosion
138 Ancient Maya

and collapse of the karst limestone bedrock has left small humid depres-
sions or sinkholes on the surface (Kepecs and Boucher 1996; Dunning,
Beach, and Rue 1997). The thick soils that form in the bottom of such
depressions can be highly productive for intensive gardens or fruit or
cacao trees, if properly cultivated with occasional use of contour terrac-
ing to limit erosion or leeching of soils. Similarly, the Maya used “check”
dams to block erosion and create alluvial fans of rich soils for farming in
gullies or arroyos which would otherwise have eroded surrounding soils
(Turner 1985; Dunning and Beach 1994).
In some zones, steep natural drop-offs or escarpments on the lime-
stone ridges or the edge of plateaus were terraced with multiple low walls
that stopped erosion, retained rich soils, and, sometimes, also divided
up areas of responsibility for farming and control of the product (Killion
et al. 1991; Dunning and Beach 1994; Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997).
In some steep areas near major centers, small stone box terraces were used
as nurseries for seeding cacao trees or as vegetable gardens for palaces
(Fig. 6.4). In areas of more gradual hilly slopes, thinner soils, and lower
rainfall (like the Campeche-Rio Bec zone of the southern Yucatan penin-
sula, see Fig. 9.10, page 227), larger, wider terraces were constructed
to facilitate annual farming and the need for long fallow periods (e.g.
Eaton 1975). Some regions, such as the El Mirador Basin of the north-
ern Petén, have extensive bajo zones separating ridges or islands of higher,
well-drained soils. Recent excavations and paleoecological studies in these
areas have discovered possible huge gardens on the higher ridges where
soils and muck were brought in from the bajos and re-deposited for upland
gardening (Hansen 1989). Such a highly productive form of ancient land-
scaping might help to explain the subsistence regime of the earliest Maya
cities, such as Nakbe and El Mirador (Hansen 1991b, 2001).
Much later, at the very end of the Classic period, redeposited bajo
soils and stone box gardens appear to have been used on a smaller scale
near some site epicenters. In these cases, the purpose may have been to
provide for elite populations. Such stone box gardens, refertilized with
human waste and redeposited soils and vegetation, could also have been
a defensible source of food near epicenters during periods of intensified
warfare. At Punta de Chimino in the Petexbatun region of the west-
ern Petén (Beach 1996; Demarest 1996a; Quezada et al. 1996) such
stone box gardens were constructed within a moat and wall system, assur-
ing a food supply for the besieged population in the late eighth century
(Fig. 6.13).
In many cases, ecological regimes and population density were well
adapted to the local rain forest soils and conditions. Population density
determined the degree to which intensive agricultural systems would be
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 139

Figure 6.13 Stone box gardens at the site of Punta de Chimino,

Petexbatun, Guatemala (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

used to extend farming into areas underutilized, poorly utilized, or unuti-

lized today. In most zones, diversity in subsistence practices, dispersion in
farming systems and urban occupations, and sensitivity to microenviron-
mental variation led to the success of ancient Maya rain forest adaptation.
We should not, however, idealize the success of Maya lowland adapta-
tions. In different specific periods and locales, political pressures and
miscalculations led to overuse or misuse of soils and local resources.
Serious erosion due to over-clearing has been documented, especially
at the end of the Late Preclassic period and, in some subregions, at
the end of the Classic era. In the Copan Valley (Freter 1994; Paine and
Freter 1996), the southern kingdom of Cancuen (Demarest and Barri-
entos 1999, 2000), and elsewhere, epicenter and sustaining populations
expanded residential areas to cover — and thus remove from production —
some of the most fertile farmland. Such mistakes and overexploitation
contributed to some regional episodes of political crisis or decline (e.g.
Abrams and Rue 1988). Nonetheless, in general the ancient Maya were
well adapted to the rain forest environment in which their cities grew and
evolved for over 1,500 years. As we shall see (Chapter 10), deficiencies
in Maya adaptive strategies were more rooted in political, rather than
subsistence, failures.

Minor and major hydraulic systems and the Maya state

Traditional theories on the rise of early states emphasize their alleged role
in construction and management of irrigation systems or other major
140 Ancient Maya

hydraulic projects. As we have seen, such scenarios don’t work for the
Maya area, where rainfall is heavy, though seasonal in most subregions,
and many sites are on or near rivers, lakes, and other water sources. There
are, however, small reservoirs, aqueducts, and pools at sites to allow for
more conveniently located water sources, in some cases for dry season
water, and as loci for water ritual (Scarborough 1996, 1998; Ohnstad
et al. 2003; B. Fash in press). In general, the construction of Maya lowland
reservoirs or modification of water holes and seasonal lakes (aguadas)
would not have been necessary, at least not in the southern lowlands,
until population levels were fairly high and concentrated; that is, these
extensions of water reserves would not have been necessary until long
after the rise of the Preclassic lowland rulership.
Nonetheless, some Mayanists have not been able to resist the appeal-
ing simplicity of “hydraulic functionalism” and try to explain the rise,
and even the fall, of Classic Maya states based on rulers’ control of water
sources and systems (e.g., Lucero 2002, 2003). As noted above, such
theories don’t apply to the vast majority of sites and regions in the Maya
world during the initial Preclassic rise of lowland states. Furthermore,
most reservoir systems would simply be another aspect of the “managed
mosaic” of farming and subsistence systems (Fedick 1996) that were
created and controlled at the extended family or community level. For
those reasons, it is a more convincing argument that in general, water
reservoirs in the southern lowlands were most important at the commu-
nity level as foci for ritual, local identity, and community integration
(e.g. Ohnstad et al. 2003; Scarborough 1998; Lucero 2003; B. Fash in
press; Vogt 1976, 1981, 1983). Claims of supernatural influence over
rainfall, seasonality, and water-related ritual were undoubtedly always
important to the power of Maya shamans, priests, and rulers. “Real”
(an Western terms) control of hydraulic systems or reservoirs was more
likely a later and auxiliary addition to rulers’ authority at some major
centers and in the driest regions (e.g. Dunning 1992; Scarborough 1996,
1998).
Yet, as with all aspects of ancient Maya civilizations, there were signif-
icant regional exceptions to this picture of small scale hydraulic projects.
Water control and storage for the regionally variable dry season was a
major challenge for the ancient Maya, especially in the drier northern
lowlands. The Maya responded to the need for dry-season water for
drinking, cooking, and gardening in a variety of ways. Most major Maya
centers were located near rivers, lakes, or lagoons. The Maya solved the
problem of transporting and storing household water by producing and
using ceramic water jars with striated surfaces (Fig. 6.14). These textured
surfaces both cooled the contents and provided a better grip. At some
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 141

LMtod)

Figure 6.14 Fragments of typical Late Classic striated water jars

(drawn by David Lord)

Petén centers farther from rivers or lakes, such as Tikal and El Mirador,
bajos were lined with clay or even stone pavements to convert them into
reservoirs in the center of the cities. Farther north, in the northern half of
the Yucatan peninsula, the water problem was more acute due to lower
rainfall and lack of surface water. In these areas, large bottle-shaped stone
wells, or chultunes, were carved into the soft limestone bedrock and lined
with clay for water storage.
Large-scale hydraulic works near some centers remain to be fully
explored and understood. A canal system around the Late Preclassic
center of Cerros delimited its sacred epicenter, provided water control
for a small raised-field system, and may have facilitated the defensibil-
ity of the site’s palaces and temples (Freidel er a/. 1982). Such multiple
functions have also been posited for a much more massive water system
at the northern Maya center of Edzna in Campeche (Fig. 6.15). There,
enormous canals radiate out from its Late Preclassic- and Classic-period
center, providing water storage, a transport system, water for fields, a
defensive system, or even possibly artificial lagoons for fishing or fish
farming (Matheny et al. 1983; Matheny 1976). Encircling the great center
of Calakmul, Campeche, is an enigmatic canal system, possibly also a
defensive perimeter (Fig. 6.16). Whatever the actual function (or func-
tions) of water systems like those of Edzna or Calakmul, it is certain that
their construction and control would have required central management
 &

()

S
js So oO

> =S N

° 0 1 2 km

NECN
PARE
pa,

Figure 6.15 Water control systems at the site of Edzna, Campeche,

Mexico (drawn by Luis F. Luin after Matheny ez al. 1983: Fig. 2)
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 143

reservoir
canal
reservoir

E= water systems
0 1km
ah Po Te _—<s a |

Figure 6.16 Canal systems around the site of Calakmul, Campeche,

Mexico (redrafted by Matt O’Mansky after Folan et al. 1995)

by the state or elites (Matheny 1987). Again, such major hydraulic works
were not widespread in the lowlands and do not form a general pattern in
the ancient Maya world comparable to the irrigation systems of Babylonia
or the raised fields of Aztec central Mexico. Rather, these are further
evidence of the regional variability and the local ecological sensitivity of
Maya rain forest subsistence systems.
144 Ancient Maya

Arboriculture and timber exploitation

The ancient Maya exploited every other aspect of the bounty of the rain
forest. Probably due to ancient arboriculture, today fruit trees of many
species are most common near the great Maya centers. Wild and culti-
vated papaya, zapote, maguey, avocados, and other fruits provided impor-
tant vitamins to the Maya daily diet, as well as serving as a source of
potent fermented fruit beverages for ancient feasts and rituals (Dahlin
and Litzinger 1986). /
Cacao trees, the source of chocolate beans, were a central component
of Maya economies. They were cultivated in scattered patches between
milpas as well as intensively farmed in well-watered terraces and gardens,
including sunken rejolladas gardens (Dahlin 1979; Dunning and Beach
in press; Helmuth 1977). Ground chocolate beans from cacao arbori-
culture were a part of daily subsistence for Maya elites and commoners.
Among the Maya the daily routine began (and often still begins) with a
drink of thick, bitter hot chocolate. Chocolate sauces of all kinds were —
and still are — popular. Chocolate was considered essential to the diet of
Mesoamerican peoples. Cacao beans were a major medium of exchange,
“archaic money,” in pre-Columbian markets, and were also a common
element in Maya art and imagery.
The trees of the rain forest provided many other foods, spices, and
materials for crafts and construction. Vanilla and allspice were used for
flavoring. Other trees furnished saps and resins used for binding every-
thing from shell mosaic artwork to stone dart heads for deadly weapons.
Other trees, like the copal, were the sources for incenses that were a neces-
sary part of every ritual. Barks and seeds provided a variety of products
ranging from natural insect repellents to the source of the potent balche
ale that intoxicated Maya priests and elites at feasts and rituals. Above all,
the trees provided construction materials, including the frames for Maya
houses, lintels for palaces and temples, and the thatch for their roofs. The
naturally cooled thatch roof, sealed by spider and insect nests, is the most
comfortable form of shelter (a fact rediscovered in modern archaeologi-
cal camps and luxury “ecotouristic” inns). The hardest woods of the rain
forest, especially the rock-hard sapodilla wood and beautiful mahogany
and cedars, were used for carved works of art that are sometimes still
preserved in tombs or other buried contexts. Elaborately carved sapodilla
lintels with long hieroglyphic texts have been found in outstanding condi-
tion in the doorways of temples, giving us histories of and insights into
Maya temple rituals and concepts.
The lumber of the rain forest also was the source of fuels for all
purposes. Wood from bushes and smaller trees was used for the treatment
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 145

- of stone for artifacts, heating on the cold rain forest evenings, and for fires
in homes as a means to drive away the endless cloud of tropical insects.
In addition, lime concrete mortar used in all Maya construction required
burning of limestone in high-temperature fires. Indeed, some scholars
have posited that some Late Classic Maya deforestation problems may
have come as much from the production of lime plaster as from clearing
land for farming (Abrams and Rue 1988).

Animal husbandry, hunting, and fishing

Faunal remains testify to an exploitation of the forest animal life that was
as broad and varied as other ancient Maya adaptations. Domesticated
turkeys were raised in pens and in household gardens. Turtles and fish
were constantly being netted from lakes, rivers, swamps, and the artificial
reservoirs and canals. They were not only a critical source of protein, but
their shells and bones were the raw material for tools, musical instru-
ments, armor, headdresses, shields, scepters, and bloodletters that were
the symbols of royal and ritual power (Emery 1997, in press). In some
areas, such as the Candelaria River system of lower Campeche, fish and
other aquatic life may have been pond raised (Thompson 1974). In all
areas, the Maya landscaping of natural terrain and creation of canals and
lagoons increased the bounty of aquatic life for consumption and crafts.
Apiculture (beekeeping) was an aspect of Maya subsistence that was
much celebrated in ritual (Tozzer 1941). Honey was an important supple-
ment to the Maya diet and a flavoring for many dishes. It was most prized,
however, as a key ingredient of the alcoholic beverage balche. This potent
drink, made from a fermented mixture of honey and balche tree bark, was
consumed and offered to supernaturals in rituals and feasts. Hollowed
logs and wooden hives were used to house the productive, stingless bees
of the lowlands. As an easily stored, transportable resource, honey may
have been exchanged more widely in the lowlands than most subsistence
goods.
Deer were hunted, sometimes so systematically that the practice
approached domestication. Fallow zones and patches of rain forest were
left throughout even the most densely populated areas to assure a nearby
deer population for hunting and trapping. Recent multidisciplinary stud-
ies of diet, including the consumption of deer meat (White and Schwartz
1989; Emery, Wright, and Schwartz 2000; Emery 1997; Wright in press;
Wright and White 1996) and the use of deer bone for tools (Emery 1997,
in press), have demonstrated the intimate relationship of the Maya with
these rain forest cohabitants. By the Late Classic period, the percent of
deer consumption in the diet (indicated by strontium isotope levels) was
146 Ancient Maya

almost as reliable a measure of social status as jade or quetzal feathers

(D. Chase et al. 1998; Wright in press). Deer bone was a major source of
artifacts and tools for daily use, as well as ornaments. The deer, mean-
while, thrived on feeding in the fallow zones and fields of the Classic Maya
and maize became a major component of deer diet. The human—deer
symbiotic relationship was so close that the diet of the deer themselves
(as revealed by studies oftheir bones) is one of the tools for reconstructing
the extent and nature of ancient Maya field systems (e.g. Emery, Wright,
and Schwartz 2000). :
Hunting and trapping included, of course, many other rain forest
species. Wild boar (havile), agoutis, tapirs, lizards, and many avian species
found their way into the Maya diet. The frogs and toads that cover the rain
forest trails and stream banks were supplemental food, as well as a source
of specialized products, including hallucinogens. The deadly vipers and
the majestic constrictors of the forest were a feared and sacred source of
imagery and concepts for Maya ideology.

Subsistence and the Classic Maya state

Traditional theories of the rise of complex society and the formation of

states explain the development of elites as managers of critical aspects of
the economy. Functionalist thinking dictates that if institutions of inequal-
ity in wealth and centralization of power exist, they must have arisen for
a “practical” reason. Thus, early chiefs and archaic states are assumed
to have been involved in aspects of the economy which required central-
ized management, such as construction and maintenance of hydraulic
systems, management of trade in subsistence goods, and corporate orga-
nization of intensive agricultural systems. Yet, as we have seen, in the
Maya lowlands one of the secrets of their rain forest adaptation was that
it was decentralized — allowing local adaptations to microenvironmental
conditions for each patch of ground. Farming families, drawing upon
generations of knowledge of their soils, gradients, and vegetation, were
able to apply any of a variety of intensive or extensive gardening or field
systems to suit those local conditions. Indeed, areas most successful in
avoiding erosion with sustainable agricultural systems, such as the Pasion
and Petexbatun regions, were successful precisely because they were
decentralized and locally controlled (Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997;
Dunning and Beach in press; see also Fedick 1996; Neff et al. 1995).
As with every aspect of Maya society, debate and disagreement about
the role of the state in agricultural systems arises because of the extreme
variability of lowland Maya civilization in time and space (Demarest
1996b). Some sites, such as El] Mirador and Edzna in the Late Preclassic
 Settlement and subsistence: rain forest adaptation 147

period, and Calakmul and Caracol in the Late Classic, had hydraulic or
intensive agricultural systems that may have required state management.
We should note, however, that these were exceptional sites in many other
ways — in population size, area, and degree of economic integration. Tikal,
Calakmul, and Caracol were the centers of large conquest states that
represented a period of experimentation in the Maya world with larger
political formations (see Chapter 9). These experiments failed (rather
dramatically), accelerating intersite status rivalry and warfare, and, ulti-
mately, the decline or collapse of many Classic Maya states in the south-
ern lowlands (Chapter 10). The more centralized economies, grand scale,
and infrastructural involvement of those states might be more the excep-
tion than the rule for Classic Maya realnis.
Small intensive terrace, garden, or raised-field systems controlled by
the elite are found in some cases near site epicenters and palaces (e.g.
Freidel et al. 1982; Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997). These would provide
convenient gardens to feed palace populations and might also have served
to symbolically associate the elite with the agricultural system and the
Maya rain forest adaptation. In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was credited
with the annual flooding of the Nile, and he was represented symbolically
opening sluice gates or raising shadufs (e.g. Butzer 1976; Hoffman 1979).
Water systems around the mandala-shaped architectural complexes of
the Negara systems of Southeast Asia associated the state with irrigation
systems that were actually locally controlled (Geertz 1980). In the same
way, such epicenter field systems and water and fertility rituals of the
Maya theater-states may have helped create and maintain a myth of a more
direct and critical role for rulers and elites in subsistence and economic
systems.
f/ Classic Maya economics

The nature of ancient Maya economics, crafts, and market systems is

another topic of much debate and disagreement among archaeologists.
Thompson’s view of the Classic Maya as a theocratic society of peasants
ruled by priests from ceremonial centers allowed for little consideration
of economic issues. During the revolution in Maya studies after the great
settlement pattern projects of the 1960s and 1970s, archaeologists began
more serious consideration of Maya long-distance trade, local exchange
systems, and craft production. At that time, initial enthusiastic studies
posited a central role for long-distance markets in the rise and decline of
Classic Maya civilization (Rathje 1971, 1973). The rise of great centers
such as Tikal and El Mirador was attributed to their role in east-west
trade between Mexico and the Caribbean and possible state-monitored
or controlled marketplaces were archaeologically identified (Jones 1979;
W. Coe 1965b). In some models, the great mercantile central Mexican
city of Teotihuacan was posited as a central force in trade networks that
stimulated the rise of the Maya cities (Webb 1975; Santley 1983). Later,
the fall of Teotihuacan and its trade system was seen as a central factor in
the ninth-century decline of the centers of the southern Maya lowlands
(e.g. Webb 1973; Cowgill 1979; Diehl and Berlo 1989).
Recent studies of long-distance trade in the Maya world have been
aided by neutron-activation and x-ray diffraction sourcing of obsidian
used to make stone tools and the clays in traded ceramics (e.g. Sidrys
1976; Bishop 1980). The results of such research have cast consider-
able doubt on the view that long-distance trade in obsidian, ceramics,
or foodstuffs was important to subsistence or to the basic economy of
lowland Maya populations (e.g. Marcus 1983a; Clark 1986). Instead,
recent studies of highland—lowland exchange have emphasized the impor-
tance of traded goods such as jade, fine ceramic vessels, and quetzal feath-
ers for status-reinforcement, for patronage networks, and to maintain the
status and power of rulers and nobles (e.g. Blanton and Feinman 1984;
Demarest and Foias 1993; Sabloff 1986).

148
 Classic Maya economics 149

Still, other scholars have continued to point out evidence that trade in
some more basic goods such as obsidian, highland igneous rock, salt, and
perhaps cacao could have been important in the formation and nature
of economic institutions in the Classic and Preclassic periods — as they
were in the Postclassic Maya kingdoms encountered by the Spanish in the
sixteenth century (A. Andrews 1980a, 1980b, 1983, 1984; Aoyama 1999;
Voorhies 1989). Population sizes at some great centers in the Late Classic,
such as Tikal, have been cited to argue that there must have been regional
exchange of even some basic foodstuffs (e.g. Culbert 1988: 92-95). Other
centers, such as Dos Pilas, seem to have relied on regional tribute for such
basic subsistence support (O’Mansky and Dunning 2004; Dunning et al.
1997; Dunning and Beach in press).
As debate continues on the nature of Classic Maya economic systems,
studies have tended to focus on more specific aspects of trade at the local,
regional, and interregional levels. Recent researchers have also examined
the degree of specialization, standardization, and centralized control in
the production of trade goods. Such studies are revealing complex and
regionally variable economic systems for the Maya cities of the Preclassic
and Classic periods.

Local products and raw materials

Studies have demonstrated the environmental complexity and variability

of the Maya lowlands (Sanders 1973, 1977). Nonetheless, basic economic
and subsistence needs usually could be met within a distance of about
twenty-five kilometers of any major Maya center. Through collecting or
hunting, the Maya obtained critical elements in their diet such as fruits,
meat, and fish, and raw materials for crafts and construction including
timber, thatch, resins, incense, shell, bone, bird feathers, and pigments,
as well as clays and tempers for making pottery. The ubiquitous reeds
of swamps, lakes, and bajos were woven into basketry of all kinds and
mats for seating and sleeping. The various forms of Maya field systems,
gardens, and orchards provided most of their remaining needs for basic
dietary staples, wood, fruits, cacao, and condiments. Cotton fields gave
the fiber for daily clothing, fine textiles, and padded armor. The limestone
bedrock below all of the rain forests was mined near site epicenters for
stone for temples and palaces and the carving of stelae and altars. Ground
and burned, the limestone also produced powder for mortar and plaster
for coatings, murals, and sculpted architectural facades and roof combs.
Most items for tools and weapons could also be obtained within any
small region. Chert (or flint), which was used for tools, weapons, and
elaborate ceremonial stone objects (called “eccentrics”), forms in nodules
150 Ancient Maya

within limestone, and good chert sources can be found near most centers.
Animal bone and wood were the raw materials for most other production
of tools, weapons, and ornaments.
With such a bounty of food and resources near each major center, the
need for long-distance trade and its economic importance was reduced,
especially as compared to areas of dramatic environmental variability
and irregular resource distribution such as the highlands of Mexico and
Guatemala or the Andes. Instead, most food and other products were
probably distributed through informal exchange among extended fami-
lies or neighbors and small local markets. The greater needs of rulers,
their families, and courts probably were met through tribute or “tithing”
of goods and labor from the surrounding populations. As observed at
the time of the Spanish conquest, certain products, such as exotic bird
feathers, jaguar pelts, and many imported goods, were reserved for the
elite through sumptuary customs and laws.

Local and regional markets and exchange systems

Despite the natural bounty and diversity of the rain forest and the Maya
subsistence systems, some basic products had to be obtained by families
at local or regional markets. Ruling families and members of the royal
court, including priests, scribes, craftspeople, servants and their fami-
lies, would all be supported through the agricultural labor and collecting
efforts of the population. Tax and tribute in produce and goods for the
elite would be supplemented by trade or barter in local markets. Other
craft specialists not attached to the palace would need to obtain their food
through trade or barter. Even full-time farming families, the vast major-
ity of the population, relied upon exchange to provide some pottery, salt,
chocolate beans, stone tools, and variety in their diet.
Then, as now, periodic markets in the plazas of major and minor cere-
monial centers were probably the major mechanism of exchange. Before
and after religious rituals and on established saints’ days or market days,
the modern Maya in the highlands of Guatemala and Chiapas fill the
plazas before the churches with temporary stalls or piles of produce,
textiles, stone, firewood, and artworks for barter and sale (Fig. 7.1). The
degree of management or state involvement in such markets is (and proba-
bly always was) minimal. In the Classic period local rulers may have taxed
these periodic markets in some form. The state or elite families might
have controlled certain specialized products, such as salt, obsidian and
hard stones from the highlands, and fine textiles. It is virtually impossible
to verify such assumptions or the analogies to ethnohistoric or present
markets, since such periodic events leave little or no archaeological
 Classic Maya economics 15)

Figure 7.1 Modern highland Maya market at Santiago Atitlan,

Guatemala

evidence and the Classic-period hieroglyphic texts make little mention

of economic matters except for a few references to tribute.
For the largest centers markets or state-managed redistributive systems
may have integrated economies, including basic subsistence, beyond the
local level. For example, the center of Tikal may have had a population of
between 60,000 and 120,000 in its “greater metropolitan area” in the Late
Classic period (Culbert et al. 1990), requiring the movement of foodstuffs
from as far as 100 kilometers away (Culbert 1988). This possibility of
more regional economies is great for Maya centers with large estimated
Late Classic populations, such as Caracol in Belize (Chase and Chase
1996b), Calakmul in the southern base of the Yucatan peninsula (Folan
1992), and Coba in the far northeastern lowlands of Yucatan (Folan
et al. 1983). It is notable that all of these Classic centers, as well as the
Late Preclassic-period center of El Mirador, had radiating systems of
causeways connecting them to satellite centers. These causeway systems
may have facilitated both the market and state-controlled movements of
goods and foods (Chase and Chase 1996b).
Still, studies of kingdoms of the Conquest period, based on far more
detailed historical sources, have demonstrated the difficulties of moving
foods and other basic subsistence goods over long distances by foot trans-
port and without the benefits of beasts of burden, vehicles, or modern
152 Ancient Maya

preservation techniques. Even the complex, carefully administered full

market economy of the sixteenth-century Aztec empire relied for its basic
food supplies on the area of central Mexico near its capital cities (Sanders
and Santley 1983). More distant provinces provided tribute or market
goods in luxuries, textiles, or other nonperishable goods. Transport of
corn or other staples from only twenty-five kilometers away would require
consumption of 16 percent of the caloric value of the load for its bearer
and transport from a hundred kilometers would have cost a third of the
load in expended caloric energy (Culbert 1988; Drennan 1984; Sanders
and Santley 1983). Such high transport costs might have been maintained
by a few Maya cities at their peak, but more generally Maya subsistence
economies and markets were probably based on an area of about twenty
to thirty kilometers, a day of travel, from the major center and its periodic
markets. More frequent market exchanges near minor centers and daily
informal barter completed the loose structure of the Maya economy in
food and basic necessities.

Commodities trade: salt, chocolate, textiles,

and hard stone

Some commodities would have been imported from greater distances.

These include raw materials that could be transported long distances
and were of importance to local economies.

Salt

The most important of these commodities was salt, a critical element in

diets, preservation of foods, and trade in the sixteenth century in the Post-
classic kingdoms of northern Yucatan, Belize, and most of Mesoamer-
ica (A. Andrews 1980a, 1980b, 1983). Salt production involved drying
seawater in flat, shallow lagoons or artificial drying beds. Seawater could
also be boiled to leave salt deposits in specialized vessels. There is ample
evidence that these techniques were in use from Preclassic times. The
development of regional economies in Belize, Yucatan, and on the south
coasts of Guatemala and Chiapas was probably stimulated by inland—
coastal exchange systems in salt, as well as dried fish, shell, and other
maritime resources. Some Preclassic- and Classic-period coastal commu-
nities may have specialized in such products, relying on exchange for most
basic agricultural staples raised farther inland (e.g. Stark and Voorhies
eds., 1978; A. Andrews 1983; Andrews V et al. 1984; Demarest et al.
1988; Ringle and Andrews 1990; Pye and Demarest 1991; Pye 1995;
Pye et al. 1999).
 Classic Maya economics 153

What remains controversial is the extent, importance, and nature of

the salt trade in the Classic and Preclassic periods. Some have argued
that, since salt was absent in most of the Maya lowlands, management
of long-distance trade for salt and hard stone was critical in the rise of
state leadership there (Rathje 1973, 1975). In fact, many regions of the
Maya lowlands are not far from the saline lagoons of the Gulf coast
or Caribbean (Andrews and Mock 2002). In areas further inland, salt
deposits could be mined (e.g. Dillon 1977) and salt could be produced
by burning vegetation (Reina and Hill 1980). Furthermore, the impor-
tance of, rather than preference for, salt in diets and trade remains an open
question. The use of salt as a medium of exchange (“archaic money”) in
the Postclassic and Contact periods relates to the complex market system
and the critical role of maritime trade in those centuries. While salt was a
commodity that required more distant exchange networks, it was proba-
bly not as important a resource for Classic-period kingdoms as it became
later, in the Postclassic period (cf. Marcus 1983b; A. Andrews 1984;
Andrews and Mock 2002).

Chocolate

Another highly valued commodity was the bean of the cacao tree which,
when processed, became the chocolate so heavily used in Maya sauces
as well as daily drinks. Cacao beans can be roasted, then easily stored
and transported. For that reason, like salt, cacao became a medium of
exchange in the great market economies of the Postclassic and Contact
periods (Berdan 1975). Cacao was so prized in the Aztec period as an
object of trade and tribute that cacao-producing regions were targets of
imperial conquest (Conrad and Demarest 1984: Ch. 2; Hassig 1988;
Voorhies 1989). Similarly, some scholars have posited that control of
cacao production and its trade might have been a factor in the rise of
elites among the Classic Maya (e.g. Dahlin 1979).
While certain areas may have specialized in chocolate production,
cacao trees can be grown in most areas of the Maya lowlands. In the Clas-
sic period, field systems within the farmlands of most Maya realms prob-
ably included cacao scattered around houses and gardens and in groves in
specialized fields, such as the sunken rejolladas gardens (Dunning, Beach,
and Rue 1997; Dunning and Beach in press). Given its storable, mobile
form, cacao may have been more extensively traded than other food-
stuffs, but neither long-distance trade, nor state control, would have been
needed for its production and distribution. Still, particularly favorable
areas for cacao groves may have overproduced for commodity trade and
for tribute (e.g. McAnany et al. 2002).
154 Ancient Maya

Textiles

Cotton for the weaving of simple cloth and for more elaborate textiles
could be grown in any part of the lowlands (Mahler 1965), and cotton
fields were undoubtedly scattered among the mosaic of different types of
field systems, house gardens, terraces, orchards, rain forest, and reservoirs
that surrounded every major center. As with cacao, regions with especially
favorable soils and conditions for cotton farming may have produced large
quantities for textile production and trade, as was the case in Postclassic
times. Again, however, commodity trade over long distances appears to
be a less central element of Classic Maya economies than it became later.
In the Classic and Postclassic periods, as today, cotton was spun into
threads on spindles weighted on one end with a clay spindle whorl. These
clay disks, often decorated, are found in the ruins of Maya house groups,
testifying to the household nature of most textile production (Fig. 7.2).
The women of each household wove the clothing of family members (as
they do today) and perhaps some finer cloth for special occasions, trib-
ute to the rulers, or trade. Representations in codices (Anawalt 1981)
and Conquest-period descriptions show that then, as now, women wove
fabrics on backstrap looms within their homes. Today, the complex
geometric designs and brilliant colors of Maya fabrics are filled with
symbolic patterns, and each community has an identifiable set of cloth
patterns and colors. Similarly, Classic Maya sculptures and ceramic art
show elites dressed in costumes with extremely elaborate woven patterns
(see Figs. 8.8, 8.9, 8.10).
As cloth is less perishable than food products and easily transported, it
is probable that it was exchanged more widely in markets and as tribute to
rulers. In later Aztec times in Central Mexico, fine cloth was demanded
as tribute from subject groups. Innovative studies of textile patterns and
clothing styles represented in Aztec art and codices have been used to
study tribute systems, identify ethnic groups, and plot networks of inter-
action and trade (e.g. Anawalt 1981). In the Maya area, fine fabrics prob-
ably served these same functions — community identification, status mark-
ing, tax, tribute, and trade — although it is challenging to explore these
issues in the absence of preserved fabrics.

Hard stone

Similarly, longer distance exchange of hard stone was needed to supple-

ment the lithic resources of the lowlands that are dominated by a karst
topography with generally soft limestone bedrock. Again, however, the
role of trade in highland igneous and metamorphic rock may be over-
stated in theories that see such trade as a critical factor in the rise and
 Classic Maya economics 15S

ee
-
Boe
s eo ee

Figure 7.2 Maya use of a spindle whirl to prepare thread (from

Charnay 1887: 89)

maintenance of elite power (e.g. Rathje 1973, 1975; Santley 1983;

Michels 1977). As we have seen, the Maya lowlands were far more ecolog-
ically diverse than scholars once believed, and that diversity includes
its geology. Harder limestone deposits are available in almost all areas
of the lowlands, providing stone for adzes, mortars, and pestles for
daily use. Though variable in quality, chert for spears and dart heads,
weapons, axe heads, adzes, hoes, knives, and other tools can be found
156 Ancient Maya

Figure 7.3 Grinding chili with a stone metate and mano

in deposits in most lowland regions. Especially fine chert for weapons,

ritual scepters (“eccentrics”), and bloodletters was mined in large quan-
tities from sources in northern Belize and elsewhere within the lowlands
for the purpose of trade with other Maya centers (e.g. Hester and Shafer
1984; Hester et al. 1983).
Hard metamorphic rock for stone-working, and hard manos (pestles)
and metates (mortars) for corn, tuber, and pigment processing (Fig. 7.3),
could also be obtained within the lowland Maya world from the Maya
Mountains of southern Belize and the southeastern Petén, as well as
from the far southern Petén, which borders on the highlands. Recent
excavations at Cancuen on the far southern border of the Maya lowlands
have revealed the great variety of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic
rock available in that region in cobbles in its river systems (Demarest and
Barrientos eds. 1999). Such hard stone from the borders of the lowlands
could be easily traded farther inland along these same rivers.

Obsidian

Obsidian (fine volcanic glass) was valued in the pre-Columbian world as

the sharpest, finest edge for cutting tools of any kind, including knives and
dart points, and for edges for wooden swords and other weapons. Because
of its fine cryptocrystalline structure, obsidian could be chipped into
 Classic Maya economics Si

Figure 7.4 Obsidian and chert eccentrics from Dos Pilas (drawn by
Luis F. Luin)

complex forms — “eccentrics” for decorative or ceremonial use (Fig. 7.4).

Some eccentrics were hafted and used as weapons, scepters, or bloodlet-
ters for autosacrifice.
The fact that obsidian can be easily traced to its source has led to its
frequent use, arguably its overuse, to reconstruct ancient long-distance
trade systems. Unlike chert and other commodities, there were relatively
few source areas for this igneous rock, all of them volcanic outcrops in the
highlands. Obsidian in the Maya lowlands has most often been traced to
the El Chayal outcrop near the highland center of Kaminaljuyu or to the
Ixtepeque source in the Motagua Valley on the edge of the southeastern
corner of the lowlands. Some obsidian came from other sources, such
158 Ancient Maya

as the San Martin Jilotepeque source farther to the west in the south-
ern highlands (Braswell 2002). Small quantities of prized Pachuca green
obsidian derived from the distant Valley of Mexico appear in the Maya
area in caches, burials, or other contexts, sometimes indicative of contact
with the central Mexican state of Teotihuacan.
Through the sourcing of the obsidian used in lowland tools, archaeol-
ogists are able to trace patterns of trade (Fig. 7.5). Elites of some major
centers may have redistributed obsidian through patronage networks
(Rathje 1977; Hammond 1972, 1973; Aoyama 1996, 1999, 2001; Santley
1983, 1984; Sidrys 1976). Certainly, obsidian from specific sources is
found in great quantities at some sites, such as Tikal, whose elites may
have had special political and/or commercial ties with highland centers
(Coggins 1975; W. Coe 1965b; Santley 1983; Moholy-Nagy et al. 1984).
At Tikal, Dos Pilas, Copan, and other Classic centers, the quantity
and diversity of obsidian artifacts in household groups was associated
with other markers of status and wealth, such as fine masonry architec-
ture, the quantity of polychrome ceramics, and the presence of other
imported exotic goods (Palka 1995, 1997; Haviland and Moholy-Nagy
1992; Haviland 1982; Aoyama 1999, 2001). Indeed at Tikal, Dos Pilas,
Tamarindito, and other centers ruled by the Tikal Late Classic dynas-
tic lineage, royal tombs were coated with a clay that was filled with
flakes, chips, and nodules of obsidian — a dramatic display of conspicu-
ous consumption and royal wealth (Haviland 1992; Demarest, Escobedo
et al. 1991; Valdés 1997b).
At other centers, obsidian may not be as clearly associated with status,
and it appears to have been more widely distributed toward the end of the
Classic period (P. Rice 1987a; P. Rice et al. 1985; A. Chase 1992). The
evidence for elite control of obsidian is circumstantial at best. The concept
that royal or elite control of obsidian was critical to political authority and
foreign alliances (e.g. Rathje 1975; Santley 1983) exaggerates the impor-
tance of this useful resource and the ability of a few centers to control its
distribution. Recall that chert, available throughout the lowlands, can also
be worked into fine-edged tools — better for most purposes than obsidian
tools because chert edges are less brittle and do not leave glass bits in
processed foods! Indeed, obsidian would have been most clearly supe-
rior for weapons and for bloodletting rituals, which were an important
aspect of Maya religious life at all levels. The fine, razor-sharp edge of
obsidian blades would be effective in the cutting of genitals, ears, cheeks,
and other tender flesh that was subjected to autosacrifice. If, as many
scholars believe, autosacrifice was practiced at all levels of Maya society,
this may have been one of its major functions.
 Classic Maya economics 159

4a Dzibilchaltun

4& SITES WITH OBSIDIAN ¥ Uxmal Cobaa

ANALYSIS UTILISED
Yucatan Peninsula
@ OBSIDIAN SOURCES

Becang
Oo .
Candelaria Sy
Ly
Mirador if a
43 R

Tikal g
iar, ol Ge
\ 6

‘Yaxchilan y
». La Pasion 2 fe
OS® seiber
MEXICO oe Day
Mcancuen,
Sane

GUATEMALA
Rafuwmgies
. eS ee San Martin
SIAC NS?

ay GE ve. El Chayal 3 -
ae L
e. ie ya
Kaminaljuyu Ixtepeque

EL SALVA OR
0 100 km

Figure 7.5 Some major trade routes of the Petén (drawn by Luis F.
Luin)
160 Ancient Maya

Access to obsidian would have been difficult for the elite to control (e.g.
Clark 1986; Braswell 2002). There were several different sources in the
southern highlands of Guatemala alone and one of these, Ixtepeque, was
near the southeastern corner of the lowland Maya region (see Fig. 7.5). As
hundreds of blades can be struck from a single core or nodule of obsidian,
the mass of transported material would be small and would not necessarily
require state planning or any great investment (Clark 1986). Rulers, other
elites, and merchants of the emerging Maya “middle classes” (Chase
1992) could have carried out direct or indirect transport of obsidian and
other goods from the highlands. State control of obsidian trade has been
assumed rather than demonstrated. The only systematic and convincing
effort to prove control of obsidian by the rulers (Aoyama 1995, 1999,
2001) was applied to the Copan Valley, an area which can be considered
exceptional given its close proximity to a major source (cf. Braswell 2002).
We can conclude that while elite control and redistribution of some
obsidian is likely — at least for the Preclassic and initial Classic — it is by
no means certain. This issue is but one aspect of the greater problem of
the uncertain role of elites in the general Maya economy (e.g. Masson
and Freidel 1992).

Long-distance trade in high-status goods

One aspect of the economy that certainly was controlled by rulers and
elites was the exchange of exotic status-reinforcing goods. Given the
nature of political authority and power among the Maya, such goods
were critical resources for rulers, their families, and their administrators.
Though lacking in “practical” functions from a Western perspective, these
goods were needed by elites for the maintenance of their power. Such
high-status exotic goods included jade, pyrite, fine polychrome ceram-
ics, imported ceramics or artifacts from central Mexico or the highlands,
feathers of the quetzal or other tropical birds, finely chipped chert or
obsidian scepters and eccentrics, and even occasional metal objects from
Mexico or Lower Central America.
All of these materials were part of the costuming and regalia of the
kings, nobles, and priests, without which they could not carry out the
public rituals that were their principal duties in the eyes of their followers.
Jaguar pelts, fine textiles, feathers, and other elements of regalia were
probably exchanged over long distances within the lowlands to meet the
demands of the growing elites. Coastal products such as shell and coral for
mosaics and jewelry were traded inland in all periods (Freidel et al. 2002).
Stingray spines, shark teeth, and spondylus shells from both the Pacific
and Caribbean coasts were required equipment as genital bloodletters
 Classic Maya economics 161

for high royal rituals. Fragments of shell, coral, and pyrite were formed
into beautiful mosaic headdresses, shields, scepters, mirrors, and other
elite regalia that appear in representations in Classic-period art. Rulers
and nobles were also often buried with their flint and obsidian weapons,
scepters, and bloodletters.
It was observed at the time of the Spanish Conquest in central Mexico
that most such luxury goods and status-reinforcing symbols were limited
by custom and formal sumptuary laws to the rulers and nobles, and to
those who served them well as priests, warriors, or administrators. Simi-
larly, Maya rulers in the Classic period would have controlled the acqui-
sition and distribution of symbols of authority such as quetzal feathers,
precious stones, and jaguar pelts (Freidel et al. 2002). These items were
probably exchanged between elites both regionally and at long distances
as dowry, bride-price or gifts at royal marriages, coronations, pilgrim-
ages, funerals, and major religious rituals (Schele and Mathews 1991).
Exotic goods and fine polychrome ceramics were also probably regularly
given as tribute to rulers by subordinate conquered centers and vassals
(Stuart 1995; Miller 1993).
These high-status goods were one important element in the “peer-
polity” interaction that held together the lowland Maya world and unified
elite patterns of behavior in ritual, religion, science, and warfare (Sabloff
1986; Freidel 1986a). From Preclassic times on, long-distance trade
was probably far more focused on such exotic goods and artworks
than on subsistence goods, tools, or other basic resources (Blanton
and Feinman 1984). Even at early centers such as Nakbe and El
Mirador, not only jade and highland ceramics but also large quanti-
ties of shell from the Caribbean were imported for the production of
adornments, mosaics, and other accoutrements of religious and political
power (Hansen 2001; Freidel et al. 2002). These long-distance exchange
systems were surely accompanied by exchanges of information, including
astronomical knowledge, early writing and iconographic systems, cosmol-
ogy, and, most importantly, models of more hierarchical and more strati-
fied political formations (Freidel 1979, 1981; Freidel et al. 2002; M. Coe
1981; Clark et al. n.d.; Marcus 1983b).
Thus, regional and long-distance exchange formed a second trading
system that was largely controlled by the elite and based upon recipro-
cal exchange, gift giving, and tribute in exotic goods and works of art.
These luxury goods served as elements of costumes and paraphernalia
for the rites and ceremonies of the theater-state, ranging from the great
gatherings and sacrifices over which the elite presided, to their marriages,
wars, and, eventually, their burial with this gear. As discussed below, this
elite economy in sumptuary goods also involved control of production
162 Ancient Maya

of fine ceramics and crafts by specialized artisans and scribes attached

to royal and elite households, some of whom were even members of the
royal families (Stuart 1989; Schele and Miller 1986; Miller 1993).
It should be noted that the model of a two-tiered economy — local and
regional markets and barter in subsistence goods and commodities, and
long-distance elite-controlled exchange in exotic goods and symbols of
power and wealth — is a caricature rather than an accurate characterization
of evolving Maya economic systems. As Maya societies developed from
the early lowland states of the Late Preclassic period, the economic and
social systems became far more complex, as well as regionally variable.
Considerable social mobility was available through achievements in war,
crafts, and mercantile activities. Furthermore, elite polygamy and the
expansion of elite families would naturally lead to a blurring of social
boundaries between nobles and elites and a proliferation of other full- or
part-time occupations. By the Late Classic period, if not earlier, the Maya
had a complex range of intermediate classes in functions, power, and
wealth. This Late Classic social reality is reflected in a wider distribution
of polychrome ceramics, exotic goods, and commodities such as fine
chert and obsidian (e.g. A. Chase 1992; McAnany 1993; Chase and
Chase 1992; P. Rice 1987a). Indeed, by the eighth century, such elite
goods, while still associated with status and relationship to the ruler,
were distributed across a gradual, unbroken curve of social levels in Maya
society (Palka 1995, 1997).

Routes of trade and exchange

Routes of trade between inland and coastal areas, and especially between
the highlands and lowlands, seem to have been important in most periods
for the location and success of major centers. Many sites are strategically
placed along natural trade routes on navigable rivers or in central posi-
tions between river routes (Sharer 1994: 452-62). Such positions were
advantageous for both local and regional market exchange and for elite
access to highland and coastal exotic goods. The circumstantial evidence
of site positions on natural east-west (e.g. Tikal, El Mirador) or north—
south (e.g. Cancuen, Seibal, Yaxchilan) routes has been tested by trace-
element analyses of artifacts, especially obsidian.
Obsidian has been inmost useful in positing trade routes because its
sources are easily identifiable. There are only a few major outcrops of
this volcanic glass in the highlands of Guatemala or Mexico. Neutron-
activation or X-ray fluorescence of obsidian can identify trace elements
that are characteristic of each of these source zones. Archaeologists
 Classic Maya economics 163

“can examine patterns of distribution of obsidian from each source and

propose probable trade routes from sources to the lowland sites (Fig. 7.5).
We speculate that such routes would have been used not only for obsid-
ian, but also for important perishables and less easily traced highland
and coastal products such as plumes of the quetzal and other exotic
birds, jade, volcanic ash for tempering ceramics, pyrite, fine ceramics,
salt, hard igneous and metamorphic highland rocks for stone working,
pigments, shells and stingray spines from the coasts, salt, and fine cherts
from sources in Belize.
One suggested major trade route would have come from the Ixtepeque
obsidian source on the edge of the Motagua River to the Caribbean, allow-
ing canoe trade up the coast of Belize to Yucatan (Hammond 1972, 1973).
A second major route would have led from the highlands of the Verapaz
region of Guatemala via the upper Pasion River and the Maya trading port
of Cancuen at the head ofnavigation (Fig. 7.5). From Cancuen, obsidian
nodules or macroblades were transported up the Pasion River into the
northern and central Petén, up the Machaquila River to the southeastern
Petén and Belize, and up the Usumacinta to major Maya centers such
as Seibal, Altar de Sacrificios, Yaxchilan, Palenque in Chiapas, and even
out to the Gulf of Mexico and the western coast of the Yucatan Peninsula
(Demarest and Barrientos 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). The circumstantial
evidence of the natural geographic corridors and the sourcing of obsidian
found at some Maya sites argue that these centers were located on major
long-distance trade routes for highland—lowland exchange and that one
of the functions of these major centers was to act as nodes of exchange —
and, in a few cases, as centers for processing and production of such
goods. Other highland or Motagua Valley products would follow these
same routes as demonstrated by the jade, pyrite, and obsidian production
areas found at the port center of Cancuen, where the western river route
begins (Kovacevich et al. 2001, 2002).

Craft production and specialization

Another fundamental set of economic parameters in any society concerns

the degree of specialization in craft production, the definition of the
groups involved in such production, and the control and distribution
of the product — what Marx called the means of production and the rela-
tions of production. For the Classic Maya, we have seen that farming and
the subsistence economy was very complex, yet decentralized, with a few
notable exceptions. The situation with tool and craft production involved
several different levels of specialization in the production and distribution
164 Ancient Maya

of finished products. These ranged from purely household-level manu-

facture and use of many tools, to state control of the production and
exchange of some important luxury goods.
Our knowledge of Classic craft production is aided by analogy to
Maya production of textiles, ceramics, and woodwork as observed in
the centuries since Western contact to the present. The artifacts of the
Classic period and representations of textiles in Classic-period sculptures
and painted ceramics show that techniques in most crafts have changed
little. Archaeological finds of workshops, production debris, and stored
products — though rare — are a more direct source of evidence. Detailed
study, measurement, and statistical analyses of thousands of stone tools,
bone artifacts, and ceramic vessels provide important insights into the
degree of standardization, the steps in production, and the probable
degree of specialization (e.g. Clark 1997b; Clark and Bryant 1997; P.
Rice 1981, 1987a, 1987b, 1990, 1991; Foias and Bishop 1997; Sheets
1975; Hester and Shafer 1984; Hester and Hammond eds. 1976; Shafer
1979, 1982, 1983; Shafer and Hester 1983, 1986; Kovacevich et al.
2001, 2002). Finally, much of the best information on ceramic and lithic
production and exchange systems comes from trace-element analyses
such as neutron activation or X-ray fluorescence. These techniques iden-
tify trace elements in clay used for ceramic production or in the stone
used for lithic tools. With comparative samples and statistical analyses,
the source of these raw materials can be identified and hypotheses can
be generated about the acquisition of raw materials, loci of production,
the number of workshops, and trade and distribution of finished stone
tools or pottery vessels (e.g. Bishop 1980; Bishop et al. 1986; Rands and
Bishop 1980; Fry 1979, 1980; Sidrys 1976, 1979; Sidrys and Kimberlain
1979; Hammond 1976).
A new and unexpected source of information on craft production
and specialization has come from recent discoveries and excavation of
rapidly abandoned sites Inomata and Webb 2003). At Joya de Ceren, El
Salvador, Payson Sheets and his team (Sheets 1992, 1994, 2000) have
uncovered a village community rapidly buried by a volcanic eruption
with in situ evidences of household and community behavior, includ-
ing craft production. Meanwhile, at Aguateca, Guatemala, the Vander-
bilt Petexbatun Project has discovered an elite epicenter quickly over-
run and burned by invading enemies (Inomata 1997, 2001). In both
cases evidence revealed that Classic Maya craft activities probably were
generally low volume and part-time, with only some production under
elite patronage. As study of this new evidence continues (Sheets 2000;
Inomata 2001), it should elucidate further the complex nature of Classic
Maya craft specialization.
 Classic Maya economics 165

General household production

As among the Maya today, most utilitarian tools and items for daily use
were produced at the level of the family or extended family. Cooperative
labor of the men of these Maya household groups, which were generally
patrilocal, was used to construct the low mud and stone house platforms,
raise the wood and mud hut walls, and construct the thatch roofs. Simple
utilitarian ceramics, the family’s clothing and textiles, and simple wooden
and stone tools all may have been produced in the plaza groups formed by
the women and men of families or extended families. If modern ethnog-
raphy and Colonial ethnohistory can be hypothesized to reflect ancient
patterns, textile production and food processing were principally carried
out by women, construction, hunting, and woodwork by men, and the
fashioning of pottery, farming, and gardening were carried out by all
adult and adolescent family members. Together, these activities filled the
days of Maya families — a daily round interrupted by participation in peri-
odic rituals in the center, occasional tribute to the elite as architectural
laborers, or roles as warriors in inter-center conflicts.

Family and hamlet specialization

Such a pattern of household self-sufficiency probably changed for most

households by the end of the Preclassic period. As a natural aspect of the
evolution of social complexity, some households would begin to overpro-
duce certain products or crafts and then trade these goods through gift
exchange, barter, or local markets (e.g. P. Rice 1981, 1987a, 1987b, 1991;
Brumfiel and Earle eds. 1987; Costin 1991; Arnold 1978, 1985; Sheets
2000). Individuals gifted in specific skills often begin family traditions
of part-time specialization in particular crafts. In other cases, families or
hamlets near particular resources such as fine clays or chert deposits
might have become involved in part-time extraction and processing of
such resources. Family groups, hamlets, or whole communities may have
taken up part-time specialization in craft production because their local
soils were poor and they need to supplement their subsistence through
production, barter, and/or trade (e.g. Sullivan 2002). In the Maya case,
as epicenters developed with growing elites, the possibilities for craft
production increased to meet greater demands of the elite for artifacts,
textiles, and specialized products.
Through this wide variety of mechanisms, family and extended family
part-time specialization was well developed by the Classic period — prob-
ably even centuries earlier. Archaeologists working in all parts of the
Maya lowlands have uncovered household groups involved in production
166 Ancient Maya

of certain ceramic types, stone or bone tools, woodworking, textiles,

or masonry (Abrams 1987; Aldenderfer 1991; Aldenderfer et al. 1989;
Andrews IV et al. 1975; Aoyama 1994, 1996, 2001; Becker 1973a, 1973b;
Haviland 1974; Mallory 1984; Moholy-Nagy 1997). Redundant storage
of pottery or artifacts of a single type, the presence of special processing
tools, debris or waste from lithic or ceramic production, microwear anal-
ysis of stone tools, and other archaeological clues identify such part-time
craft groups (e.g. Aoyama 1996, 1999, 2001; Benco 1988; Moholy-Nagy
1990; P. Rice 1991; Brumfiel and Earle eds. 1987; Sheets 2000; Inomata
2001; Wood and Titmus 1996). By the Classic period many Maya fami-
lies may have supplemented their subsistence base through trade in such
crafts, or they may have provided these products as tribute to local elites
(who in turn may have paid tribute to the kingdom’s rulers).
Archaeologically invisible part-time specialization was probably also
under way in the subsistence economy. Specialization in overproduction
and trade of certain foodstuffs might have been undertaken by families
with access to specific soil types, to cooperatively constructed terraces
or gardens, or to nearby bajos for raised fields or dry season agricul-
ture. Specialized agricultural goods such as cacao and cotton were prob-
ably normally produced through part-time specialization at the family or
hamlet level. Families near good fishing holes, lagoons, or rivers, or near
rich hunting grounds in the rain forest, could take up part-time special-
ization in fishing or hunting, as occurs today. Some of these families then
also might have processed hides or made bone tools and ornaments (e.g.
Emery 1997, in press).

Community specialization

Some entire communities near valuable resources, such as chert, salt,

or coastal lagoons and reefs rich in shell or coral, specialized in the
trade and partial processing of those raw materials from Preclassic times
on. The site of Colha in Belize was located near extremely fine flint or
chert deposits. That community quarried and worked the source, trad-
ing Colha chert throughout the lowlands (e.g. Hester ed. 1979; Hester
et al. eds. 1980, 1981; Hester and Hammond 1976; Hester and Shafer
1984; Shafer and Hester 1983, 1986). In northern Yucatan, the coastal
Preclassic center of Komchen specialized in trade in salt to inland centers.
Despite an agriculturally impoverished environment, Komchen managed
to support a large population through such exchange systems (Andrews V
et al. 1984; Ringle and Andrews 1988, 1990).
Other communities probably shifted more gradually to part-time
specialization as Maya society evolved (e.g. Sullivan 2002). Statistical
 Classic Maya economics 167

‘studies of vessel form, decoration, and pastes in the regions of Tikal,

Seibal, and the Petexbatun have indicated that communities may have
specialized in the production of certain vessel types which were exchanged
within local and regional markets (Fry 1979, 1980; Fry and Cox 1974;
Foias et al. 1996). Note that as community specialization develops, it
would encourage part-time specialization by other communities and
family hamlets desiring the superior crafts produced by specialists and,
thus, needing themselves to overproduce crafts or subsistence goods for
exchange.

“Attached” specialists

A large sector of the economy was dedicated to meeting the demands

of rulers, their families, and courts for elaborate artifacts, fine textiles,
painted ceramic vessels, stone and wood carving, and fine masonry archi-
tecture — as well as their demand for a superior diet (Wright 1997).
Much of this demand was met by tribute in food, products, or labor
by surrounding populations and subordinate centers. But some of this
elite demand was for artifacts, artwork, and sculptures that could only be
produced by highly trained full-time specialists. Archaeologists have exca-
vated architectural complexes in, or near, epicenters that were the resi-
dences and production centers of specialists (Fig. 7.6) including artists,
shell and bone carvers, sculptors, and scribes (Inomata 1995, 1997;
Webster 1989). The high status of such specialists was reflected in their
residences, artifacts, diet, and even some signed works of art (Stuart
1989; Schele and Miller 1986: Ch. 6). These and other evidences show
that some scribes, sculptors, and artists were even themselves relatives of
the ruler, if not members of the royal family (Stuart 1989). These scribes
and artists were sometimes portrayed in the polychrome vases of the Late
Classic period (e.g. M. Coe 1973; Kerr 1989, 1990, 1992; Kerr and Kerr
1988; Reents-Budet 1994).
Recent studies of im situ evidence from rapidly abandoned households
(Sheets 2000; Inomata and Triadan 2000; Inomata 2001) indicate that
even artisans of elite goods may have been only part-time specialists. They
also might have produced goods for their own use and for exchange or
trade with others. That is, they may not have been exclusively “attached”
to their ruler or noble patrons. As with other aspects of Classic Maya
economics, production and exchange systems were less sharply defined
than in some of the later full market economies of Central Mexico and the
Postclassic Maya centers (e.g. Brumfiel 1987, 1998; Berdan 1980, 1986,
1993). Furthermore, more sophisticated perspectives on art, style, and
crafting (e.g. Bourdieu 1977, 1984) have begun to be applied in Maya
 (e1ewIOUy TysayxeL,
og 9°L eInSty
Aq poyerp) epeuroiendy ‘usted “eoolensy Jo sus 9Y] 1B JOUapIAS uononpoid yeso jo Sumoyd-3ul
smog
4,
awoiyohjod

pasojo
SajyOg siNjelUl = simoqguedouigns

efeury ulqns
s|moq
Aeaky uly

o1quied s1ayoild
4

seseA Saleid
o)8 ‘pesiou! peweuun
4
owayuy

7%
L =| =§
dnoi6

sief
suet

o>
efeury
dnoib

suef
&
¥

:
sedA/sdnoiy sjasse, BulAies sjesse, Buiyood pue ebel0j1s
pec e errr TC TC it i ie te hy
BGO ‘
: y*
MA DY YT EE DOD le ET ER DR DH
sjassaA,SIWe.1aZ) JO UONNGLNSIC :O1-SIN US
 Classic Maya economics 169

“archaeology to elucidate the more complex nature of the sophisticated

implications of crafting, aesthetics, and possession of objects, art, and
status. The knowledge involved in crafting high-status objects (some of
which bore glyphic texts) was itself a status-enhancing form of “cultural
capital” which allowed artisans a variable degree of autonomy and control
over their products and an elevated social position in Classic-period soci-
ety (e.g. Inomata 2001; Bourdieu 1977; Reents-Budet 1998).
_ The complexity of Maya economics and the “negotiated” position
of specialists has also been demonstrated by recent studies of jade,
pyrite, and obsidian workshops at the trade and manufacturing center
of Cancuen (Demarest and Barrientos 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). There
royal power was largely based upon control of exotic highland raw materi-
als and production of items for elite and royal use, including jade plaques,
earspools, and other jewelry, and pyrite mirrors. Yet even though jade
production appears to have been tightly state controlled, even non-elite
part-time jade workers used their position to produce other crafts and
utilize byproducts of jade production (Kovacevich et al. 2001, 2002).
Thus, the notions of attached and independent part-time specialization
overlapped in complex ways, reflecting the mix of market, redistributive,
and elite exchange systems in Classic Maya society.
Another group of specialists was involved in the palace-controlled econ-
omy in fine painted polychrome ceramics. These vases were a major
element in inter-center contacts and exchanges and functioned as gifts,
tribute, and burial offerings given to other rulers. Fine polychrome ceram-
ics were also the serving vessels at feasts and ritual meals held by rulers
(Fig. 7.7). Such events helped form and maintain alliances between differ-
ent rulers and the patronage networks between these rulers and their
local subordinates. The production and exchange of fine polychromes —
and probably other less easily traced luxury goods — constituted a separate
component of the Maya economy. Studies of paste and the production
of fine polychromes have identified palace-controlled workshops at Maya
sites (Ball 1993; Bishop 1980, 1994; Reents-Budet 1985, 1987, 1998;
Reents-Budet and Bishop 1985, 1987; Reents-Budet ez al. 1994). These
artisans produced particular styles of serving vessels and vases identi-
fiable as the gifts or tribute of that particular center by their distinc-
tive pastes, slips, painting colors, and designs. Trace-element analyses
of these vessels (e.g. Bishop 1980, 1994) allow us to plot the inter-
actions and exchanges between elites of distant centers. The painted
scenes on the vessels and the hieroglyphic inscriptions that accom-
pany them are a major source of information on the lives of the ruling
classes, their courts, alliances, and patronage networks (e.g. Schele and
Mathews 1991; Schele and Miller 1986: Ch. 6; Stuart 1989, 1995:
 93’ WOTZ SUIS LL inst
(uIn’T “7 sin'y Aq UMBIP) S[aSS9A BUTAIOS YIM So'yo SuLmoys ase suoIYyoATO otsse[D
I) oe ee
ENGeC
 Classic Maya economics Al

Ch. 6; Kerr 1989, 1990, 1992; Kerr and Kerr 1988; Reents-Budet and
Bishop 1985). They are also a major source of information on Maya
myths, religion, and cosmology (e.g. Schele and Miller 1986: Ch. 7;
Reents-Budet 1994; M. Coe 1973, 1977, 1978, 1982). Such fine painted
ceramics and other art were also a common element of tribute and
often are found in the tombs and caches of dominant victorious centers
(e.g. Miller 1993; Reents-Budet and Bishop 1985; Stuart 1995: Ch. 6;
Demarest, Escobedo et al. 1991).

Changing patterns of specialization and standardization

From the Preclassic to the end of the Classic period, Maya economies
underwent considerable change. There may have been increasing special-
ization at the family and community level and a notable increase in
attached specialists working for the growing number of elites. Such
changes led to more regionally distinctive styles in most types of arti-
facts by the Late Classic period (P. Rice 1981, 1987a, 1991; Ball 1993;
Bishop 1994; McAnany and Issac eds. 1989; McAnany 1993; A. Chase
1992). Specialization also results in an increased standardization of prod-
ucts from any given workshop and such distinctive diagnostic regional
characteristics are observed in the ceramics and lithics from Late Classic
contexts (Foias and Bishop 1997).
In turn, specialization of families and of communities — and especially
partially or fully “attached” specialists working for rulers or for lesser
elites — affected wealth differences, social mobility, and class structure.
The success and wealth of specialized families and the high status of
attached (or “partially attached’’) specialists in the Classic period began
to blur distinctions between the elites and commoners (McAnany 1993;
A. Chase 1992). As social mobility and specialization created “middle
classes” from below, elite polygamy and the proliferation of the ruling
classes also created them from above: relatives of the ruler, excluded
from key rulership positions, would increasingly take up occupations as
scribes and artisans. All of these processes are observed in the archaeolog-
ical record of the Late Classic. Status-marking artifacts, architecture, and
sculpture were distributed across multiple levels with a gradual, unbroken
curve of measurable levels of status and wealth from the semi-divine ruler
to his relatives, more distant relatives, attached specialists, wealthy fami-
lies, merchants, and so on, down to the humblest families (A. Chase 1992;
Chase and Chase 1992; McAnany 1993; Palka 1995, 1997; Kovacevich
et ali 2001,.2002),,
72 Ancient Maya

Warfare and tribute

Another changing aspect of the Maya economy regards tribute from

subordinate centers conquered in warfare or affiliated to major centers by
alliance or voluntary association. At the elite level, we are able to identify
such tribute in fine ceramics, exotic goods, and artifacts with the help of
hieroglyphic inscriptions, as well as style and compositional sourcing of
artifacts (e.g. Miller 1993; Reents-Budet and Bishop 1985; Demarest,
Escobedo et al. 1991). Yet there are some indications in Classic Maya
inscriptions (Stuart 1995: Ch. 8) that warfare tribute was more exten-
sive, involving textiles, perishable artifacts, and possibly those commodi-
ties that could be easily shipped, such as woodwork, cacao beans, salt, and
pelts. As warfare increased in frequency and intensity during the Clas-
sic period (see Chapter 9), the role of such tribute would have gained
importance in regional and interregional economies (e.g. McAnany et al.
2002).
At the local level, Maya farmers, craftspeople, and local leaders paid
tribute to the ruling elites in subsistence support, corvee labor, crafts,
and raw materials to their ruler’s extended families, courts, and attached
specialists. These courts monopolized (via sumptuary laws) various prod-
ucts and benefited from a higher portion of meat and protein in their diets
(e.g. Wright 1994). Indeed, through strontium analyses of bone, archae-
ologists have been able to identify specific “palace diets” characteristic
of the members of the court and their attached specialists and retainers
(D. Chase ez al. 1998; A. Chase and D. Chase 2001).
Archaeologists are still unable to specify in most cases what the non-
elites obtained in return for such tribute. In some cases warfare and
coercion may have been the motive for tithing, but this appears to have
been a secondary consideration at best. The question of elite reciprocal
contribution to the general population for tribute and labor leads us to
the broader, more difficult question of the role of rulers and elites in the
Maya economy.

Maya economics and the state

As with subsistence, the question of the role of the state in trade and
economic systems is a very controversial issue. Scholars disagree about
the “true” nature of Maya economic systems precisely because those
systems were complex and varied regionally and over time. As we have
seen, arguments that the Maya rulers and elites emerged due to their role
as “middle men” in long-distance or regional trade are not convincing,
given the nature of resources and products involved in such exchange
 Classic Maya economics 7B}

-systems. There is also little direct evidence of state involvement in most

such exchanges.
As with subsistence systems, however, there are notable exceptions,
particularly in the Late Classic period. The rise of some enormous
centers with interregional hegemonies, such as Calakmul and Tikal, may
have necessitated centralized management of regional economics. These
efforts seem to have failed, however, as these larger, more unitary polit-
ical and economic formations disintegrated during Late Classic times
(for further debate of these issues see Fox et al. 1996; A. Chase and D.
Chase 1996b; Demarest 1996b; Sanders and Webster 1988; D. Chase
et al. 1990). Further evidence of Classic Maya economic variability, local
complexity, and nonelite control of some aspects of production has been
seen in workshop and household findings from unusual centers, such as
Colha, Belize, near the finest chert sources (Hester and Shafer 1994;
Shafer and Hester 1983) and Cancuen, Guatemala, which controlled
highland—lowland exchange on the Pasién River trade route (Demarest
and Barrientos 2000, 2002; Kovacevich et al. 2001, 2002).
There is no doubt, however, that Maya rulers and their courts
controlled long-distance and regional exchange of many luxury goods.
We should not underestimate the importance of elite control of produc-
tion and distribution of items such as fine ceramics, jade, shell, quetzal
feathers, and the like. Such items were powerful symbols of authority
and were critical to the central role of rulers in the great ceremonies of
the Classic Maya theater-states. Perhaps it was for this reason that many
royal centers arose along long-distance trade routes and, as we shall see,
rulers in the Late Classic period battled each other in warfare over access
to such exotic goods through trade and tribute.
Despite the speculative conclusions presented here in Chapters 6 and 7,
we must admit that we still cannot describe with confidence the economic
roles of rulers in the ancient Maya state. In anthropological terms, we
cannot specify the relationship between the institutional structure and the
economic and subsistence infrastructure of Maya states. Were Maya kings
substantially involved as managers of their complex rain forest subsistence
systems? Were they part-time middlemen in trade and exchange? Were
they principally warlords obtaining tribute resources for themselves and
their polities? Or were they simply, in Marxist terms, a “parasitic elite”
whose rituals, wars, and great constructions served only to legitimate
their own needs?
The honest answer to these questions is that we simply do not know. At
present it would appear that most Maya kings were only weakly involved
in core economic activities (with some notable exceptions). It is clear that
Maya kings were centrally involved in Maya ritual, religion, and warfare
174 Ancient Maya

(see Chapters 8 and 9). Still, we cannot yet with any degree of certainty
answer the basic question of the other economic or managerial activities
of Maya rulers.
This embarrassing situation for Mayanists as social scientists arises for
a number of reasons. The elaborate and beautiful nature of Maya art,
architecture, writing, religion, and cosmology has seduced scholars for
the past two centuries, leading to the neglect of some basic questions
until the last thirty years (Sabloff 1990). In their art and inscriptions,
the ancient Maya emphasized the role of rulérs in religion, ritual, and
dynastic politics — the roles of the K’uhul Ajaw or “holy lords” that they
themselves may have considered most crucial for their claims to power.
The great multidisciplinary archaeological projects of the last few decades
have begun to correct the economic lacunae in our understandings of
Classic Maya society. We have a better grasp of the complexities of ancient
Maya economy and subsistence, and, hopefully, soon we will be better
able to link those systems to the elite and to the role of rulers.
8 Religion and ideology: beliefs and rituals of
the theater-states

The religions, politics, and worldviews of other cultures are difficult for
historians and anthropologists to analyze either in terms of their nature
or their role in relation to other institutions. That is because they move
us away from the common ground of humanity in the areas of biological
needs and into the realm of thought, cultural values, and philosophy.
The latter respond to psychological and emotional needs which are still
poorly understood for even our own Western culture. In many cases,
archaeologists’ responses to the data on pre-Columbian ideology tell us
more about the scholars themselves and their own cultural values than
about the ancient societies under study.
In the case of the Maya, we have seen extreme positions on issues
of high culture. Cultural materialist scholars and ecologically oriented
archaeologists have criticized Maya studies for its obsession with religion,
kings, tombs, and art, and its insufficient treatment of basic questions of
economics, ecology, and infrastructure (Marcus 1983a; Webster 1993;
Sabloff 1990; Marcus 1995; Sanders and Webster 1988; Fowler 1997).
These criticisms are largely justified, even after efforts at remediation of
these problems in the last three decades (e.g. Sabloff 1990). As discussed
in Chapter 3, mid-nineteenth-century to early twentieth-century archae-
ology was carried out by gentleman scholars from England and the
North American Ivy League. Their “readings” of the pre-Columbian
past projected their perspectives (albeit unconsciously), seeing the Maya
priest-kings as a scholarly elite, and the Classic Maya themselves as supe-
rior to their “less literate” neighbors in Mexico and Central America (e.g.
Thompson 1966). Such problems are not unique to the Maya field, but
are part of the more general subjectivity that is inevitable in the process
of interpreting the partial remains of an ancient and very different culture
(cf. Hodder 1985, 1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987, 1988).
While recent breakthroughs in hieroglyphic decipherments have led
to some new insights on Maya politics, and even some on economics,
they have also led archaeologists back to the Mayanist obsession with
elite culture, religion, and history. Disproportionate study is again being

175
176 Ancient Maya

devoted to the elite aspects of culture. Remarkably, for the ancient Maya
we can now be more certain about aspects of their religion and world-
view, as expressed through ritual, than about their economic activities and
structure, the reverse of the state of knowledge on most truly prehistoric
societies.
It is with an awareness of these issues that this chapter explores ancient
Maya worldview, religion, and ritual. We cannot dismiss as “epiphenom-
enal” or irrelevant the vast Maya expenditure of resources and energy on
their rites, temples, and tombs. At the same time, we should not allow
ourselves to be entranced by the spectacle of ancient Maya elite culture
and forget the fundamental question of the relationship between Classic
Maya art and ideology and the economic and political systems with which
they were integrated.

Ancestor worship

At the core of Maya religion was a general worldview that stressed ances-
tor worship, the veneration of deceased ancestors and the propitiation of
them as mediators between the forces of the supernatural and their living
descendants. Many aspects of Maya high ceremonialism, such as the cults
of deified former rulers, were aggrandized forms of this more general
ancestor worship. Archaeologists have only recently begun to emphasize
the cults of the ancestors at the level of the common Maya families of
the Classic and Preclassic periods (McAnany 1995). As Maya family
groups were probably patrilineal and often patrilocal, the veneration of a
prominent deceased male was often emphasized, sometimes with a small
shrine within the household plaza group (Fig. 8.1). Yet all ancestors were
nearby, generally buried beneath the floors of the family houses with a
few offerings reflecting the status and wealth of the group (Fig. 8.2).
Rituals, prayers, and blood from self-laceration or “autosacrifice” were
offered up to these ancestors by heads of households in their plaza group
shrines (Tozzer 1941: 113-121; Schele and Freidel 1990; Freidel er ai.
1993: 204-207, 445-447).
In many ways, the great stone temples of the Maya centers with splen-
did royal tombs within them were merely aggrandized versions of the
household shrines. The great pageants of the ceremonial centers venerat-
ing the dead kings were simply ancestor worship writ large, the celebration
of the dead kings as ancestors of the ruling lineage and as a collec-
tive ancestor of the entire community. Presiding over these great cere-
monies was the king of that dynasty, just as family patriarchs directed the
humble rites at the small shrines and simple burials of household groups
(McAnany 1995). Similarly, the rituals of royal bloodletting atop the
 Religion and ideology eT

‘I ili)

Figure 8.1 “Plaza Plan 2” residential group from Punta de Chimino

with east side household shrine (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

great temples of the Maya acropoli were like the household bloodlettings
offered by shamans and the patriarchs of Maya families. The difference
in scale and investment between family and royal ancestor worship was
very great, but with an essential unity of beliefs and rituals at all levels of
Maya society (Demarest 1992b; McAnany 1995; Freidel ez al. 1993).

Gods and the cosmos

In addition to the ever-present ancestors, the ancient Maya world was

defined by a great number of supernatural deities, entities, and sacred
forces. Indeed, the Maya concept of the sacred was so all-encompassing
that it is somewhat misleading to describe distinct deities with specific
referents and functions. The Maya deified numbers, periods in the various
calendars, geographical features, their deceased ancestors, and rulers, in
addition to the specific “deities” identified by the Spanish chroniclers.
The Maya sacralized their universe, which they conceptualized in specific
structural terms tied to the calendar, astronomy, and physical models of
178 Ancient Maya

Figure 8.2 Burial with modest grave goods, from Cancuen

 Religion and ideology 179

-the cosmos. The gods were nodes in this cosmic map, and their character,
associations, malevolence or benevolence, changed according to the days
in the Maya calendar or the positions of the sun, moon, Venus, and the
stars in the heavens. For this very reason, the shaman, priest, and early
priest-ruler, using their codices and their astrological knowledge, guided
the people through the tricky cosmic and calendric map. They advised
on which supernaturals to propitiate, how, and when.
' Gods had multiple aspects associated with the four different color-
directions (red/east, black/west, white/north, and yellow/south). They
also had dualistic natures associating them with day or night, life or death.
The conceptual cosmogram determined the nature and aspect of the
deity and only through careful study of their astronomical knowledge and
calendrics could priests and rulers direct the appropriate rites needed to
insure the well-being of the crops and the health and future of individuals,
families, the collective communities and the city-state. This manifold and
shifting nature of deities and supernaturals was common in the religions of
most pre-Columbian civilizations, most of which also sacralized, anthro-
pomorphized, and deified segments of a dynamic cosmogram and the
astral cycle (Leon-Portilla 1963, 1968; Marcus 1978, 1989; Nicholson
1971). Yet to Westerners, such as the sixteenth-century Spanish clerics,
this religious system was utterly confusing and frequently misinterpreted.
At that time Greco-Roman “paganism” was their only direct model for
polytheistic, non-Christian religion in a high civilization. Only in the past
few decades have scholars come to understand the manifold nature of
Pre-Columbian deities and the inseparability of these gods from sacred
time, calendrics, and astronomy — the parameters of their cosmology (see
especially Demarest 1981; Leon-Portilla 1973).
The Maya cosmogram was highly structured, with thirteen levels of the
heavens and nine of the underworld, each personified in a deity and each
forming a plane (Fig. 8.3). Between the upperworlds of the heavens and
the underworlds of the night and death was the earthly plane of our own
existence, sometimes conceptualized as a two-headed caiman or turtle
lying in a great lake. Each plane in turn had its four color-directions:
again, red/east, black/west, white/north, and yellow/south. Many of the
major deities such as Itzamnaaj, their greatest god, and the Chaaks, the
rain deities, had distinct aspects, each associated with one of the color-
directions. Each deity, such as the red Chaak ofthe east, had its particular
associations and portents according to days in the various calendars and
the positions ofthe celestial bodies (J.E.S. Thompson 1970; Taube 1992).
The great Itzamnaaj was simultaneously a creator deity, a sun god, and
an embodiment of the Maya cosmogram itself. One of his aspects was
 A EAgh
BCH:

Figure 8.3 Schematic representation of one Classic Maya conception

of the cosmos, showing world tree (axis mund1) (drawn by Luis F. Luin)
 Religion and ideology 181

Figure 8.4 Some glyphs for Maya deities and sacralized units of time
(drawn by Luis F. Luin and Sarah Jackson):
a) K’inich Ajaw, “sun-faced lord”
b) Night Jaguar, sun of the night
c) a Pawahtun
d) a Chaak
e) Bak’tun
f) K’atun

Kinich Ajaw, the sun of the day (Fig. 8.4a). Maya rulers, in their role
as shaman-kings, often associated themselves with K’inich Ajaw in their
iconography. In his underworld form, Itzamnaaj became the Night Jaguar,
the sun as it traveled below through the night (Fig. 4b). In general, the
movement of the sun across the sky and its shifting course in relation to
the earth over the year appear to have been critical factors in defining the
Maya structural concepts of the universe (e.g. Freidel and Schele 1988a,
1988b; Schele and Freidel 1990: 64-95).
The importance of the daily, seasonal, and annual movements of the
sun, moon, and Venus was incorporated into many Maya myths, as well as
in the calendar and rituals. The Popol Vuh, the most widespread of Maya
creation tales, tells of the struggle of two hero twins, Hunahpu and Xbal-
anque, against the Lords of Night and the power of the underworld (D.
Tedlock 1985). The twins descend into the underworld, perish, and are
miraculously reborn. Like the Gilgamesh epic of Mesopotamia and the
Persephone and Orpheus tales of the ancient Greeks, the Popol Vuh
highlights the central human concern with death and mortality and also
182 Ancient Maya

SETTING SUN RISING SUN

Figure 8.5 Cosmogram of Preclassic temple at Cerros, Belize

(redrawn by Luis F. Luin from Freidel and Schele 1986: Fig. II.1, 108)

provides a metaphor for the agricultural cycle and the annual rebirth of
the crops. Yet in the case of the Popol Vuh, the Hero Twins also clearly
represent the sun and Venus, who daily appear in the sky, disappear in the
full night, and reappear in the morning. The mythical journey through
the underworld, the battle with the forces of death and darkness, and the
eventual rebirth of the twins parallels the daily journey of the sun and
Venus (as the evening star) through the underworld and their rebirth the
following day as the morning sun and the morning star (Fig. 8.5). It is
notable that, in addition to the more powerful astronomical and astrolog-
ical associations, the Maya origin myth also uses blood symbolism and
human sacrifice as the mechanisms for both death and rebirth.
Other Maya deities had their positions in the cosmogram, including
the moon goddess in the heavens, Ix-Chel, and the Nine Lords of the
Night on each plane of the underworld, Xibalba. The Pawahtuns, in
their four aspects (e.g. Fig. 8.4c), supported the four corners of our
earthly plane of existence. The Bakabs, who supported the heavens, each
ruling over segments of the 260-day sacred cycle (see below), had four
major forms associated with each color-direction, as well as dozens of
other poorly understood manifestations. Similarly, the very important
deities, the Chaaks (Fig. 8.4d), had four major forms associated with the
 Religion and ideology 183

‘directions and also had other manifestations. These gods, dating back to
at least Olmec times, controlled lightning, thunder, and the rains — the
latter, of course, of paramount importance to the average Maya farmer.
Periods of time such as the (approximately) 20-year K’atuns were sacral-
ized (Fig. 8.4f), as were the numbers ofthe calendar from one to thirteen,
the months, and other calendric markers such as the periods of the Long
Count (Fig. 8.4e). Special referent deities also included the maize god,
Yum Kaax, the death god, Yum Cimil, gods of creation and bloodletting
such as the “Paddler Gods,” and supernaturals associated with myths of
creation, the north star, Orion, and the Milky Way (Taube 1992; Freidel
et al. 1993: 59-116).
The position of the elites and the rulers in this cosmic panorama was
central (Fig. 8.5), as manifest in architecture, iconography, and hiero-
glyphs from the earliest periods on (Clark et al. n.d.; Freidel 1981; Freidel
and Schele 1988a; M. Coe 1981). The dazzling beauty of Maya ideol-
ogy and the architecture, monuments, and pageants that accompanied it
were centered on the cult of the K’uhul Ajaw, the holy lords of the Maya
kingdoms (Freidel 1992). The rulers and rulership were associated with
a series of deities, including aspects of gods labeled “God K” and “God
L” by iconographers and epigraphers. Even the earliest iconography and
architecture of the Maya ceremonial complexes placed the ruler in the
central role as the axis of the universe, the connection between the earthly
plane and the celestial levels and deities, as well as the underworld, its
patrons, and the ancestors (Freidel and Schele 1988a, 1988b). Through
public rituals of autosacrifice or genital bloodletting, other forms of sacri-
fices, and visions, the ruler was simultaneously made the intercessor for
the people with the supernatural forces and an embodiment of the gods
themselves (e.g. Schele and Miller 1986: 175-196, 301-312; Freidel
1992). In this role the ruler was essentially a religious specialist, or
“shaman,” drawing upon ancient principles and rites. Indeed, the ruler’s
shamanistic role is so clearly indicated in early iconography that many
scholars believe that rulership itself developed from shamanism in the
Maya world (e.g. Freidel et al. 1993; Lucero 2003; cf. Demarest 2002).

Shamanism

From the Preclassic period on, and back to the period of the Olmec soci-
eties and earlier, there is ample evidence of shamanism in Mesoameri-
can cultures (Blake 1991; Clark 1994; Clark and Blake 1989; Demarest
2001, 2002). Shamans are religious specialists believed to have special
powers and knowledge to help other members of the community deal
with supernatural forces. Shamans help others communicate with deities
184 Ancient Maya

or ancestors, heal illnesses, and predict future events through divination.

Shamans exist in most cultures, although as social complexity develops
to the level of statehood, they are often replaced by more formal religious
institutions with dogma, priests, and hierarchical structures that parallel
(and often reinforce) state institutions. One fascinating aspect of Maya
civilization is that, as with ancestor worship, many of the characteristics
of shamanistic practice were retained in the ideology and rituals of the
advanced states of the Classic period. Indeed, many of these practices
have continued since the Spanish Conquest and have evolved along with
Maya culture and resistance into the practices of shamans today through-
out Mexico and Guatemala.
Aspects of ancient Maya shamanism have been revealed by the inscrip-
tions, iconography, and art of the ancient Maya interpreted with the aid
of Conquest-period and Colonial ethnohistory and the study of contem-
porary Maya shamans (see bibliographic essay). As shamans, Maya rulers
and the priests under their authority were associated with especially
powerful animal alter egos or way, a coessence that would allow rulers
or priests insights into the animal and supernatural worlds (Houston and
Stuart 1989). Representations in Classic Maya monumental art often
display this alter ego, sometimes a jaguar, in association with the ruler
(Fig. 8.6).
Also, like modern shamans, rulers would use trance states — induced
by fasting, ritual bleeding, and, sometimes, alcohol or hallucinogens — to
communicate with the supernatural for divination and prophecy (see
bibliographic essay). Representations in ceramic art show rulers and
priests in their shamanistic role in trance states dancing, smoking power-
ful tobacco mixtures, having visions, or communicating with gods or
ancestors.

Royal bloodletting

A more central and public role of rulers as shamans-in-chief was repre-

sented in monumental sculpture and architectural facades. There, rulers
are portrayed during genital bloodlettings dripping their royal blood into
bowls (Fig. 8.7). The paper soaked in their sacred royal blood was then
burned, and in the smoke a “vision serpent” would sometimes appear
to the entranced king, queen, or priests (Schele and Miller 1986: Ch. 4;
Stuart 1984, 1988). Ancestors and deities associated with divination and
ancestor worship would sometimes appear in the shamanistic vision of
the celebrant (Fig. 8.8), presumably communicating sacred knowledge,
especially about future events and portents (Stuart 1988; Schele 1985,
1987; Freidel and Schele 1988a, 1988b; Freidel er al. 1993).
 Religion and ideology 185

1]

ie
aA

‘y

i
I i.

NER caTees
HA aD)
i | NSS
Mi
by
IS
Oy
2
; (2
= Slee

SEI GIN

Figure 8.6 Drawing of lintel from Temple 1 , likal, Guatemala. Note

great protector jaguar way above seated ruler
186 Ancient Maya

OE
THOR

(IE
~~
ieee

Figure 8.7 Ruler making a blood offering (Lintel 2 from La Pasadita)

(from Freidel and Schele 1986: Plate 76, 196, drawing by Linda
Schele)
Religion and ideology 187

Figure 8.8 Maya queen experiencing a vision (Lintel 25 from

Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico)
188 Ancient Maya

From a Western perspective, such shamanistic rituals of genital blood-

letting and visions may seem bizarre, especially as a central role for their
kings. Yet, in the pre-Columbian world, indeed worldwide, such rites
fit into a pattern frequently observed by anthropologists: the creation
of structurally parallel behaviors between the sexes (Bettelheim 1962).
For example, in the couvade observed in many societies, expectant
fathers suffer extreme pain and sickness paralleling their wives’ real labor
and childbirth. In a structurally similar form of “womb envy,” geni-
tal bloodletting rituals are found in many cultures among males, espe-
cially shamans. Maya queens gave birth to the princes, the future of
the dynasty, and queens figured prominently in Classic-period art and
inscribed parentage statements (e.g. Stuart 1995: Ch. 6). In concep-
tual womb envy and sexual parallelism, the Maya lords also “gave birth”
through genital bleeding, pain, and hallucinations. In the case of the kings,
the genital bleeding was from self-laceration, and the birth was not in the
form of flesh-and-blood princes but in the form of visions of ancestors,
gods, and the future through divination (Stuart 1984, 1988; Schele and
Miller 1986: Ch. 4). Indeed, to further complete the parallel, Maya kings
in some cases even dressed in female garments for such rites of royal
genital bloodletting (Fig. 8.9). Queens also figured prominently in repre-
sentations of bloodletting, assisting the kings, letting blood themselves
from cheeks and tongues, or having their own visions of prophesizing
deities or ancestors (Figs. 8.10, 8.8). These details confirm the sexual
parallelism of royal genital bloodletting, which was considered by the
ancient Maya to be among the king’s most sacred duties.
The importance of bloodletting is confirmed by. archaeological
evidence, as well as iconographic representations and carved texts.
Perhaps the principal instruments and symbols of royal power were not
the crown, sword, and scepter, as with European kings, but various types
of genital bloodletters. Stiletto-like, jade “penis perforators,” spiny pink
spondylus shells, sting-ray spines, and other tools for this purpose were
represented in artwork as the key instruments of the kings and are found
buried with their users in the royal tombs. Bowls for the burning of bark
paper, obsidian blades for laceration, and identified settings in temples
all confirm the evidence of Classic-period art and texts describing this
central shamanistic rite of the ancient Maya kings and queens (e.g. Schele
and Miller 1986: Ch. 4; Freidel and Schele 1988a, 1988b; Schele and
Freidel 1990: Ch. 2, 3).

Sacrifice

Shamanistic rituals, bloodletting, and visions were widespread in ancient

Maya society. Royal bloodlettings were celebrated by pronouncements
 Religion and ideology 189

Figure 8.9 Ruler Wataklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil (sometimes referred to

as “18 Rabbit”) after a blood autosacrifice (Stela H from Copan)

before thousands in the great plazas and were memorialized in stone

sculptures. Yet shamans and family elders also practiced bloodletting
at modest family shrines, houses, and in caves (McAnany 1995). Long
obsidian blades, spines, and worked shells used for that purpose are found
in household caches, on floors, and in caverns. Meanwhile, members of
elite families offered up their own blood and prayers before the stelae
and altars that celebrated their noble or royal ancestors. Major temples
and small palace shrines were also settings for autosacrifice and ancestor
worship by noble families.
190 Ancient Maya

Figure 8.10 Maya queen making an autosacrificial blood offering

(Lintel 24 from Yaxchilan)
 Religion and ideology 191

- Autosacrifice was not the only source of blood offered to the ancestors
and deities. Turkeys, macaws, and bats were offered up in rituals. While
mass human sacrifice on the scale of the sixteenth-century Aztecs was
not practiced, the Classic Maya did carry out regular rituals with human
offerings (Schele 1984). Human sacrifice, most often of war captives,
took many different forms. These were celebrated in carved stone monu-
ments, ceramic art, and in graffiti in temples and caves. Burials of sacri-
ficed captives and caches of decapitated heads confirm the practice of
such rituals from Preclassic times, yet such larger-scale sacrifice was not
common among the Classic Maya (e.g. Johnston et al. 1989; Demarest
1984a; Schele 1984). Captives, especially royalty, were stripped, bound,
and displayed in a humiliated state. Decapitation with large stone axes
was a common fate for captured kings.
Yet, on a far more regular basis, autosacrifice, incense, and prayers were
a part of daily life and personal ritual in the Classic period. Many offerings
were directed toward family ancestors who were close by, buried beneath
house floors and in shrines in household compounds. The blood offered
up was conceived of as a “holy essence,” ch ‘ulel, the sacred glue that bound
together the universe, connecting humankind to the ancestors and deities
(Stuart 1984, 1988, 1995). The various sacrificial rites and bloodletting
released this sacred substance, creating portals for communication to the
supernaturals, to the past, and to the future (e.g. Freidel et al. 1993: 201-
224). The role of the family leaders, shamans, priests, and rulers was to
guide these rituals of communication with the deities and ancestors —
usually offering their own blood, but sometimes utilizing the sacred
essence of sacrificed captives.

Divination

Much of Maya state art (Figs. 8.7 to 8.10) celebrates the autosacrifice
of the elites and their subsequent trances and visions. Archaeological
evidence and ethnographic descriptions (e.g. McAnany 1995; Tozzer
1941: 115-121) indicate that similar rituals at the household level allowed
families to propitiate, venerate, and even communicate with their own
ancestors (Freidel et al. 1993). One major function of such rituals was
that of prophecy or divination. Given the ancient Maya cyclical concept
of time, insights into the past and predictions of the future were virtually
synonymous.
Maya priests and shamans, and rulers in their priestly role, sought to
communicate with the supernatural world to seek the causes of illnesses or
natural disasters and to predict the future. Many aspects of ancient Maya
science, ritual, and religion — from bloodletting visions to meticulous
192 Ancient Maya

astronomy — were forms of divination. Shamans today use trance states

induced by fasting, chanting, and alcohol for divination. —
Ancient shamans, priests, and rulers induced their visions with the
aid of massive blood loss which naturally releases opiates in the brain.
They also smoked powerful tobacco mixtures or drew upon the rain
forest’s natural bounty of psychotropic substances. Hallucinogens made
from mushrooms were used, and perhaps extracts from morning-glories,
water lilies, or the glands of reptiles (Furst 1976a, 1976b, Furst and Coe
1977). Conquest-period descriptions of sixteenth-century Maya divina-
tion describe their use of the powerful mead fermented from honey and
the bark of the balche tree. The rain forest fruit trees provided another
source of alcoholic beverages for such rituals (Dahlin and Litzinger
1986).

Astronomy and astrology

From a Western perspective, it may be difficult to relate such shaman-

istic rites to the patient, meticulous observation and recording by Maya
scribes of astronomical data. But Maya celestial science also was a form
of divination — recording the movements of astral bodies to predict the
future, or in other words, astrology. Maya mathematics and astronomy
carefully recorded and documented units of cyclical time as measured
against the redundant and periodic movements of the sun, the moon,
Venus, and the stars. The Maya sciences of calendrics and astronomy did
not grow from an abstract desire to understand the cosmos nor, as has
sometimes been proposed, to study the seasons in order to plan crops.
Rather, like astrology everywhere, it developed as another tool of the
shamans to predict future events. The ancient Maya cyclical vision of
time necessarily implied that to understand the repeating cycles of time
was to know the future, as well as the past. To this end, shamans recorded
the periodic appearances, movements, and eclipses of the moon, the sun,
Venus, and the stars, refining timetables and calendars for all their move-
ments. These calendars could then be used to record the past in terms
of datings in the cycles of each celestial body. Such dated events would
also predict the future, since they would be expected to repeat, symboli-
cally and literally, when the same set of dates in various Maya calendric
cycles reoccurred years, decades, or centuries later. For this reason Maya
astronomy, calendrics, and mathematics must be viewed in terms of their
role in divination and prophecy.
In the sixteenth century, the Colonial priests and administrators
observed Maya shamans and priests using their folding books or codices
to make predictions based on the calendric cycles. While the Inquisition
 Religion and ideology 193

‘burned most of the Maya books and persecuted their users, three did
survive amongst the booty sent back to Europe. Centuries later archivists,
epigraphers, and archaeologists were able to decipher the calendric hiero-
glyphic inscriptions in the codices and carved stone monuments, reveal-
ing to us the complex and fascinating ancient Maya vision of time. The
cyclicity of time provided a close connection to the ancestors as it struc-
turally linked the present, past, and future. This cyclical structure also
facilitated decipherment, and as we saw in Chapter 3, Maya calendrics,
dates, and astronomy were among the first aspects of the inscriptions read
by scholars.
As with all peoples, the cosmic clocks that were used to measure and
record time were the appearances of the astral bodies in relation to the
earth. Maya recording and calculations of time used a modified form of
the base twenty (vigesimal) mathematical system with place notation and
the use of zero. Their meticulous observations of the movements of the
sun, moon, and stars — combined with their sophisticated mathematical
concepts — produced calendars, eclipse tables, and a level of astronomical
knowledge beyond that of their contemporaries in Europe. All of these
calculations, however, were made based on the periodicity of the appear-
ance of the astral bodies without any Western “scientific” concepts of the
structure of space, the planets, or the solar system. Nonetheless, the night
sky over the jungle, the shifting of the sun over the year, the phases of the
moon, the changing positions of the stars, and the frightening experience
of eclipses awed the Maya (as they have all peoples). The ever-changing,
yet predictable, movements of these sky gods became the domain of the
shamans, priests, and rulers, generating an impressive esoteric knowledge
and source of power through the understanding of time and beliefs about
prophecy.

The 365-day “Haab” and 260-day ritual cycle

Most of the annual round of rituals, celebrations, and sacrifices that filled
the days of the ancient Maya were based on two annual calendars. One
was the Haab or “vague solar year” of eighteen months (Winals) of twenty
days (K’ins) and a special, prophetically perilous closing month of five
days (Wayeb). This solar year of 365 (18 x 20 + 5) days varied, of course,
from the true solar year of 365.2422 days. We compensate for this in our
calendar by having a 366-day “leap year” every four years. The Maya,
however, had a variety of other calendric systems to give them more
accurate astronomical calculations. The Haab functioned to set dates for
ceremonies, make predictions for the populace, and guide the divinatory
rites of the shamans, priests, and rulers.
194 Ancient Maya

The Haab worked in combination with a ritual calendar of 260 days.

This sacred round was the most important religious calendar in the daily
life of the Maya. It continued in use, guided by the shamans, through
the Colonial period. In some areas of the highlands of Guatemala, the
sacred count is still used today (B. Tedlock 1992). This “almanac” was
defined by a continuous sequence of 260 days, named by assigning a
succession of numbers from one to thirteen to a second cycle of twenty
named days. The first numbered day was 8 Ahau, the second 9 Imix, and
so on (see left wheels in Fig. 8.11). Thirteen, a’sacred prime number, has
no common factor with twenty. Thus the sequence of numbers and days
would not repeat the same combination for 260 (13 x 20) days, returning
only then to 8 Ahau. Each of the days had specific spiritual significance
for types of divination. Shamans used the almanac to name each child
after its birth date, a name that would be laden with positive and negative
portents interpretable by the shaman or the priest. Mystical meanings,
myths, tales of the deities, and alleged past events gave each of the 260
days its prophetic power. When the same day repeated, the Maya vision
of cyclical time gave that numbered and named day historical and mythic
portents.
The 260-day sacred almanac can be traced to the Preclassic period. No
astronomical phenomenon can be associated with this calendar; rather,
some have speculated that it might have been an approximation of the
human gestation period. Rulers, nobles, and commoners alike consulted
with the shamans and priests who calculated the day in the sacred round
and then advised on its portent and the appropriate rituals needed to
propitiate deities and ancestors. Many of the Maya codices burned by
Bishop Landa and other inquisitors were divinatory guides based on
astronomical knowledge and calendars and the recorded portents of the
260-day calendar or the 365-day Haab— all condemned by the inquisitors
as “superstitions and falsehoods of the devil” (Hammond 1983: 6).

The Calendar Round

An important fifty-two-year cycle, known to scholars as the Calendar

Round, was formed by the reoccurrence only once every fifty-two years
of the same combination of a date in the 260-day ritual cycle with a
specific date in the 365-day Haab or vague solar year. Thus a date such
as “12 Ik 4 Wayeb” or “4 Manik 4 Pop” would only reoccur after the
passing of fifty-two of the 365-day Haab years. As described above (and
Fig. 8.11), the 260-day count and 365-day Haab were also generated by
their own meshed cycles of days. In Fig. 8.11 the Calendar Round date
would be “8 Ahau 13 Ceh,” and this paired date would only reoccur each
Religion and ideology 195

Haab

260-day Ritual Cycle

Figure 8.11 Schematic of the meshed “Calendar Round” cycles of the

260-day ritual almanac, or Tzo/kin, and the 365-day “vague solar year”
or Haab (drawn by Luis F. Luin, after Sharer 1994: Fig. 12.6). The
day is “8 Ahau” in the 260-day ritual cycle (left wheels) and “13 Ceh”
in the 365-day Haab or “vague solar year” (right wheel). Thus the
Calendar Round date would be “8 Ahau 13 Ceh,” a date which would
repeat only every 52 years
196 Ancient Maya

fifty-two years. Such a shortened cyclical count might be compared to

“Friday October 13” without specification of the year or century. These
Calendar Round dates were sometimes used as a shorthand dating in
monuments without specifying longer time cycles, sometimes leaving
great ambiguity in their interpretation.
Note that the Maya cyclical system of dating is no more exotic or
complex than our own calendar, which combines a rotating cycle of seven
days (most named for Norse gods) with twelve months (most named for
Roman gods and emperors) of twenty-eight to thirty-one days, which we
follow with a base ten “long count” (see below) of the years since a date
agreed upon by religious councils as the birthday of Jesus Christ.

The great cycles of time

Like our own calendars, Maya temporal cycles combined these various
cyclical counts of numbered and named days, months, and years. Also
like our own dates, the Maya marked time more deeply by recording a
continuous count of days from a fixed starting point. In the European
Gregorian calendar, this date is the official birth date of Jesus Christ.
For the Classic Maya, the date for the beginning of the present creation
corresponds to the 13th of August 3114 BC in the Gregorian calendar.
From that date, the Maya counted forward in units based on a modified
vigesimal (base 20) system and recorded their “Long Count” using their
advanced mathematical devices of place notation and the zero. This abso-
lute dating system was based on a count of days (Kins) within a count
of months (Winals) of twenty days each. A count of eighteen Winals
constituted the Tun of 360 days (18 x 20 = 360).
Twenty Tuns formed a K’atun (360 x 20 = 7200 days, or 19.7 of our
years), one of the most significant units of time in terms of prophecy.
K’atun endings were the most important events in stelae erection, temple
refacing, and celebration of elaborate divinatory rituals and public cere-
monies. At Tikal and other Central Petén sites, twin-temple complexes
were erected to celebrate and commemorate K’atun endings (Jones 1969;
Coggins 1979). At many Maya centers the impressive scale of monumen-
tal architecture was largely due to the accumulation over time of temples,
temple renovations, and expansion and monument erection at the end of
each K’atun.
Finally, the Bak’tun period counted cycles of 20 K’atuns (40 Tuns, i.e.
20 x 20 x 360 = 144,000 Kins or days, or 394.5 of our years) from the
start of the present era (again, this mythical date would be 13 August
3114 BC in the Gregorian calendar). Together, these units and their
name/deities were carved on monuments beneath the Long Count Initial
Religion and ideology 197

Initial Series
Introductory Glyph
2
SOS

9 Bak'tuns

10 Tuns

0 K'ins

Glyphs G9, F

Glyph 6C
6 Lunations completed

Glyph 10 A
A 30 day Lunation

Figure 8.12 Long Count date from Quirigua, Stela F (9 Bak’tuns,

16 K’atuns, 10 Tuns, 0 Winals, 0 K’ins, in Long Count system
9.16.10.0.0, i.e., Friday, March 17, AD 761 in our Gregorian
calendar) (redrawn by Luis F. Luin from Maudslay 1889, Vol. II:
Plate 40)
198 Ancient Maya

Series Glyph, which identifies the text as a date (Fig. 8.12). The Bak’tun
units of time were the largest unit commonly used in Maya calendrics,
although the Classic Maya conceptualized even greater cycles. Most of
Classic Maya history fell in the eighth and ninth Bak’tun periods (AD
41-830) with the tenth of these cycles of the Long Count falling in the
period near the end of the Classic era of Maya civilization (beginning
at AD 830). Indeed, one set of theories holds that the disintegration of
some kingdoms in the southern lowlands may have been accelerated by
anxiety or despair heightened by the psychological impact of the ending
of the ninth great Bak’tun (Puleston 1979).
Most Classic Maya pageants, rituals, bloodlettings, sacrifices, feasts,
and new monument and temple construction celebrated the initiation
and/or ending of the important periods in the Maya calendric cycles. The
endings and initiations of the twenty-Tun K’atun periods were perhaps
the most celebrated. Rituals of prophecy and monument dedication were
also celebrated in the Late Classic at many sites to celebrate half-K’atun
Lahuuntun periods (10 Tuns x 360 = 3600 Kins or days; 9.8 of our
years) and quarter K’atun Hotun periods (5 Tuns x 360 = 1800 days;
4.9 years). Common rituals at each of these period endings were pageants
centered around royal bloodletting or captive sacrifice. In some rites,
rulers ascended the great temples and, assisted by kin and priests, lacer-
ated their genitals and dripped their blood onto bark paper, which was
then burned. Visions seen in this smoke were used for royal divinations
(Fig. 8.8). These periodic events were carefully orchestrated to include
participation of hundreds, if not thousands, of priests, assistants, musi-
cians, dancers, fan bearers, and noble visitors from other centers. Such
grand, theatrical rituals served to bind together the kingdom, cement
associations with other centers, and reinforce the ideological basis of the
king’s power — his shamanistic role as the axis of communication between
his people and the supernatural world, the forces of time, and the ances-
tors. His “sacred essence,” ch’ulel, the blood shed through autosacrifice,
was the physical bond between all elements in this elaborate system of
royal ritual, power, and prophecy.

Other sacred cycles and astronomical knowledge

The Maya recorded and celebrated many different and intersecting cycles
of time in addition to the Long Count. One calendric cycle, a count of
K’atuns known as the May (pronounced like “my”), was a cycle of thir-
teen numbered K’atuns. Combining thirteen and twenty, two of the most
sacred numbers to the ancient Maya, this thirteen-K’atun cycle of approx-
imately 256 years (13 x 20 x 360 days) was believed to record a repetition
 Religion and ideology 199

Box 4 The Short Count

The “Short Count” calendric system was often used for dating at
the end of the Classic period and into the Postclassic, particularly in
the northern lowlands of the Yucatan peninsula. This dating system
recorded only the name ofthe day in the Calendar Round that a partic-
ular Long Count K’atun ended. Thus, a K’atun that ended on the day
numbered “13 Ahau” in the 260-day ritual calendar and “8 Xul” in the
365-day Haab would be referred to as “K’atun 13 Ahau 8 Xul.” Later
in the Postclassic period, this reference was shortened even further
to name the K’atun simply by its ending date in the ritual 260-day
calendar. Thus, the above K’atun would be referred to as “K’atun 13
Ahau.” Unfortunately, such a shortened dating system leads to greater
ambiguity, as a K’atun with the same ending date in the 260-day ritual
almanac would repeat approximately every 256 years (i.e., every thir-
teen K’atuns). Thus, K’atun 12 Ahau could refer to the K’atun ending
on that day at 10.4.0.0.0 in the Long Count (AD 909) or to one ending
at 10.17.0.0.0 (AD 1165) or to one ending at 11.10.10.0.0 (AD 1421)
and so on.
This abbreviated dating system is in some ways comparable to our
shortened dates, such as “8/16/52” for “August 16, 1952” and shares
some of the same problems. As our change of century and millennium
demonstrated at the end of AD 2000, such dates are highly ambiguous,
ours repeating every century, the Maya Short Count repeating every
256 years. Many of the chronological problems and controversies of
the Terminal Classic and Postclassic in the northern lowlands can be
attributed to the prevalence of Short Count dates in the north.

of events in each cycle. These K’atun cycles were of particular importance

to the Maya vision of cyclical time, history, and divination — and possibly
even to politics. This count of K’atuns was used in conjunction with the
Calendar Round to produce another dating system, the so-called “Short
Count,” commonly used in Yucatan in the Late Classic and Postclassic
periods [see Box 4].
Sacred Maya oral and written traditions that were recorded by
sixteenth-century chroniclers included the various Chilam B’alam K’atun
prophecies (Roys 1949, 1965b, 1967; Edmonson 1982) that relied heav-
ily on the May cycle or “K’atun count.” These holy histories described
propitious and catastrophic historical events that had occurred in specific
previous K’atun periods, as recorded in a count of K’atuns or the “Short
Count” [see Box 4]. Given the Maya cyclical concept of time, such
200 Ancient Maya

histories were also predictions of future events. These Postclassic epics of

cyclical prophecy provided tantalizing and important fragments of Maya
history going back to the Classic period. Yet they have tended to confuse,
as much as enlighten, modern scholars because of their cyclical logic
and religious, rather than historical, intent. Nonetheless, with skeptical
analysis, scholars have been able to extract important details regarding
events, ethnic groups, and migrations in the centuries between the end
of the Classic period kingdoms and the Spanish conquest of the high-
lands and Yucatan and even to make speculative references to the Classic
period itself (e.g. Schele et al. 1995; Schele and Mathews 1998; Rice
et al. 1993).
The ends and midpoints of the 256-year May cycles were celebrated
with major architectural constructions and monuments (P. Rice in press).
One theory proposes that the May cycle was critical to ancient Maya
political organization (P. Rice in press). In this interpretation the critical
K’atun-endings at ends and midpoints of the May cycle actually marked
dramatic programmatic shifts in terms of which center was the dominant
ritual and political capital for that period. Epigraphic and circumstantial
evidence for this proposal is especially strong for the Central Petén region
in the Late and Terminal Classic periods (P. Rice in press; P. Rice and
D. Rice 2004).
The calendrics of Venus also were important to Maya astronomy and
astrology (e.g. Aveni 1979). The position of Venus relative to the earth
moves through a complex cycle, reappearing in exactly the same position
on the horizon every 583.92 days. The Dresden Codex (see Fig. 3.4)
shows the sophistication of Maya astronomy and mathematics, using
three linked calendars of Venus and correction tables to calculate precisely
its positioning and reappearances as the morning and evening star. Of
course, the purpose of such knowledge was prophecy, and the codices
were tools of shamans, priests, and rulers.
Lunar observations and dates were also a major aspect of Maya calen-
drics, inscriptions, and divination. The Dresden Codex and inscriptions
on Classic period monuments reveal the skill of Maya mathematicians and
astronomers at interdigitating complex cycles of time. The lunar month
of 29.530 of our days required combinations of temporal cycles to align
lunar and solar calendars. Most dated Classic Maya inscriptions include
several glyphs specifying the date in the lunar calendar with corrections
to bring the lunar dating system into correlation with the solar calen-
dar. The pages of the lunar calculations in the Dresden Codex would
also allow the accurate prediction of the moon’s eclipses of the sun. This
ability to predict solar eclipses, a knowledge probably dating back to the
 Religion and ideology 201

Preclassic period, would have been a tremendous source of ideological

power to shamans, priests, and rulers. The prediction of this most impres-
sive of celestial phenomena would have verified the sacred ruler’s other
divinatory powers, visions, and communication with the ancestors.
We have still not fully penetrated the degree of ancient Maya astronom-
ical knowledge. Epigraphers have found evidence of Maya predictions
and accurate placement of the celestial movements of various constella-
tions, stars, and Jupiter (e.g. Freidel et al. 1993: 59-107; Aveni 1992;
Milbrath 1988). Conjunctions, eclipses, and the periodic cycles of these
astral bodies sometimes determined the specific timing of ceremonies,
architectural dedications, sacrifices, and even wars.

Architecture, astronomy, and sacred geography

The epicenters of Maya sites were constructed as great stages for the
production of the religious spectacles that bound together their polities
under the K’uhul Ajaw. The temples, palaces, and ballcourts of these
centers were carefully placed to draw upon the sacred knowledge of the
sky (as formalized in Maya astronomy) and the earth (as embodied in
their concepts of sacred geography).
Many Maya temples and buildings are aligned with heavenly bodies,
including Venus and various constellations. Some buildings and even
building complexes functioned as observatories with monuments, door-
ways, or structures aligned to observe solstices and equinoxes of the sun
or Venus (e.g. Aveni 1979, 1980; Aveni and Hartung 1986). The circu-
lar observatory temple at Chichen Itza is a famous example (Fig. 8.13),
but more important (and more common) were the “E-group” temples,
with three small structures placed in relation to a fourth structure or a
monument so as to mark the solar equinoxes and solstices (Fig. 8.14).
E-group structures are found dating to the earliest ceremonial centers of
the Preclassic period, demonstrating the importance of astronomy and
administration in the very origins of ceremonial centers. These ideo-
logical and astrological functions for the first ceremonial centers are
also verified by the specifics of iconography and architectural facades
(see Fig. 8.5). These representations associate the temple and the early
shaman/rulers with the sun, Venus, and the divinatory power of the Maya
calendars and astronomy (e.g. Carlson 1981; Schele and Freidel 1990:
64-129; Clark et al. n.d.; Freidel and Schele 1988a, 1988b). The role
of architecture as a stage for calendric rituals continued into the Classic
period, with temples, stelae, and altar monuments erected to celebrate
key points in the calendric cycles, especially K’atun endings. Symbolism
202 Ancient Maya

Figure 8.13 Circular Caracol temple/observatory at Chichen Itza,

Yucatan, Mexico

in architectural detail and orientations, as well as carved monuments,

commemorated the bloodlettings and divinatory rituals held at period
endings.
As settings for ritual and religious pageantry, the ceremonial centers
and their architecture drew on more than just astronomical associations.
Many details reflected careful use of the natural geography and physical
features to evoke sacred associations for the rulers and their rituals (e.g.
Ashmore 1991; Schele and Freidel 1990: 64-98; Carlson 1981; Demarest
et al. 2003). The temples themselves were named and conceived as sacred
mountains (zztz) and were labeled as such in glyphs and iconography.
Mountains, especially those with caves and springs in them, remain today
the most sacred element of the Maya landscape (e.g. Vogt 1969, 1981,
1983). Hills were considered to be the abode of the ancestors and other
supernaturals, and the caves that are common in them were believed
to be the entrances to Xibalba, the underworld. The temple entrances
atop Maya pyramids and the rulers’ tombs within them were structurally
parallel to the caves within the mountains, portals of communication
with the underworld and the ancestors (Schele and Freidel 1990: 71-73;
M. Coe 1988; Vogt 1981; Freidel et al. 1993: 125-170).
 Religion and ideology 203

‘ EAST
NORTH Sunrise
Sep. 23-March
21
Sunrise SONI ZZ SOUTH
June 21, eek gaa
eo Sunrise
eet

1
t
‘
'
1
'
'
H
!
'
'
'
'
t
i
'
i
'
!
‘
'
'
1
'
'
1
'
1
'
1
'
t
1

ama

Nive OF OBSERVATION

Figure 8.14 Drawing of “E-group temple” showing solar alignments

at solstices and equinoxes (redrawn by Luis F. Luin after Morley and
Brainerd 1956)

Recent research has demonstrated the importance of mountain and

cave symbolism to Maya architecture and ceremonial centers. Explo-
ration and mapping of cave systems in the lowlands and highlands have
shown that epicenter and temple placement, as well as architectural align-
ment, was sometimes determined by the presence and orientation of cave
systems beneath them (Brady 1991, 1997; Brady and Rodas 1992). In
204 Ancient Maya

Figure 8.15 Cosmogram at Dos Pilas, showing central position of the

Murcielagos royal palace (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

fact, at sites lacking caverns in the highlands, the Maya excavated artificial
caves beneath epicenters to have these requisite features (Brady 1991b;
Brady and Veni 1992). In the Petexbatun region of the western Petén,
settlement pattern studies simultaneously mapped surface sites and archi-
tecture (O’Mansky and Demarest 1995; O’Mansky and Wheat 1997;
O’Mansky and Dunning 2004), while a second team mapped subter-
ranean cavern systems, springs, and offerings (Brady 1990; Brady et al.
1990, 1991, 1997). Site and epicenter locations, temple positioning, and
architectural orientations all proved to be aligned to the extensive cavern
systems beneath the centers (Fig. 8.15). Even the details of royal palaces
at Dos Pilas and their smaller shrine structures were determined by align-
ment to the site’s east-west caverns with temples placed above entrances
(Demarest et al. 2003; Demarest in press a). Meanwhile, further south
in the Upper Pasion river region near Cancuen, natural karst towers with
caves within them replaced the artificial witz of temples as the foci of ritual
and worship (Demarest and Barrientos 1999, 2000, 2001; Demarest in
press a; Woodfill ez al. 2002, 2003).
 Religion and ideology 205

Ceremonial centers as sacred stages

This conception of the temples as mountains rising into the sacred sky
defined them as the interface between the underworld, ancestors, sky
deities, and people. The iconography of some temples reinforced this
model by surrounding temple entrances with cave symbolism and also
features of the sun, the Chaaks, and other deities, sometimes with their
mouths forming the temple doorways.
Iconographic and epigraphic studies at sites such as Copan and
Palenque have shown that some buildings were literally named by archi-
tectural sculpture as to their ritual function or functions (e.g. Schele et al.
1989; B. Fash et al. 1992; see bibliographic essay). The identifications
confirm the role of the temples, great courtyards, and ballcourts of Maya
centers as stages for the rituals and pageants of sacrifice and divination
presided over by the kings and their priests. Even details of royal palace
placement drew carefully on multiple alignments and sacred geography
to fashion ritual stages. For example, the Murcielagos palace at Dos
Pilas had every structure placed atop a sacred mountain and aligned
with the east-west axis of the complex (Fig. 8.15). These orientations
paralleled the stream-filled caverns that run beneath it. Ceremonial east—
west procession paths for calendric rites of sacrifice passed through the
palace; again, paralleling the path of the subterranean chambers below
(Demarest et al. 2003). Indeed, one oratory temple had within it a formal
“entombing” with vessel offerings and slabs sealing an entrance into the
large cave network below the site (Demarest, Rodas, and Morgan 1995).
At Dos Pilas and other sites, the east-west daily path of the sun through
the sky, and its west—east return through the underworld at night, were
incorporated into the places of sacred power in architectural complexes
and the causeways between them (Demarest et al. 2003).
Many palaces were also designed as stages for ritual performance by
the elite on a smaller scale than the great plazas and temples. The rituals
in palace compounds were performed for a smaller elite audience of the
royal family, visiting rulers and nobility, elite petitioners, and adminis-
trators of the kingdoms. On this more intimate scale, such palaces had
sacred orientations and functions for divination, sacrifice, and the propi-
tiation of ancestors and deities. Throne rooms and open presentation
palaces were intended for review of processions and receptions and feast-
ing with visiting elites — activities often presented in the scenes painted
on Late Classic polychrome vases. Significantly, even in these structures
excavations have discovered the tools of the king’s ritual power — long,
fine bloodletting blades, ornate effigy censers, and bowls for collecting
the sacred blood (Demarest et al. 2003; Agurcia and Fash 1991).
206 Ancient Maya

Ideology and the Maya theater-states

Many Classic Maya rulers may have had a limited role in the manage-
ment of the infrastructure of their states. With important exceptions,
most Maya states were decentralized in their agricultural systems and in
networks of local and regional trade. As discussed in Chapter 7, rulers’
economic control may have been primarily in the long-distance exchange
of exotic and status-reinforcing goods. These items functioned in the reli-
gious and political systems, rather than as elements of the local market
economies. Similarly, within regions, Maya rulers controlled the produc-
tion and distribution of fine painted polychrome ceramics and ornately
crafted items of carved shell, bone, or jade. Again, these products were
exchanged between the elites of different centers as gifts or tribute, mark-
ing patronage and alliance.
In contrast to the restricted role of rulers in the general subsistence and
economic systems, we have seen that architecture, iconography, artifacts,
and inscriptions define a central role for the ruler in major religious cere-
monies and rituals and in the very concepts of the cosmos and the place
of humans in it. Indeed, from the earliest monuments, the rulers appear
in a shamanistic role associated with rites of communication with ances-
tors, deities, and sacred forces, and with the prediction of the temporal
cycles.
The cultural materialist theoretical perspective of most archaeologists
of the past several decades has prevented many from accepting the obvi-
ous fact that a major source ofrulers’ power and authority might be drawn
from ideology itself. Such a role appears to have been in place in the earli-
est ceremonial centers (Freidel 1981; Hansen 1992; Freidel and Schele
1988a, 1988b; Clark er al. n.d.). We may speculate that the position of
Kuhul Ajaw, holy lord or ruler, had developed from that of community
shaman, acquiring additional secular functions and political power as a
consequence of the initial religious power and authority of that leader.
A set of states in the tropical rain forests of Southeast Asia provides
many parallels to the Classic Maya. These better-known historical states
have been cited by Maya scholars as an ample source of comparative
analogues and insights due to similarities in their nature and structure (M.
Coe 1981; Demarest 1984b, 1992b; Sharer 1994: 510-512). Like Classic
Maya kingdoms, these “theater-states” of Southeast Asia were tenuously
held together through the power of religion, ritual, and state pageantry
more than economic integration (Bentley 1985; Geertz 1980; Tambiah
1976, 1982, 1984). Also like Maya rulers, kings of the theater-states,
or Negara, of Southeast Asia directed warfare and the redistribution of
foreign luxury goods. Such gifts, and the feasts or events on which they
 Religion and ideology 207

were given, helped gain the support of subordinates and the good will of
allies. The pageantry of the state, expressed in periodically held rituals,
was a principal source of authority and power over the populace. While in
traditional Marxist terms such ideological sources of power are generally
regarded as “legitimation” or propagandistic reinforcement of power, in
the case of the theater-states of Southeast Asia, ideology itself may have
been a principal source of authority, rather than a justification of economic
power (Geertz 1980).
A number of scholars have come to the conclusion that ideology, rite,
and ritual were also a, though not the, major source of power for Maya
kings and may have been the central element in the origins of Maya king-
ship (e.g. M. Coe 1981; Clark er al. n.d.; Demarest 1984b, 1992; Freidel
1981, 1992; Hansen 1992; Freidel and Schele 1988a, 1988b; Schele
and Freidel 1990). While Maya rulers had economic roles (e.g. Aoyama
2001; Demarest and Barrientos 2001, 2002; Kovacevich et al. 2002),
there can be little doubt that ideology was a major source of state power.
The dazzling corpus of Classic Maya art, iconography, monuments, and
architecture was largely devoted to the cult of the K’uhul Ajaw, to the
aggrandizement of the ruler, his divine ancestry, and his sacred duties
(Freidel 1992; Freidel and Schele 1988a; Schele and Miller 1986; Miller
1996). Classic-period energies and resources were lavishly expended on
this monumental display and architecture. Art, artifacts, and monuments
provided the stages for the ideological spectacles directed by these holy
lords.
These events and rites were repeated according to the ancient Maya
canons of time, movement, and ritual re-enactment, the physical trac-
ing of the Maya cosmogram (Carlson 1981; Freidel and Schele 1988a,
1988b; Vogt 1981). This grammar of ritual movement and the definition
of the sacred center through such movements has even deeper circumpa-
cific roots in shared Asian shamanistic concepts and their later ecclesias-
tical elaboration (Eliade 1954, 1961). The motion of all such pageants,
processions, and rituals — and the cosmic pattern that they emulated —
all rotated around the “sacred center.” In Maya political, cosmological,
and ritual performance, as in the Negara of Southeast Asia, the ruler
appropriated for himself that position in the sacred center, embodying
and becoming the axis of the universe (e.g. Freidel 1992; Freidel and
Schele 1988a, 1988b; Schele 1981; Schele and Freidel 1990; Schele and
Miller 1986).
9 Classic Maya politics and history: the
dynamics of the theater-states

This chapter first broadly characterizes the nature and dynamics of

Classic Maya polities and traces how they developed from the Early
to Late Classic periods. The forms and the evidence on Maya polities
give us a general perspective on these political formations, which were
very different from those of our own Western civilization. Then a more
detailed discussion highlights the great regional and temporal variability
in forms of Maya polities, giving a glimpse of the true complexity of their
nature.

Maya history and the forms of the Classic Maya state

While the historical record of the Classic Maya sadly is mute on most
economic issues, it is remarkably rich in description of the nature and
structure of political and religious power. Maya state forms flourished
over a huge geographical area and a temporal span of at least two millen-
nia. While variability was great, it is possible to identify some basic char-
acteristics of Maya polities in the Classic period. Then we can examine
the many regional and chronological variations and try to explain the
dynamics behind this variability.

Historical titles and events

Maya history and political organization have partly been reconstructed

from the evidence of settlement surveys, excavations, and ethnohistorical
accounts of Maya kingdoms at the time of the Spanish Conquest. Yet
the evidence from archaeology speaks only indirectly to political bound-
aries, influences, and alliances. Conquest-period ethnohistory is helpful
in hypothesizing about some details and possible political formations.
However, Maya political structure, political ideology, and polity extent
and scale may have changed drastically by the time of the Conquest.
Significant changes in political formation occurred during the Terminal

208
 Classic Maya politics and history 209

Classic and Early Postclassic epochs, some involving the introduction of

new concepts and institutions from other regions of Mesoamerica. For
all of these reasons, scholars are increasingly relying upon the evidence
of the ancient Maya texts left on monuments and artifacts. The inter-
pretation of the inscriptions does, nonetheless, rely heavily on both the
ethnohistoric record and analogies to preindustrial states elsewhere in the
world.
Central to our ability to reconstruct the Classic-period political land-
scape and historical record are the “emblem glyphs” first discovered by
Heinrich Berlin in 1958 (Berlin 1958). Berlin proposed that these glyphs
identified Maya centers or states. Such glyphs are now known actually to
represent the titles of the rulers of states. As such, they identify the basic
discrete political units of the Maya world.
Emblem glyphs consist of a main sign referring to the polity or place
and a series of affixes read as “K’uhul Ajaw” meaning “divine lord” or
“holy lord” (Figs. 9.1, 9.2c). Thus, together the glyph cluster identifies
“the holy lord of,” with the main sign specifying the center (Mathews
1991). Some of these main signs, as well as other glyphs, have been
identified as “toponyms,” place names that refer to geographical loca-
tions or features that were associated with a particular site or its epicen-
ter (Stuart and Houston 1994). Other toponyms merely name specific
places or particular geographical features. Since emblem glyphs were the
titles of kings, they have allowed us to identify the discrete states of the
Maya world and plot their histories and sometimes their territories (see
bibliographic essay). Studies based on emblem glyphs and the distances
between centers have estimated that most Maya kingdoms in the Clas-
sic period may have been fairly small city-states, averaging about 2,000
square kilometers in area (Mathews and Willey 1991; Mathews 1985,
1988, 1997; Hammond 1993: 26-29).
Yet evidence from recent decipherments indicates that there were some
much larger kingdoms or alliances (Martin and Grube 1994, 1995, 2000;
cf. Marcus 1976). Certain glyphs indicate that some actions were taken
by local Ajaws (Fig. 9.2a) under the orders or direction of more powerful
overlords of larger centers (Martin and Grube 1995a, 2000; Stuart 1995:
256-261). One form of the Ajaw emblematic title had a prefix read “y” in
Maya, which makes ajaw into yajaw or “the lord of _” (Fig. 9.2d), indi-
cating vassalage of the local ruler to a specified king. Other indications
of vassalage and alliance can be identified by monumental inscriptions
that describe an overlord’s patronage at events or sponsorship of acces-
sions to the throne at subordinate centers. Another set of glyphs was
used to identify a “sajal” or lieutenant of the king (Fig. 9.2b), or in other
210 Ancient Maya

K’UHUL
“Divine”

Naranjo

Figure 9.1 Emblem glyphs of some Classic Maya centers (drawn by

Luis F. Luin)

contexts to identify one local ruler as the subordinate — “the sajal of” —
another king (u-sajal) (Fig. 9.2e). Some larger centers, such as Tikal,
had special titles for overlords (Martin and Grube 1996; 2000: 17-21).
The hegemonic highest kings of that center took kaloomte’ in their title
(Fig. 9.2f), while subordinate kings were the basic K’uhul Ajaw or holy
lords (Fig. 9.2c), and below these were leaders with Yajaw titles indicating
vassalage (Fig. 9.2d). Scholars have been able to speculate about larger
alliances or “super states” by using these and other epigraphic clues and
comparing them to the archaeological record of site sizes, areas, and the
 Classic Maya politics and history ZU

FESR
PRS 23)
OS

yf
Kaloomte’

Figure 9.2 Some glyphs for political titles of lords, vassals, and
overlords (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

gifts in tombs and caches from other centers (Martin and Grube 1995).
Of course, such interpretations are still tentative given the ambiguity of
the archaeological record and the propagandistic nature of the monu-
mental inscriptions of the Classic period.
More secure than characterizations of the broad political landscape,
the glyphs identify many different kinds of historical events or actions
of these kings. Glyphs for birth, accession to the throne, death, war,
capture of others, captive sacrifice, and royal rituals of auto-sacrifice give
us a detailed view of the life history and achievements of the Maya holy
lords (Fig. 9.3). Inscriptions describing parentage, marriage, and spiritual
concepts can also yield insights into the nature of the general society
beyond the elite. Texts on painted and carved Maya vases provide a more
intimate view of daily life in the royal courts — portraying the meetings,
rites, and events directed by the kings, their administrators, and their
priests (Fig. 9.4; see also Fig. 5.9). The perspective of all these sources
was, of course, limited to the elite, and the monumental texts were clearly
intended to aggrandize their kings. Still, if cautiously interpreted, the
inscriptions and art of the Classic period help to extend and to interpret
the archaeological evidence, and they also give us a glimpse of the Maya
view of their own world.
PA? Ancient Maya

Corde Ke Accession Birth

Figure 9.3 Glyphs for major events in rulers’ life histories (drawn by
Luis F. Luin). “Scattering” refers to a bloodletting ritual which
included the ruler scattering his own blood from his hand into
receptacles, as visualized in this logographic form of the glyph (see also
Fig. 8.7)

Figure 9.4 Royal court scene on Late Classic Maya vase (drawn by
Luis F. Luin)

The role of Maya leadership

The first fundamental issue concerns the nature of Classic Maya states
and the role of Maya elites and rulers. In general, the relationship of
elites to the populations under their control has proven to be a more
subtle and complex one than envisioned by early researchers or by most
 Classic Maya politics and history 25

comparisons to other early civilizations. As discussed in Chapters 6 and

7, traditional theories that defined elites as economic “managers” of
one type or other have not worked well in applications to the Maya
area. Most lowland Maya areas were largely self-sufficient in foodstuffs
and basic resources. Regional trade in basic raw materials and utili-
tarian artifacts generally may not have been mediated by rulers (see
Chapter 7). Similarly, many terraces and other intensive farming systems
appear to have been constructed and managed by local groups, prob-
ably extended families, or at times through village cooperation (see
Chapter 6).
In many cases the rulers apparently did control production and
exchange of fine polychrome pottery, jade, and shell ornaments, and other
status-reinforcing goods in a parallel “palace” economy (see bibliographic
essay). Much long-distance exchange of exotic goods, such as Caribbean
shell, jade, magnetite, and the feathers of exotic birds, was also probably
elite-controlled (see Chapter 7). Many Maya kingdoms also had small,
state-controlled, intensive field or terrace farming systems near palaces
in the site epicenters (e.g. Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997). In general,
however, such systems were limited in extent, serving the direct needs
of the palaces. With important exceptions, state economic involvement,
then, in most Classic Maya polities in most regions and periods may have
been limited. The power of the K’uhul Ajaw resided more in his roles in
ritual and warfare, as the central actor in the theater-state. As discussed in
Chapter 8, this dependence of the state on ideology for much of its power
might help to explain the great emphasis on ceremony and legitimating
art and architecture in Maya epicenters, as well as some aspects of the
unstable dynamics of Maya states.
Having made this broad generalization about most Maya polities,
it must be acknowledged that regional and historical variation was
extremely great, even concerning the basic role of elites in economic
infrastructure. As sketched in the brief review of Maya regional history
that follows, hydraulic systems at Edzna, water storage at other northern
sites, and extensive terrace systems in the Rio Bec sites and at Caracol
(Fig. 9.5) all may have been important infrastructural features produced
by state-directed corporate labor. Furthermore, site systems connected
by causeways or canals to vast epicenters at Calakmul and Caracol suggest
more centralized and integrated economies. We can conclude that some
kingdoms in the Classic period may have developed into larger, more
regional states with a more direct managerial role for the rulers. In
the case of Calakmul, its regional polity declined after AD 695, but
the regional state at Caracol had a notable second florescence in the
early ninth century.
214 Ancient Maya

Archaeologists should not see these episodes of more centralized states

as a contradiction of the more general pattern of small kingdoms among
the Maya. The rise and decline of more centralized regional states were
part of city-state dynamics in early Mesopotamia and Classical Greece.
Such regional and historical variability was a central aspect of the volatile
dynamics of Classic Maya civilization.

The size and extent of polities .

There have been many methods applied by scholars to estimate the

territorial size and populations of Maya states. For many decades we
have relied upon indirect measures based on archaeological data about
the distance between sites, the volume of construction in sites, or the
number of monuments, plazas, or structures (e.g. Adams and Jones 1981;
Hammond 1974, 1975). More recently we have been able to shift to the
historical record of the stone monuments and their inscriptions identify-
ing the ruling dynasties of the K’uhul Ajaw and their political alliances,
rituals, and wars (e.g. Marcus 1976; Culbert 1991). Critical to such inter-
pretations are the emblem-glyphs and titles described earlier. A few texts
even mention tribute payments by vassal polities (Stuart 1995). With such
detailed data, it is possible to be more specific about which centers were
dominant powers in particular periods and to plot their political relation-
ships (e.g. Martin and Grube 2000). This epigraphic record portrays a
very complex inter-elite political landscape throughout the Classic period.
As a minimal building block of Maya polities, the individual small
polity, defined by a dynastic “holy lord” title or emblem-glyph, has been
estimated by some scholars as being one or two days’ walking distance in
diameter (e.g. Hammond 1991; Mathews 1985, 1988). Probable dynas-
tic seats or “capitals” of such minimal polities were often about ten to
thirty kilometers apart. We might speculate that this size for the realm of
the average holy lord befits a “theater-state” in which the K’uhul Ajaw’s
personal presence and celebration of rites were central to the mainte-
nance of his authority. For a time, epigraphers and archaeologists believed
that the lowland Maya world in the Classic period consisted of only such
small city-states interacting in a “peer polity” system (e.g. Houston 1992;
Mathews 1985, 1988; cf. Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Now, with more
detailed information, we can study the tremendous variability in Maya
polities and the historical development of structurally distinct regional
states and pan-lowland, but short-lived, alliances.
In the Late Classic, polities had populations varying from several thou-
sand at most major cities to several hundred thousand around some great
regional capitals such as Calakmul, Tikal, and Caracol (e.g. Culbert
 Classic Maya politics and history 215

- and Rice eds. 1990; Hammond 1991; Sharer 1994: 467-473). All such
demographic estimates for sites, polities, or regions are highly specu-
lative calculations based on house mound counts, ceramic dating of
mounds, ethnographic models for the number of persons per structure,
and, usually, a calculation factor for “invisible” houses that lacked clearly
visible substructure mounds or platforms. Combined with the epigraphic
evidence on specific political formations, the speculative demography
~ and settlement evidence allow broad, very tentative characterizations of
Classic Maya political history (e.g. Culbert 1991).

The dynamics of the Classic Maya galactic polities

Evidence from the past thirty years of research shows that larger Maya
states and regional alliances had many, very different and complex trajec-
tories of rise, florescence, and decline. For example, the great Preclassic
state of El] Mirador grew in population to tens of thousands of inhab-
itants by the Late Preclassic period and extended its hegemony over
networks of other centers, only to decline at the beginning of the Classic
era (Demarest 1984b; Hansen 1992, 1994; Matheny 1986a, 1987). Tikal
expanded in size and influence across the lowlands in the fifth century, but
its hegemony suffered defeats and declined in the late sixth. It re-emerged
in the late seventh and eighth centuries as a booming, but more regionally
focused, central Petén state. Meanwhile, Calakmul surged from the ranks
of so-called “peer-polities” in the sixth and seventh centuries to become
a gargantuan regional state with a population of over 100,000 (Braswell
et al. 2004) that led a far-flung interregional alliance of other city-states.
Other regional polities, such as Copan, had somewhat less variable histo-
ries, while yet others had very idiosyncratic trajectories. For example, the
Petexbatun regional state of Dos Pilas began in the seventh century and
experienced a meteoric expansion through conquest and alliance across
the Pasion River Valley, only to disintegrate suddenly in the mid-eighth
century (see Chapter 10).
Scholars have noted these complex dynamics and are now beginning
to seek models not to define the Maya state, but to begin to under-
stand the grammar of the constant change and instability of these polities
and hegemonies (e.g. Marcus 1993; Hammond 1991; Demarest 1984b,
1992b, 1996b; Sharer 1991). Some have argued that our models for
state dynamics should come from the ethnohistorical record of sixteenth-
century Postclassic Maya polities (e.g. Marcus 1983a, 1993). Important
patterns in Classic Maya politics have been identified by drawing on the
detailed sixteenth-century descriptions of the Postclassic states of Yucatan
and the Guatemalan highlands (e.g. Schele et al. 1995). These include
216 Ancient Maya

insights into the dynamics of alliance formation (e.g. Marcus 1993) and
the recognition of periodic calendrically determined ritual shifting of capi-
tals according to the May cycle of thirteen K’atuns (P. Rice in press).
Conquest-period states, however, were also different from those of the
Classic period in important aspects. Therefore, using the rich epigraphic
and archaeological record of the Classic period, we should also apply
comparative interpretations from a variety of sources and test them for
“best fit” to the Classic cultural-historical record.
In Chapter 8, the ideological foundationsof Classic Maya “theater-
states” were briefly described. Such polities, well known in Southeast
Asia, have centers and rulers who model a cosmological order of belief
of their subjects. The Negara theater-states of Southeast Asia were much
like most Maya polities in key characteristics:
1) the dependence of rulers for power on personal performance in ritual
and in warfare;
2) the loose structure and unbounded nature of political territories which
were “center-oriented” networks of personal, political, and religious
authority that radiated from the ruler himself;
3) the generally weak direct control or involvement of the state in local
subsistence or economic infrastructure;
4) the redundancy in structure and functions between the capital center
and minor subordinate centers;
5) the organization of hegemonies into capital centers loosely control-
ling a network or “galaxy” of subordinate sites (Tambiah 1976, 1977;
Geertz 1980; Demarest 1984b, 1992, 1997).
All of these traits were present in the many polities and hegemonies, large
and small, of the Classic period, a list of common traits that transcend
the varying population size and territorial extent of lowland polities.
The formulations of scholars working on Southeast Asia theater-states
may also help model the unstable dynamics of the Classic period and the
protean manifestations of the Maya state. Tambiah (1976, 1977, 1984)
has explained how such theater-states could expand into regional powers
or loosely linked hegemonies in specific periods. In Southeast Asia,
highly unstable ideologically based theater-states could rapidly expand
as “galactic polities” through warfare or a variety of other mechanisms,
which allowed the divine rulers to attract the allegiance and tribute of
a growing number of “satellite” subordinate states or centers. Status-
reinforcing foreign influence could strengthen the charismatic power
of particular states, as could their control of imports or their foreign,
“exotic” associations. In cases such as the Teotihuacan-associated Tikal
hegemony, the ruler’s participation in a broader, distant information
sphere constituted a form of “otherworldly knowledge” structurally
 Classic Maya politics and history 217

equivalent to spiritual or divine knowledge (cf. Helms 1979; cf. Tambiah

1982, 1984). Successes in warfare, marriage alliances, and rituals and
pageants could also launch a ruler, his dynasty, and his capital center
into several generations of hegemonic expansionism. Ultimately, these
episodes of larger political formations were abortive and the galactic poli-
ties disintegrated into their constituent states or reformed into a different
configuration of polity or alliance (Tambiah 1976: 127; Demarest 1992:
154-157). In all cases, the primarily ideological and political — rather
than infrastructural — basis of power facilitated the rapid expansion of
spheres of dominance, but also predisposed these systems to swift decline
or disintegration.
This interpretive framework applies well to the myriad political forma-
tions seen in the Classic period in the southern Maya lowlands. As
described below, the regional, more centralized state of Caracol, the
expanding and contracting hegemonies of states like Calakmul and Tikal,
and the more stable but limited polities of most other Maya states, can be
seen as variations on the spectrum of expanding and contracting theater-
states. Over two millennia of such unstable political dynamics have been
described for the theater-states and galactic polities of Southeast Asia (e.g.
Bentley 1986; Geertz 1980; Tambiah 1976; Gesick 1983). The segmen-
tary structure of such polities, with redundant major and minor centers,
was also like that of Classic Maya states, and carries the same problems
of instability due to the ease of usurpation or succession from alliance by
subordinate centers.
Such galactic theater-state formations have great difficulty unifying into
pan-regional centralized states, like those found in central Mexico or
Egypt at parallel levels of development. Instead the historical inscriptions
of the Classic period record centuries of wars, alliances, and the formation
of larger, but unstable, hegemonies. Here a brief glimpse of these Classic-
period dynastic histories should illustrate the baffling complexity and
variability that I have simplified in the above generalizations.

Regional histories of the Maya states

By the Classic period, the epigraphy, iconography, and archaeology of the

Maya civilization allow the reconstruction of regional cultural histories,
including dated events, dynastic histories, and victories (or defeats) of
individual key rulers. Here I provide only a brief summary of a few events
at some of the great Maya centers. These descriptions provide a glimpse
of some of the political patterns discussed above — and perhaps a sense of
the “flavor” of Classic Maya history. (See the bibliographic essay at the
end of this volume for recent, more detailed historical summaries.)
218 Ancient Maya

The Early Classic dynasties in the Maya lowlands

States with “holy lords” and the full political and economic rationale of
Maya civilization were surely in place by the Late Preclassic period. Yet
it is not until the full Classic period in the fourth and fifth centuries AD
that the epigraphic record of carved monuments is sufficiently detailed
to characterize accurately the history of major dynasties.
We know little more than the names of the kings of some major centers
prior to the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Then, at the great centers of
Tikal and Copan (Fig. 9.5), rulers took the throne claiming affiliations
with the cultures of Mexico, perhaps even with the distant Mexican city
of Teotihuacan itself (see Box 3, Chapter 5). The exact nature of events
at this time remains unclear, but recent decipherments and interpreta-
tions indicate that a Maya war leader or agent, perhaps with Mexican
affiliations, named Siyaj K’ak (formerly referred to as “Smoking Frog”)
was involved in wars and dynastic upheaval at the great city of Tikal and
the nearby center of Uaxactun (Stuart 2000; Martin and Grube 2000:
28-36). At this same time (AD 378), anew ruler, Yax Nuun Ayiin (“First
Crocodile”), took the throne of Tikal. This new king and later his son
Siyaj Chan K’awiil (called “Stormy Sky” before phonetic decipherment)
both claimed descent from a lord with Mexican pictographic symbols for
his name glyph (a spear-thrower and an owl). This royal ancestor might
have been a ruler of Teotihuacan itself (Stuart 2000), or he may have been
a lord from Kaminaljuyu (Coggins 1975) or from elsewhere with Mexi-
can affiliations or claims to such affiliation (see various interpretations in
Braswell 2003c).
The new king, his son Siyaj Chan K’awiil, and all of their later descen-
dants celebrated their claims of Mexican affiliation in art and iconography
and with various Mexican-derived cults and rituals (e.g. Coggins 1979;
Schele 1986). They also ushered in an epoch of greatness at Tikal, which
extended its influence through alliances, sponsorship of new dynasties
elsewhere, and conquests throughout the southern lowlands. In the fifth
century, Uaxactun, Rio Azul, Holmul, and even distant Quirigua in the
southeast (Fig. 9.5) were allied with or dominated by Tikal’s new dynasty
(Ashmore 1980; Mathews and Willey 1985; Adams 1990).
Far to the southeast at Copan in distant Honduras another new dynasty
was founded in AD 426 by a king named K’inich Yax K’uk’Mo’, who
again appears to have “arrived” from the west. His Early Classic dynasty
at Copan, like that at Tikal, celebrated its claims of Mexican affiliation in
monuments and artifacts. Recent discoveries at Copan (e.g. Fash 1991,
2000; Sharer er al. 1999; Sharer 2003) have revealed the magnificent
 Classic Maya politics and history 219

spt
KOMCHEN @
g ® DZIBILCHALTUN

CHICHEN ITZA fs
MAYAPAN & a (/COZUMEL
a fog fb
copag 4
UXMAL @ é oY
is
SAYIL @ ;

& EDZNA

A
& BECAN %
} ; bea. NOHMUL &/ &
oe ik \ Saori ee CUELLO &@ /
fee Le Se PeCALAKMUL& 2s s
a \ eae
oe : f
i, f oy NAL
# LAMANAI
wy Ea! ® ALTUN HA
Pe ; UAXACTUN, |
‘ PALENQUE & 3 Ja HOLMUL
~& ELPERUS
is } -
ng / PIEDRAS NEGRAS\@
Sg 2 <
s YAXCHILAN &._
\ L pont, mae % oh
af
ALTAR DE SACRIFICIO:
ore oe
f
4 ie
3 tfNS CANCUEN
nn }
a
Na

ome oe ae
aN ci S
a i
ce near RN aaa

Tin ad & KAMINS

Zf / eee

Figure 9.5 Some major Classic Maya centers (drawn by Luis F. Luin)
220 Ancient Maya

palaces and temples of the Early Classic rulers who followed this new
founder. .
Meanwhile at Kaminaljuyu in the southern highlands, strong Teoti-
huacan influence appeared in architecture, censers, and ceramics. Most
notable are structures in the talud-tablero style characteristic of this
period in central Mexico. Indeed, scholars had thought for some time
that Kaminaljuyu and the southern highlands might have served as an
intermediary passing Mexican influences and contacts to the Peten (e.g.
Coggins 1979; Santley 1983). While the directionality of the flow ofinflu-
ences remains unclear, it does appear that highland—lowland interaction
was important in the Early Classic and that foreign involvement was
a factor. Many of these cultural exchanges may have passed between
specific Maya kingdoms and central Mexico or via culture areas in
Veracruz, Oaxaca, or other zones that indirectly transferred influences
to and from Central Mexico (Marcus 2003; Braswell 2003b).
At the direct “gateway” between highlands and lowlands in the
Cancuen kingdom of the far southern Petén (Fig. 9.5), three monu-
ments with Teotihuacan-style figures were found at Tres Islas that date
to this period of Mexican influence or affiliation. The imagery on these
stelae includes Mexican elements such as Teotihuacan-style armor and
spearthrowers, as at Tikal and Uaxactun (Fig. 9.6). The Cancuen king-
dom was strategically placed astride the Pasion River at precisely the
point where it becomes navigable after its descent from the highlands to
the south. It appears that highland—lowland contacts and movements in
this period of Tikal expansionism might have come through this corridor
(Fahsen and Demarest 2001).
The meaning and historical specifics of these contacts remain unclear.
The Teotihuacan elements and interventions might have been induced
by Maya lords themselves seeking prestigious affiliations to bolster their
competitive dynastic claims (Braswell 2003a). Clearly, we can no longer
posit (as was once thought) that Teotihuacan influence stimulated the
rise of state-level society in the Maya world, since states, cities, and kings
already existed at Tikal and Kaminaljuyu, and probably at Nakbe and
El] Mirador, centuries earlier (Demarest and Foias 1993; Marcus 2003).
Nonetheless, it is clear that Mexican contacts and affiliations were very
important, at least to the Maya themselves, in the founding and legitima-
tion of their Early Classic dynasties (Braswell 2003a).
Meanwhile, on the Yucatan Peninsula to the north, Early Classic states
developed with distinctive styles and an emphasis on inland—coastal trade
and salt production. Major sites like Komchen had developed in the
Preclassic period, specializing in such trade with larger inland cities like
Dzibilchaltun (Andrews V 1981; Ringle and Andrews V 1988, 1990).
 Classic Maya politics and history OO"

=
o
=e) TP

sae’,

Figure 9.6 Stela 1, Tres Islas, Guatemala (redrawn by Luis F. Luin

from unpublished drawing by Ian Graham)

The lower, drier, northern rain forest, even thinner soils, and more limited
surface water required different adaptations, with a greater emphasis on
coastal trade and various types of water catchment systems, including
the development of a massive, apparently centrally controlled hydraulic
system at the center of Edzna (Matheny et al. 1983).
In the third and fourth centuries these very different northern poli-
ties also participated in pan-Mesoamerican exchanges of styles and
PappP) Ancient Maya

concepts. Architecture in talud-tablero style and stuccoed fagades reflect

such influences (Varela Torrecilla 1998). At Becan in Campeche near
the interface of the northern and southern lowlands, fortifications and
evidence of a possible siege might relate to foreign contacts (Webster
1976). A major fortification system was built there at the end of the
Preclassic era, with ramparts five meters high and a six-meter-deep moat
surrounding the site epicenter. The Becan population declined in the
Early Classic, and caches in the site center included Teotihuacan-style
“slab-tripod” vases and figurines. As at many northern sites, however, the
paucity of carved monuments makes impossible more specific historical
reconstruction.
While new dynasties were being founded and foreign exchanges were
felt throughout the lowlands, a great center was developing in southern
Campeche at the site of Calakmul. By the sixth century this giant center
was ready to confront the panregional hegemony of Tikal in the south,
a confrontation that came to involve many of the Maya kingdoms of the
lowlands.

Interregional alliances, wars, and “mega-states” of the sixth and

seventh centuries

The interpretation of interregional alliances in the Classic Maya world

has been a difficult and controversial endeavor. As described earlier in this
chapter, recent decipherments have identified terms for higher overlords,
vassal lords, and subordinate nobles. Yet scholars argue as to whether
these terms specify true direct political dominance and macro-states, or
weaker elite alliances, or even just short-term strategic coordination of
some wars (cf. Hammond 1991; Demarest 1992; Demarest and Fahsen
2003; Fahsen et al. 2003; Martin and Grube 1994, 1995, 2000; Houston
1992, 1994; Stuart 1995). Some point out that it is not clear whether
the supervision of accessions to the throne, rites, or wars by one of
the overlord kings of the great centers implied a dominance over other
aspects of political life. The relative self-sufficiency of local and regional
economies would argue against pressures to form meaningful macro-state
economies, and tribute would probably most often have been in the form
of specific commodities and elite prestige items (see Chapter 7). If such
were the case, these greater alliances generally may have had a limited
impact on life in the “vassal” centers.
Stull, there is growing evidence that in certain periods such widespread
alliances were, in fact, important, especially in warfare. Some of these
coordinated wars appear to have resulted in the sacking of centers,
destroying the physical core of the theater-states and with it the prestige
 Classic Maya politics and history 223

‘that drew followers to a center (e.g. Freidel et al. 1993: 295-336; Martin
and Grube 2000; Freidel in press; Fahsen et al. 2003).
The most notable of such interregional wars occurred in the sixth and
seventh centuries between the powerful large cities of Calakmul and Tikal
and their respective network of allied and vassal centers. Early in the sixth
century, Tikal, arguably the greatest and most prestigious Maya center,
entered a time of troubles. Internal struggles for succession and military
defeats appear to have led to a destructive attack on the Tikal center
itself in AD 562 (Martin and Grube 1995, 2000; Schele and Freidel
1990: 171-177). These events led to the so-called “hiatus” period, dated
by some scholars from AD 562 to 692. Once believed to be a general
decline of Maya centers (recently erroneously attributed to drought [Gill
2000; Adams et al. 2003]), we now know that the “hiatus” was only a
political decline in the fortunes of Tikal and some of the centers most
closely allied to it.
This same period witnessed a florescence of the great rival center of
Calakmul in the north, which grew in size and extended its network of
alliances during the epoch of Tikal’s decline. At Caracol to the east in
Belize, another political rival of Tikal (formerly its vassal) grew in wealth,
power, and prestige after several sixth-century defeats of Tikal and its
allies (Chase, Grube, and Chase 1991; Grube 1994a; Martin and Grube
1994, 1995, 2000: 89-95). It is not surprising that victorious centers like
Caracol and Calakmul grew rapidly in size, influence, and wealth after
such victories, given the nature of the Maya theater-states and the great
dependence on prestige and tribute labor for their expansion.
Bolstered by such prestige-enhancing victories, as well as booty and
tribute from vassal centers, Caracol and Calakmul both grew into gigan-
tic and wealthy centers during these centuries. By the seventh century,
Calakmul in Campeche covered an area of 20 square kilometers encircled
by asystem of canals, modified rivers, and lakes (Folan 1988, 1992; Folan
et al. 1995). Its more than 6,000 structures housed a population of well
over 100,000, an enormous size for any preindustrial city (Dominguez
Carrasco et al. 1996; Braswell et al. 2003). Meanwhile in Belize, Cara-
col also grew into a megapolis with a regional population also estimated
to have been over a hundred thousand (A. Chase and D. Chase 1996a,
1996b). The wide distribution of tombs with fine polychromes has been
interpreted as a consequence of the economic and political prestige of
Caracol, the flow of tribute, and the consequent development there of a
more complex economy with rising “middle classes” (A. Chase and D.
Chase 1987, 1996a). Nearby satellite centers and smaller communities
were connected to the city by a network of causeways. Local commu-
nity specialization, extensive terracing, and such communication systems
224 Ancient Maya

Figure 9.7 Caana temple at Caracol

argue for a more unified regional economy at Caracol, an argument that

could also be made for Calakmul, and probably Tikal (A. Chase and D.
Chase 1996b). As discussed earlier, such mega-states may have involved
a qualitative shift in the nature of their economies in response to their
quantitative scale (Demarest 1996b). Regional exchange of foodstuffs
and more central economic administration may have expanded the infras-
tructural role of the K’uhul Ajaws of such kingdoms. Perhaps reflecting
these more complex royal functions, some of the major structures of
Calakmul and Caracol, such as the Caana of the latter site, combined
the features and functions of temples, palaces, and administrative offices
(Fig. 9.7).
During the sixth- and seventh-century epoch of its ascendancy, Calak-
mul reached out to establish alliances, instigate wars against Tikal,
and meddle in the dynastic affairs of centers throughout the south-
ern lowlands (Martin and Grube 1994, 1995, 2000). This meddling
extended to Dos Pilas in the western Petén, where in AD 632 Tikal
established a new military outpost with a young Tikal prince to block
the expansion of Calakmul and its allies in the west. Carved hieroglyphic
stairs discovered in 2001 have revealed that this military center was
conquered by Calakmul within a few decades after its founding (Fahsen
et al. 2003; Demarest and Fahsen 2003). From that time Dos Pilas
became a western base for Calakmul’s military conflict with Tikal. Under
 Classic Maya politics and history 225

Figure 9.8 Dos Pilas Hieroglyphic Stairway 4, discovered in 1990

the auspices of the Calakmul ruler, Dos Pilas made war on its rela-
tives at Tikal, defeating them in one war in AD 679 (Houston and
Mathews 1985). Recently discovered monuments, including stairways
(Fig. 9.8), record this victory over Tikal and Calakmul’s sponsorship of
these wars (Fahsen et al. 2003; Demarest and Fahsen 2003; Demarest
1993, 1997; Martin and Grube 1994, 1995, 2000: 52-67; Symonds et al.
1990). Even later monuments record Calakmul’s continuing relationship
with the Petexbatun region and sponsorship of major royal rituals (see
Fig. 9.9).
Calakmul also reached out to conquer or to establish dominant
alliances with many other centers. With its Dos Pilas vassal, Calakmul
conquered centers across the west (Demarest and Fahsen 2003). Follow-
ing the route of the Mexican-affiliated Tikal dynasties centuries earlier,
Calakmul established authority over the Cancuen kingdom in the far
southwestern Petén which controlled the critical head of navigation of
the Pasién River system, a major trade artery of the Maya world and
the gateway to the highlands (Demarest and Fahsen 2003). Calakmul
even placed new kings on Cancuen’s throne in 656 and 677 (Martin and
Grube 1994, 1996, 2000). Similar alliances were established with other
western centers, such as El Peru, and in the east to Naranjo, Caracol,
and other polities (Martin and Grube 1995, 2000).
226 Ancient Maya

Figure 9.9 Dos Pilas Panel 19 showing (from left) the “Lady of
Cancuen,” Ruler 3 of Dos Pilas, attending priest, the young Dos Pilas
prince bloodletting, and a visiting patron from Calakmul

Regionalism and status rivalry in the seventh and eighth centuries

The period of ascendancy and greatest florescence at Calakmul and Cara-

col ended as it had begun — with wars. Defeat of Calakmul’s king in AD
695 by Tikal and a defeat of Caracol in AD 680 led to periods of decline
in influence and construction activity at these two giant centers. Tikal
began an era of great revitalization at this time. Yet, the period of mean-
ingful regional alliances may have ended by the late seventh century.
Instead, perhaps stimulated by interregional wars and intensifying status
rivalry, powerful dynasties in each regional zone of the Maya lowlands
(Fig. 9.10) raised distinctive forms of Maya civilization in the late seventh
and the eighth centuries. Differences in ceramics, architecture styles, and
other aspects of material culture mark these variously defined archaeo-
logical zones. The growing polygamous elite class, and especially the
competing K’uhul Ajaws, invested ever more labor and resources in their
distinctive regional forms of ceramics and artifacts, as well as aggrandiz-
ing art, monuments, and architecture. Out of the shadow of overarching
alliances, the major centers of each zone flourished, elaborating their own
 Classic Maya politics and history 22,

Cerritos & :h6e%

Komehen a ! CHICHEN !
Apabiduinins | FONE gf
eres ‘Chichen Itai
Uxmal a Yexund A “1 & Cobif 7
j Sayil a 6/7 : ie
AL seen ole tanre
ZONE / H Pe
Nee we 4 '

Z t
“4 3? ! 6RIO BEC
ZONE i
y CAMPECHE Le
f ZONE Lorn. nnie
~ Cerri
~ eples NORTH CENTRAL:
2 NORTHWEST. Ne r tate , Calakchul ZONE i é
» { aloes
_ogfesteo “< Rie Ss3 Rio “Aza js Lainanai *
S ( \ Paleri
— que 2 ~ raewi
eg 3 :
§aeUnwactist
eae a eee
Be aeie3
) > Piedras Neeea a oe Tikal We *”ZONE
__usunaeinrs ZONE * Lae oe ;
ae ! Yaxchiléna>< Seibal"}
ec
SS Altar De Sacrificios CWA nsWe : ib
~ PASION ZONE i see ea MOPA N-IZABAL
oe A lo 4
'
oy -5 ZONE.
~ UPPE.R PASION. ZONE hy:
f
ea gl
: Be ae Qe ney e
=Quirigua
“SOUTHEAST
3 Weave oS
} ae:
nate een
7 iChayal is
ie Copan
ela Sot
? }
re :
= « Katninaljuys e Ixtepeque ate
? is

Figure 9.10 Late Classic subregions and sites of the Maya lowlands
(drawn by Luis F. Luin). Numbers in each subzone indicate the
approximate chronological order of the Terminal Classic changes
(collapses, declines, transitions, or transformations)

regional hierarchies of centers and pursuing war and status rivalries with
less distant neighbors.
Tikal itself, after its triumphs over Calakmul and other rivals, experi-
enced a florescence in the very late seventh and the eighth centuries.
228 Ancient Maya

Under perhaps its greatest overlord, Jasaw Chan K’awiil, and his
successors, Tikal embarked on a construction program that included its
great temples I, II, IV, and VI, and its great central acropolis palace
(see Fig. 5.2). Renovations and new structures were completed in its
north acropolis, actually a necropolis or royal tomb complex. The cults
of royal ancestor worship achieved their apogee in the Late Classic archi-
tectural constructions of the Tikal epicenter and the spectacular public
rituals staged there. Other splendid palaces and temples were scattered
in other epicenters at Tikal and at vassal centers in the Central Petén
such as Ixlu and Yaxha. Each twenty-year period (K’atun), twin-temple
complexes were constructed to worship the ancestors in a sacred, astro-
nomically significant, artificial landscape. At many major centers in the
Central Petén, such as Naranjo, Late Classic rival dynasties of Tikal
generated their own magnificent architecture and monuments, celebrat-
ing the achievements of the regional K’uhul Ajaw.

Late Classic western Petén kingdoms

In the western Petén, key portage sites along the Pasion-Usumacinta

river system became the seats of competing regional kingdoms in the
eighth century without controlling external powers (Fig. 9.10). Early in
the Classic period important kingdoms had been established at strategic
points in the river system. At the “head of navigation” in the Upper
Pasion, the Cancuen-Tres Islas kingdom controlled access to the highland
routes and so to sources of precious high-status goods, such as pyrite,
jade, and quetzal feathers. It also became an intermediary in trade for
more utilitarian hard stone commodities from the volcanic highlands,
such as igneous and metamorphic rock for tools, weapons, and ritual
bloodletters (Demarest and Barrientos 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002).
The ruling dynasty of Cancuen took full advantage of its strategic posi-
tion at the first portage of the Pasion. The royal palace of Cancuen was
surrounded by workshops that fashioned tools and works of art from
the highland stones. Workshops in obsidian, chert, and chalcedony fash-
ioned blades, spearheads, and macroblades for trade (Kovacevich et al.
2001, 2002). At others artisans fashioned mirrors from pyrite flakes and
sliced plaques from imported great boulders of jade. Thousands ofjade
fragments and jade debris were heaped in middens and on floors in
one of these workshops, together with jade boulders, jade-working tools,
and half-finished ornaments (Kovacevich et al. 2002). The relationship
between palace structures and nearby workshops and the nature of the
materials used suggest that at Cancuen the ruler may have controlled the
production of these sumptuary goods. The precious finished objects and
 Classic Maya politics and history 229

perhaps also raw materials were used as gifts in exchange with — or as

tribute to — rulers of other centers.
The Cancuen kingdom was yet another exception to generalizations
about the nature of political and economic power. Recent decipher-
ments and ongoing excavations (Fahsen and Demarest 2001; Fahsen
and Jackson 2002; Demarest and Barrientos 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002)
have shown that the rulers here relied upon a clever strategy of alliance
formation to remain affiliated in each period with a major military power
to the north — first Tikal, then Calakmul, then Dos Pilas, and later
Machaquila. With the defeat of an ally-protector, the rulers of Cancuen
rapidly changed allegiance to a new successful power. Undoubtedly, these
Machiavellian political strategies and alliance formations were greatly
aided by Cancuen’s control in the west of the exchange of precious high-
land goods. The marriage and military alliances recorded in the inscrip-
tions of Cancuen and its allies were also facilitated by the ruler’s awe-
inspiring, sprawling royal palace, one of the largest in the Maya world
(Fig. 9.11). Currently being unearthed (Demarest and Barrientos 2001,
2002), the palace had over 200 masonry, corbeled-vaulted rooms rising
in three stories around a series of internal courtyards. This provided a
perfect setting for the feasts, rituals, and other activities that were critical
to alliance formation and status rivalry in the Late Classic period.
Farther downriver (north) on the Pasion-Usumacinta river systems at
strategic portages, great kingdoms at Seibal, Altar de Sacrificios, Yaxchi-
lan, and Piedras Negras established their own distinctive versions of
Classic Maya polities. One of the most magnificent of these, Yaxchi-
lan, had numerous enormous temple pyramids with elaborate stuccoed
roof combs and exquisitely carved monuments (Mathews 1988, Schele
1991; Tate 1992). The carvings illustrated the bloodletting rituals of the
rulers and extolled their royal descent and achievements in war, ritual,
and alliance (see Figs. 8.8, 8.10). These Yaxchilan monuments are more
explicit than at many other centers, sometimes showing the participa-
tion of queens in rituals and portraying the spiritual alter egos or animal
coessences of the rulers, their way, which often took the form of jaguars
or serpents (Houston and Stuart 1989).
Western Petén monumental texts also provide much political informa-
tion, including some specific titles for subordinate rulers, such as sajals,
and detailed descriptions of shifting hierarchies of power and alliance
(Stuart 1993, 1995: 256-261). Texts in the western Petén, and at some
eastern centers such as Naranjo, also make explicit reference to tribute
gained by dominant centers from such wars and from other asymmetri-
cal forms of alliance (Schele 1991; Stuart 1995: 354-370). Despite their
explicit nature, careful historiographic studies have shown that some of
230 Ancient Maya

‘ WY 4 eS Vy

. { ° Y
\ petregyrh 22 oP 7
Figure 9.11 Western entrance to the sprawling royal palace of
Cancuen, Petén, Guatemala (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

the genealogy and claims on the Yaxchilan monuments may have been
conscious distortions for propagandistic ends (Miller 1991; Martin and
Grube 2000: 122-124). In the Late Classic, Yaxchilan was involved in
many wars, often with another great kingdom downriver at Piedras
Negras (Schele 1991; Schele and Mathews 1991; Stuart 1995). The
competition between Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan, as well as with other
rivals and subordinate centers, exemplifies the type of intensifying status
rivalry of the Late Classic Maya kingdoms. The murals of Bonampak,
a minor center under the sway of Yaxchilan, beautifully illustrate this
process (Fig. 9.12). Interaction among centers took the form of feast-
ing, visits and rituals, marriage alliances, and frequently warfare. As the
number of elites and centers proliferated in the Late Classic, the intensity,
cost, and material evidence of these status rivalries increased. In the west-
ern Petén, warfare between centers would eventually disrupt other activ-
ities and contribute to the abandonment of many western centers — first
Dos Pilas in the Petexbatun region and then Aguateca, Piedras Negras,
Yaxchilan, and Cancuen (see Chapter 10).
Even farther west at Palenque in Chiapas, a regional western frontier
kingdom of the Maya produced some of the most splendid architecture,
 Classic Maya politics and history 231

Figure 9.12 Battle scene from the Bonampak murals (reconstruction

painting by Heather Hurst and Leonard Ashby)

art, and inscriptions of the Late Classic period. In contrast to Tikal

and central Petén sites, the temples and palaces of Palenque were wide,
elegant structures with mansard roofs topped by a stone and stucco
latticework of roof combs (Fig. 9.13). Carved stelae and altars were
supplanted here by elaborate stone panels. These presented a detailed
and unusual genealogy justifying the accession to power of the Late Clas-
sic kings through matrilineal descent. Art and texts associated the kings
with the myths of the origins of the present universe (Schele and Mathews
1974; Schele 1991a, 1994). The beautiful cosmological imagery and texts
of Palenque were an aesthetically extraordinary example of the unified
religious and political ideology of the K’uhul Ajaw of the Classic Maya
theater-states.

The Late Classic of the southeast lowlands and Belize

On the opposite frontier of the Maya world, the Maya kingdom of Copan
also expressed its claims to sacred power in explicit imagery and texts
(Fash 1991). Here carved stelae, altars, and architectural sculptures were
the medium of choice. Like Palenque in the northwest, Copan in the
southeast utilized its position to be a bridge of interaction with non-
Classic Maya peoples. The distinctive ceramics of Copan, such as the
D2 Ancient Maya

Figure 9.13 Part of the Late Classic epicenter of Palenque, Chiapas,

Mexico (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

famous Copador polychrome bowls, combine aspects of Maya imagery

with pseudoglyphs and wares and slips characteristic of the chiefdoms
to the south and east of the Classic Maya world (Willey et al. 1994).
The Copan Maya distributed Copador-style ceramics throughout the
southeastern borderlands of El Salvador and western Honduras (Bishop
et al. 1986).
At Copan itself, a magnificent epicenter epitomized the ritual stages
of the Maya theater-state (Fig. 9.14; see also Fig. 5.4). Perhaps precisely
because of their frontier positions, both Copan and Palenque used these
especially explicit and detailed presentations of Maya elite ideology and
cosmology in their monuments and architecture. At Copan, easy access
to a soft stone trachyte, a form of volcanic tuff, allowed Classic Maya
sculptors to fashion full, round, three-dimensional sculptures in stelae
and in architectural sculptures. These elaborate, almost baroque stelae
and building facades clearly and beautifully portrayed the rulers and
other nobles in their roles in rituals of bloodletting or in detailed settings
of dynastic descent. Architectural sculptures identify the builders, the
cosmological significance, and the functions of many of its buildings.
Reconstruction and interpretation of these sculptural facades (B. Fash
1992) have provided important clues to the function of these structures
for archaeologists working at other sites where elite architecture lacks
explicit imagery.
 Classic Maya politics and history 233

Figure 9.14 The Copan epicenter (with ballcourt and hieroglyphic stairway)

Copan monuments and sculpted facades also show the changing polit-
ical landscape in the face of intensifying inter-elite competition in the
eighth century. One of Copan’s greatest kings was Wataklajuun Ub’aah
K’awiil (also known as “18 Rabbit” after elements in his name glyphs).
Copan’s most beautiful full, round stelae (see Fig. 8.9) and many major
constructions were attributed to this great king. Yet in AD 738 he was
captured and probably sacrificed by the ruler of Copan’s former vassal
state to the north, Quirigua. At the latter site the victorious Quirigua ruler
erected some of the tallest stelae in the Maya world (some over twelve
meters) with inscribed texts commemorating the defeat of his former
overlord (Fig. 9.15).
After this event the dynasty in the Copan Valley suffered a great loss
of prestige and managed to survive only by dividing up the previously
nucleated political and ideological power of the K’uhul Ajaw. This balka-
nization of authority was physically represented in a council chamber or
“mat house,” identified by the woven mat symbol of governing author-
ity. On its fagade were toponyms believed to be associated with sublords
who now shared the ruling authority. The last two Copan rulers also
allowed even further distribution of power to nobles and bureaucrats,
whose carved thrones demonstrate their prestige and authority in Copan
valley politics (Fash 1991: 130-137, 160-183).
234 Ancient Maya

Figure 9.15 Stela E from Quirigua, Guatemala (from Maudslay 1889,

Vol. II: Plate 26)

The Copan state may have been an example of the processes occurring
throughout the Maya lowlands, including proliferation of elites, status
rivalry, competitive display in architecture and ritual, warfare, and ulti-
mately the weakening and division of the multifaceted power that had
been nucleated in the hands of the K’uhul Ajaw. All aspects of this
process, memorialized in stone in the Copan Valley, foreshadowed the
 Classic Maya politics and history 235

ninth-century collapse of many of the Classic Maya kingdoms of the

southern lowlands.
‘To the north in Belize, the Mopan Valley of the Petén, and the Maya
Mountains (Fig. 9.10) were extremely variable patterns of small and
large kingdoms with economies and political structure differing to reflect
local ecosystems and specialized resources. In the Mopan region of the
southeastern Petén, battling small kingdoms fought in shifting alliances
(Laporte 1996). The giant center of Caracol with its complex, regional
- economy had begun to recover its political prestige and growth near the
end of the eighth century (Martin and Grube 2000: 95-98). Along the
Caribbean, small sites successfully specialized in a mixed maritime and
farming adaptation as well as trade and exchange of salt and coastal prod-
ucts.
Meticulous studies of the smaller polities of coastal and northern Belize
have revealed the presence of community specialization as well as smaller-
scale religious and political patterns that formed the fabric of Maya
society below the level of the great centers and their holy lords (e.g.
-McAnany 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995; McKillop and Healy 1989; Guder-
jan and Garber 1995). In central Belize, small kingdoms such as Cahal
Pech show evidence of seasonal movement of royal courts and palace
workshops which produced fine polychromes for inter-elite exchange
(Ball 1993; Ball and Taschek 1991, 2001). At Colha in northern Belize,
the presence of large deposits of extremely fine chert led to commu-
nity specialization and production of chert cores, macroblades, and tools
(e.g. Hester and Shafer 1984; Shafer and Hester 1983). Colha fine chert
tools were exchanged between centers and appeared throughout the Maya
lowlands in the Classic period.

Regional polities of the northern lowlands

The regional variability of the Classic Maya kingdoms is most strikingly

evident in the northern Yucatan peninsula, where drier conditions and an
absence of surface water in most areas influenced all aspects of culture.
In Campeche in the Rio Bec region (see Fig. 9.10), extensive systems
of artificial terraces captured moisture and retained thin soils (Eaton
1975; Thomas 1994). This economic base supported central Yucatan
sites such as Becan, Xpuhil, and Rio Bec. In this area material culture
combined northern Yucatan and southern Petén styles. Ceramics, for
example, included both the hard fine monochrome “slate” wares and
“trickle” decorative technique of the far north and the Petén-style poly-
chromes and utilitarian vessels (Ball 1977b). Architecture at some sites
236 Ancient Maya

included narrow spire-like “fake towers,” actually miniature imitations

>

of the tall temples of their southern neighbors at sites like Tikal and
Calakmul. Yet other facades of the central Petén Chenes style included
elaborate stone mosaics over concrete cores similar to the sites of the far
north (Potter 1977).
On the eastern side of the Yucatan peninsula (Fig. 9.10), sites show
closer ties in temple architecture, ceramics, and monuments to the stan-
dard southern lowland Classic-period corpus of traits. These southern
affiliations may reflect the environmental unity of the Petén and eastern
Yucatan which, as in the south, has greater rainfall, higher forest, lakes,
and bajos. The largest of the centers of eastern Yucatan, Coba, was a
truly gargantuan site in the Late Classic period. It had numerous tower-
ing temples, over thirty stelae monuments, and a network of paved sacbe
causeways linking it to smaller vassal centers (Folan et al. 1983, 1995).
The largest of these causeways was over a hundred kilometers long to the
site of Yaxuna, probably defining a western defended frontier of the Coba
regional state (Freidel et al. 1990; Suhler and Freidel 1998; Suhler et al.
2004).
Perhaps the most distinctive variant of lowland Classic Maya civiliza-
tion began to flourish in the seventh and eighth centuries in the Puuc
hill zone of the northwestern Yucatan peninsula (Fig. 9.10). By the
eighth century many sites in this region, such as Oxkintok, Uxmal, Sayil,
and Edzna, had the distinctive northern ceramic styles, including fine
monochrome slatewares and ceramics decorated with “trickle” designs.
Puuc architecture was constructed of fine thin stone veneers over strong
rubble and cement cores. Roofs had well-made corbeled vault arches
and sometimes lattice-like roof combs. Some sites had freestanding large
arches (Fig. 9.16), and many sites had tall stepped multistorey palaces.
Most characteristic of the Puuc style were the upper facades of buildings
(Fig. 9.17), which were decorated in stone mosaics formed into elaborate
geometric designs such as step-frets, lattices, and angular representations
of houses, serpent deities, and long-nosed gods. Numerous new elements
in Puuc architectural decoration indicate Mexican influence, including
the use of round columns and design elements which appear also in sites
in Veracruz and Oaxaca. These influences probably reflect Gulf Coast
trade and exchange networks.
Another factor in the formation of the Puuc version of Late Classic
culture may have been the need for collective community-level responses
to the lack of surface water. Sites in western Campeche and Yucatan
often relied heavily on bell-shaped chultun wells cut into the bedrock and
used to store run-off from the rainy season (Dunning 1992; McAnany
1990). At Edzna in Campeche, much larger water storage and control
Classic Maya politics and history 231

Figure 9.17 Puuc stone mosaic decoration on the fagade of the House
of the Governor at Uxmal, Yucatan
238 Ancient Maya

systems included large canals and reservoirs (Matheny et al. 1983;

Matheny 1987). In all of these Puuc sites the coordinated water control
systems may have led to a somewhat different basis of power with more
authority at the community level and perhaps more power shared by the
rulers with councils and subordinates.
Perhaps such differing influences and bases for power were factors in
the Terminal Classic florescence of the Puuc cities in the ninth century.
While Classic Maya civilization was in decline in many areas of the
southern lowlands from AD 800 to 900, the cities of the Puuc expe-
rienced a population increase and a cultural flerescence. As we shall see
(Chapter 10), however, this prosperity was short lived as intensified status
rivalry, competition, and warfare between northern states led to decline,
as had occurred earlier in many zones of the Petén.

Overview

The highly variable nature of Classic Maya economies, political forms,

and material culture overlay common features — and shared stresses.
All of these forms of the Maya state were still heavily reliant upon the
K’uhul Ajaw as central figure of both political and religious authority.
This centralized, yet ideologically dependent, form of authority was a
successful political system in the lowlands for over a millennium. Yet
the status rivalry and costs of this system, together with ecological and
economic challenges, had begun to show signs of great stress in many
regions by the eighth century, if not earlier. In the Terminal Classic period
that followed, many Maya kingdoms would collapse while others would
undergo transformation to different forms of state.
We should note that the Classic Maya theater-states were never able to
form a panregional centralized state, as arose in other world regions. For
example, in Mesopotamia, the Early Dynastic period of unstable warring
city-states led to the later, more unified hegemonies or macro-states of
Agade, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia. In central Mexico, Teotihuacan
came to dominate the smaller centers of the region and to form a more
centralized and unitary urban state. In Egypt, the beginning of the third
millennium BC witnessed the unification of the variable regional “nome”
states of Egypt into a single pharaonic kingdom. Similar processes of
unification of unstable, less centralized, archaic polities into larger, more
unitary states have been observed throughout the ancient world.
The Maya lowlands, however, continued throughout the Classic period
to be a landscape of fluctuating, expanding and contracting theater-states,
galactic polities, and unstable alliances. Like the Southeast Asian Negara
theater-state kingdoms, the Maya never achieved political unification.
 Classic Maya politics and history 239

Instead, in the ninth and tenth centuries, many of the Classic Maya
kingdoms in the southern lowlands declined or collapsed. Others were
transformed into a new kind of state system, one without the central orga-
nizing principle of the K’uhul Ajaw “holy lords”. As we shall see in the
next chapter, the reasons for this failure to unify and integrate, and the
causes of the decline of the Classic political system, are as complex and
fascinating as Maya civilization itself.
10 The end of Classic Maya civilization:
collapse, transition, and transformation

Since the beginnings of exploration in the Maya lowlands, the “mystery

of the collapse” of Classic-period civilization has been a driving force in
Maya archaeology. The vision of vast cities with stone temples, palaces,
and hieroglyphic monuments abandoned and overgrown by the jungle has
come to dominate popular images of archaeology. On a more scholarly
level, the issues surrounding the “collapse” of the Classic Maya cities have
been the subject of serious study and debate throughout the twentieth
century. Probably only the “fall” of the Roman Empire has been cited as
often in social theory on the decline of civilizations.
There has been, however, little agreement as to the nature of the decline
of Classic civilization or its causes. The lack of consensus has been due in
part to the incomplete nature of the archaeological record in the critical
period of the ninth and tenth centuries. Although much progress has been
made in the past twenty years toward filling the gaps in the data, recent
symposia and conferences still show little agreement (see bibliographic
essay). The most confusing factor may be the great regional variability of
Classic Maya civilization and the tendency of scholars to use the events in
the subregion of their own studies as the universal model for the decline
or the transformation of all of Classic Maya culture. Disagreement also
results from differences in terminology and epistemology. For that reason,
I begin here with a clarification of the terms and concepts involved in
addressing this inscrutable, but important, issue in Maya archaeology.

Concepts of causality in the decline of civilizations

The concept of causality is fraught with philosophical and epistemological

problems. Much apparent disagreement in Maya archaeology is simply
due to scholars talking about different “levels” of causality. Often, archae-
ologists posit “causes” from the data in their particular regions or sites
that would have been local proximate causes of the specific kind of culture
change observed in that area. Yet such local economic and ecological
conditions and regional political events were combined with pan-lowland

240
 i
Collapse, transition, and transformation 241

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS AND STRUCTURE OF THE SOCIETY

POTENTIAL FLAWS OR PROBLEMS

ROOT CAUSES OF COLLAPSE

PROXIMATE CAUSES OF COLLAPSE

EXTERNAL FACTORS

SSK DIFFERING PROXIMATE CAUSES

AND EFFECTS IN EACH REGION
il

Figure 10.1 Levels of causality in the decline of civilization

problems or processes to generate the specific manifestation of the end

of the Classic period political systems in any given area. Furthermore,
external factors or events (e.g. foreign intrusion or influence, climatolog-
ical factors, etc.) most often affect only a specific region, although some
may have been of broader impact. As we shall see, the term “collapse,”
with its connotations of traumatic and rapid decline, may only apply to
the western Petén kingdoms of the Classic Maya lowlands.
Underlying causes of widespread culture change, “ultimate” or “root
causes,” could be related to more general problems, flaws, or in Marxist
terms, “contradictions” between aspects of the political, economic, or
ecological institutions of the society. Such deeper problems relate to the
basic characteristics of the society or political system in question and can
only be considered “flaws” in the context of specific historical processes
or external factors to which the political system fails to respond success-
fully (Fig. 10.1). In the case of the Maya, we can try to identify broad
characteristics of Late Classic Maya society that led to problems and to
counterproductive responses to challenges confronting southern lowland
Classic Maya civilization as a whole in the eighth and ninth centuries. ‘The
differing (and to appearances, contradictory) manifestations of cultural
change in specific areas of the lowlands at the end of the Classic period
result from varied local responses to those common challenges as deter-
mined by regional conditions. As we shall see, the highly variable cultural
histories of the lowland Maya kingdoms at the end of the Classic period
can be broadly related to these common factors or “causes,” but with
very different local consequences.
242 Ancient Maya

A second terminological problem is scholars’ varying definition of

“collapse” or “decline.” What is it that experiences collapse or decline?
Maya kingdoms in many areas of eastern Mesoamerica were vigorous
polities in the Postclassic period, and millions of Maya today are partic-
ipating in a modern cultural and political resurgence (e.g. Fischer and
Brown 1996). Whatever happened to many of the southern lowland cities,
it was not a uniform, total collapse of these states, and it was in no way an
end or even decline of the enduring Maya tradition. The fragmentation of
the western Roman Empire after the fourth century AD was not an end
of Western civilization. In the same way, the Maya tradition continued
through the Postclassic, Colonial, and modern periods — long after the
Classic Petén cities had been absorbed by the rain forest.
Recent analyses of the “collapse” of civilizations have shown that this
term is best defined as a rapid decline in complexity in a particular polit-
ical system (e.g. Tainter 1988; Yoffee and Cowgill 1988). In the lowland
Maya case what actually collapsed, declined, or was transformed at the
end of the Classic period was a particular political system and the features
and institutions associated with it — namely, a political system of theater-
states dominated by the K’uhul Ajaw, or the holy lords. The end of this
system also led to the disappearance of its associated funerary cults (with
their stelae, altars, and tomb-temples), “galactic” political hegemonies,
and the state patronage networks of redistribution of fine ceramics and
high-status exotic goods and ornaments. This system disappeared by the
tenth century, and in some regions of the southern lowlands its passing
was accompanied by the depopulation of major cities, drastic reduction of
public architecture, and other dramatic changes. Such a true “collapse”
seems to characterize events in the western Petén. In other areas, however,
the end of the Classic period was one of more gradual change, in some
cases even of florescence and transformation to a new political order.
Still, in all cases the distinctive Classic Maya political order and many of
its attendant institutions, features, and artifacts disappeared.
Viewed in this light, the enigma of the Classic Maya collapse becomes a
more realistic and manageable problem. We can plot the various collapses,
declines, florescences, or transformations of Classic Maya civilization
across the highly variable kingdoms of the Maya lowlands and note the
common underlying structural problems or changes, the varying proxi-
mate “causes” and external forces, and the resulting collapses, declines,
or transformations in each region (e.g. Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004a).
The parallel features in the regional changes can help to identify common
pressures and problems in Classic Maya society, while the differences in
regional manifestations reflect the political and economic variability of
the kingdoms of the Classic Maya lowlands.
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 243

Characteristics of the Classic Period Maya

Political and Ideological Infrastructure

Structure

e Charismatic and Shamanistic eMinimal Central Control by

Leadership (K’uhul Ajaw) Elites

eAjaw Leadership in Warfare and eRegional and Local Economy not

Ritual State Controlled

eldeological Base for Power eAgricultural System Well-

Adapted to Tropical Rain Forest
eFlexible System of Royal (Imitating its Dispersion and
Succession Diversity)

eControl and Distribution of eDispersed Urban and Rural

Status Reinforcing Goods Settlement Pattern

eConsiderable Investment in
Monumental Architecture, Art,
Symbols of Status, and other
Elements of Ritual and
Propaganda

eElite Warfare for Limited

Positions of Power

Figure 10.2 Some salient characteristics of most Classic Maya states

Structural problems of the Classic Maya political order

The fundamental characteristics of Classic Maya civilization in the

lowlands have been detailed in Chapters 5-8, and in Chapter 9 we
glimpsed the volatile historical dynamics and the variable regional polities
of the Classic period. Some salient characteristics of most Classic Maya
kingdoms are summarized in Figure 10.2. These are, of course, broad
generalizations, some of which apply only weakly to specific kingdoms.
For example, some of the unusually large polities, such as Calakmul,
Tikal, and Caracol, may have achieved a more integrated and centralized
regional economic system. Other sites had a less dispersed population.
Yet none achieved a population nucleation or an economic centralization
comparable to Teotihuacan, Tiwanaku, or many other ancient civiliza-
tions.
The centralization of religious and political authority in the divine
shamanistic kings of the Maya theater-states was a hallmark feature of
Classic civilization. With their power based heavily on ritual perfor-
mance and inter-center warfare, the K’uhul Ajaw wielded great power
and authority, but with its basis more in ideology than economics. A
flexible system of royal succession allowed a son (not necessarily the
244 Ancient Maya

eldest), a brother, another male relative, or in some cases even a queen

to take the throne upon the death of the ruler. Such a flexible system
of succession has advantages in seeking a suitable heir with the requi-
site heritage and charisma to rule. Yet this flexible system of succession
was also highly unstable, with frequent battles for the throne fought both
physically through warfare and through other forms of status rivalry. The
instability of the system was aggravated by the redundant, segmentary
nature of the political order, with the subordinate minor centers or vassal
kingdoms capable of most, if not all, of the same functions of the capitals.
Change in the political order of all states was common through usurpation
by rivals for the throne, defeat by other states, and revolt and overthrow
by rulers of subordinate states or secondary centers. All of these blows
to the dynastic order could result in rapid changes in the prestige of the
center and the control of tribute labor — more so because power was based
heavily on claims of supernatural power and personal authority.
In Chapter 9, we saw how the defeat or capture of prominent rulers
could lead to a decline in construction activity and a retraction in the size
of the “galaxy” of satellites paying tribute in labor or goods to the capi-
tal center. Even the greatest and most prestigious centers were subject
to these fluctuations in power, as seen in the sixth-century defeat and
“hiatus” at Tikal, the decline of Calakmul after its defeat in AD 695, and
the fragmentation of dynastic power in the Copan kingdom after its defeat
by a former vassal, Quirigua (Chapter 9). Conversely, the expansion of
regional power could be brought about by success in alliance formation,
war, and ritual by particularly charismatic kings, as seen at Tikal under
the Early Classic foreign-affiliated kings, or at Caracol after its sixth-
century victories. These unstable dynamics of expanding and contracting
“galactic” hegemonies, such as those of Tikal and Calakmul, were merely
the most spectacular versions of the ongoing status rivalry that was charac-
teristic of the Maya theater-states (e.g. Webster 1999; cf. Tambiah 1977;
Demarest 1992b). This status rivalry sometimes generated conflict and
warfare but, more often, it stimulated the extraordinary Classic architec-
ture, art, and monuments that were the settings for pageants, feasting,
and rituals. These activities were the more common form of competition
for the allegiance of subordinate centers and the support of the popu-
lace as a whole. Grand rituals, inter-elite visits and feasting, marriage
alliances, and war were alternative paths to power for the K’uhul Ajaw.
All scholars have observed an intensification of these activities of status
rivalry in the Late Classic period. Competitive investment in architec-
ture and monuments for intensified ritual created the impressive Classic
period epicenters, monuments, and artifacts. Alliance, warfare, and inter-
site visits also increased. While these activities produced the beautiful
corpus of Classic Maya art and ruins admired today, they had a high
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 245

energetic cost for the supporting populations of the Classic period. Elite
polygamy, a successful mode of extending power and forming alliances,
would have exacerbated these pressures by increasing the size of the
elite class and the number of rival princes competing for positions
of power.

Infrastructural stress and counterproductive responses

~ Most collapse theories have stressed problems of demography and ecolog-

ical stress at the end of the Classic period (see Culbert ed. 1973 and
bibliographic essay). Such analyses correctly point to the high popula-
tion levels and densities in the Late Classic period as a major source
of ecological stress on the productive, but fragile, rain forest agricul-
tural system that sustained them. These models, however, implicitly
accept a Malthusian logic that human populations outgrow the resources
needed to support them. The last fifty years of comparative ethnogra-
phy on human demography have demonstrated that societies regulate
their growth through a wide variety of mechanisms, including postpartum
taboos, celibate sectors of society, homosexual behavior, coitus interrup-
tus, periodic abstinence, abortion, and infanticide (e.g. Beshers 1967;
Devereux 1967; Mamdani 1974; Langer 1974; Polgar 1975; Coleman
and Schofield 1986; Wrigley 1969). Archaeologists must, then, explain
in cultural terms the posited episodes of demographic growth, especially
if they led to stress on the society’s infrastructure.
Other problems with demographic models for decline or collapse are
more specific to the Maya case. As described below, political fragmenta-
tion, decline, and abandonment of centers occur first and most rapidly
in the western Petén. Yet extensive ecological, osteological, and settle-
ment studies in the Pasion region have found there complex agricultural
regimes that were well adapted to population levels with no indications
of increasing nutritional stress (e.g. Dunning et al. 1997; O’Mansky and
Dunning 2004; Wright 1994, 1997; Emery 1997). It is difficult, then,
to attribute political collapse in the west to demographic or ecological
crises. In the central Petén, where population levels were much higher,
political decline occurs more gradually and at least half a century later —
followed by an Early Postclassic resurgence. In such areas, the high popu-
lation levels may have been encouraged by elite ideology in order to
generate the labor pools needed to support the intensifying construction
projects, wars, and rituals of the competing rulers. Such Late Classic
demographic and ecological stresses were more likely consequences,
rather than causes, of Late Classic status rivalry and warfare. Aspects
of Classic Maya political and ideological structure may have exacerbated
many of the infrastructural and ecological problems observed in some
246 Ancient Maya

regions, such as the central Petén and the Copan Valley (see Fig. 10.3
Saye OD weancdiescia)
Another basic question regarding the collapse, decline, or transforma-
tion of the lowland cities and kingdoms at the end of the Classic period is
why in many areas Maya leadership did not respond with effective corrective
measures for the stresses generated by internal, as well as external, factors.
Cross-cultural studies of culture change show that “complex societies
are problem-solving organizations, in which more parts, different kinds
of parts, more social differentiation, more inequality, and more kinds
of centralization and control emerge as circumstances require” (Tainter
1988:37). Yet the K’uhul Ajaw failed to respond with effective corrections
of infrastructural problems. Their ineffectiveness was most likely due to
the canons of Maya leadership and its limited range of action. The elites
of most Classic Maya kingdoms, in general, did not manage subsistence
systems or production or exchange of utilitarian goods. Most Maya poli-
ties, while held together by the rituals and authority of the center, were
decentralized with local community or family-level management of most
aspects of the economy. This decentralized system facilitated adaptation
of farming systems to local microenvironments (e.g. Dunning et al. 1997;
Dunning and Beach in press). Yet having their role defined in terms of
ritual and inter-elite alliance and warfare, it is not surprising that the
K’uhul Ajaw responded through these same mechanisms to problems
such as demographic pressure or ecological deterioration. They natu-
rally reacted by intensifying ritual activities, construction, or warfare —
the activities within their purview. Such counterproductive responses
would have only increased the stresses on Late Classic economies and
led to internal fission, usurpations, fragmentation, and further conflicts —
all processes observed to intensify in the eighth and ninth centuries (see
Rigslovs dy

The nature of the “Classic Maya collapse”

The stresses reviewed above may have left many of the Classic Maya states
of the ninth century weakened and fragmented internally and unable to
compete with other Mesoamerican states. Some of these neighbors had
begun to evolve on the central Mexican pattern of multiple institutions
of centralized power with elites more directly managing production and
trade, as well as ritual and warfare. In the end, the K’uhul Ajaw system
with its divine lords and theater-states may have been unable to respond
to the very problems generated by the demands of its rituals, wars, and
feasting, and the expensive stages, props, and costumes required for polit-
ical and religious performances.
 SUOLOVA
LVHLCHT OL THOUd
SNA NI FHL ALV'I OISSVTO dOlddd

diysuspesy yuspusdag jeoyjodg

Y duel] AljeAry
10} JOMOg seu] jeIN]NOUDY-s
uodn t pue [euoisay osueyoxg
AZojoap]
pue jemry alg Auwedéjog suajskS Ajpeso7y Pajosuod
jjam) pajdepe
jnq jou
f INseudq 9}{]J-s9]U]UVJILA 93119 (papjonuos
jUsUSdAU]
Ul ‘WV asvosouy
Ul OU]q
‘sdulpjing
pue uonindog NS t
o1ydessowaq]
‘ainssaig
[eVI1d0j09q *uOPRIOIN}IG
[euosiag Sse sjusUINUO * JO} sounssaig
Jeontog pue Jo} uonyeduio7 duiseassuy YyMolH uoneindog
epuesedoig JO} SUNRID pue snes peel 10 sso]JO opel
diysiajny JIBjIEA, UONRIYISUSJUT
,

i * sanlygJOIMoND yA diyssapeaT
Aitqeuy
0}
o}[9-UONY WO SaINssaig Q1eJIBM 931]J-19jU] Sursvosouy puodsay
UI
d1WIOUOSI
|, SULID

10j
yons
ft

ft pur uoyeindog Suuojsnjy

t siejiem Loddnsg 0} UOTJEILJIIO.J 9JIS 10} POON

popooyy
SOINSSOIg
O} aSvaIOU]

uoyendog
21]:]-ON SUOBE|Ndog
—«- sainssaig
pue SOANUaDUT
Joy
DN
A

suoneyndog
JUSUNSIAU]
uonejndodiaaQ
JO

[
jeo13ojooy
uoTeIOIII}9q
orejiv

31OW)

UONONpOLg aj1]/q-UON Zurseaiouy

(jemyts

isi 2S
Sasuodsay

jeisuaH uonejndodisag Jurseassuy uonerojdxy

i
SayoNpoig-uoN

Jo [BINYNIWIY
SWID}SAS
[eI1Bojooyq uOHeIOLNaG + Jean qisuajaq
a] S$19}UIZ UONRARIOS
JO SISIID
a

LY
[23130/00q
UOTLIOLIIIIq
NBL ¢'OT sWIOS [einlonNs suraqoid
JO SIsse[DBABY saqeis
248 Ancient Maya

By the ninth and tenth centuries, in different specific ways in each

region, the K’uhul Ajaw system was transformed or replaced in Yucatan,
parts of Belize, and the Central Lakes area of the Petén. In its place
arose states that gave more authority to multiple institutions of power —
councils of lineage heads, the priestly class, elite merchant classes, warrior
guilds, and so on. Some of these were the so-called multepal system states
of the Postclassic, in which the heads of leading lineages shared power
in uneasy alliances (e.g. Sabloff and Andrews 1986; Sharer 1994:402—
406; Roys 1965a). In other areas of the lowlands (including much of the
central Petén and the Mexican states of Campeche and Quintana Roo),
Classic Maya kingdoms struggled and then declined in varying ways or
underwent less traumatic changes. Yet in the western Petén and some
other zones, many centers and cities were rapidly depopulated as the
bulk of their population dispersed or moved off to other zones.
Thus, as reviewed in this chapter, each region experienced a different
sequence of events and a distinctive configuration of proximate causes in
their collapses, declines, or transformations. The specific culture histories
in each region — with their different sequence of changes and endings —
reflect the underlying variability in ecology, state forms, and historical
influences in the Classic period. Yet in each case there were shared under-
lying factors in the structural problems and the political involution of the
K’uhul Ajaw system. By the close of the tenth century, this system had
disappeared from lowland Maya civilization. The notion of a uniform
“fall” or “collapse” is now as obsolete for the Classic Maya as for the
Roman Empire. Instead, as with Rome, a complex series of processes
occurred over a period of over two centuries. For example, there was a
political collapse in some regions (e.g. western Europe for Rome, the
western Petén for the Maya), decline in other areas (e.g. North Africa for
Rome, the central and southeastern Petén for the Maya), and florescence
in yet other zones (e.g. Byzantium in the Roman case, and the northern
lowlands for the Terminal Classic Maya). Scholars are now beginning to
plot and to try to understand the complex nature of changes and conti-
nuity in each region, rather than arguing over the “cause” of a uniform
“collapse” process.
Some of the “dynamic” models consider the changes at the end of
the Classic period to be just another manifestation of the continuous
volatility of Classic Maya politics and the pulsations of its expanding and
contracting polities (e.g. Marcus 1993, 1998). This ninth-century transi-
tion, however, was fundamentally different because in some regions it was
followed by depopulation and by the cessation of public architecture, and
in other zones the political and economic order was irreversibly changed.
Also with the passing of the Ajaw complex, its legitimating mechanisms
(e.g. Freidel 1992) in art, architecture, and ritual also disappeared. Some
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 249

of the Postclassic Maya states that flourished in the Guatemalan highlands

and Yucatan were as populous and even more vigorous economically and
politically than the Classic Maya theater-state, but they did not generate
anything like the vast corpus of art and architecture of their Classic-period
predecessors. They didn’t need to. Their power was less dependent on
the generation and the legitimization of authority through monumental
display and ritual. In the Classic period, the most common smaller Maya
state, like the Asian theater-state, “drew its force, which was real enough,
‘from its imaginative energies, its semiotic capacity to make inequality
enchant” (Geertz 1980: 123). It was this elegant but fragile system, as
beautiful and seductive to modern scholars and readers as it was to the
Maya populace, that came to an end in the ninth and tenth centuries —
making way for a new, more flexible and adaptable political order.

The beginning of the end: political devolution and

warfare in the Petexbatun collapse

While the variable processes involved in the end of Classic lowland

Maya civilization did not “begin” in any particular region, the earliest
yet identified and studied “collapse” of Classic-period political systems
occurred in the western Petén, and there perhaps the earliest in the
Petexbatun region (Fig. 10.4). For over a decade, large multidisciplinary
projects investigated ecology, history, ritual, economics and trade, settle-
ment, subsistence systems, nutrition, and warfare, as well as undertaking
intensive study of the many kilometers of cave systems below the sites
of the Petexbatun region (Demarest 1997, in press b). The evidence
from these independent investigations has been used to test alternative
hypotheses on the rapid decline of the Classic Maya kingdoms there. The
results revealed a clear and consistent, albeit complex, sequence of events
in the Petexbatun.
In the early seventh century a new regime with Tikal affiliations was
established as a military outpost of the Tikal alliance in the Petexbatun
region with its seat at the site of Dos Pilas. Yet by the mid-seventh century,
the young king of Dos Pilas was conquered by the ruler of Calakmul and
drawn into that center’s stratagems of regional alliance and war against
Tikal and its allies (Fahsen et al. 2003; Demarest and Fahsen 2003). Then
the rapidly constructed capital center at Dos Pilas was used as a base to
wage war in collaboration with Calakmul against Tikal and to conquer
their Pasién River Valley neighbors. Through Dos Pilas, Cancuen, and
other vassal centers, the Calakmul alliance controlled the western river
route until the end of the eighth century. Then, after Calakmul’s AD
695 defeat by Tikal, Dos Pilas remained as the great military power of
the Pasién region (Demarest and Fahsen 2003; Demarest 1993, 1997).
250) Ancient Maya

3 on River’
oy £
MEI Caribo® ( = S .
a - Cc fe
La Amelia Seibal mf,
Petexbatun River ¢

#& Altar de Sacrificios +. fy

Dos Pilasa oan)
: Arroyo de Piedra» ~ ® Punta de Chimino
Sadinas_ Rive,
Tamarindito Lake Petexbatun
~
M E X I Cc O Aguateca%

GoU AeT E Mi AcivA

Figure 10.4 Petexbatun region and some major sites (drawn by Luis
F. Luin)

By the mid-eighth century, Dos Pilas controlled through conquest or

alliance most of the Pasion River Valley, the main route of transport
and trade between the lowlands and the highlands to the south and,
consequently, the source of jade, hard stone, quetzal feathers, and other
status-reinforcing goods. Through marriage alliance the regime extended
the dynasty’s hegemony to include an alliance with the Cancuen kingdom,
which controlled the head of navigation of the Pasion and the passes to
the highlands (Fahsen and Jackson 2002).
This contrcl and tribute from vassals were primary sources of economic
support for Dos Pilas, probably even including food from nearby vassals
(Dunning et al. 1997; Dunning and Beach in press). The wealth of this
predatory kingdom filled tombs, caches, and the caves beneath the center
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 251

ex
7 \L i ee
= es ris
; 0 ar I iy ue

of cane

Figure 10.5 Dos Pilas Western Group (drawn by Luis F. Luin).

Bottom: group before AD 761. Top: group after AD 761 with
encircling palisades and stone base walls built by dismantling earlier
temples and palaces

with polychromes, eccentrics, and other artifacts (Demarest 1993, 1997;

Brady et al. 1991, 1997). The K’uhul Ajaw of Dos Pilas established a
second dynastic seat at the older defensible hilltop center of Aguateca
to facilitate control of their sprawling hegemony (e.g. Inomata 1997). At
Dos Pilas itself, temples, plazas, monuments, sacred caves, and multiple
palaces were connected by a cosmologically patterned circuit of proces-
sion paths (Demarest et al. 2003; see Chapter 8).
In AD 760-761, the galactic polity of Dos Pilas violently fragmented.
The proximate cause of this catastrophe was the siege, defeat, and
destruction of the capital at Dos Pilas. The war and defeat of the Petex-
batun K’uhul Ajaw by their former vassal of Tamarindito was recorded in
monuments at that site and celebrated on the inscriptions on the funerary
temple of the victorious Tamarindito lord (Valdés 1997b). The archae-
ological excavations at Dos Pilas uncovered a hastily constructed series
of defensive walls around parts of the site epicenters. The West Plaza
Group was encircled by walls 1 to 1.5 meters high that were hastily
constructed from the blocks ripped from the sacred temples and palaces
there (Fig. 10.5). Topped by a wooden palisade, these walls (each over
500 meters long) encircled some of the temples and palace structures and
Dae Ancient Maya

Figure 10.6 Eighth-century defensive systems around the E] Duende

complex, Dos Pilas, Guatemala (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

the large west courtyard (Demarest er al. 1997). There, in the former
setting of the spectacular pageants of the theater-state, the besieged
remaining inhabitants of Dos Pilas constructed a densely packed siege
village.
A similar system of low walls bearing palisades surrounded the towering
El Duende complex a kilometer to the east. The three concentric walls
and palisades turned this huge sacred temple and the court behind it into
a formidable fortress (Fig. 10.6). Between the two complexes the central
Murcielagos palace of the last ruler (see Chapter 8) lay abandoned atop
its sacred hill. The inscribed monumental throne there was overturned
and broken into fragments with offerings before it (a typical Maya act of
ritual destruction, i.e. a “termination ritual”) (Mock 1998). Population
at Dos Pilas declined within the next few years to five to ten percent
of previous levels. By the ninth century there were only a few scattered
households, whose inhabitants farmed and hunted amongst the ruins.
The many nobles of Dos Pilas fled during this period to the second royal
seat at Aguateca, and also perhaps farther south to join their in-laws at
Cancuen (Demarest and Barrientos 2002; Demarest 2003).
In the subsequent period from AD 761 to 830, the Petexbatun and
middle Pasion regions collapsed into a state of endemic warfare. Initially
it appears that major centers such as Aguateca, Tamarindito, Seibal, and
La Amelia battled to become the new royal seat of the Petexbatun region.
But the escalating warfare appears to have spiraled out of control, with
tremendous energetic expenditures on wall palisade systems in all areas
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 253

at oe ees

Figure 10.7 Portion of the fortification system at Aguateca (drawn by

Luis F. Luin)

and a shift of populations to defensible enclaves (Demarest et al. 1991,

1997; O’Mansky and Dunning 2004; see bibliographic essay). Trade
systems in polychromes and other outside goods were disrupted, and
even local exchange was limited by the intensifying warfare (Foias 1996;
Foias and Bishop 1997).
By the close of the eighth century, the Petexbatun region had become
a “landscape of fear” with settlement patterns determined only by defen-
sibility (Dunning and Beach in press; O’Mansky and Dunning 2004).
Fortification systems have been found by excavation and survey through-
out the region (Fig. 10.4). Wall and palisade systems varied greatly in scale
and extent. Some were low stone walls merely to foot wooden palisades,
others were impressive ramparts over four meters in height. At Aguateca,
the remaining stronghold of the Dos Pilas elite, over five kilometers of wall
systems were constructed to supplement that center’s natural defenses of
high cliffs to the west and a fifty- to seventy-meter deep gorge to the east
(Fig. 10.7). Despite these awesome fortifications, not long after AD 800
Aguateca was overrun and burned by its enemies. Many artifacts were left
in situ on the surface by its unfortunate defenders, while its royal palace
was ritually destroyed (Inomata 1995, 1997, 2003, in press).
In some areas of the Petexbatun region even small hamlets were
moved to defensible positions and fortified with low walls and palisades
(Fig. 10.8). Some fortifications had ingenious features such as baffled
gateways and “killing alleys” in which enemy assailants could be trapped
between walls and pummeled with projectiles (Fig. 10.5). Areas near
some of the defended zones may have been intensively farmed, as
254 Ancient Maya

Figure 10.8 Fortified hilltop village in the Petexbatun (drawn by Luis

F. Luin)

Figure 10.9 Late Classic site of Punta de Chimino with defensive

moats and protected intensive garden zones (drawn by Luis F. Luin)

indicated by phosphate analyses and terrace features (Dunning er al.

1997; O’Mansky and Dunning 2004; see Fig. 6.4). For example, the
fortification system of the center of Punta de Chimino included stone
box gardens and areas of intensive agriculture and fertilization within the
second and third outer moat and rampart systems (Figs. 10.9, 6.3).
This militarized landscape, with a reduced population concentrated in
fortified enclaves, contradicted the norms of the Classic Maya settlement
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 255

strategy. With field systems concentrated near defended enclaves, overuse

- of soils in these loci could have followed, contradicting the Classic Maya
subsistence strategy of diversity and dispersion of different types of farm-
ing systems (cf. Chapter 6). More importantly, this militarized landscape,
with its very reduced and defended zones of settlement, could no longer
provide safe residence for the previous high population levels, probably
leading to emigration. By AD 830 population in the region had been
reduced to scattered small hamlets and lone households.
The only remaining major center after AD 830 was Punta de
Chimino, situated on a naturally defensible peninsula in Lake Petex-
batun (Demarest 1996a, 2004; Demarest, Escobedo, and O’Mansky
1997; Demarest and Escobedo 1997; Wolley and Wright 1991; Wolley
1993). Three moat and wall systems separated the center from the main-
land and protected its areas of intensive agriculture. The largest moat was
excavated over ten meters deep into the bedrock, allowing the waters of
the lake to pass through it and making the site epicenter an artificial, virtu-
ally impregnable island fortress (Fig. 10.9). Only this center survived the
maelstrom of endemic warfare in the Petexbatun and continued to erect
public architecture into the late ninth century (Demarest 2004). But even
this lake center and the few hamlets inland were gradually abandoned by
the tenth century. Major centers never returned to the region but later, in
the Postclassic years, settlers from the central Petén established scattered
hamlets and fishing camps along Petexbatun rivers and lakes (Morgan
and Demarest 1995; Johnston et al. 2001), while the ruins of the great
Classic centers remained unoccupied.
Thus, in this Petexbatun zone of the Maya lowlands the end of the
Classic civilization was truly a “collapse” — a rapid decline in sociopolitical
complexity. In this case it was also accompanied by endemic warfare and
great population reduction. It was a dramatic example of the regional
disintegration of a civilization.

Causality in the Petexbatun collapse:

alternative hypotheses

As the most studied regional example of the collapse, the Petexbatun

political disintegration serves to test alternative models of external factors
and internal problems in the ending of the Classic Maya political order
(see bibliographic essay). Obviously, endemic warfare spiraled out of
control in this region, disrupting economic systems and forcing a settle-
ment and subsistence strategy capable of supporting only a fraction
of previous population levels. This well-documented series of changes
provides only the proximate causes of the collapse. The next question is,
what were the underlying causes of this warfare?
256 Ancient Maya

Previous studies and interpretations had suggested that foreign inva-

sions might have been the source of the intensified warfare in the western
Petén at sites like Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios in the late eighth and
ninth century (e.g. R.E.W. Adams 1973; Sabloff and Willey 1967). The
introduction of fine-paste ceramics and new elements in monumental
iconography at those sites were attributed to an invasion of “Mexicanized”
Maya peoples from Tabasco. More recent studies have shown that the fine
wares were locally produced in the Pasion region (Bishop 1994; Foias
and Bishop 1997) and the unusual styles of ninth-century monuments
at Altar de Sacrificias and Seibal also had antecedents within the Maya
lowlands (Stuart 1993). Many of the features once believed to repre-
sent foreign influences, including militaristic iconography and C-shaped
house forms, appear to have developed in the Petexbatun region itself
(Demarest 1997, 2004; Tourtellot and Gonzales 2004). While warfare
was clearly one factor in the collapse in the western Petén, its causes and
impact cannot be attributed to foreign invasion.
Another popular recurrent theory for the Maya collapse posits great
climatic change as having directly brought about the collapse or having
led to drought, famine, and war over dwindling resources (e.g. Gill
2000). Such theories have experienced a resurgence in popularity due to
evidence from pollen cores in northern Yucatan and elsewhere, suggest-
ing a possible drought there in the tenth century (e.g. Curtis et al.
1996; Hoddell et al. 1995; Lucero 2002; Robichaux 2002; Haug ez al.
2003). In the Petexbatun, however, the endemic warfare begins over a
century before the proposed drought. This earliest lowland “collapse”
is nearly over before the alleged drought process begins (O’Mansky and
Dunning 2004; Demarest 2004). Furthermore, the Petexbatun paleoeco-
logical researches show no evidence of Late or Terminal Classic drought,
famine, or radical change of any kind in climate, ecology, or nutrition
(e.g. Dunning et al. 1997; Dunning and Beach in press; Wright 1994,
1997, in press; Wright and White 1996).
The most popular theories to explain the political disruptions and
decline at the end of the Classic period are those positing overpopulation
and consequent overexploitation of the environment, followed by ecolog-
ical deterioration and political problems (e.g. Culbert 1974, 1977, 1988;
Santley et al. 1986). It does appear that such problems did arise in the
central Petén, the Copan Valley, and other regions. Yet again, in the Petex-
batun and western Petén, where centers and states first decline, there is
no such evidence of rapid ecological deterioration. The extensive paleoe-
cological and settlement studies conducted in the Petexbatun revealed a
fairly stable Late Classic environment with a complex mix of subsistence
adaptations designed to minimize environmental damage (Dunning et al.
 Collapse, transition, and transformation Dsyil

1997; Dunning and Beach in press). There was no increase in malnutri-

- tion or disease evident in Late Classic human bones, and even deer bones
indicate a stable diet and good nutrition in the eighth and ninth centuries
(Wright 1997a, in press; Emery 1997, in press; Emery et al. 2000). Thus,
for the Petexbatun, the hard evidence does not indicate ecological stress —
be it caused by climate change or ecological exploitation — as the under-
lying cause of the region’s early and violent collapse (Demarest 1997,
2004, in press b).
For the causes of the endemic warfare and disintegration of polities
in the Petexbatun, we must look to the political and economic stresses
created by the K’uhul Ajaw system itself. As described at the begin-
ning of this chapter, the collapse in the Petexbatun can be regarded
as an early and extreme manifestation of the general problems of the
Classic Maya political system and its demands. The latter were exacer-
bated in the seventh and eighth centuries by increasing inter-elite status
rivalry, the growing proportion of elites in the population, and the conse-
quent increase in inter-elite competition for limited positions of royal
power and for status-reinforcing exotic goods. This cycle of contra-
dictory demands on the system increased inter-center warfare, rapidly
devolving into more widespread conflict as the basic infrastructure of the
region was disrupted. In turn, in the context of such competitive polit-
ical relations, general demographic growth would be encouraged rather
than controlled. Figure 10.10 provides a detailed but hypothetical model
of potential underlying stresses, probable effects, and the consequent
sequence of maladaptive responses and negative consequences that may
have destroyed the political systems of the Petexbatun.

Collapse in the western Petén

Within less than seventy years of the fall of Dos Pilas as a political
capital, the fragmentation and warfare in the region had led to rapid
depopulation of centers and the countryside. By AD 830, only one major
center remained, the massively fortified site of Punta de Chimino. Popu-
lation in the Terminal Classic period (AD 830 to 1000) in the rest of
the Petexbatun region was reduced to scattered households and small
hamlets near water sources (O’Mansky and Dunning 2004; Demarest
2004). Such a rapid depopulation would have involved emigration of
tens of thousands to other areas where refugee populations would have
further destabilized polities that were already under stress from the cycle
of pressures on Classic political and economic systems generated by
status rivalry, the demands of Maya elites, and varying regional diffi-
culties. In the Petexbatun, the fall and abandonment of Dos Pilas was
 WopSury uNIegXdIEJ SIsse[D oe] ay Jo asdeyjoo oy} ur Ayyesnes Jo uoNvIosdsojUr ONVWIDYIS OT'OT oIn31J
SNOIDSa UFHLO OL NOLLV YODA

OISSVTO TVNINYEL
SALVIS ALT JO SSOT ‘
GNVAIAV NOLLVZITVNOIDAN * SUAINAD dO LNSINNOGNVEY
ATaISNAATG INSIOLIINSNI
| SALLTWNSVO ONISVANONT i
f f SSTALS TVAN.LONGLS VAAN
GasLLYOA SWALSAS (TAIT CNV IVDILVIOd
SUGLIND ATSISNAIIG SWALSAS SGVUL TVOOT GNV
TVNOIOSY NI SIA TEOUd .
UVAN NOLLVIIOTIXASIAO
| F f SOLLOVL FOIS NV SNOLLVOILLYOL

t
SANOZ CTald CACNAATC NI SALNOW AVAL TONVISIOC4 sons sisans GNV FAVUL NO SLOddda
NOLLONGOWd AAIIISNILNI ONOT AO NOLL dNaSIA me
HLMOUD
JHaVAOOWAC
FYVINVA SLITS -YALNI

VISSVTO
; Mid Vu TION
pee NOLLILAdIWOO
SINGLLSAS DOLLS VNAGMALNI ONIS VSUONT
AAISNSLNI CAS VAYONT vy; ~
t aIHSUTINA AOI
YOA NOLLLLAGWOO ANY NOLLLLAd NOD
ONTIANV ANAGOIMS
CNV GAS VAAONI TVALRY GNV SALVLS * HLMOUD DIHdVAOOWAC MOIS
NO SONVI TAY MALVAD SHLITA JO HLMONO
¢

JISSV TOddd
va Clava TUOK i
YOd NOLLILAGHOO it
SIWALSAS SdO09 SALVLS : | AWVSATIOd ALITA HLMOUS NOLLVT1NdOd
TVUNLINONIOV XFIdINOD JO NOLIN ETAL SIOGg a

-
SALI1d GIOATIAId 10 JONTOUSNA
SALVIS OLLSVNAG
AONALSISANS | AONVHOXA | NOLLILAd WOO ALITA) AHdVYDOWEG
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 259

followed a few decades later by that of Tamarindito, Arroyo de Piedra,

- and Aguateca (Demarest and Valdés 1995). Families and larger groups
may have moved to other areas, initially in adjacent zones and later to
more distant regions (Demarest 2004). Elsewhere in the western Petén,
parallel processes appear to have been under way.
In the Usumacinta region of the western Petén, sudden termina-
tion of construction was followed by rapid depopulation early in the
ninth century. Notably, this region was characterized by warfare between
centers in the eighth century, with a proliferation of minor centers
with new ‘holy lords’ and the presence of many subordinate lords or
sajals (Mathews 1988, Stuart 1995). Major rival centers such as Yaxchi-
lan and Piedras Negras were in constant competition with prestige-
enhancing construction projects, public rituals, inter-elite visits, feasts,
and, most directly, wars (e.g. Schele and Mathews 1991; Schele 1991).
They also had to compete with potential rivals at lesser centers in their
realms.
Finally, major centers such as Piedras Negras fell into rapid decline
after the defeat and capture of their rulers by holy lords of rival
centers such as Yaxchilan, or even defeat by smaller, previously subor-
dinate, centers, as in the case of the decline at Palenque (Schele 1991;
Schele and Matthews 1991). The fragmentation of the segmentary or
“galactic” polities of the Late Classic was clearly under way and the
structural flaws of redundancy of function between capitals and subor-
dinate centers were providing the fissures for this process. The loss of
prestige and the undermining of sacred authority of the K’uhul Ajaw
would follow, as worsening stresses on the society raised doubts about
the ruler’s power with ancestors and supernatural forces. The weaken-
ing of rulers’ authority would have been worsened by events upriver,
where endemic warfare in the Petexbatun and middle Pasion would
have restricted the flow of status-reinforcing exotic goods from the high-
lands (Demarest and Fahsen 2003). With a growing elite, proliferat-
ing independent dynasties, and intensified ritual and warfare, the kings,
their courts, and their subordinate centers would have badly needed
such imported goods for the rituals, gift-giving, and tribute that were
so critical to the formation and maintenance of alliance and patronage
networks.
All of these pressures could have contributed to the cessation of
construction and then the depopulation of the major western centers, first
Palenque, then Piedras Negras, Yaxchilan, and other centers (Mathews
1988; Schele 1991; Holley 1983). Military defeats often provided the
final blow to prestige, but the cycle of causality came from the building
problems and contradictions of the Classic Maya theater-state system.
260 Ancient Maya

The subordinate populations, literally “disenchanted” with their sacred

lords and frustrated by a multitude of problems, gradually drifted away
to more distant centers or regions (Demarest and Valdés 1995; Demarest
2004; Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004b; Holley 1983; Houston er al. 2001;
Webster et al. 1999).

Migration and enclave formation in the Pasion Valley

and other regions

The impact of the collapse and depopulation of the Petexbatun and other
regions of the western Petén would have been felt throughout the Maya
lowlands. In the 1990s we have seen that the greatest cost of warfare
is the displacement of populations. In Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Central
Africa, the United Nations and other international agencies have strug-
gled, with limited success, to deal with refugee migrations and the conse-
quent famines, disease, and spread of conflict in the wake of wars (e.g.
UNDHA 1994; Annan 1997). In each case, warfare between major states
or larger opposition groups led to fragmentation within smaller units,
finally disintegrating into a wholly militarized landscape from which large
numbers of people were forced to flee, spreading chaos to adjacent zones
(UNDHA 1994).
There are additional interesting parallels between recent events in
Somalia and the western Petén collapse. In Somalia, migration from the
troubled southern region of open warfare spread conflict and collapse
to other areas (McKinley 1997). Yet in some zones, such as the town
of Bassaso in the north, warring leaders established new mechanisms
of government, drawing on ancient, traditional, clan-based ideology to
create and legitimate a councilar form of leadership. By 1997 this and
other northern enclaves had experienced a florescence amid the chaos of
Somalia, as they incorporated thousands of refugees moving as families
and even whole villages from the embattled surrounding regions. Recent
political analyses have characterized these events as “an experiment in
government that created a new form of power centralized in a council
and not in individual chiefs or warlords” (McKinley 1997).
This process may be broadly analogous to what was occurring in the
ninth century in the Pasidn River Valley and some other regions. As
the neighboring Petexbatun region lay in ruins, there was a florescence
at Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios with a distinctive (but Classic Maya)
sculptural style and technically sophisticated monochrome Fine Orange
and Fine Gray ceramics (again new, but locally developed in the Pasion
River Valley). These material changes also may have marked a shift in the
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 261

ideology of power. Seibal fully participated in the warfare of the eighth

’
and early ninth centuries in the Petexbatun. With its highly defensible
location (Tourtellot 1988: 432-436), access to water, and probable agri-
cultural terraces in defended areas (Dunning er al. 1997: 261; Dunning
and Beach in press), Seibal was able to survive the eighth-century mael-
strom, like its smaller neighbor to the south at Punta de Chimino. During
the AD 760-830 epoch of endemic conflict, Group D at Seibal may have
served as a defensive fortress with high parapets and a defensible posi-
tion similar to that of the Aguateca fortress (Tourtellot 1988: 432-436;
Tourtellot and Gonzales 2004; Demarest 2004). Unlike most of their
unfortunate neighboring states, the lords of Seibal and Altar de Sacri-
ficios presided over a florescence at their enclave centers. At the same
time, the only remaining ninth-century enclave in the Petexbatun to the
south, Punta de Chimino, survived with architecture, ceramics, and arti-
facts very similar to those of Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios (Demarest
and Escobedo 1997; Demarest, Escobedo, and O’Mansky 1997).
The new architectural and sculptural forms at Seibal, Altar, and Punta
de Chimino were not foreign, but rather were an amalgam of traditional
Classic Maya forms combined into a distinctive new variant (Tourtellot
and Gonzales 2004). The new K’uhul Ajaw of Seibal appear to have had
close ties to the Central Lakes area to the east (Stuart 1993). On the other
hand, the fine-ware monochrome ceramics of the period were local vari-
ants of technologies earlier introduced into the Petexbatun from the west
(Foias and Bishop 1997). Many of the unusual features in the sculptures,
strange costumes, long hair styles, and ubiquitous serpents (Fig. 10.11)
may have been part of an experimentation with new legitimating ideolo-
gies (e.g. Ringle ez al. 1998) that would help these surviving enclaves pull
together a kingdom from the fragmented political systems and popu-
lations of the collapsed states of the Petexbatun and other adjacent
zones.
Perhaps like the Bassaso leaders of modern Somalia, the rulers of
the Altar and Seibal Pasion Valley enclaves were drawing on both
ancient Maya symbols and new styles and concepts to legitimate these
states and pull together their disparate populations. These adaptations
allowed Seibal, Altar, and Punta de Chimino to survive for an addi-
tional century (AD 830 to 950/1000). In the end, though, these experi-
ments in new concepts and ideologies were but a variant of the traditional
Classic-period political order, and by the end of the tenth century these
Lower Pasion centers were abandoned (Demarest 1997; Demarest and
Escobedo 1997; Demarest et al. eds. 1997; Demarest 2004; Tourtellot
and Gonzales 2004).
262 Ancient Maya

Figure 10.11 Monument 3 of Seibal showing unusual Terminal

Classic iconography and garb

Decline of the Classic tradition in the central Petén

In most areas of the southern Maya lowlands, the end of the Classic
period was less dramatic. Fragmentation of political authority occurred,
but it was accompanied by only slow decline in population and architec-
tural activity. In the eighth century, Tikal experienced its greatest period
of constructional activity. The great ruler Jasaw Chan K’awiil I and his
eighth-century successors directed the vast Tikal architectural programs
(see Chapter 9). This “revitalization” of Tikal may be regarded more as
a symptom of stress than of strength (Ashmore and Sharer 1975; Dahlin
1976). As we have seen, such expensive, counterproductive responses to
problems were a potential flaw of the K’uhul Ajaw competitive power
structure (see Fig. 10.3, page 247).
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 263

The eighth century was a time of particularly intense status rivalry in the
- central Petén. This was sometimes expressed in terms of warfare between
centers, but perhaps because of the dominance of Tikal, it was more
often manifest in competitive architectural and ritual programs. Steep
temples and twin-temple complexes, as well as palaces and ballcourts,
were built at major centers throughout the region. Perhaps stimulated
by leadership policy and ideology, estimated population levels rose to a
peak by the beginning of the ninth century (Culbert et al. 1990; Rice and
Rice 1990). Some recent population estimates for “greater” Tikal are as
high as 280,000 for AD 800, and for the entire Tikal region over one-
and-a-half million (Turner 1990: 321). Contrary to previous assertions,
such population levels probably could be sustained by farming systems
at Tikal, which we now know included extensive use of sunken swamp
bajo areas surrounding the site zone (Culbert et al. 1996; Kunen et al.
2000). Still, such high levels — combined with the growing burden of
elite consumption, construction, and ritual display — would certainly have
strained local resources and left little margin for periodic subsistence or
political difficulties (Culbert 1988).
By the ninth century these stresses were becoming apparent with a
process of fragmentation of power like that observed earlier in the west
and at Copan in the southeast. K’atun-ending monuments and ceremo-
nial architecture were erected in the late ninth century at Uaxactun, Ixlu,
Jimbal, Xultun, and other secondary centers, previously vassals of Tikal.
Historical evidence indicates that this change may represent a shifting in
the seats of major ceremonies corresponding to a sacred cycle of thir-
teen K’atuns (P. Rice in press; see Chapter 8). In this interpretation,
the shifting of ceremonial seats at the end of the thirteen-K’atun cycle is
responsible for much of the change in settlement and architecture after
AD 830. It also seems probable, however, that the rulers of Tikal used
this ritual mechanism as a power-sharing device to avoid further compe-
tition, just as one of the last Copan kings, Yax Pasaj, adopted the Council
House power-sharing with local leaders in the Copan Valley (Chapter 9).
Such ritual and political mechanisms for power-sharing may have effec-
tively functioned for a short time to reduce conflict, but they also would
have produced weaker individual polities with less prestigious leaders. In
turn, the more limited authority of leaders meant less tribute labor for
construction, again reducing further their prestige. This negative political
feedback cycle, together with ecological stresses, led to a decline and then
a cessation of public architecture at Tikal itself and a diminishing popu-
lation throughout the region. Family-level decisions, affected by cultural
malaise, may have helped to lower fertility rates and initiate emigration
to other areas.
264 Ancient Maya

Figure 10.12 Tikal in ruins in the (Eznab) Terminal Classic period

(drawn by Luis F. Luin)

By AD 830 to 850 some palaces at Tikal were abandoned or reoc-

cupied by non-elite populations who inscribed their walls with graffiti
crudely portraying scenes of warfare and sacrifice (Schele and Math-
ews 1998; Valdés and Fahsen 2004). In the mid-ninth to tenth centuries
this impoverished version of central Petén culture, the Eznab complex,
is found at Tikal and the surrounding region. With little polychrome,
the reduced population lived in the ruins of the site’s earlier monumen-
tal architecture (Fig. 10.12), much of which had ceased to host state
rituals, feasts, or ceremonies (Culbert 1973; Valdés and Fahsen 2004).
The last Tikal stone monument was erected in AD 869 to commemo-
rate the K’atun ending at that time. The simplified ceramic assemblage
of this period, together with some chronological markers of the Pasion
region’s fine-paste wares, was left in Tikal’s palaces along with the house-
hold debris of the new occupants (Harrison 1970; Culbert 1973). Other
temples and palaces may have been the scene of formal termination ritu-
als for architecture or monuments, with burning and the deposition of
hundreds of broken vessels to desacralize previously holy places (Mock
1998; Freidel 1998, in press).
‘To the north, Calakmul had been in slow decline since its loss of pres-
tige in military defeats at the beginning of the eighth century. By AD 900
Calakmul and the Rio Bec centers and their hinterlands may have been
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 265

reduced in population to 10 percent of apogee levels of the late seventh

- century (Turner 1990). In this zone of the far northern Petén and south-
ern Quintana Roo and Campeche (see Fig. 9.10) climatic change and
reduced rainfall may well have been a contributing factor in the regional
decline of great centers and the lack of a vigorous recovery (Braswell
et al. 2004; Demarest er al. in press; cf. Haug et al. 2003). There, in the
Terminal Classic period, populations concentrated near former public
architecture, as at Tikal. In the case of Calakmul, however, the remnants
of leadership in the Terminal Classic used the combined temple-palace
architecture form seen earlier at Caracol and characteristic of the contem-
porary Puuc centers of the north (Braswell et al. 2004). These temple-
palace combined structures may indicate a greater degree of involvement
in the economy, since some of them may also include workshops making
lithic tools, textiles, and pottery (Braswell et al. 2004). It is equally likely,
however, that these multiple functions reflect the reduction of population
and consequent concentration of people and diverse activities on these
high, defensible structures (Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004b).

Decline, transition, or transformation in

the eastern Petén

To the east and southeast, changes in the Terminal Classic period were
far more complex and are still poorly understood. To the southeast the
frontier Maya kingdoms of Copan and Quirigua experienced political
fragmentation in the eighth century followed by political collapse in the
ninth. As we have seen (Chapter 9), the intense status rivalry manifest in
ritual architecture, monuments, and (more directly) in warfare reached
a critical point in the mid-eighth century, when Copan was defeated by
its vassal Quirigua. The power-sharing experiments of the subsequent
Copan ruler seem to have failed, being followed within sixty years by
the collapse of the elite center and the cessation of public construction
after AD 822 (Fash and Stuart 1991; Fash et al. 2004). A parallel polit-
ical collapse occurred at their rival center of Quirigua, where the last
monument was raised at AD 810, although some constructional activity
continued in the center for a few years (Sharer 1991).
Controversy and debate surround what exactly happened to the general
population outside of the regional centers after the political collapse of
the Copan and Quirigua city-states. Bear in mind that the neighbor-
ing population surrounding both Copan and Quirigua may have been
only marginally involved in the Classic Maya tradition. After the politi-
cal collapse of both centers, the populations of their regions returned to
local traditions of ceramics and artifacts in societies with a much lower
level of political complexity (Manahan 2000, 2003; Fash er al. 2004).
266 Ancient Maya

There is disagreement on how long this non-elite population contin-

ued, how rapidly populations declined, and how quickly artifact patterns
changed from Classic to Postclassic styles. Some evidence from ceramic
chronology and excavations has been interpreted as indicating a rapid
collapse and decline of population after the end of the dynastic centers
(Braswell 1992; Manahan 2000, 2003; Fash et al. 2004), while chronol-
ogy based on the obsidian hydration dating techniques argues for a slower
decline in the Copan Valley, with large populations only gradually dimin-
ishing over two to three centuries (Freter 1988, 1994; Webster and Freter
1990; Webster et al. 2003). This type of disagreement over regional details
in archaeology is common. In this case, resolution of the debate has fewer
implications for the nature of the end of the Classic Maya political order
than for broader interpretations of the degree of dependence of local
populations on the economic or ideological leadership of the K’uhul Ajaw
(see Chapter 7).
Meanwhile, in the southeastern Petén and Belize, events and processes
in the period from AD 750 to 950 were highly variable. In the southeast-
ern Petén region of the Mopan Valley and the Maya Mountains, there was
decline of some centers in population and public construction, but expan-
sion of other centers as the capitals of small conquest states (Laporte
1996, 2004). Centers such as Ixtonton, Ucanal, Sacul, and others flour-
ished at the expense of their neighbors, and some of these conquest states
were able to survive for over two centuries. These centers also reflect influ-
ences from northern Yucatan in architectural facades, monument style,
and ceramics (Laporte 2004).
A similar variable mosaic of some Classic centers collapsing while
others flourished with new eclectic assemblages was seen throughout
Belize and the eastern side of the Yucatan peninsula. Between AD 750
and 950 some sites were dramatically and rapidly abandoned, including
both epicenters and their surrounding countrysides (R.E.W. Adams et al.
2004), while others were stable or even grew in population and epicenter
construction (A. Chase and D. Chase 2004). Yet other centers such as
Lamanai and some coastal sites simply carried on, and changes in arti-
fact styles and interregional contacts were gradually incorporated into
local traditions (e.g. Pendergast 1986). Some areas in northern Belize
and on coastal islands, peninsulas, and lagoons experienced an irregular
but pronounced increase in population at the end of the Classic period
and in the ninth- and tenth-century Terminal Classic era. This pattern
may indicate movement into the region of refugee populations, perhaps
from the collapsing polities to the west (Adams et al. 2004; Masson
and Mock 2004), with some centers creating successful mercantile
enclaves.
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 267

One of the more aggressive regional polities in the Terminal Classic-

- period is Belize. Despite shifts and changes, populations there continued
to be high and monuments were erected until the very end of the ninth
century (A. Chase and D. Chase 1987). There, and at other northern
Belize sites such as Nohmul (D. Chase and A. Chase 1982), monuments,
architecture, and some artifacts show influence from the Terminal Classic
polities of northern Yucatan (A. Chase 1985b). Evidence of intensifica-
tion of warfare has been found at some sites in Belize — in some cases
associated with expanding conquest states such as Caracol, in others
related to the introduction of northern traits. At some centers the Classic
period occupations ended with grim episodes of warfare and the mass
sacrifice of captives. At Colha one such massacre was that site’s “skull
pit,” in which the skeletons of thirty sacrificed individuals were heaped
in a mass grave (Steele et al. 1980).
The overall picture on the eastern margin of the Maya world was a
complex mix of historical events and processes later and more variable
than the central Petén decline — and unlike the dramatic collapse seen at
western Petén centers. Conquest states at sites like Caracol were able (for
a time) to take advantage of the chaos around them, while kingdoms such
as Xunantunich were greatly depopulated or even abandoned (Ashmore
et al. 2004). Polities continued, but with an influx of new economic and
stylistic elements moving down the Caribbean coast of Yucatan from the
north. It is still unclear whether these northern influences were trans-
mitted by actual migrations, by the intrusion of smaller elite groups,
merchants, or warriors, or by the adoption of new ideas by local elites. The
historical processes may have involved a mix of such mechanisms, since
some sites such as Colha and Nohmul register more dramatic changes,
while others such as Lamanai appear to have added northern elements
to a more continuous tradition.
It is interesting that some sites, like Caracol, which thrived in the
Terminal Classic, experienced a rather dramatic decline by the eleventh
century and the beginnings of the Postclassic era. This pattern of muili-
taristic enclave formation and then a delayed decline parallels events far to
the west at Seibal, Altar de Sacrificios, and Punta de Chimino. Indeed,
studies of sculptural styles and concepts indicate considerable interac-
tion between the elites of these conquest enclaves in the west and those
in Belize, Yucatan, and near Lake Petén-Itza (A. Chase 1985b; Chase
and Chase 1998; Ringle et al. 1998). In all cases, by the tenth to the
eleventh century, the Classic-period political order had ended through-
out the eastern Maya lowlands. Some kingdoms had either declined to
a lower level of sociopolitical complexity or been abandoned. Others,
however, had been transformed to a new economic and political order
268 Ancient Maya

engaged in long-distance trade, and large-scale commodity production,

with less investment in the architecture and artifacts of royal funerary
cults.

Florescence, conflict, and decline in

the northern lowlands

The period from AD 750 to 1050, which had seen collapse or decline in
various zones of the southern Maya lowlands, was arguably the period
of greatest florescence in northern Yucatan. It is a complex period, still
poorly understood, with many debates in progress on. the relative and
absolute chronology of the different developments there. The distinctive
forms of architecture and iconography in northern Yucatan had previ-
ously been attributed to late Mexican invasions, and the Puuc cities and
Chichen Itza long had been mistakenly dated to the Postclassic period
after AD 1000. Chronology is still problematic in the north due to the
lack of deep stratigraphy at most northern lowland sites and the scarcity
of dated inscriptions. Still, a consensus is beginning to emerge among
experts (e.g., Sabloff and Andrews 1986; Carmean et al. 2004; Cobos
2004) about the broad parameters of cultural history in the northern
lowlands during the confusing, and at times violent, transition from the
Classic to the Postclassic era.
Developments in the northern lowlands can be viewed as at least three
distinctive regional developments: the innovative Puuc centers of western
Yucatan; the more traditional Classic Maya kingdom of Coba and its
satellites in the east; and the expanding conquest state of Chichen Itza in
north central Yucatan (Robles and Andrews 1986).

The Puuc

As described in Chapter 9, the Puuc centers of western Yucatan (see

Fig. 9.10) included sites such as Uxmal, Sayil, Labna, and Kabah with
their unique stone mosaic architectural facades, free-standing arches, and
multi-story palaces. As many southern kingdoms went into decline, the
Puuc cities experienced major growth, perhaps absorbing elites and popu-
lations from the south (Carmean et al. 2004; Schele and Mathews 1998:
258-260). During the AD 770 to 900 period, Puuc centers grew, popu-
lations expanded into marginal areas, and Puuc elite culture drew upon
an amalgam of ideas from the south, from Oaxaca, and from Gulf coast
cultures to the west (Kowalski 1998; Carmean et al. 2004).
On a larger scale than Seibal and Caracol in the southern lowlands,
the Puuc centers may have built a splendid florescence upon the very
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 269

collapse of other Maya states. While initially a series of small independent

- kingdoms, status rivalry and warfare led to the growth of larger regional
alliances in the Puuc area in the ninth century. Intense warfare is testified
to by fortifications around the epicenters of Uxmal and other Puuc sites
and by grisly scenes of battle in murals, graffiti, and artifacts (Kowalski
1998; Schele and Mathews 1998: 234-235). Rapid growth and immigra-
tion to this area, combined with status rivalry and its associated costs in
labor and conflict, may have created a political environment in the late
ninth and tenth centuries similar to that of the southern lowlands in the
eighth century. Yet in the north, the need for centralization of authority
through alliance or conquest might have been even greater given their
reliance on careful cooperative husbandry of scarce water sources.
The Puuc leaders responded to these challenges with programs of
conquest, but they also drew upon new religious ideologies (e.g. Ringle et
al. 1998) and power-sharing arrangements involving councils of lineage
heads (e.g. Carmean et al. 2004). In the Puuc centers, popolna “mat”
or council houses were used to allow rulers to confer with lineage heads
or local leaders (Kowalski 1987; Prem 1994; Kowalski and Dunning
1999). Such lineage council governments were more evident at some
Puuc centers, such as Xcalumkin, and later would become characteristic
of Postclassic states (Carmean et al. 2004; Grube 1994b). Perhaps such
experiments were more successful in the Yucatan than at Copan because
long-distance trade along the Gulf of Mexico, inland—coastal trade, and
water storage systems had helped to evolve a more flexible set of institu-
tions of leadership that was also more directly involved in the economic
and subsistence aspects of society.
By the late ninth and early tenth centuries, competition, warfare, and
alliance had ended in the unification of most of the western Puuc cities
under the leadership of the alliance of the king of Uxmal, identified in
texts and monuments as “Lord Chaak,” and his associates (Grube 1994b:
323-324; Schele and Mathews 1998). This ruler, through sharing power
with other leaders, revived much of the symbolism and monuments of
the Classic-period K’uhul Ajaw system of divine rulership. The most
spectacular of the structures at Uxmal (Fig. 10.13), with their elabo-
rate mosaic motifs, were constructed during his reign (Kowalski 1987;
Kowalski and Dunning 1999). By AD 900, Uxmal’s urban area covered
over twenty square kilometers and the site was linked by sacbe cause-
ways to a number of subordinate centers (Dunning 1992; Carmean et al.
2004). These expansionistic efforts affected the Coba sphere of influence
in eastern Yucatan, where fortifications were constructed around satel-
lite centers in a futile effort to defend them from western Puuc conflicts
(Robles and Andrews 1986; Suhler and Freidel 1998; Suhler ez al. 2004).
270 Ancient Maya

Figure 10.13 The Nunnery Quadrangle at Uxmal

Termination rituals of architectural destruction at these sites and subse-

quent occupation with western “Cehpech-style” Puuc ceramics indicate
that the conquest of these centers was one factor in the decline of Coba
itself.
Ultimately, however, the Terminal Classic political formations of the
Puuc cities also declined. The stresses of status rivalry, warfare, and popu-
lation increase may have been exacerbated by drought (Hodell et a/. 1995)
and by conflict with the competing regional alliance of Chichen Itza
(Robles and Andrews 1986; Andrews and Robles 1985; Cobos 2004).
Shortly after the reign of “Lord Chac” all the monumental construc-
tion ceased, and by AD 950 the city of Uxmal was in decline. Other
great Puuc cities such as Sayil followed a similar trajectory and most
were abandoned by the eleventh century (Carmean et al. 2004; Tourtellot
et al. 1990; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1994). Even with innovative charac-
teristics in economics and ideology, this modified form of Classic Maya
political organization came to an end. Here, however, in contrast to the
western Petén, Postclassic lineage-based kingdoms and alliances quickly
developed from the Puuc kingdoms.

Coba and eastern Yucatan

As described in Chapter 9, the great sprawling city of Coba in eastern

Yucatan and related centers were culturally very close to the southern
 Collapse, transition, and transformation DN

lowlands in architecture, monuments, and all aspects of material culture.

- This similarity was probably due to the settlement of eastern Yucatan
and Quintana Roo by peoples from the south seeking its similar wet
rain forest environment broken by lakes and bajos. It is not surprising,
then, that the chronology of the decline of Coba and the eastern Yucatan
centers correlates somewhat more closely with that of some of the Maya
kingdoms of the southern lowlands.
During its apogee, Coba constructed a system of causeways to connect
its epicenters with satellite kingdoms. By the ninth century, the Coba
kingdom was experiencing significant pressure from the Puuc hegemony
to the west and the rising power of Chichen Itza to the northeast. Coba
may have sought to hold together its kingdom through defensive construc-
tions and the use of its causeways to supply perimeter sites (Suhler and
Freidel 1998). The largest causeway ran over one hundred kilometers,
connecting Coba to a series of satellite centers to the west, and ending
at Yaxuna, an important center which appears to have been the first
line of defense against the expanding alliances to the west and later
against the Chichen Itza expansion. By the late ninth century, Yaxuna
was surrounded by concentric encircling defensive walls (Freidel 1986c;
Suhler and Freidel 1998; Suhler et al. 2004). As the stresses and status
rivalry of the Terminal Classic intensified, other centers in northern
Yucatan were fortified by defensive wall systems. Ek Balam, Chaccob,
Cuca, Dzonot Ake, and other centers had fortification systems of encir-
cling walls (Webster 1978; Bey et al. 1997; Ringle et al. 2004; Suhler
et al. 2004) that were remarkably similar to those in the Petexbatun over
a century earlier (Fig. 10.14).
Battered by Terminal Classic competing hegemonies, cut off from its
traditional southern trade in elite goods, and perhaps under added stress
from the beginnings of a drought, the Coba hegemony of eastern Yucatan
and Quintana Roo disintegrated. Coba itself had a greatly reduced popu-
lation by the tenth century and its satellite centers were either abandoned
or reoccupied by groups with a new ceramic tradition, most often the
“Sotuta” style of ceramics of the north central Yucatan conquest state of
Chichen Itza.

Chichen Itza

The third major player in these final political struggles of the Terminal
Classic period of Maya civilization was the complex and enigmatic city of
Chichen Itza and its expanding regional state. Views on the dating and
cultural affiliates of Chichen Itza have changed radically in recent years. It
was long believed to be a fully Postclassic state established by conquering
Toltec invaders from central Mexico (e.g. Morley 1946). This Mexican
Die, Ancient Maya

Map 1
CUCA
Yucatan, Mexico
WEBSTER £ WEBSTER
wr?
O- O76
rss 458
sv 2430
+ spot elevation
emorphevt strocture

= = Deennqueny RCTED FormRt

‘%
8 oxcmvation

Figure 10.14 Map of defensive walls around Cuca, Yucatan, Mexico

(from Webster 1979: Map 1)

invasion hypothesis was based on many stylistic elements believed to be

traceable to highland Mexico, including atlantean columns, feathered
serpent imagery, colonnaded halls, chacmool sacrificial altars, tzompantli
carved stone skull racks, and warriors with Toltec-style armor, head-
dresses, shields, and weaponry. Many of these elements, and the layout
of some major structures at Chichen (Fig. 10.15), were closely paral-
lel to structures and art at the Toltec capital center of Tula, Hidalgo in
Central Mexico. Furthermore, the sixteenth-century oral religious and
historical sources, including the Chilam B’alam K’atun prophecies (a
“circular” history/prophecy) associated Chichen with the Itza Maya and
characterized them as foreigners with new cults of human sacrifice and
idolatry.
 Collapse, transition, and transformation 273

Figure 10.15 Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan,

Mexico

Despite these evidences, there were always problems with the Postclas-
sic dating of Chichen Itza (e.g. Kubler 1961, 1962). In the last twenty
years of excavations, detailed ceramic studies and reassessments of art and
ethnohistory have revised the dating of Chichen Itza, placing it primarily,
if not entirely, in the Terminal Classic period, from about AD 750/800
to 1050. This placement makes Chichen contemporary with the end of
the Classic kingdom of Coba and its satellites in the east and coeval with
the Puuc florescence to the west and south (e.g. Bey et al. 1997; Cobos
1998, 2004). Indeed, we now know that the rulers of Chichen Itza inter-
acted with the Puuc kings, such as Lord Chaak, sometimes in alliance
and sometimes at war (Prem 1994; Schele and Mathews 1998: 257-290;
Carmean et al. 2004).
Many centers under the Coba realm were conquered and absorbed
into these new hegemonies — first by the Puuc centers, led by Uxmal,
and later by Chichen Itza (Andrews and Robles 1985; Suhler and Freidel
1998; Schele and Freidel 1990: 346—376). As the Coba regional kingdom
rapidly declined in the east, the western Puuc and northern Chichen
hegemonies came into conflict (Robles and Andrews 1986). The Puuc
cities eventually lost this struggle — not only because of pressure and
competition from Chichen, but also due to a delayed manifestation of the
same stresses that had ended many of the Classic kingdoms to the south:
the high costs of status rivalry, its stimulation of warfare and population
274 Ancient Maya

increase, and the consequent ecological stresses. Increased aridity may

have also contributed to the decline of the Puuc centers (Hoddell ez al.
1995; Robichaux 2002).
By AD 1000 to 1050, Chichen Itza had become the dominant power in
northern Yucatan. The short-lived success of the Chichen Itza hegemony
was probably due to a number of factors. New concepts, some reworked
ancient Maya ideas and some of Mexican origin, helped the rise of the
power of Chichen as both a conquest state and a religious pilgrimage
center (e.g. Ringle et al. 1998). The influence of Chichen Itza and its
new styles and ideologies was felt at many of the remaining enclaves at the
end of the Classic period, including Seibal in Guatemala and Nohmul in
Belize (e.g. Tourtellot and Gonzales 2004; D. Chase and A. Chase 1982;
A. Chase 1985b). Chichen Itza’s Terminal Classic success can also be
attributed to its greater involvement in interregional sea trade from its port
at Isla Cerritos (Andrews et al. 1988, 1989; Andrews 1984). Chichen’s
long-distance trade in commodities such as salt, textiles, and cacao may
have been on a greater scale than in the more regionally focused Classic
Maya kingdoms (Freidel 1986b). Combined with its new cults and mili-
tarism, this mercantile activity may have helped Chichen to overcome its
Classic Maya and Puuc rivals.
Chichen Itza’s ascendancy was, however, a very short-lived one. Within
a century, perhaps just a few decades, Chichen itself declined (Cobos
2004). The Itza polity may have been very predatory in its degree of
reliance on conquest and tribute. With the decline of its vanquished Puuc
and eastern Maya rivals, Chichen’s flow of tribute resources and labor
would have ended, precipitating its own decline — probably by about AD
1050 or 1100 (Robles and Andrews 1986).
In a sense, the battling alliances of Coba, Uxmal, and Chichen in the
Terminal Classic marked the death throes of the Classic-period political
order. With the decline of Chichen, successor states of the Postclassic
reigned over Yucatan, albeit with less spectacular architecture and some-
what lower population levels. Important aspects of Classic civilization,
such as the K’atun-centered rituals and histories, continued in the subse-
quent centuries. But the great charismatic cults of the K’uhul Ajaw and
many other aspects of Classic-period high culture did not survive the
interregional struggles of the Puuc cities and Chichen.

Rethinking the “collapse” of ancient Maya civilization

The phrase “the collapse” or “the fall” of a civilization is a colorful,

but misleading, term. Unlike poetic metaphors that guide our collo-
quial descriptions of the trajectory of cultural traditions, civilizations
 Collapse, transition, and transformation QD

never “die.” These anthropomorphic descriptions ignore the fact that

- a civilization is a complex configuration of institutions built upon a foun-
dation of shared religious, political, and economic ideas and concepts.
Even after major catastrophes, traumas, and declines, these elements
can continue and be transformed into subsequent new configurations.
Such was clearly the case with the “fall” of Rome or the “collapse” of
Classical civilization as it is referred to in common parlance and even in
some historical studies. The Roman Empire actually declined in the west
through a slow and irregular process over several centuries, with episodes
of revitalization and regional variations until the fifth century, when the
western Roman Empire broke up into a series of Gothic kingdoms.
Then, the eastern empire continued and flourished under Byzantium,
and even the western Gothic states maintained many institutions from
ancient Rome.
Underestimating the complexity of Classic Maya civilization itself,
archaeologists initially expected a simpler process, a clear, unicausal
“collapse,” for the end of Classic Maya civilization. Yet, like the Roman
Empire, an erratic and very complex — but definable — series of events
and processes occurred, as we have seen, between AD 750 and 1050 in
the Classic lowland Maya civilization. Beginning in the eighth century,
caused by problems and stresses with even greater time depth, the west-
ern and southeastern Classic Maya kingdoms began to disintegrate into
chaos (as with the Petexbatun), to fragment into smaller units (as with
the Copan Valley), or to reinvent themselves as militaristic enclaves with
modified forms of the K’uhul Ajaw system (as at Seibal and Altar).
Refugees from these collapsing southern and western political systems
moved to the east and north, causing population increase in parts of Belize
and Yucatan. In the north, Gulf of Mexico coastal trade routes and the
influx of southern populations may have initially provided preliminary
advantages for aggressive innovative leadership, helping to stimulate the
Puuc florescence and its more “Mexicanized” Chichen Itza version. Yet,
as with the Terminal Classic Seibal enclave, attempts to revive the K’uhul
Ajaw system, albeit buttressed by systems of lineage councils, ultimately
failed. They still suffered from some of the same stresses and structural
problems inherent in Classic Maya competitive divine kingship and status
rivalry that had brought down the southern cities.
With the decline of the Puuc centers and Chichen, the Classic Maya
political order had ended, and its theater-state kingdoms had been aban-
doned, or were replaced, or transformed into Postclassic polities with a
different political and economic rationale. What had disappeared was the
unique Classic-period combination of theater-state politics and divine
kingship with a complex rain forest adaptation that had evolved for over
276 Ancient Maya

two millennia in the southern lowlands. The end of Classic civilization

took with it the magnificent (but costly) legitimating monuments, archi-
tecture, and art of these theater-states. Ultimately, the structural stresses
inherent in this system of competing K’uhul Ajaws led to elite prolif-
eration, massive labor costs, warfare, and nonelite demographic growth
that together strained — and at times, completely contradicted — their
brilliant ecological adaptation. In the face of such internal strains, as
well as external competition, lowland Maya political systems collapsed
or were replaced by new kinds of Maya states that were more closely tied
into interregional Mesoamerican economies.*The Classic-period “holy
lords” had passed into history, but Maya civilization and the Maya tradi-
tion continued.
11 ‘The legacy of the Classic Maya civilization:
Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions

While the focus of this text is on the Classic period of Maya civiliza-
tion, it is important to take note of the enduring tradition that followed.
The disappearance or reduction of the Classic hallmarks in architecture,
monuments, and art had led Mayanist scholars to view the Postclas-
sic as an epoch of decline and impoverishment. Indeed, one form of
the traditional chronology labels the Late Postclassic in Yucatan as the
“Decadent Period” (e.g. Thompson 1966). Such perspectives misper-
ceive the nature of the Classic to Postclassic transition and the significance
of elite architecture, artifacts, monuments, and even writing. All of these
Classic-period hallmarks of “florescence,” “greatness,” or a “golden age”
(an colloquial terms) were in fact specific instruments of elite ideologi-
cal and political power. They helped generate power for the rulers in
the particular type of political system of the Classic period by enhancing
performance in theater-state rituals and by solidifying fealty or alliance
through propagandistic monuments and history. These Classic-period
hallmarks should be viewed as important elements of their political system
that were not always particularly beneficial to the society as a whole (e.g.
Sabloff and Rathje 1975). By the eighth century, if not sooner, the cost
to the economic and ecological systems that supported these elite instru-
ments of power had become onerous, contributing to the demise of this
political system. Viewed in objective economic terms, many Postclassic
states were larger and more successful than their flamboyant Classic-
period antecedents.

The Postclassic: what ended, what continued,

and what changed

In Yucatan, the Postclassic states after the Puuc and Chichen declines
were built on a more flexible set of political and economic institutions that
were also more similar to those ofpolities elsewhere in Mesoamerica. The
multepal system of governance by councils of lineage leaders focused far
less political power and religious authority in a single individual. Lineages

PAT
278 Ancient Maya

re-emerged as the political, as well as the social, unit of power, and coun-
cils of the lineage leaders participated in most major decisions (Tozzer
1941; Scholes and Roys 1948; Roys 1965a). Complex divisions present
in the Classic period between elites in roles as merchants, priests, or
warriors became even more pronounced and occupational class inter-
ests were better represented in state decisions (see bibliographic essay).
In many areas local economies became somewhat less self-sufficient,
with more overproduction of commodities such as cotton, textiles, salt,
honey, chocolate, and ceramic styles, and with considerable long-distance
exchange (Sabloff 1977; Sabloff and Rathje eds. 1975; Freidel 1986b).
The latter was more often carried out via Gulf and Caribbean Sea trade
rather than the Classic-period inland river and land routes.
Conquest and tribute, always important in the Maya world, became
even more central to the support of the noble families that led each
lineage. Similarly, warfare, tribute, and construction of political hege-
monies continued but were less tied to the ruler and more to longstanding
conflicts between lineages and self-defined larger groups. In the south-
ern lowlands, fortified hilltop, island, or peninsular centers became more
common in the Postclassic as the heritage of Late and Terminal Clas-
sic warfare became institutionalized in political structure and settlement
strategy (D. Rice 1986; Rice et al. 1993; Jones et al. 1981, 1986).
Another great shift was the decline of the “managed mosaic” ecologi-
cal adaptation in the southern Maya lowlands, although intensive systems
and terraces continued in some lowland areas and in the highlands. The
southern lowland area no longer had large but dispersed cities inter-
mingled with the complex Classic mix of gardens, slash-and-burn fields,
raised fields, and other subsistence systems. Local sensitivity to environ-
mental variation was well suited to the Classic-period political system
of minimal elite involvement in the economy and tribute to the K’uhul
Ajaw in respect for his ideological and military authority. Most Postclas-
sic centers, particularly in the highlands, were smaller, but many had
more concentrated populations. Better-developed markets and exchange
systems involved more regional overproduction and exchange, especially
in commodities and manufactured goods (Freidel 1986b; Fox 1987;
Carmack 1981).
All of these changes were shifts in degrees or emphases in patterns
already present, to varying extents, in Classic-period societies. The degree
of change versus continuity between Classic and Postclassic society is
much debated by archaeologists (e.g. Chase and Rice 1985; Sabloff and
Andrews 1986; P. Rice, Demarest, and D. Rice 2004). Many aspects of
economy, ideology, and even political dynamics continued. The key role
of calendric systems and rituals continued to be critical as seen in the
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 279

shifting of ceremonial capitals at K’atun endings (approximately twenty-

year intervals) and especially at the end of thirteen K’atun May cycles
(P. Rice and D. Rice 2004, P. Rice in press). Other aspects of political
structure and dynamics may also be continuous between Classic and
Postclassic periods (e.g. Marcus 1993).
Nonetheless, there were still major changes after the ninth-century
decline of the great cities of the southern lowlands and later of Coba,
Uxmal, and the other Puuc centers in the north. Most visible to the
archaeologists was the disappearance of the cults of the K’uhul Ajaw and
the great display of public and ceremonial architecture and art that were
elements of the theater-state system. Postclassic ceremonial centers were
more modest in scale and extent of public architecture, even though many
of these sites grew to have populations comparable to Classic centers.
Ancestor worship also continued to be a central element of religion, but
with emphasis on lineage and family shrines and idols. The latter were also
common in the Classic period but were overshadowed by the spectacular
cults of veneration of the divine ancestors of the royal dynasties.

The lowland Postclassic

The Postclassic period in the lowlands has been studied as much through
ethnohistorical and historical sources as through archaeology (see bibli-
ographic essay). The Conquest-period and Colonial recording of oral
history, K’atun prophecies, and regional concepts, together with descrip-
tions of the world of the Maya at that time, are a foundation for all of
our studies of Maya civilization but are, of course, most accurate and
informative on the Postclassic society and politics.
Still, historiographic interpretation of sources is not a simple matter.
The biases and conceptual misunderstandings ofthe priests, soldiers, and
administrators who left these sources require careful evaluation, since
indigenous ideas and history were often forced into European cultural
form. In addition, more baffling problems were caused by the Maya
cyclical view of time, in which history and prophecy were one and the
same. For many passages in sacred oral texts, such as the Chilam B’alam
of Chumayel and the Chilam B’alam of Tizimin, it is difficult to assign a
chronological date in the Gregorian calendar, since dating relied primarily
on K’atun ending dates and the Short Count, Calendar Round, and other
purely cyclical systems (Roys 1967; Farriss 1987; Edmondson 1979,
1982). For many years the ethnohistorical sources have been almost as
much an obstacle as an aid to understanding Postclassic events. Now,
however, with the archaeological sequences and hieroglyphic texts better
understood, the Conquest- and Colonial-period sources have become of
280 Ancient Maya

great utility in refining our understanding of the Maya perspective on Late

Classic to Conquest-period events (e.g. Jones 1998; Schele et al. 1995;
D. Rice et al. 1993, 1995, 1996; P. Rice in press; Schele and Mathews
1998).
Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence often indicates that
Chichen Itza was destroyed and many of its major structures were ritu-
ally “terminated” (Mock 1998; Freidel 1998, in press). The leaders of
the war against Chichen were identified by sources as members of other
noble lineages of the Itza Maya. They also state that many of the Itza
Maya of Chichen moved to the south at this time, eventually settling on
the islands and peninsulas of the Central Petén lake that today bears their
name, Lake Petén-Itza. Recent archaeological studies have confirmed the
movements and interactions of the Central Petén and northern Yucatec
Itza groups (Jones et al. 1981; D. Rice et al. 1993, 1995, 1996; Jones
1998).
To the north, after the decline of Chichen Itza, the Cocom lineage led
the establishment of a new capital at the site of Mayapan (see Fig. 9.5).
There, a multepal government council of lineage heads was formed to rule
a federation of states in northern Yucatan. The capital center at Mayapan
reflects the uneasy nature of this alliance and the conquest warfare char-
acteristic of the Postclassic era. In contrast to the mosaic of dispersion
and diversity in field systems and residences, even in epicenters, Maya-
pan had much of its population concentration within a dense urban area
surrounded by a defensive wall (Fig. 11.1). The walls, protected gate-
ways, and an interior cenote provided security against raids by enemies.
They also facilitated the Cocom strategy of keeping the residences of
all of the noble heads of lineages in the capital center, providing politi-
cal consultation and alliance in a highly coercive context. The principal
public buildings at Mayapan included small temples and palaces with
frontal colonnaded porches. Low property walls separated tightly packed
residential compounds in the walled center, which had over 3,000 houses
and a population of over 15,000 persons (Bullard 1952; Pollock et al.
1962; Shook 1954; Smith 1954; Thompson 1954). The new ceramic
styles showed continuity with earlier periods, but with even more empha-
sis On incensarios and other forms for household and lineage rites and
ancestor worship, especially large figurine censers.
Ceramic styles and ethnohistorical accounts demonstrate great involve-
ment by Mayapan and other Late Postclassic sites in Yucatec trade with
Veracruz, Tabasco, and other areas to the west. The leaders of Mayapan
apparently even contracted mercenaries from that region to help control
its shaky federation and the conflictive ruling lineages. Together with
tribute from groups throughout Yucatan, trade with the west and down
 eon
oo ei eS Sl SSS REGRESS
PIERRE
IOI obi
ithe ee ee
si eeiin i
ee ste
re ee ee
ge satis os His a he

_
e ee tee 4
aa %e ee

Se
=
ERNE
NyORE RESNIR oom
o1n317TT] deyy
jo ayi orssepoisog
[eurdeo
Jo Uedekeyy
Wor) Seuof (LG6I
282 Ancient Maya

Figure 11.2 Ruins of Postclassic temple complex at Tulum (drawn by

Luis F. Luin)

the Caribbean coast was a mainstay of the Postclassic economies. Many

of the Postclassic centers were located at strategic points in this coastal
commercial network (e.g. A.P. Andrews 1990, 1993; Andrews IV and
A.P. Andrews 1975; Andrews and Sabloff 1986; Robles and Andrews
1986). Sites such as Tulum, Cozumel island, and Santa Rita Corozal to
the south were all important ports in this trading system, which ran from
Veracruz along the Gulf coast of Mexico, down the Yucatan peninsula,
and past Quintana Roo and Belize to ports as far south as Honduras, if
not beyond (Sabloff 1977; Sabloff and Rathje 1975, eds. 1975).
Tulum was one of the sites on this trade network (Fig. 11.2). This
small walled city which controlled safe portages through the reefs and
cliffs of Yucatan’s east coast was immortalized by the early explorers
Stephens and Catherwood in popular travelogues and Catherwood’s
drawings (see Fig. 3.1). Offshore, the island of Cozumel also facilitated
this Caribbean trade. With shrines, merchant residences, and storage
facilities, the island was a major shipping point for the growing coastal
trade in salt, other commodities, and manufactured goods (Freidel and
Sabloff 1984). Farther down the coast, Santa Rita Corozal and Cays along
the Belize coast were part of this booming coastal economy of the later
Postclassic period (e.g. D. Chase 1985, 1986, 1990; Masson and Mock
2004). Murals at many ofthese sites, including Tulum, Tancah, and Santa
Rita, feature coastal deities and imagery and Mexican elements of style
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 283

that moved together with goods on this international trade network (e.g.
Miller 1977, 1982, 1986; D. Chase 1991).
Farther inland, Early and Late Postclassic communities thrived in
northern Belize and in the central Petén lake area (e.g. Chase and
Rice 1985; Pendergast 1986; P. Rice 1986, 1987c; D. Rice 1986). At
‘Tayasal and Topoxte on the Petén lakes and at sites in northern Belize,
figurine censers, colonnaded elite residences, elements of iconography,
and ceramic styles had strong similarities to those in northern Yucatan
~ and along the coasts (A. Chase 1976, 1979, 1985a; Jones et al. 1981).
Ethnohistoric sources also confirm ongoing relations and population
movements between the Itza and other Maya groups in the Petén lake area
and their relatives and rivals in the north at Mayapan and later Postclassic
centers (Jones 1998; D. Rice et al. 1995, 1996; P. Rice 1986). Such long-
distance relations, trade, and population movements continued through
the Postclassic and into the sixteenth century. Battling hegemonies in the
southern lowlands established towns, some of them fortified, around the
lake area and were joined at times by affiliated groups from the north to
aid in the struggles (Jones 1998). Meanwhile, in Belize similar kingdoms
remained involved in coastal-inland trade as well as the interregional
canoe traffic in manufactured goods and Belizean commodities such as
shell, cacao, honey, cotton, and fine chert (e.g. D. Chase 1985, 1986;
A. Chase 1985a; Chase and Chase 1980, 1982). Many of these centers
continued to be occupied through the time of the Conquest and into the
Colonial period (e.g. Pendergast 1986; D. Rice et al. 1996; Jones et al.
1986; Jones 1998). The flexible forms of lineage governance combined
with full market economies and long-distance exchange systems sustained
this Postclassic form of Maya civilization until the Spanish Conquest.
Meanwhile in the north, Mayapan fell to a revolt by rival lineages in the
fifteenth century. It was sacked and burned according to the chronicles
and as confirmed by archaeological evidence (Pollock et al. 1962; Shook
1954; Thompson 1954). Over eighteen small kingdoms then ruled in
the north, continuing the ancient Maya pattern of episodes of hegemonic
federation alternating with periods of petty kingdoms (e.g. Marcus 1993).
These Late Postclassic kingdoms continued the institutional systems of
the Postclassic with community production, trade, conquest, and tribute
as the economic basis of the state and great involvement in long-distance
trade. They also continued the K’atun-based rituals and periodic move-
ments of ceremonial “capitals” of the May cycle (P. Rice in press). Large-
scale population movements and constant warfare marked the instability
of the period. Battles, massacres, and inter-lineage hostility weakened the
north before the Spanish Conquest, as did plagues brought by the first
contacts with Europeans in the early sixteenth century.
284 Ancient Maya

Postclassic Conquest states of the southern highlands

To the south in the volcanic highlands of Chiapas and~ Guatemala,

the Postclassic was a period of great cultural florescence, as measured
in population sizes and territorial extent of polities. Postclassic high-
land ceremonial centers, while not on the scale of those of the lowland
Classic-period city-states, were impressive concentrations of architecture.
Temples, altars, ballcourts, and palaces served the leading families of
the most important lineages. As with the lowland Postclassic polities,
the highland states had a multepal system of governance with one lineage
head, or more often two, being considered somewhat more powerful than
the others.
Again our understanding of these highland Postclassic states is guided
by a mixture of archaeology and ethnohistory. For the latter, scholars
utilize a rich base of archival material from the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, as well as from ethnographic observation of modern highland
Maya groups whose beliefs and lifeways retain many ancient patterns
that inform all of our archaeological interpretations. Such use of anal-
ogy must be applied with great care, since the many highland groups
have been constantly adapting to changing circumstances and varying
degrees of Western involvement and oppression. It is difficult to deter-
mine the origins of any particular trait, belief, or ritual given the great
Mexican influence in the Postclassic period and the subsequent impact of
conquest, disease and Spanish Colonial domination. Nonetheless, schol-
ars have gained inestimable insights from the ethnohistoric and ethno-
graphic record. The sacred oral histories of the K’iche” Maya, the Popul
Vuh, and that of the Kaqchiquel Maya, the Anales de los Kaqchtkeles, have
been especially important to archaeological and historical interpretation
of the Postclassic and even Classic-period evidence (e.g. D. Tedlock 1985;
Edmonson 1971; Carmack 1973, 1981; Fox 1987, 1989; Farris 1984;
Arnauld 1986; Schele and Mathews 1998: 291-317).
The elite nobles of the highlands traced their ancestry to “Toltec”
Mexican origins in the west. In fact, many aspects of highland society
do show the addition of new cults, architectural elements, and artifact
forms and styles that may have originated in various parts of Mexico. Yet
the core of their cultural forms evolved within the Maya world in response
to militarism and population movements at the end of the Classic era.
In addition to Western contacts and influences, population movements
between the lowlands and highlands may have been critical in the forma-
tion of highland states (e.g. Fox 1987, 1989; Fox et al. 1992). Direct
relations with Chichen Itza, the “Tollan of the west,” were among these
contacts. Major population movements from the western Petén Classic
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 285

Figure 11.3 Map of the Postclassic highland Kaqchikel capital at

Iximche’, showing architecturally redundant compounds of the
epicenter that housed the courts of four of the leaders in the multepal
political system of the sixteenth century (drawn by Luis F. Luin after
George Guillemin 1965)

Maya kingdoms after their ninth-century disintegration may also have

helped create the unstable, but dynamic, political environment of the
Guatemalan highlands in the Postclassic.
By the Late Postclassic some large highland hegemonies had emerged
from the wars and alliances of the Early Postclassic. The largest of these
was the K’iche’ hegemony with a major capital at Q’umarkah (previously
known as Utatlan). This capital center manifests combined Classic, Post-
classic, and Mexican features that define the structure and the details of
the highland states (Wallace 1977; Wallace and Carmack 1977). It was
built on a highly defensible hilltop location, as were its competing high-
land capitals, Iximche’ of the Kaqchiquel Maya hegemony (Guillemin
1965, 1977; Schele and Mathews 1998), Zaculeu of the Mam Maya, and
Chitinamit, the fortified island capital of the Tzutuhil Maya. Defensive
considerations were also manifest in the dense concentration of popu-
lation, often on terraces, around these fortress capitals (Wallace and
Carmack 1977; Guillemin 1977).
The internal architecture of these centers presents a diagram of the
political nature of these states. Separate site segments, each a kind of
mini-capital, were constructed (Fig. 11.3) to house the nobles of each
lineage, with redundant ballcourts, temples, altars, and palaces for each
lineage head (see especially Schele and Mathews 1998: 291-317). Altars
and temples to Tohil, a solar deity, reflect Mexican influence in cult
form and architectural details. The multiple-ruler, lineage-based orga-
nization of these states seems unwieldy to Western concepts of statehood
and contrasts sharply with the Classic-period focus on the K’uhul Ajaw.
286 Ancient Maya

Nonetheless, such a system has great flexibility, allowing internal shifts

in power and avoiding the traumas that occurred in the Classic period
states when the K’uhul Ajaw was killed or captured in war. Inany case, the
success of the Postclassic system was demonstrated by the rapid expan-
sion of powerful hegemonies from these lineage capitals.
By the time of the Spanish Conquest, the hegemony of the K’iche’
lineages from Q’umarkah and of the Kaqchiquel from Iximche’ had
become the largest in extent, each covering thousands of square kilome-
ters in the highlands in a loose alliance of tributary states. As in Yucatan,
the centuries of warfare between the highland states had created long-
standing enmity between these groups by the sixteenth century. The
Conquistadors were able to exploit these divisions in their subjugation
of the highland Maya from 1524 to 1527 (Alvarado 1924).

The Spanish Conquest of the highland and

lowland Maya kingdoms

The European discovery and conquest of the Maya kingdoms was, of

course, the greatest trauma for that civilization. There is much to be
learned about the nature of Classic and Postclassic Maya society and
about the greater Maya tradition in general from the impact of the Span-
ish contact and the resistance to conquest and colonial rule (see espe-
cially Jones 1989, 1998; Farriss 1984, 1987; Lovell 1992; Rice et al.
1993; Roys 1972). Yet all of our uses of the Contact-period and Colonial
Maya societies for analogies with earlier periods must be tempered by an
understanding of the radical impact of contact even before the scribes
and administrators of the Spanish crown arrived.
In 1511, a Spanish vessel sank in the Caribbean and a lifeboat with
eleven survivors washed up on the east coast of Yucatan a fortnight later.
They were seized by the local Maya lord. Some were sacrificed in Postclas-
sic ceremonies, others were killed, and two survived to serve Maya rulers —
one as a scribe, the other as a warrior. Contrary to the ethnocentric
perspective of fictional contact tales and speculations about transoceanic
diffusion, these Westerners did not transform Postclassic Maya society,
which was, arguably, far better adapted to its environment than the later
European Colonial and modern regimes. They did, however, introduce
new diseases, such as smallpox, to the Maya world that ravaged the high-
land and lowland kingdoms. By the time of the first European descriptions
of Maya kingdoms, they had already been greatly reduced and politically
destabilized by ten to twenty years of plague. This catastrophe probably
also rendered the Maya easier to subjugate and convert by the waves of
conquistadors and priests that would soon engulf them.
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 287

The second stage of the conquest of the Maya was the launching of
- expeditions from Cuba to subjugate the Yucatan. It is testimony to the
organization and effectiveness of the Postclassic kingdoms that Span-
ish expeditions in 1517 and 1518 were met with stiff resistance and were
forced eventually to return to Cuba without success and with large casual-
ties. Despite being ravaged by disease and torn by warfare between ruling
hegemonies (in both Yucatan and the highlands), the Maya repelled Span-
ish attempts at subjugation far more effectively than the Aztec empire had
in central Mexico (e.g. Jones 1989). In 1519, Cortez himself marched
through the Maya lowlands, but the target of this military expedition was
a rebellious lieutenant in Honduras. The record of the endeavor is a fasci-
nating description of the Maya lowland societies and the rigors of the rain
forest environment (Cortes 1928; Diaz del Castillo 1963), but the Maya
kingdoms remained independent.
The successful conquest of the Maya did not begin until Pedro de
Alvarado’s conquest of the K’iche’ hegemony in the southern highlands
from 1524 to 1527 (Alvarado 1924). Alvarado used treachery to pit one
group against the other. The expanding K’iche’ hegemony from their
capital at Q’umarkah had conquered much of the highlands, making
enemies of their neighbors. With the aide of the Kaqchikel alliance,
Alvarado defeated the K’iche’, massacred their leaders, and burned
Q’umarkah. Then he led an army of Kaqchikels and indigenous merce-
nary allies from Central Mexico to destroy the Tzutuhil leaders and
destroy their capital center, the Lake Atitlan island fortress of Chitinamit.
By this time, he had established the first Spanish capital in Central
America at Iximche’, the Kaqchikel center (Fig. 11.4). Not surprisingly
Alvarado found a pretense to turn on his Kaqchikel hosts, destroy their
capital, and slay their leaders (Alvarado 1924; Lovell 1992).
Meanwhile in the north, conquistador Francisco de Montejo faced
even more effective resistance from the Yucatec Maya. After a number
of disastrous and unsuccessful attempts, the Spanish finally succeeded
in conquering much of Yucatan between 1540 and 1546. Large areas
of Quintana Roo remained unsubjugated, however, and revolts plagued
the Spanish Colonial regime. Indeed, as late as the nineteenth century
the Maya continued to mount successful revolts, rallying around ancient
symbols and revitalization movements to periodically drive out their
Spanish, and later Colonial Mexican, overlords (e.g. Jones 1989; Farriss
1984, 1987; Reed 1964; Restall 1997).
The final, fascinating episode in the Maya conquest occurred in
1696, long after most indigenous peoples had been conquered, if not
assimilated, throughout the hemisphere. In the central Petén lakes area,
populous Maya kingdoms had survived the plagues and multiple attempts
288 Ancient Maya

volHY
BY
iy

RS soe
i } AY
BS
B59

Figure 11.4 Colonial map of the center of Iximche’ (from Maudslay

1889, Vol. II: Plate 73)

at Spanish domination. Recent discoveries of new archival texts include

firsthand descriptions of the vigorous Itza Maya kingdom of Tayasal in
the Lake Petén-Itza region (Jones 1992, 1998). With ceremonial centers,
a flotilla of war canoes, hieroglyphic codices, and calendric and sacrifi-
cial rituals, the Itza kingdom ruled by the lord Kan Ek’ was described as
if it were one of the magnificent states of the Classic period. Only with
great difficulty was the Spanish expedition finally able to subdue Kan
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 289

Ek’ and his forces (Jones 1998). Ongoing ethnohistorical and archaeo-
- logical studies of these Postclassic and Contact period kingdoms of Lake
Petén-Itza and Yaxha promise to revolutionize our understandings of the
characteristics of Maya polities and their adaptive responses in the face of
competition, warfare, migrations, plague, and finally, Spanish aggression
(Jones 1992, 1998; D. Rice et al. 1993, 1995, 1996).

The continuing tradition and the impact of Conquest:

the Colonial and modern Maya

Much of the interpretation and speculation in this and all other texts on
ancient Maya civilization has been based on analogy, presumed survival
of traits, and, most convincingly, on structural and conceptual elements
that have endured in the Maya tradition through the centuries. Hundreds
of ethnographic studies of the many ethnically and linguistically distinct
Maya groups have been carried out in the past century (see Bricker 1981;
Bricker and Gossen 1989; B. Tedlock 1993 for summaries of some recent
work and trends). Scholars have had to struggle to determine which
patterns and features can be used to help interpret the ancient record.
Research has proven that many Colonial and modern Maya institutions
and concepts once believed to be ancient “survivals” from Classic or Post-
classic times are, in fact, part of the continuing adaptation and resistance
of Maya societies to European domination, acculturation, and aggression
(e.g. Bricker 1973, 1977, 1981; Farriss 1984, 1987; Hill 1992; Restall
1997; B. Tedlock 1992).
Indeed, modern scholarly work in archaeology may draw upon the
modern Maya as a more probable source of concepts and analogies, but
in the end these must be tested against the archaeological and epigraphic
record just as analogies from unrelated civilizations must be tested. This
text has used models and concepts for interpretation and speculation on
ancient possibilities drawn from the theater-states of Southeast Asia, the
segmentary polities of Africa, contemporary Somalia, and other societies.
While perhaps more likely to survive testing through correlation with the
archaeological record, contemporary and Colonial Maya traits and insti-
tutions must also be tested for applicability (see Marcus 1983a, 1993 for
an alternative perspective). Still, it is unlikely that the details of the writing
system, the calendar, and the complex Maya conceptions of time, space,
sacredness, and cosmology would ever have been penetrated without the
guiding assistance of our knowledge of the Colonial and contemporary
Maya.
In the Colonial period, the Maya communities, depopulated by disease
and conquest, were systematically reduced and concentrated by their
290 Ancient Maya

Spanish overlords into towns of European form. Grid patterns of streets,

central plazas with public buildings and churches, and densely placed
homes with little or no garden areas replaced the more ecologically appro-
priate dispersed form of living that was still practical in some areas. ‘The
demands of Spanish taxation and of tribute to local haciendas and public
officials led to the abandonment of local self-sufficiency and to the over-
production of corn and other storable, mobile, and taxable products.
As the colonial European population grew, in many regions monocul-
tural plantations growing cotton, indigo, chocolate, and later coffee and
sugar cane replaced the more complex mosaic of subsistence crops and
commodities of the pre-Columbian Maya.
Finally, the introduction of steel axes and saws encouraged forms of
slash-and-burn (roza) agriculture that were far more ecologically destruc-
tive than the indigenous methods of pre-Columbian agriculture. This led
to several centuries of deforestation, erosion, and environmental deterio-
ration. Another result of these changes was the obscuring to modern study
of pre-Columbian patterns of agriculture, settlement strategy, commod-
ity production, and ecological adaptation.
Other radical changes under Spanish domination had an impact on
Maya political and ideological systems. The political system had already
been greatly modified by the Postclassic transitions and by the influ-
ence of Mexican and Gulf coast models of political, economic, and reli-
gious institutions of power. The Spanish Conquest virtually destroyed
the political order, replacing all higher-level authorities with the Euro-
pean Hapsburg bureaucracy whose prime directive was tribute extrac-
tion. The latter system distorted many aspects of both subsistence and
the economy, furthering the process of abandonment of ancient Maya
settlement patterns that had been better adapted to their environment.
Political leadership of an indigenous nature was reduced to local
shamans and committees of elders, the latter seldom organized in forms
traditional to the Maya. Priests and sacred authority were suppressed by
the Inquisition. Much of the detailed calendric and cosmological models
fell from common usage. Political leaders and most elites were killed by
either genocidal war or disease. Others were incorporated into Colonial
tribute extraction systems, often destroying their moral and ideological
authority with the indigenous population.
For these reasons we must utilize the ethnographic record with extreme
caution. Many traits that seem exotic and perhaps ancient to Western
eyes were generated by the Colonial Maya in an effort to survive, cultur-
ally and physically. These institutions and rituals interwove ancient struc-
tural elements and details with Catholic doctrine and European religious
concepts (e.g. Bricker 1981; Bricker and Gossen 1989).
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 291

Figure 11.5 A modern Q’eqchi’ Maya Wa’atesink ritual

The enduring and resurgent Maya

Despite the brutal impact of conquest and domination on the indigenous

population, it is amazing how the Maya tradition has continued to evolve
and thrive. Maya groups modified ancient patterns and developed new
institutions to cope with colonial and modern circumstances. In scattered
instances, however, some elements of Maya cosmology and calendrics
survived virtually intact into the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries and
even to the present day (e.g. Jones 1998; Tedlock 1992). Such individ-
ual elements — and more often, broader cosmological principles — have
been continually reincorporated into new systems of ethnic and economic
survival as the Maya tradition continues to adapt and thrive (Fig. 11.5).
Recently, the indigenous Maya peoples of Mexico and Guatemala have
begun to experience a new period of revitalization and cultural change.
After the past half-century of civil war in Guatemala and Chiapas in
Mexico, the Central American and world political communities have
finally become engaged in the struggle for Maya survival. The Zapatista
revolt in Mexico and the consequent ongoing negotiations, especially the
1996 Peace Accords in Guatemala, are ushering in a new chapter in the
history of the Maya — a chapter yet to be written.
For the first time, the Maya communities themselves are beginning
to play a major role in national politics and public policy. Gradually, no
292 Ancient Maya

Figure 11.6 Archaeologists participating in a Q’eqchi’ Maya Hac

ritual at the archaeological site of Cancuen

doubt with great challenges to come, the Maya are being incorporated
into the democratic system and are struggling to use it to help protect
and preserve their own interests. Together with this political change has
come a cultural renaissance and activism with renewed interest in protect-
ing indigenous languages, institutions, and lifeways (e.g. Fischer and
Brown eds. 1996). Undoubtedly, this very movement will change Maya
culture and self-definition as much as, or more, than it will “preserve”
it. Nonetheless, it represents a continuation and evolution of the Maya
tradition.
Some scholars have criticized archaeology for its at times romantic,
simplistic, or “essentializing” views of ancient Maya civilization (e.g.
Montejo 1991; Wilks 1985; Hervik 1999). Yet modern archaeology has
helped greatly in the Maya peoples’ political struggles for contempo-
rary equality and justice by recovering and celebrating the magnificent
achievements of the Maya tradition, contradicting the prejudiced colonial
view of indios tontos, “simple-minded Indians” (Demarest and Garcia
2003). Nationalism in Guatemala and Mexico has come to identify more
closely with the indigenous cultural patrimony of those nations. Archae-
ology is now beginning to more directly benefit the neighboring Maya
communities themselves, while we benefit from the insights of the ancient
Maya. Epigraphic projects have been organized to teach native Maya
 Postclassic, Colonial, and Modern traditions 293

shamans and leaders the ancient writing system of their Classic-period

ancestors (Schele and Mathews 1998: Ch. 8). While helping bolster
Maya pride and prestige with the culturally European /adino commu-
nity, such efforts also have led to surprising insights from fluent speakers
of languages much closer to those of the inscriptions. Archaeological
projects (Fig. 11.6) have begun to attempt to collaborate closely with
the villages neighboring major sites (Demarest and Garcia 2003). Such
collaborations now seek not only approval from their host villages, but
“active involvement of the community in the planning and design of long-
term projects of archaeological site/sacred site excavation, restoration,
education, tourism, and development (e.g. Garcia 2001; Garcia et al.
2002). The goal of such projects is to help contemporary Maya commu-
nities to become the custodians of their own ancient heritage. In this way
modern scholarship can assist the thousands of Maya communities of
Mexico and Central America in their construction of a new, more inde-
pendent, manifestation of the continuing Maya tradition (Demarest and
Garcia 2003).
12 The lessons of Classic Maya history ~
and prehistory

It should be obvious from the preceding chapters on the Classic Maya

civilization that their cultural and ecological adaptations, and even their
decline, have many lessons for contemporary society and social science.
These lessons range from insights into details of farming strategies to
philosophical challenges to our personal worldviews.
Obviously, there are many specific lessons of Maya history and prehis-
tory. Above all, we have emphasized the true “secret” of the Classic Maya,
their adaptation to the rain forest. Their system of mimicking the diversity
and dispersion of the rain forest in subsistence strategy and settlement
patterns allowed the southern lowland Maya to maintain populations in
the millions in the Petén for over 1,500 years without destroying that
rich, but fragile, environment. Indeed, it has been argued here that the
eventual decline in some areas of this system and the southern lowland
cities was not brought about by a sudden loss of Maya skills in ecological
or demographic planning (after fifteen or more centuries of knowledge).
Rather it appears that in some zones of the Petén the elite sector of soci-
ety grew too large and burdensome. Elite status rivalry for power and
prestige led to an overburdening of the economic system, misdirection
in demographic growth, and eventual decline through direct endemic
warfare, population movements, and politically induced ecological and
demographic stress. The collapse in the west and transformations else-
where of the Classic Maya political system was, in terms of root causes,
a political phenomenon.
The ecological lessons of the Maya are beginning to benefit indigenous
lowland Maya communities today. Drawing on the wealth of information
about specific ancient Maya agricultural systems and farming techniques,
paleoecologists already have been able to provide specific examples and
models, drawn from the Classic period, to guide contemporary develop-
ment projects (e.g. Dunning et al. 1992; Demarest and Dunning 1989).
As the Q’eqchr’ and other Maya peoples continue to repopulate the rain
forest, Guatemalan and international agencies are seeking to provide
them information on these ancient skills of their ancestors. We are hopeful

294
 The lessons of Classic Maya history and prehistory 295

that, together with modern innovations, this knowledge might assist the
hundreds of thousands of recent Maya migrants into the Petén to live
symbiotically with the remaining rain forest, using more sustainable non-
Western general models of agriculture and specific ancient Maya tech-
niques.
There are broader nonecological lessons from Maya prehistory and
history that challenge academic theories, as well as our colloquial think-
ing, on the “rise and fall of civilizations.” We have seen that the success,
the nature, and the problems of ancient Maya civilization cannot be
understood strictly in terms of traditional cultural-materialist, econom-
ically oriented theory. The rise of the Maya and their ecological adap-
tations were inseparably linked to their worldview and their distinctive
political formations. Contrary to some theoretical dogmas, a primary (but
certainly not the sole) basis of royal power in many Classic Maya king-
doms seems to have been religious and ideological. The rituals, pageants,
patronage networks, and even wars of the theater-state seem to have been
a major source of power, not merely a “legitimation” or “phantasmic
representation” of economic power and inequality. For the Classic Maya,
literally the “play was the thing” in theater-state politics.
As we have seen, the Maya civilization was not unique in this degree of
ideological dependence (e.g. Geertz 1980). We should therefore broaden
our views in pre-Columbian archaeology about the complex basis of
power and the nature of political authority. The economically disem-
bedded nature of many Classic-period elites and leaders may have, in
fact, been beneficial to the success of the lowland Classic Maya cities.
In most cases, it allowed local, econiche-sensitive management of each
subsistence area, yet it provided the general benefits of central author-
ity for group identity, arbitration, and collective activities such as inter-
center warfare and major constructions. Only in the later Classic period
did elite mismanagement, rivalry, and short-term goals negatively affect
subsistence systems.
The general lessons of the Terminal Classic conflicts and the decline
of most cities, particularly in the southern lowlands, are again primar-
ily political ones. Leadership that becomes (for whatever reason) short-
sighted and self-focused will guide society into troubled times. Inter-elite
rivalry in the Classic Maya case affected general ecology and demogra-
phy by encouraging great energetic expenditures and population growth.
Elite growth and competition in ritual, construction, warfare, feasting,
and other forms of status rivalry may have strained economic systems
with a higher burden of tribute. In the end, the Classic Maya system
unraveled, with collapse and demographic decline in some regions and
transformation to new, different systems in other zones. The lessons are
296 Ancient Maya

clear for contemporary society concerning the need for long-term sustain-
able adaptations and leadership strategies.
Finally, we should note the broader philosophical and personal chal-
lenges presented by this narrative on the ancient Maya. Postprocessual
and postmodern theorists in anthropology and archaeology have warned
us of the essentially self-reflective, subjective, and introspective nature of
analyses of other societies (e.g. Preucel ed. 1991; Hodder 1982; Shanks
and Tilley 1987, 1988; Geertz 1973). An awareness of this fact may help
us to strive more effectively to achieve a higher level of “objectivity” —
albeit with a suspicion of the unattainable nature of that goal. But we can
also, at times, simply embrace the essentially subjective and introspective
nature of history and archaeology and seek from it personal, philosophical
insights.
In this regard, the study of the ancient Maya is fascinating precisely
because their civilization appears to be so different from our own.
The structure of ecological adaptations, settlement patterns, and polit-
ical and economic institutions could not be more unlike the Western,
Mesopotamian, Judeo-Christian tradition of our own civilization. For
at least 6000 years, the hallmarks of the Western tradition have been
linear concepts of time, monocultural agricultural systems, overproduc-
tion and exchange of surplus in full market economies, technology-driven
development, a long history of attempts to separate religious and politi-
cal authority, and judgmental gods concerned with individual, personal
moral conduct. As we learn from the Maya, none of these traits is univer-
sal, none of them was characteristic of Classic Maya civilization, and none
of them is critical to the florescence of high civilization.
Too often scholars and the public view non-Western societies with an
implicit, unconscious condescension. We tend to regard their political
and economic systems as incomplete (“less evolved”) versions of our
own. Ideology and cosmology are viewed as detailed esoteric collections
of ideas fascinating for scholarly study and for a curious public. We also
tend to emphasize aspects of ancient religion that attempted control of
nature, “primitive science” (in the Maya case, not so primitive at all!). In
so doing, we ignore the personal and philosophical challenges of experi-
encing another worldview — an alternative perspective on existence and
death. For example, Maya archaeology is filled with descriptions of buri-
als, tombs, discussions of Xibalba (the Maya underworld), and considera-
tion of rituals of veneration of deified royal ancestors. Only recently have
archaeologists begun to describe more holistically the nature of Maya
ancestor worship. The ancient Maya did not simply venerate their dead;
rather, both elites and nonelites “lived” with their ancestors (McAnany
1995). Buried beneath the floors of their homes and in household shrines,
 The lessons of Classic Maya history and prehistory 297

they venerated them daily as intercessors with the gods and cosmic forces.
These common ancestors defined their political and social institutions.
Maya beliefs and attitudes toward death should be regarded as a funda-
mental aspect of their worldview and an approach to the basic questions
of existence.
As argued at the beginning of this text (Chapter 2), many fundamental
aspects of ancient and modern cultures address existential questions: Why
death? What is my identity? What is the broader context of my existence?
- Our own society continues to confront these metaphysical and moral
concerns with systems of belief and identity. From an openly philosophi-
cal, subjective, and postmodern perspective our society and its science are
no wiser than the Maya priests and shamans in the face of these mysteries.
For that reason we can study the ancient Maya, and other non-Western
cultures, as sources of alternative views of reality and of contemplation of
our own culturally ingrained worldviews. We can view the Classic Maya
not as a “less developed” society trying only to control the forces of
nature and to survive economically. Instead they can be regarded as fellow
travelers — who simply chose a different path — through the darkness.
 Bibliographical essay

GENE
TBE Re2,
Excellent summaries of the geography of Mesoamerica and the concept of
Mesoamerica as a culture area are provided by West (1964), Helms (1975), and
Porter-Weaver (1993), building on Kirchoff’s important essay (1943). Discussion
of subregions and highland-versus-lowland distinctions is found in West (1964),
Sanders (1973), and Sanders and Price (1968). The “isthmian zone” concept is
elaborated by Parsons (1978) and Lowe (1978). Debates over alternative chrono-
logical schemes can be found in Wolf (1976), Sabloff (1990), Sanders, Parsons,
and Santley (1979), and D. Rice (1993a). Broader processual and postprocessual
trends in anthropological and archaeological interpretation and theory have been
discussed in numerous recent texts and collected essays, including those of Miller
and Tilley (1984), Demarest and Conrad (1992), Preucel (1991), Shanks and
Tilley (1987), Tilley (1990), and Hodder (1982, 1985), among others. Recent
developments in postmodern, poststructuralist, and postprocessual theory can be
found in the primary works of Derrida, Foucault, Bourdieu, etc., and summaries
of the nature and relevance of such theory for anthropology have been provided
by Knauft (1996) and for archaeology by Tilley (1990).

CUAee Ras
Excellent histories of Maya archaeology and changing interpretive approaches
are given by Brunhouse (1973), Hammond (1983), Bernal (1977), Willey and
Sabloff (1974), and especially Sabloff (1990). Fascinating excerpts from the works
of the original explorers have been collected by Wauchope (1965) and Deuel
(1967). A clever and amusing discussion of the diffusionist and “crackpot” theo-
ries on the origin of the Mesoamerican peoples is given by Wauchope (1962), and
a more recent review can be found in Feder (1990). Changing trends in Maya
settlement studies have been reviewed by Fash (1994). A concise popular review
of the history of the decipherment of Maya writing is found in Michael Coe’s
1992 text, Breaking the Maya Code.

CHAPTER 4
Evidence on the peopling of the New World is reviewed and discussed in Lynch
(1991), Taylor and Meighan (1978), and Dillehay and Meltzer (1991), and recent
syntheses of the Archaic period and the development of early village life and

298
 Bibliographical essay 299

agriculture are given by Lowe (1978), Stark (1981), and in many chapters in Blake
(1999). Alternative interpretations and debate of the Formative and Olmec prob-
lem in eastern Mesoamerica can be found in Sharer and Grove (1989), Fowler
(1991), and Benson (1981). Most recent discoveries and interpretations that are
discussed here on the archaeology of the Middle and Late Preclassic periods in
the Maya highland, including those at Kaminaljuyu and Abaj Takalik, have been
published only in Spanish in the annual Simposio de Arqueologia de Guatemala
volumes and in monographs and theses of the Guatemalan universities of San
Carlos and del Valle. Hatch’s synthesis (1997) is especially important for our
_revised understanding of the urban nature of Late Preclassic Kaminaljuyu. The
data and debates on the development of complex society in the Maya lowlands
were summarized in a 1977 edited volume (Adams 1977) but, as discussed in
the chapter, these perspectives now require radical revision in light of subsequent
discoveries at Nakbe (Hansen 1991, 1992, 1997); El Mirador (Dahlin 1984;
Matheny 1986, 1987; Clark et al. n.d.); Cerros (Freidel and Schele 1998); Santa
Leticia (Demarest 1986); Kaminaljuyu (Hatch 1997; Braswell 2003b); and many
other sites.

CHAPTER 5
General discussions of the nature of Classic Maya centers and settlement, as
well as diagnostics of the Classic period, can be found in recent syntheses,
e.g. Sharer (1994), Henderson (1997), Culbert (1998, 1994), Coe (1993),
Hammond (1990), Marcus (1983b), and Sabloff (1990). More technical consid-
eration of settlement pattern interpretation and problems has been synthesized
by Ashmore (1981), Chase, Chase, and White (2001), Montmollin (1989), and
more recently by Fash (1994). The most recent interpretations ofthe role of Teoti-
huacan in Maya history are found in Braswell (2003c). Perspectives here also rely
heavily on conceptions of Maya political ideology presented in more detail by
Demarest (1992b), Freidel (1992), McAnany (1995), and Webster (1999).

C@EUNPALE Ra
Considerations of Maya household group size and clusterings are discussed in
Ashmore (1981). The most recent systematic review of evidence on regional
Classic period populations in the Maya lowlands is given in Culbert and Rice
(1990). That volume also includes consideration of the daunting problems of
demographic estimation and interpretation. Perspectives on the nature of ancient
lowland Maya subsistence adaptations have continued to be a subject of debate,
disagreement, and new discoveries. A good sample of these varied and changing
views is given by sequential collections of articles by paleoecologists and archaeol-
ogists edited by Turner and Harrison (1978), Flannery (1982), Pohl (1985), and
more recently Fedick (1996). In turn, the demographic implications of subsis-
tence interpretations are debated in the volume edited by Culbert and D. Rice
(1990). Overviews of hydraulic systems in the lowlands by Scarborough (1996,
1998) provide the most recent data and a somewhat different position from this
text. A good synthesis of the Late Classic environmental landscape is provided by
300 Bibliographical essay

D. Rice (1993b). The most current summaries of evidence on Petén environment,

agricultural systems, faunal assemblages, and paleodiet are given in the introduc-
tory chapters of respective monographs of the Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional
Archaeological Project on paleoecology and agricultural systems (Dunning and
Beach in press), paleofauna (Emery in press), and paleodiet (Wright in press).

GlSUAIE WISI 7
Unlike this chapter, Maya economics — in terms of studies of production,
exchange, and consumption of goods — is usually not treated discretely from
subsistence and settlement in general considerations of the Classic Maya.
Nonetheless, excellent syntheses are available on the economics of individual
commodities, such as salt (Andrews 1983); obsidian and chert (e.g. Aoyama
1999, 2001; Hester and Shafer 1984; Hester et al. 1983; P. Rice et al. 1985;
McAnany 1989; Shafer and Hester 1994); and ceramic production and exchange
(e.g. Bishop 1980, 1994; Fry 1979, 1980; P. Rice 1981, 1987b). Michael and
Sophie Coe (1996) have written an excellent popular study of chocolate, includ-
ing its Pre-Columbian production and uses. A recent volume edited by Masson
and Freidel (2002) deals with a number of issues discussed in this chapter from
various theoretical and methodological perspectives. More general treatments of
issues in Maya economics and energetics have been provided by Abrams (1987),
McAnany (1993), P. Rice (1987a), and Sanders and Santley (1983).

(GIsIAP IMEI te
Maya religion has received more emphasis than any other aspect of ancient
Maya culture. Detailed treatment is provided in most major general texts (see
for example Sharer 1994; Freidel et al. 1993; Coe 1978; Miller 1986; Schele
and Miller 1986). More detailed studies of the deities and rituals are given by
Schellhas (1904), Thompson (1970), Leon-Portilla (1973), and more recently
by Taube (1992). Classic Maya sacrifice is discussed in detail by Schele (1984),
Joralemon (1974), and Stuart (1984), and more broadly in Schele and Miller
(1986). Classic period ancestor worship and its prevalence at all levels of Maya
society have been considered in detail by McAnany (1995) and Freidel et al.
(1993). Shamanism has been explored by Schele and Freidel (1990), Freidel
et al. (1993), Stuart (1995), and many others, all drawing heavily on ethnogra-
phy and ethnohistory (e.g. Gossen 1974; Laughlin 1977; Nash 1970; D. Tedlock
1985; Thompson 1970; B. Tedlock 1992; Vogt 1976; Tozzer 1941; Edmonson
1982, 1986). Detailed consideration of Maya calendrics and astronomy is given
in Bishop Landa’s original work (Tozzer 1941) and many summary treatments by
archaeologists and ethnohistorians (e.g. Thompson 1942, 1971; Morley 1915;
Kelley 1976; Sharer 1994). Considerations of the role of cosmology and sacred
geography in architecture and site and structure have recently been published
by Ashmore (1991), Aveni (1980, 1992), Aveni and Hartung (1986), Benson
(1981b), Brady (1997), Brady et al. (1997), Coggins (1979), and Demarest
et al. (2003). The general theoretical perspective on the role of ideology in Maya
politics and site structure given here is detailed further in Demarest (1989, 1992a,
 Bibliographical essay 301

1992b), McAnany (1995), Benson (1981b), Schele and Freidel (1990), Freidel
(1992), and Freidel and Schele (1988a, 1988b), which in turn draw heavily on
the concepts of Eliade (1954, 1961), Geertz (1980), and Tambiah (1976, 1977).

CHAPTER 9
Classic Maya political history has been well summarized in recent texts. The
epigraphic terms and issues have been summarized by Stuart (1995) and have
been applied and debated in the important volume edited by Culbert (1991). The
most complete summary of dynastic history, together with discussion of terms
and some alternative interpretations, can be found in Martin and Grube (2000).
Debate and discussion of aspects of Late Classic politics are also given in the
volume edited by Sabloff and Henderson (1993). Speculative reconstructions
of Classic Maya history have also been provided by a series of lively volumes
by Schele, Freidel, and Mathews (Schele and Freidel 1990; Freidel et al. 1993;
Schele and Mathews 1998). Interpretations of Classic Maya political dynam-
ics here rely on interpretations by Demarest (1992b), Freidel (1992), Marcus
(1993), Tambiah (1976, 1977, 1984), and especially Geertz (1980). Also see
Sharer (1994: 491-512) for a good summary of some of the various alternative
theories on Maya political organization. The debate on Maya politics published
in Current Anthropology (1996, vol. 37, no. 5) also highlights the controversies on
these issues and the variability in Classic Maya political formations. A new inter-
pretation of lowland Maya political systems and political ideology is in P. Rice
(in press), while a speculative synthesis on Classic Maya warfare and alliance is
being completed by Freidel (in press).
The Early Classic interaction with Mexico has been most completely described
and debated in the recent volume of essays edited by Braswell (2003c). The
period of interregional alliances in the sixth and seventh centuries has been most
completely described by Martin and Grube (1995, 1996, and 2000). Excellent
alternative interpretations of Late Classic regionalism and political history are
given in the volumes edited by Culbert (1991) and Sabloff and Henderson (1993)
and in the works by Martin and Grube (2000), Schele and Mathews (1998),
and Sharer (1999). Interpretations here of the political history of the ninth and
tenth centuries in this and the following chapter draw upon the recent edited
volume on the Terminal Classic (Demarest, P. Rice, and D. Rice 2004), which
includes summaries of evidence, interpretation, and debates by fifty-five scholars
representing dozens of projects across the lowlands.

Cis Wisse Ibe

Issues of causality in the decline of civilizations are most completely analyzed by
Tainter (1988) and in the various chapters in the collection edited by Yoffee
and Cowgill (1988). Eighth-century conditions precipitating the collapse are
described by various archaeologists in the volume edited by Sabloff and Hender-
son (1993) and the publications of the Vanderbilt Petexbatun Archaeological
Project (Demarest 1997, in press; Foias and Bishop 1997; Foias in press;
Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997; Dunning and Beach in press; Inomata 1997, in
302 Bibliographical essay

press; Escobedo 1997; Valdes 1997; Wright 1997, in press; Emery 1997, in press).
Specific data reconstructions for the various eighth to tenth century regional
transitions, transformations, or declines of Classic period civilization rely heav-
ily on the most recent syntheses of regional and subregional Terminal Classic
culture history in the volume edited by Demarest, P. Rice, and D. Rice (2004).
The latter volume builds upon and updates earlier synthetic collections (Culbert
1973; Sabloff and Andrews 1986; Sabloff and Henderson 1993) yet many of the
fifty-five authors in the more recent compendium contest the very concept of a
uniform and profound “collapse” of Classic Maya civilization, a view reflected in
my text.

(CJeUsye Was II
As this volume is focused on the Classic period of Maya civilization, the Postclas-
sic and Colonial periods are given only a cursory summary. Many excellent edited
volumes present the variable regional evidence on the Postclassic, particularly the
collections edited by Chase and Rice (1985) and Sabloff and Andrews (1986).
The contentious issue of continuity versus discontinuity between Classic and
Postclassic culture is debated by different authors from contrasting perspectives
in the volume edited by Demarest, P. Rice, and D. Rice (2004). Ethnohistor-
ical and archaeological evidence on lowland and highland Postclassic states is
synthesized in the volumes by Carmack (1973, 1981), Fox (1987), Freidel and
Sabloff (1984), Hill (1992), Jones (1998), and P. Rice (1987c). Recent inter-
pretations of the ethnohistorical record can be found in Restall (1997), Famiss
(1984, 1987), and G. Jones (1989, 1998). Recent Maya activism is described by
Fischer and Brown (1996), Nelson (1999), and Fischer (2001), and the role of
archaeology in collaborating with contemporary Maya communities and the Maya
movement has been described by Garcia and Demarest (Garcia 2001; Garcia
et al. 2002; Demarest and Garcia 2003).
 References

Abrams, Elliot M. 1987. Economic Specialization and Construction Personnel

in Classic Period Copan, Honduras. American Antiquity 52: 485-499.
Abrams, Elliot M., and David G. Rue. 1988. The Causes and Consequences of
Deforestation Among the Prehistoric Maya. Human Ecology 16: 377-395.
Adams, Richard E.W. 1969. Maya Archaeology 1958-1968: A Review. Latin
American Research Review 4(2): 3-45.
1973. Maya Collapse: Transformation and Termination in the Ceramic
Sequence at Altar de Sacrificios. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. T.P.
Culbert, pp. 133-163. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
ed. 1975. Preliminary Reports on Archaeological Investigations in the Rio
Bec Area, Campeche, Mexico. In Archaeological Investigations on the Yucatan
Peninsula. Middle American Research Institute Publication 31. pp. 103-146.
New Orleans: Tulane University.
Adams, Richard E.W., ed. 1977. The Origins of Maya Civilization. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
1980. Swamps, Canals, and the Locations of Ancient Maya Cities. Antiquity
54: 206-214.
1981. Settlement Patterns of the Central Yucatan and Southern Campeche
Regions. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, ed. W.A. Ashmore, pp. 211-
257. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1983. Ancient Land Use and Culture History in the Pasion River Region. In
Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, ed. E.Z.
Vogt and R.M. Leventhal, pp. 319-335. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
1990. Archaeological Research at the Lowland Maya City of Rio Azul. Latin
American Antiquity 1: 23-41.
Adams, Richard E.W., E. Wyllys Andrews IV and E. Wyllys Andrews V. 1980.
Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research
Institute Publication 48. New Orleans: Tulane University.
Adams, Richard E.W., Walter E. Brown, Jr., and T. Patrick Culbert. 1981. Radar
Mapping, Archaeology, and Ancient Maya Land Use. Science 213: 1457—
463.
Adams, Richard E.W., and Norman D.C. Hammond. 1981. Maya Archaeology,
1976-1980: A Review of Major Publications. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:
487-512.

303
304 References

Adams, Richard E.W., and Richard C. Jones. 1981. Spatial Patterns and Regional
Growth among Maya Sites. American Antiquity 46: 301-322.
Adams, Richard E.W., H. R. Robichaux, Fred Valdez, Jr., Brett A. Houk, and
Ruth Mathews. 2004. Transformations, Periodicity, and Urban Develop-
ment in the Three Rivers Region. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M.
Rice, and D. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Adams, Robert McC. 1965. Land Behind Baghdad. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1969. The Study of Ancient Mesopotamian Settlement Patterns and the Prob-
lem of Urban Origins. Sumer 25: 111-124. .
1981. The Heartland of Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1984. Mesopotamian Social Evolution: Old Outlooks, New Goals. In On the
Evolution of Complex Societies: Essays in Honor of Harry Holjr, ed. T. Earle,
pp. 79-129. Malibu, CA: Undena Press.
Agurcia, Ricardo and William L. Fash. 1991. Maya Artistry Unearthed. National
Geographic September 1991: 94-101.
Aldenderfer, Mark. 1991. Functional Evidence for Lapidary and Carpentry Craft
Specialties in the Late Classic of the Central Peten Lakes Region. Ancient
Mesoamerica 2: 205-214.
Aldenderfer, Mark, Larry Kimball, and April Sievert. 1989. Microwear Analysis
in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a Complex Society
Setting. fournal of Field Archaeology 16: 47-60.
Alvarado, Pedro de. 1924. An Account of the Conquest of Guatemala in 1524, trans.
S.J. Mackie. New York: The Cortes Society.
Anawalt, Patricia R. 1981. Indian Clothing before Cortés: Mesoamerican Costumes
from the Codices. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Andrews, Anthony P. 1980a. The Salt Trade of the Ancient Maya. Archaeology
33(4): 24-33.
1980b. Salt and the Maya: Major Prehispanic Trading Spheres. Adlatl 1:
1-17.
1983. Maya Salt Production and Trade. ‘Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
1984. Long-Distance Exchange Among the Maya: A Comment to Marcus.
American Antiquity 49: 826-828.
1990. The Role of Trading Ports in Maya Civilization. In Vision and Revision in
Maya Studies, ed. F.S. Clancy and P.D. Harrison, pp. 159-168. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
1993. Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. fournal of World Prehistory
7: 35-69.
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta N., J. Fernando Robles, Rafael Cobos P.,
and Pura Cervera R. 1988. Isla Cerritos, an Itza Trading Port on the North
Coast of Yucatan, Mexico. National Geographic Research 4(2): 196-207.
Andrews, Anthony P., Helen V. Michel, Fred H. Stross, and Pura Cervera R.
1989. The Obsidian Trade at Isla Cerritos, Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Field
Archaeology 16: 355-363.
Andrews, Anthony P., and Shirley B. Mock. 2002. New Perspectives on the
Prehispanic Maya Salt Trade. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, eds.
 References 305

M.A. Masson and D.A. Freidel, pp. 307-334. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Andrews, Anthony P., and J. Fernando Robles. 1985. Chichen Itza and Coba:
An Itza-Maya Standoff in Early Postclassic Yucatan. In The Lowland Maya
Postclassic, ed. A.F. Chase and P.M. Rice, pp. 62-72. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Andrews IV, E. Wyllys. 1965. Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya
Lowlands: An Introduction. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 2:
Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 1, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 288-330.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Andrews IV, E. Wyllys, and Anthony P. Andrews. 1975. A Preliminary Study of
the Ruins of Xcaret, Quintana Roo, Mexico, with Notes on Other Archaeological
Remains on the Central East Coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Middle American
Research Institute Publication 40. New Orleans: Tulane University.
Andrews IV, E. Wyllys, and E. Wyllys Andrews V. 1980. Excavations at Dzibilchal-
tun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 48.
New Orleans: Tulane University.
Andrews V, E. Wyllys. 1981. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 1:
Archaeology, ed. J.A. Sabloff, pp. 313-344. Austin: University of Texas Press.
_ 1986. Olmec Jades from Chacsinkin, Yucatan, and Maya Ceramics from La
Venta, Tabasco. In Research and Reflections in Archaeology and History: Essays
in Honor of Doris Stone, ed. E.W. Andrews V, pp. 11-49. Middle American
Research Institute Publication 57. New Orleans: Tulane University.
Andrews V, E. Wyllys, and Norman D.C. Hammond. 1990. Redefinition of the
Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize. American Antiquity 54: 570-584.
Andrews V, E. Wyllys, William Ringle III, Philip J. Barnes, Alfredo Barrera R.,
and Tomas Gallareta N. 1984. Komchen: An Early Maya Community in
Northwest Yucatan. XVII Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia:
San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Vol. 1, pp. 73-92. Mexico, D.F.
Andrews V, E. Wyllys, and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 1986. Classic to Postclassic: A
Summary Discussion. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Post-
classic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V, pp. 433-456. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Annan, Kofi. 1997. Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in Somalia.
Report to the United Nations Security Council, New York.
Aoyama, Kazuo. 1994. Microwear Analysis in the Southeast Maya Lowlands:
Two Case Studies at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 6: 129-
144.
1995. Socioeconomic Implications of Chipped Stone from the La Entrada
Region, Western Honduras. Fournal of Field Archaeology 21: 133-145.
1996. Exchange, Craft Specialization, and Ancient Maya State Formation: A
Study of Chipped Stone Artifacts from the Southeast Maya Lowlands. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
1999. Ancient Maya State, Urbanism, Exchange, and Craft Specialization: Chipped
Stone Evidence of the Copan Valley and the La Entrada Region, Honduras.
University of Pittsburgh Memoirs of Latin American Archaeology No. 12.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
306 References

2001. Classic Maya State, Urbanism, and Exchange: Chipped Stone Evidence
of the Copan Valley and its Hinterland. American Anthropologist 103: 346—
Bole
Arnauld, M. Charlotte 1986. Archéologie de l’Habitat en Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.
Collection Etudes Mesoamericaines 10. Mexico, D.F.: Centre D’Etudes
Mexicaines et Centramericaines.
Arnold, Dean E. 1978. Ceramic Variability, Environment, and Culture History
among the Pokom in the Valley of Guatemala. In The Spatial Organization of
Culture, ed. I. Hodder, pp. 39-59. London: Duckworth.
1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. New York: Cambridge University
Ieresss £
Arroyo, Barbara. 2001. La Regionalizacion en la Costa del Pacifico: Sus Primeras
Pobladores. In XIV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala,
eds. J.P. Laporte, A.C. de Suasnavar, and B. Arroyo, pp. 3—9. Guatemala:
Museo de Antropologia y Etnologia de Guatemala, Instituto Antropologia e
Historia, and Asociacion Tikal.
Ashmore, Wendy A., ed. 1980. Discovering Early Classic Quirigua: A Unique
Opportunity to Examine an Important Sector of the Early Center. Expedition
23(1): 35-44.
ed. 1981. Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
1991. Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the
Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2: 199-226.
Ashmore, Wendy A., and Robert J. Sharer. 1975. A Revitalization Movement at
Late Classic Tikal. Paper presented at the Area Seminar in Ongoing Research,
Westchester State College. Philadelphia, PA: University Museum.
Ashmore, Wendy, Jason Yaeger, and Cynthia Robin. 2004. Commoner Sense:
Late and Terminal Classic Social Strategies in the Xunantunich Area. In
The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transfor-
mation, ed. A. A. Demarest, P. M. Rice, and D. Rice. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Aveni, Anthony F. 1979. Venus and the Maya. American Scientist 6: 274-285.
1980. Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1992. The Sky in Maya Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Aveni, Anthony F., and Horst Hartung. 1986. Maya City Planning and the Calen-
dar. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 76, Pt. 7.
Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Ball, Joseph W. 1977a. The Rise of the Northern Maya Chiefdoms: A Sociopro-
cessual Analysis. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp.
101-132. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1977b. The Archaeological Ceramics of Becan, Campeche, Mexico. Middle
American Research Institute Publication 43. New Orleans: Tulane
University.
1983. Teotihuacan, the Maya, and Ceramic Interchange: A Contextual
Perspective. In Highland—Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary
Approaches, ed. A.G. Miller, pp. 125-146. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
 References 307

1993. Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Politics: Some Socioeconomic and Politi-
cal Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. In Lowland Maya
Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D. eds. J.A. Sabloff and J. Henderson,
pp. 243-272. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek. 1991. Late Classic Lowland Maya
Political Organization and Central-Place Analysis: New Insights from the
Upper Belize Valley. Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 149-165.
2001. The Buena Vista-Cahal Pech Royal Court: Multi-Palace Court Mobility
and Usage in a Petty Lowland Maya Kingdom. In Royal Courts of the Ancient
Maya, vol. 2, eds. T. Inomata and S. Houston, pp. 165-200. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Barrientos Q., Tomas. 1997a. Desarrollo Evolutivo del Sistema de Canales
Hidraulicos en Kaminaljuyu. Unpublished licenciatura thesis, Departamento
de Arqueologia, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala.
1997b. Evolucion Tecnologica del Sistema de Canales Hidraulicos en Kami-
naljuyu y sus Implicaciones Sociopoliticas. In X Sizmposio de Investiga-
clones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 1996, pp. 61-70. Guatemala: Ministerio
de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion
Tikal.
Barrientos Q., Tomas, Brigitte Kovacevich, Michael Callaghan, and Arthur
A. Demarest, eds. 2003. Proyecto Arqueologico Cancuen, Informe Prelim-
mar No. 5, Temporada 2003. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Beach, Timothy. 1996. Estudios de Catenas, Fertilidad, y Fosfatos de Suelos.
In Proyecto Arqueologico Punta de Chimino 1996, Informe Preliminar, ed. A.A.
Demarest, H. Escobedo, and M. O’Mansky, pp. 86-94. Guatemala and
Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Beach, Timothy, and Nicholas P. Dunning. 1995. Ancient Maya Terracing and
Modern Conservation in the Petén Rainforest of Guatemala. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 50: 138-145.
Becker, Marshall J. 1973a. Archaeological Evidence for Occupational Specializa-
tion among the Classic Period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala. American Antiquity
38: 396-406.
1973b. The Evidence for Complex Exchange Systems Among the Ancient
Maya. American Antiquity 38: 222-223.
Bell, James A. 1987. Review of Reading the Past, by Ian Hodder. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 6: 74-86.
1991. Anarchy and Archaeology. In Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies:
Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, ed. R.W. Preucel, pp. 71-80. Carbondale:
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
Benco, Nancy. 1988. Morphological Standardization: An Approach to the Study
of Craft Specialization. In A Pot for All Reasons: Ceramic Ecology Revisited, ed.
C.C. Kolb and L.M. Lackey, pp. 57-72. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univer-
sity, Laboratory of Anthropology.
308 References

Benson, Elizabeth P. 1997. Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
Benson, Elizabeth P., ed. 1981a. The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Memory
of Matthew W. Stirling. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard University.
Benson, Elizabeth P. 1981b. Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views: A Conference at
Dumbarton Oaks, October 16th and 17th, 1976. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
Bentley, G. Carter. 1986. Indigenous States of Southeast Asia. Annual Review of
Anthropology 15: 275-305.
Berdan, Francis F. 1975. Trade, Tribute, and Markets in the Aztec Empire. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
1986. Enterprise and Empire in Aztec and Early Colonial Mexico. In Research
in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 2, ed. B.L. Isaac, pp. 281-302. Green-
wich: JAI Press.
1993. Trade and Tribute in the Aztec Empire. In Current Topics in Aztec Studies:
Essays in Honor of Dr H. B. Nicholson, pp. 71-84. San Diego Museum Papers,
vol. 30.
Berlin, Heinrich. 1958. El glifo ‘emblema’ en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de
la Société des Américamistes de Paris, N.S. 47: 111-119.
1959. Glifos nominales en el sarcofago de Palenque. Humanidades 2(10):
1-8.
Bernal, Ignacio. 1977. Maya Antiquaries. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory:
Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, ed. N.D.C. Hammond, pp. 10-44.
New York: Academic Press.
Bernasconi, Antonio, and José Antonio Calderon. 1946. Informe sobre la Cuidad
Arruinada en la Provincia de Chiapas a tres Leguas del Pueblo de Palenque.
Mexico: National Institute of Anthropology and History.
Beshers, James M. 1967. Population Processes in Social Systems. New York: Free
letesse
Bettelheim, Bruno. 1962. Symbolic Wounds: Puberty Rites and the Envious Male.
New York: Collier Books.
Bey III, George J., Craig A. Hanson, and William M. Ringle. 1997. Classic to
Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural and Ceramic Evidence for
Redefining the Transition. Latin American Antiquity 8: 237-254.
Binford, Lewis. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217—
Ds
1965. Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American
Antiquity 31: 203-210.
Bishop, Ronald L. 1980. Aspects of Ceramic Compositional Modeling. In Models
and Methods in Regional Exchange, ed. R. Fry, pp. 47-65. SAA Papers No.1.
Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
1994. Pre-Columbian Pottery: Research in the Maya Region. In Archaeometry
of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts, ed. D.A. Scott and P. Meyers, pp. 15-65.
Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Bishop, Ronald L., Marilyn P. Beaudry, Richard M. Leventhal, and Robert J.
Sharer. 1986. Compositional Analysis of Copador and Related Pottery in
 References 309

the Southeast Maya Area. In The Southeast Maya Periphery, ed. P.A. Urban
= and E.M. Schortman, pp. 143-167. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bishop, Ronald L., Arthur A. Demarest, and Robert J. Sharer. 1989. Chemical
Analysis and the Interpretation of Late Preclassic Intersite Ceramic Patterns
in the Southeast Highlands of Mesoamerica. In Archaeology of the Pacific
Coast and Highlands of Mesoamerica, eds. F.J. Bove and L. Heller, pp. 135—
146. Tempe: Arizona State University Press.
Bishop, Ronald L., Edward V. Sayre, and Joan Mishara. 1989. Compositional and
Structural Characterization of Mayan and Costa Rican Jadeites. Washington,
DC: Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian Institute.
Blake, Michael. 1991. An Emerging Early Formative Chiefdom at Paso de la
Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern
Mesoamerica, ed. W.R. Fowler, Jr., pp. 27-46. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Blake, Michael, ed. 1999. The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures along
the Pacific Coast of Latin America. Pullman, WA: Washington State University
Press.
Blake, Michael, and John E. Clark. 1999. The Emergence of Hereditary
Inequality: The Case of Pacific Coastal Chiapas, Mexico. In Pacific Latin
America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures, ed. M.
Blake, pp. 55-73. Pullman, WA: Washington University Press.
Blake, Michael, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, George Michaels, Michael W.
Love, Mary E. Pye, Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbara Arroyo. 1995. Radio-
carbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific
Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 161-183.
Blanton, Richard E. 1976. The Role of Symbiosis in Adaptation and Sociocultural
Change in the Valley of Mexico. In The Valley of Mexico, ed. E.R. Wolf, pp.
181-202. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1980. Cultural Ecology Reconsidered. American Antiquity 45: 145-151.
Blanton, Richard E., and Gary M. Feinman. 1984. The Mesoamerican World
System. American Anthropologist 86: 673-682.
Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowaleski, Linda Nicholas,
and Gary Feinman. 1999. Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Alban State.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boggs, Stanley H. 1950. “Olmec” Pictographs in the Las Victorias Group,
Chalchuapa Archaeological Zone, El Salvador. Notes on Middle American
Archaeology and Ethnology 4(99): 85-92. Washington, DC: Carnegie Insti-
tution of Washington.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill, and Gordon R. Willey, eds. 1988. The Southeast Clas-
sic Maya Zone. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Studies in
Social Anthropology 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Fudgment of Taste. Translated by R.
Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bove, Frederick J., 1991. The Teotihuacan—Kaminaljuyu—Tikal Connection: A
View from the South Coast of Guatemala. In Sixth Palenque Round Table,
1986, ed. V.M. Fields, pp. 135-142. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
310 References

Bove, Frederick J., ed. 1989. New Frontiers in the Archaeology of the Pacific Coast of
Southern Mesoamerica. Anthropological Research Papers 39. pees Arizona
State University Press.
Bove, FrederickJ.,Sonia Medrano B., Brenda Lou P., and Barbara astoye leeds:
1993. The Balberta Project: The Terminal Formative—Early Classic Transition on
the Pacific Coast of Guatemala. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin
American Archaeology No. 6.
Bowditch, Charles P. 1910. The Numeration, Calendar Systems, and Astronomical
Knowledge of the Mayas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady, James E. 1990. Investigaciones en la Cueva de “El Duende.” In Proyecto
Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe Prehminar No. 2: Segunda Tempo-
rada, eds. A.A. Demarest and S. Houston, pp. 334-352. Guatemala and
Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
1991. Caves and Cosmovision at Utatlan. California Anthropologist 18:
1-10.
1994. El Impacto del Ritual en la Economia Maya. In VII Simposio de
Arqueologia Guatemalteca, eds. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 87-91.
Guatemala: Museo de Antropologia y Etnologia de Guatemala.
1997. Settlement, Architecture, and Cosmology: The Role of Caves in Deter-
mining the Placement of Architecture at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist
99: 602-681.
Brady, James E., Joseph W. Ball, Ronald L. Bishop, Duncan C. Pring,
Norman Hammond, and Rupert A. Housley. 1998. The Lowland Maya
“Protoclassic”: A Reconsideration of its Nature and Significance. Ancient
Mesoamerica 9: 17-38.
Brady, James E., L. Fernando Luin, Carol Foncea, Lori E. Wright, and Sandra
Villagran de Brady. 1990. Investigaciones en la Cueva de Sangre y Otras
Cuevas de la Region de Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petex-
batun, Informe Preliminar No. 2: Segunda Temporada, eds. A.A. Demarest
and S. Houston, pp. 438-567. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Brady, James, and Irma Rodas. 1992. Hallazgos recientes y nuevas interpreta-
ciones de la cueva de El Duende. In V Simposio de Arqueologia Guatemal-
teca, 1991, eds. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, and S. Villagran de Brady,
pp. 185-194. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Brady, James E., Irma Rodas, Lori E. Wright, Katherine F. Emery, Nora Lopéz,
Laura Stiver, and Robert Chatham. 1991. Proyecto Arqueolégico Regional
Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatin, Informe Preliminar
No. 3: Tercera Temporada, eds. A.A. Demarest, T. Inomata, H.L. Escobedo,
and J.W. Palka, pp. 652-748. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Brady, James E., Ann Scott, Allen Cobb, Irma Rodas, John Fogarty, and Monica
Urquizu Sanchez. 1997. Glimpses of the Dark Side of the Petexbatun
 References yl

Project: The Petexbatun Regional Cave Survey. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 353-

- 364.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Etienne. 1866. Palenque et Autres Ruines de
L’Ancienne Civilisation du Mexique. Paris: Bertrand.
Braswell, Geoffrey. 1992. Obsidian Hydration Dating, the Coner Phase, and
Revisionist Chronology at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 3:
130-147.
2002. Praise the Gods and Pass the Obsidian?: The Organization of Ancient
Economy in San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala. In Ancient Maya Political
Economies, eds. M.A. Masson and D.A. Freidel, pp. 285-306. Walnut Creek,
CA: AltaMira Press.
2003a. Introduction. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic
Interaction, ed. G.E. Braswell, pp. 1-44. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2003b. Understanding Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyu and
Central Mexico. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Clas-
sic Interaction, ed. G.E. Braswell, pp. 105-142. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Braswell, Geoffrey. ed. 2003c. The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early
Classic Interaction. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Braswell, Geoffrey E., Joel D. Gunn, Maria del Rosario Dominguez C., William
J. Folan, Laraine A. Fletcher, Abel Morales L., and Michael D. Glascock.
2004. Defining the Terminal Classic at Calakmul, Campeche. In The Termi-
nal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation,
ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D. Rice. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
Bricker, Victoria R. 1973. Algunas consecuencias religiosa y sociales del nativismo
maya del siglo XIX. America Indigena 33: 327-348.
1977. The Caste War of Yucatan: The History of a Myth and the Myth of
History. In Anthropology and History in Yucatan, ed. G.D. Jones, pp. 251—
258. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1981. The Indian Christ, the Indian King: The Historical Substrate of Maya Myth
and Ritual. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1986. A Grammar of Mayan Hieroglyphs. Middle American Research Institute
Publication 56. New Orleans, Tulane University.
Bricker, Victoria R., and Gary H. Gossen, eds. 1989. Ethnographic Encounters in
Southern Mesoamerica: Essays in Honor of Evon Zartman Vogt, Fr., Studies on
Culture and Society, No. 3. Albany: State University of New York.
Brothwell, Don, and Eric Higgs, eds. 1970. Science in Archaeology: A Survey of
Progress and Research. New York: Praeger.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth. 1987. Consumption and Politics at Aztex Huexotla. Ameri-
can Anthropologist, 89: 676-686.
1998. The Multiple Identities of Aztec Craft Specialists. In Craft and Social
Identity, ed. C.L. Costin and R. Wright. Archaeological Papers of the Amer-
ican Anthropological Association No. 8. Washington, DC: American Anthro-
pological Association.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Timothy K. Earle, eds. 1987. Specialization,
Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
B12 References

Brunhouse, Robert L. 1971. Sylvanus G. Morley and the World of the Ancient
Mayas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1973. In Search of the Maya: The First Archaeologists. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Bullard, Jr., William R. 1952. Residential Property Walls at Mayapan. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Current Reports 1(3): 36-44.
1960. Maya Settlement Patterns in Northeastern Petén, Guatemala. American
Antiquity 25: 355-372.
Butzer, Karl W. 1976. Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural
Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, Lyle R. 1976. The Linguistic Prehistory of the Southern
Mesoamerican Periphery. XIV Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropologia: Las Fronteras de Mesoamerica, Vol. 1, pp. 157-183. Tegucigalpa,
Honduras.
Campbell, Lyle R., and Terrence S. Kaufman. 1976. A Linguistic Look at the
Olmecs. American Antiquity 41: 80-89.
Carlson, John B. 1981. A Geomantic Model for the Interpretation of Mesoamer-
ican Sites: An Essay in Cross-Cultural Comparison. In Mesoamerican Sites
and World Views, ed. E.P. Benson, pp. 143-215. Washington, DC: Dumbar-
ton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
Carmack, Robert M. 1973. Quichean Civilization: The Ethnohistoric, Ethno-
graphic, and Archaeological Sources. Berkeley: University of California
iPxess:
1981. The Quiche Mayas of Utatlan: The Evolution of a Highland Guatemala
Kingdom. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Carmean, Kelli, Nicholas Dunning, and Jeff Karl Kowalski. 2004. High Times
in the Hill Country: A Perspective from the Terminal Classic Puuc Region.
In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Trans-
formation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D. Rice. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Carneiro, Robert L. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:
733-738.
Castaneda, Quetzil E. 1996. In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chichén Itza.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Castillo, Donaldo. 1991. La Ceramica de Abaj Takalik: Un Estudio Preliminar. In
II Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala. Guatemala: Minis-
terio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion
Tikal.
Charnay, Désiré. 1887. The Ancient Cities of the New World, trans. J. Gonino and
H.S. Conant. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Chase, Arlen F. 1976. Topoxte and Tayasal: Ethnohistory in Archaeology. Amer-
ican Antiquity 41: 154-167.
1979. Regional Development in the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, El Petén
Guatemala: A Preliminary Statement. Ceramica de Cultura Maya 11:
86-119.
 References 313

1985a. Postclassic Petén Interaction Spheres: The View From Tayasal. In

- The Lowland Maya Postclassic, ed. A.F. Chase and P.M. Rice, pp. 184-205.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1985b. Troubled Times: Archaeology and Iconography of the Terminal Classic
Southern Lowland Maya. In Fifth Palenque Roundtable, ed. V.M. Fields, pp.
103-114. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
1991. Cycles of Time: Caracol in the Maya Realm. In Sixth Palenque Round
Table, 1986, vol. 7, ed. V.M. Fields, pp. 32-42. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.
1992. Elites and the Organization of Classic Maya Society. In Mesoamerican
Elites: An Archaeological Perspective, ed. D.Z. Chase and A.F. Chase, pp. 30—
49. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase. 1987. Investigations at the Classic Maya City
of Caracol, Belize: 1985-1987. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research
Institute.
1996a. A Mighty Maya Nation: How Caracol Built an Empire by Cultivating
its “Middle Class.” Archaeology 49(5): 66-72.
1996b. More than Kin and King: Centralized Political Organization among
the Late Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 37: 803-10.
1998. Late Classic Maya Political Structure, Polity Size and Warfare Arenas.
In Anatomia de una Civilizacion: Aproximaciones Interdisciplinarias ala Cultura
Maya, ed. A. Ciudad Ruiz, et al., pp. 11-29. Madrid: Sociedad Espanola de
Estudios Mayas.
2001. The Royal Court of Caracol, Belize: Its Palaces and People. In Royal
Courts of the Ancient Maya, vol. 2: Data and Case Studies, ed. T. Inomata and
S.D. Houston, pp. 102-137. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2004. Terminal Classic Status-Linked Ceramics and the Maya “Collapse”: De
Facto Refuse at Caracol, Belize. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, eds. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and
D. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase, eds. 1992. Mesoamerican Elites: An Archae-
ological Assessment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Chase, Arlen F., Nikolai K. Grube, and Diane Z. Chase. 1991. Three Terminal
Classic Monuments from Caracol, Belize. Research Reports on Ancient Maya
Writing 36. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.
Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, and Christine D. White. 2001. El paisaje
urbnao Maya: La integraciodn de los espacios construidos y la estructura
social en Caracol, Belize. In La Ciudad Antigua: Espacios, Conjuntos e Inte-
gracion Sociocultural en la Civilizacion Maya, eds. A. Ciudad, M.J. Iglesias,
and C. Martines, Madrid: Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas.
Chase, Arlen F., and Prudence M. Rice, eds. 1985. The Lowland Maya Postclassic.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Chase, Diane Z. 1985. Ganned But Not Forgotten: Late Postclassic Archaeology
and Ritual at Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, ed.
A.F. Chase and P.M. Rice, pp. 104-125. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1986. Social and Political Organization in the Land of Cacao and Honey:
Correlating the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland
314 References

Maya. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff
and E.W. Andrews V, pp. 347-377. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press. x
1990. The Invisible Maya: Population History and Archaeology at Santa Rita
Corozal. In Prehistoric Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P.
Culbert and D.S. Rice, pp. 199-214. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
1991. Lifeline to the Maya Gods: Ritual Bloodletting at Santa Rita Corozal.
In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, ed. V.M. Fields, pp. 89-96. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
1997. Southern Lowland Maya Archaeology and Human Skeletal Remains:
Interpretations from Caracol, Belize, Santa Rita Corozal, Belize, and Tayasal,
Guatemala. In Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, ed. S.L. Whit-
tington and D.M. Reed, pp. 15-27. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu-
tion.
Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase. 1980. New Finds at Santa Rita Show
Corozal Site to be Thriving Maya Center. Brukdown: The Magazine of Belize
IV(8): 18-21.
1982. Yucatec Influence in Terminal Classic Northern Belize. American Antiq-
uity 47: 596-614.
2004. Hermeneutics, Transitions, and Transformations in Classic to Postclas-
sic Maya Society. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse,
Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice.
Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
Chase, Diane Z., Arlen F. Chase, and William A. Haviland. 1990. The Classic
Maya City: Reconsidering the “Mesoamerican Urban Tradition.” American
Anthropologist 92: 499-506.
Chase, Diane Z., Arlen F. Chase, Christine D. White, and Wendy Giddens.
1998. Human Skeletal Remains in Archaeological Context: Status, Diet,
and Household at Caracol, Belize. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Inter-
national Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Williams-
burg, VA.
Christie, Jessica J., ed. 2003. Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Christie, Jessica J. and Patricia Sarro, eds. In press. Palaces and Power in Ancient
America: From Peru to the Northwest Coast. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Churchward, James. 1932. The Lost Continent of Mu. New York: Ives Washburn.
Ciudad Real, Antonio de. 1872. Relacion de las cosas que sucedieron al R. P Comis-
ario General Fray Alonso Ponce... (1588). Madrid: Imprenta de la Viuda de
Calero.
Clark, John E. 1986. From Mountains to Molehills: A Critical Review of Teoti-
huacan’s Obsidian Industry. In Research in Economic Anthropology, Supple-
ment 2, ed. B.L. Isaac, pp. 23-74. Greenwich: JAI Press.
1994. The Development of Early Formative Rank Societies in Soconusco, Chia-
pas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
 References 315

1997a. The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. In Annual Review of

= Anthropology 26: 211-234.
1997b. Prismatic Blademaking, Craftsmanship, and Production: An Analysis
of Obsidian Refuse From Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamer-
ica 8: 137-159.
Clark, John E., and Michael Blake. 1989. El origen de la civilizacion en
Mesoamerica: Los Olmecas y Mokaya del Socunusco de Chiapas, Mexico.
In El Preclasico 0 Formative: Advances y Perspecitvas, ed. M. Carmona, pp.
385-403. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico: Museo Nacional de
Antropologia.
1994, The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of
Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Polit-
ical Development in the New World, ed. E. Brumfiel and J. Fox, pp. 17-30.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, John E., and Douglas Bryant. 1997. Technological Typology of Obsidian
Blades and Debitage from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamer-
ica 8: 111-136.
Clark, John E., Richard D. Hansen, and Tomas Perez. n.d. Maya Genesis: Towards
an Origin Narrative of Maya Civilization. Manuscript.
-2000. La zona maya en el preclasico. In Historia Antigua de Mexico, 2nd edition,
eds. L. Manzanilla and L. Lopez Lujan, pp. 437-510. Mexico, D.F.: Univer-
sidad Nacional Autonoma de México.
Clark, John E., and Thomas A. Lee, Jr. 1984. Formative Obsidian Exchange
and the Emergence of Public Economies in Chiapas, Mexico. In Trade and
Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, ed. K.G. Hirth, pp. 235-274. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Cobos, Rafael. 1998. Chichén Itza y el Clasico Terminal en las Tierras Bajas
Mayas. In XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds.
J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 791-799. Guatemala: Ministerio de
Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
2004. Chichén Itza: Settkement and Hegemony during the Terminal Classic
Period. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition,
and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D. Rice. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
Coe, Michael D. 1960. A Fluted Point from Highland Guatemala. American
Antquity 25: 412-413.
1965. Archaeological Synthesis of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In Hand-
book of Middle American Indians, vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica,
Part 2, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 679-714. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1966. The Maya. New York: Praeger.
1968. America’s First Civilization. New York: American Heritage.
1973. The Maya Scribe and His World. New York: Grolier Club.
1977. Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists. In Social Process
in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, ed. N.D.C.
Hammond, pp. 327-347. New York: Academic Press.
1978. Lords of the Underworld: Masterpieces of Classic Maya Ceramics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
316 References

1981. Religion and the Rise of the Mesoamerican State. In The Transition to
Statehood in the New World, ed. G.D. Jones and R.R. Kautz, pp. 157-171.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1982. Old Gods and Young Heroes: The Pearlman Collection of Wie Ceramics.
Jerusalem: Maremont Pavilion of Ethnic Arts, Israel Museum.
1988. Ideology of the Maya Tomb. In Maya Iconography, ed. E.P. Benson
and G.G. Griffin, pp. 222-235. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
1992. Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames and Hudson.
1993. The Maya. 5th ed. New York: Thames and Hudson.
1994. Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, 4th ed. New York: Thames and
Hudson.
Coe, Michael D., and Kent V. Flannery. 1967. Early Cultures and Human Ecology
in South Coastal Guatemala. Contributions to Anthropology 3. Washington,
DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Coe, Michael D., and Sophie Coe. 1996. A True History of Chocolate. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
Coe, William R. 1962. A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal,
Guatemala: 1956-1961. American Antiquity 27: 479-507.
1965a. Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Sczence 147: 1401—
1419.
1965b. Tikal: Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala.
Expedition 8(1): 5-56.
1968. Tikal: In Search of the Mayan Past. In The World Book Yearbook, pp.
160-190. Chicago: Field Educational Enterprises.
Coggins, Clemency C. 1975. Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical
and Iconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Fine
Arts, Harvard University.
1979. A New Order and the Role of the Calendar: Some Characteristics of the
Middle Classic Period at Tikal. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed.
N.D.C. Hammond and G.R. Willey, pp. 38-50. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Coggins, Clemency C., and Orrin C. Shane III. 1984. Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya
Treasures from the Sacred Well at Chichen Itza. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Coleman, David, and Roger Schofield, eds. 1986. The State of Population Theory:
Forward from Malthus. London: Basil Blackwell.
Conrad, Geoffrey W., and Arthur A. Demarest. 1984. Religion and Empire: The
Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cook, Orator F. 1921. Milpa Agriculture, A Primitive Tropical System. Annual
Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919, pp. 307-326. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution.
Cortes, Hernan. 1928. Five Letters of Cortes to the Emperor (1519-1526). Trans.
J.B. Morris. New York: Norton.
Costin, Cathy L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting,
and Explaining the Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method
 References SML7h

and Theory, vol. 3, ed. M. Schiffer, pp. 1-56. Tucson: University of Arizona
- Press.
Covarrubias, Miguel A. 1957. Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cowgill, George L. 1979. Teotihuacan, Internal Militaristic Competition, and
the Fall of the Classic Maya. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed.
N.D.C. Hammond and G.R. Willey, pp. 51-62. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Cowgill, Ursula M. 1961. Soil Fertility and the Ancient Maya. Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Transactions 42: 1-56.
Culbert, T. Patrick. 1973a. The Maya Downfall at Tikal. In The Classic Maya
Collapse, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 63-92. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
1974. The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya. New York: Harper
and Row.
1977. Maya Development and Collapse: An Economic Perspective. In Social
Process in Maya Prehistory, ed. N.D.C. Hammond, pp. 510-530. New York:
Academic Press.
1988. The Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. In The Collapse of Ancient
States and Civilizations, ed. N. Yoffee and G.L. Cowgill, pp. 69-101. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
1994. Maya Civilization. Washington DC: Smithsonian Books.
1998. The New Maya. Archaeology 51(5): 48-52.
Culbert, T. Patrick, ed. 1973b. The Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press.
ed. 1991. Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culbert, T. Patrick, Laura J. Kosakowsky, Robert E. Fry, and William A. Havi-
land. 1990. The Population of Tikal, Guatemala. In Precolumbian Population
History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice, pp. 103-122.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Culbert, T. Patrick, Laura Levi, Brian McKee, and Julie Kunen. 1996. Inves-
tigaciones Arqueologicas en el Bajo La Justa, entre Yaxha y Nakum. In LX
Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte and
H.L. Escobedo, pp. 367-372. Guatemala Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes,
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Culbert, T. Patrick, and Don S. Rice, eds. 1990. Precolumbian Population History
in the Maya Lowlands. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Curtis, Jason H., David A. Hoddell, and Mark Brenner. 1996. Climate Variability
on the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) during the Past 3500 Years, and the
Implications for Maya Cultural Evolution. Quaternary Research 46: 37-47.
Dahlin, Bruce H. 1976. An Anthropologist Looks at the Pyramids: A Late Classic
Revitalization Movement at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple
University, Philadelphia.
1979. Cropping Cash in the Protoclassic: A Cultural Impact Statement. In
Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. N.D.C. Hammond and G.R. Willey,
pp. 21-37. Austin: University of Texas Press.
318 References

1984. A Colossus in Guatemala: The Preclassic Maya City of El Mirador.

Archaeology 37(5): 18-25.
Dahlin, Bruce H., and William J. Litzinger. 1986. Old Bottle, New Wine: The
Function of Chultuns in the Maya Lowlands. American Antiquity 51: 721—
736.
del Rio, Antonio. 1822. Description of the Ruins of an Ancient City Discovered Near
Palenque, in the Kingdom of Guatemala, in Spanish America. London: Berthoud
and Suttaby, Evance and Fox.
Demarest, Arthur A. 1976. A Re-Evaluation of the Archaeological Sequences of
Preclassic Chiapas. In Studies in Middle American Archaeology, pp. 75-107.
Middle American Research Institute Publication 22. New Orleans: Tulane
University.
1981. Viracocha: The Nature and Antiquity of the Andean High God. Peabody
Museum Monograph No. 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1984a. Mesoamerican Human Sacrifice in Evolutionary Perspective. In Ritual
Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, ed. E.H. Boone, pp. 227-247. Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1984b. Conclusiones y Especulaciones acerca de El Mirador. Mesoamerica 7:
138-150.
1986. The Archaeology of Santa Leticia and the Rise of Maya Civilization. Middle
American Research Institute Publication 52. New Orleans: Tulane Univer-
sity.
1987a. Archaeology and Religion. In The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade,
pp. 373-379. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
1987b. Recent Research on the Preclassic Ceramics of the Southeastern High-
lands and Pacific Coast of Guatemala. In Maya Ceramics: Papers from the
1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, ed. P.M. Rice and R.J. Sharer, pp. 329-339.
British Archaeological Reports 345. Oxford: BAR International Series.
1989a. Ideology and Evolutionism in American Archaeology: Looking Beyond
the Economic Base. In Archaeological Thought in America, ed. C.C. Lamberg-
Karlovsky, pp. 89-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1989b. The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica. In The
Olmec and the Development of Formative Mesoamerican Civilization, eds. R.J.
Sharer and D.C. Grove, pp. 303-344. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1992a. Archaeology, Ideology, and Precolumbian Cultural Evolution: The
Search for an Approach. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, ed. A.A.
Demarest and G.W. Conrad, pp. 1-13. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research Press.
1992b. Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galac-
tic Polities. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, ed. A.A. Demarest
and G. Conrad, pp. 135-157. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research
Press.
1993. The Violent Saga of aMaya Kingdom. National Geographic 183(2): 94—
AL.
1996a. Economia y Subsistencia Durante el Clasico Terminal: Interpretaciones
de las Nuevas Evidencias en Punta de Chimino. In Proyecto Arqueologico
 References 319

Punta de Chimino 1996, Informe Preliminar, ed. A.A. Demarest, H.L.

: Escobedo, and M. O’Mansky, pp. 95-106. Guatemala and Nashville, TN:
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
1996b. Concluding Comment on the Maya State: Centralized or Segmentary?
Current Anthropology 37: 821-824.
1997. The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project, 1989-
1994: Overview, History, and Major Results of a Multidisciplinary Study
of the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 209-227.
* 2001. Nuevas evidencias y problemas teoricos en las investigaciones e inter-
pretaciones sobre los origines de las sociedades complejas en Guatemala. In
AIV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte,
A.C. de Sausnavar, and B. Arroyo. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y
Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
2002. Theoretical Speculations on the Rise of Complex Society on the
South Coast of Guatemala. In Incidents of Archaeology in Central America
and Yucatan: Essays in Honor of Edwin M. Shook, eds. M.W. Love, M.P.
Hatch, and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 11-34. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
-2004. After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the
Terminal Classic in the Western Petén. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M.
Rice, and D. Rice, pp. 102-124. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
In press-a. Sacred and Profane Mountains at Cancuen and Dos Pilas: Archi-
tecture as State Strategy. In Palaces and Power in Ancient America: From Peru
to the Northwest Coast, eds. J. Christie and P. Sarro. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
In press-b. The Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary
Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. Monographs of the Vanderbilt Institute of
Mesoamerican Archaeology. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Tomas Barrientos Q. 2002. Proyecto Arqueologico
Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 4: Temporada 2002. Guatemala and
Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Geoffrey W. Conrad. 1983. Ideological Adaptation in
the Rise of the Aztec and Inca Empires. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas,
ed. R. Leventhal and A. Kolata, pp. 373-400. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Geoffrey W. Conrad, eds. 1992. Ideology and Pre-
Columbian Civilizations. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research
Press.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Héctor L. Escobedo. 1997. El proyecto arqueoldgico
Punta de Chimino: objectivos, descumbrimientos e interpretaciones prelim-
inares de la temporada de campo de 1996. In X Simposio de Investiga-
ciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo,
pp. 381-384. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
320 References

Demarest, Arthur, Héctor Escobedo, Juan Antonio Valdés, Stephen Houston,

and Kitty Emery. 1991. Operacion DP6A: Excavaciones en la Estructura
L5-1 y la Tumba del Gobernante 2 de Dos Pilas. In Proyecto Arqueologico
Regional Petexbatun: Informe Preliminar #3, Tercera Temporada 1991, eds. A.A.
Demarest, T. Inomata, H. Escobedo, and J. Palka, pp. 37-68. Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia, Guatemala, and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Federico Fahsen. 2003. Nuevos Datos e Interpreta-
ciones de los Reinos Occidentales. In XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueo-
logicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, H. Escobedo, A.C. de Suasnavar, and
B. Arroyo, pp. 159-174. Guatemala: Museo de Antropologia y Etnologia de
Guatemala.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Antonia E. Foias. 1993. Mesoamerican Horizons and
the Cultural Transformations of Maya Civilization. In Latin American Hori-
zons, ed. D. Rice, pp. 147-191. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees
for Harvard University.
Demarest, Arthur A., and David Garcia. 2003. Perspectivas Postmodernas acerca
de Arqueologia, Derechos Indigenas, y Desarollo Humano: Hacia Una
Nuevo Modelo del Patrimonio Cultural en Guatemala. In XVI Simposio de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, H. Escobedo,
A.C. de Suasnavar, and B. Arroyo, pp. 17-26. Guatemala: Museo de
Antropologia y Etnologia de Guatemala.
Demarest, Arthur, Nora Maria Lopez, Robert Chatham, Katherine F. Emery,
Joel W. Palka, Kim Morgan, and Héctor L. Escobedo, 1991. Operacion
DP28: excavaciones en las murallas defensivas de Dos Pilas. In Proyecto
Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe Preliminar #3: Tercera Temporada
1991, ed. A.A. Demarest, T. Inomata, H.L. Escobedo, and J.W. Palka, pp.
208-241. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Histo-
ria and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Demarest, Arthur A., Kim Morgan, Claudia Wolley, and Hector L. Escobedo.
2003. The Political Acquisition of Sacred Geography: The Murciélagos
Complex at Dos Pilas. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences, ed. J. Christie,
pp. 120-153. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Demarest, Arthur A., Matt O’Mansky, Claudia Wolley, Dirk Van Tuerenhout,
Takeshi Inomata, Joel W. Palka, and Héctor L. Escobedo. 1997. Classic Maya
Defensive Systems and Warfare in the Petexbatun Region: Archaeological
Evidence and Interpretations. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 229-253.
Demarest, Arthur A., Matt O’Mansky, Nicholas Dunning, and Timothy Beach.
In press. Catastrofismo, Procesos Ecolégicos, 6 Crisis Politica?: Hacia una
Metodologia Mejor para Interpretacién del “Colapso” de la Civilizacién
Clasica Maya. In XVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala,
eds. J.P. Laporte, H. Escobedo, and B. Arroyo. Guatemala: Museo de
Antropologia y Etnologia de Guatemala.
Demarest, Arthur A., Mary E. Pye, J.T. Myers, and R. Mendez. 1988. El Proyecto
Mar Azul/El Mesak, Informe Preliminar. Guatemala and Nashville, TN:
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
 References By

Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, eds. 2004a. The
- Terminal’ Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transforma-
tion. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice. 2004b. The Termi-
nal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Assessing Collapses, Terminations, and
Transformations. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse,
Transition, and Transformation, eds. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice,
pp. 545-572. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Demarest, Arthur A., Irma Rodas, and Kim Morgan. 1995. Investigaci6n
de Estructura N4-6, una Estructura Oratorio en el Grupo Murcielagos:
suboperacion DP39F. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun: Informe
Preliminar No. 6, Tercera Temporada 1994, ed. A.A. Demarest, J.A. Valdés,
and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 357-361. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Robert J. Sharer. 1986. Late Preclassic Ceramic
Spheres, Culture Areas, and Cultural Evolution in the Southeastern High-
lands of Mesoamerica. In The Southeast Maya Periphery, ed. P.A. Urban and
E.M. Schortman, pp. 194-223. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Demarest, Arthur A., Robert J. Sharer, William R. Fowler, Jr., Eleanor King,
and Joyce Fowler. 1984. Las Excavaciones del Proyecto El Mirador, 1982.
Mesoamerica 7: 14-52.
Demarest, Arthur A., Roy Switsur, and Rainer Berger. 1982. The Dating and
Cultural Associations of the “Potbellied” Sculptural Style: New Evidence
from Western El Salvador. American Antiquity 47: 557-571.
Demarest, Arthur A., and Juan Antonio Valdés. 1995. Guerra, regresion politica
y el colapso de la civilizacion Maya Clasica en la region Petexbatun. In VII
Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 1994, eds. J.P. Laporte
and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 777-781. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y
Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Demarest, Arthur A., Héctor L. Escobedo, and Matt O’Mansky, eds. 1997.
Proyecto Arquelégico Punta de Chimino, Informe Preliminar de la Primera Tempo-
rada. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and
Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Demarest, Arthur, and Tomas Barrientos Q., eds. 1999. Proyecto Arqueo-
logico Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 1, Temporada 1999. Guatemala and
Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Department of Anthro-
pology.
2000. Proyecto Arqueologico Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 2, Temporada 2000.
Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
2001. Proyecto Arqueologico Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 3, Temporada 2001.
Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and
Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
1981. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
322 References

Deuel, Leo. 1967. Conquistadors without Swords: Archaeologists in the Americas.

New York: Schocken Books.
Devereux, George. 1967. A Typological Study of Abortion in-350 Primitive,
Ancient, and Pre-Industrial Societies. In Abortion in America: Legal, Anthro-
pological, and Religious Considerations, ed. H. Rosen, pp. 97-152. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Diaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1963. The Conquest of New Spain, trans. J.M. Cohen.
Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Diehl, Richard A., and Janet C. Berlo, eds. 1989. Mesoamerica after the Decline
of Teotthuacan, A.D. 700-900. Washington, pag Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees
for Harvard University.
Dillehay, Tom D., and David J. Meltzer, eds. 1991. The First Americans: Search
and Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Dillon, Brian D. 1977. Salinas de los Nueve Cerros, Guatemala: Preliminary
Archaeological Investigations. Ballena Press Studies in Mesoamerican Art,
Archaeology and Ethnohistory 2. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press.
Dominguez Carrasco, Maria del Rosario, William J. Folan, and Joel D. Gunn.
1996. Calakmul, Campeche: sus areas de actividades ceremonials, civicas y
domésticas, derivadas de sus materiales liticos y Ceramicos. In Los Investi-
gadores de la Cultura Maya, no. 4, pp. 80-106. Campeche, Mexico: Univer-
sidad Autonoma de Campeche.
Drennan, Robert D. 1976. Religion and Social Evolution in Formative
Mesoamerica. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. K.V. Flannery,
pp. 345-3608. New York: Academic Press.
1984. Long-Distance Movement of Goods in Prehistoric Mesoamerica: Its
Importance in the Complex Societies of the Formative and Classic. American
Antquity 49: 27-43.
Dunning, Nicholas P. 1992. Lords of the Hills: Ancient Maya Settlement in the Puuc
Region, Yucatan, Mexico. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
1993 Analisis de fosfato de la tierra arqueologica y el patron agricola en la region
de Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe Prelimi-
nar No. 5: Quinta Temporada, 1993, ed. J.A. Valdés, A.E. Foias, T. Inomata,
H.L. Escobedo, and A.A. Demarest, pp. 165-169. Guatemala and Nashville,
TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
1994. Ancient Maya Anthrosols: Soil Phosphate Testing and Land Use. In
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pedo-Archaeology, ed. J.E.
Foss, M.E. Timpson, and M.W. Morris, pp. 203-210. Knoxville: University
of Tennessee.
1996. An Examination of Regional Variability in the Prehispanic Maya Agri-
cultural Landscape. In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and
ss Use, ed. S.L. Fedick, pp. 53-68. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
ress.
Dunning, Nicholas, and Timothy Beach. 1994. Soil Erosion, Slope Management,
and Ancient Terracing in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 5:
51-69.
 References 323

2000. Stability and Instability in Pre-Hispanic Maya Landscapes. In An Imper-

- fect Balace: Precolumbian New World Ecosystems, ed. D. Lentz, pp. 179-202.
New York: Columbia University Press.
In press. Ecology and Agriculture of the Petexbatun Region: An Ancient Perspec-
tive on Rainforest Adaptation. Monographs of the Vanderbilt Institute of
Mesoamerican Archaeology. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Dunning, Nicholas P., and Arthur A. Demarest. 1989. Sustainable Agricultural
Systems in the Petexbatun, Pasién, and Petén Regions of Guatemala: Perspectives
from Contemporary Ecology and Ancient Settlement. Report to United States
Agency for International Development, Guatemala City and Washington,
DE
Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, and David Rue. 1995. Investiga-
ciones paleoecologicas y los antiguos sistemas agricolas de la region de
Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun; Informe Preliminar
no. 6: Sexta Temporada 1994, ed. A.A. Demarest, J.A. Valdés, and H.L.
Escobedo, pp. 505-521. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, and David Rue. 1997. The Paleoecol-
- ogy and Ancient Settlement of the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala. Ancient
Mesoamerica 8: 255-266.
Dunning, Nicholas P., Estuardo Secarra, and Arthur A. Demarest. 1992. The
Petexbatun Region and the Petén: A Legacy of Human Impact. Report to United
States Agency for International Development, Guatemala City and Wash-
ington, DC.
Dunning, Nicholas P., Timothy Beach, Pat Farrell, and Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach.
1998. Prehispanic Agrosystems and Adaptive Regions in the Maya Lowlands.
Culture and Agriculture 20: 87-101.
Eaton, Jack D. 1975. Ancient Agricultural Farmsteads in the Rio Bec Region
of Yucatan. In Archaeological Research Facility Contribution 27, pp. 56-82.
Berkeley: University of California.
Edmonson, Munro S. 1971. The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh of the Quiche
Maya of Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute Publication 35.
New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.
Edmonson, Munro S. 1979. Some Postclassic Questions about the Classic Maya.
Estudios de Cultura Maya 12: 157-178.
1982. The Ancient Future of the Itza: The Book of Chilam Balam of Tizimin.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
1986. Heaven Born Merida and Its Destiny: The Book of Chilam Balam of
Chumayel. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Eliade, Mircea. 1954. The Myth of the Eternal Return, trans. W.R. Trask. New
York: Pantheon Books.
1961. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism, trans. P. Mairet.
London: Harvill Press.
Emery, Katherine F. 1997. The Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Investigation.
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
324 References

In press. Ancient Fauna, Bone Industries, and Subsistence History of the Petexbatun
Region. Monographs of the Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeol-
ogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Emery, Katherine F., Lori E. Wright, and Henry Schwarcz. 2000. Isotopic Analy-
sis of Ancient Deer Bone: Biotic Stability in Collapse Period Maya Land-Use.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 537-550.
Fagan, Brian M. 1987. The Great fourney: The Peopling of Ancient America. New
York: Thames and Hudson.
Fahsen, Federico. 2001. From Chiefdom to Statehood in the Highlands of
Guatemala. In Maya: Divine Kings of the Rainforest, ed. Nikolai Grube,
pp. 86-95. Cologne, Germany: K6nemann. ,
Fahsen, Federico, Jeannette Castellanos, Arthur A. Demarest, and Luis Fernando
Luin. 2003. Nuevos descubrimientos en 2001 de textos historicos en el
sitio Dos Pilas, Petén. In XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Fahsen, Federico, and Arthur A. Demarest. 2001. El Papel del reinado
Cancuen en la historia de las ciudades clasicas en las tierras bajas
Mayas: nuevos datos e interpretaciones epigraficas, in XIV Simposio de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, A.C. de
Suasnavar, and B. Arroyo, pp. 999-1016. Guatemala: Ministerio de
Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion
Tikal.
Fahsen, Federico, and Sarah Jackson. 2002. Nuevos Datos e Interpretaciones
sobre la Dinistia de Cancuen en el Periodo Clasico. In XV Simposio de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo,
and B. Arroyo Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Farriss, Nancy M. 1984. Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enter-
prise of Survival. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1987. Remembering the Future, Anticipating the Past: History, Time, and
Cosmology among the Maya of Yucatan. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 29: 566-593.
Fash, Barbara W. 1992. Late Classic Architectural Sculpture Themes at Copan.
Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 89-102.
In press. Iconographic Evidence for Water Management and Social Organiza-
tion at Copan. In Copan: The Rise and Fall of a Classic Maya Kingdom, eds.
E.W. Andrews IV and W.L. Fash, Jr. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research Press.
Fash, Barbara W., William L. Fash, Jr., Sheree Lane, Rudy Larios, Linda Schele,
Jeff Stomper, and David S. Stuart. 1992. Investigations of a Classic Maya
Council House at Copan, Honduras. Fournal of Field Archaeology \-: 419-
442.
Fash, William L. 1991. Scribes, Warriors, and Kings: The City of Copan and the
Ancient Maya. New York: Thames and Hudson.
1994. Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 23: 181-208.
 References B25

Fash, William L., and Barbara W. Fash. 2000. Teotihuacan and the Maya: A
Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage from Teotihuacan to the
Aztecs, eds. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 433-463. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
Fash, William L., E. Wyllys Andrews, and T. Kam Manahan. 2004. Political
Decentralization, Dynastic Collapse, and the Early Post Classic in the Urban
Center of Copan, Honduras. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and
D. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
_ Fash, William L., and David S. Stuart. 1991. Dynastic History and Cultural
Evolution at Copan, Honduras. In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic
and Archaeological Evidence, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 147-179. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Feder, Kenneth L. 1990. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience
im Archaeology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Fedick, Scott L. 1994. Ancient Maya Agricultural Terracing in the Upper Belize
River Area. Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 107-127.
Fedick, Scott L., ed. 1996. The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and
Resource Use. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1988. Farewell to Reason. New York: Verso Press.
Fischer, Edward F. 2001. Cultural Logics and Global Economics: Maya Identity in
Thought and Practice. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fischer, Edward F., and R. McKenna Brown, eds. 1996. Maya Cultural Activism
in Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Flannery, Kent V. 1968. The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for
Interregional Interaction in Formative Times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference
on the Olmec, ed. E.P. Benson, pp. 79-117. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 3: 399-426.
Flannery, Kent V., ed. 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York:
Academic Press.
ed. 1982. Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis Puleston. New York:
Academic Press.
Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus. 1976. Formative Oaxaca and the Zapotec
Cosmos. American Scientist 64: 374-383.
Foias, Antonia E. 1996. Changing Ceramic Production and Exchange Systems
and the Classic Maya Collapse in the Petexbatun Region, Department of
the Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
In press. Ceramics, Trade, and Exchange Systems of the Petexbatun: The Economic
Parameters of the Classic Maya Collapse. Monographs of the Vanderbilt Insti-
tute of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Foias, Antonia E., and Ronald L. Bishop. 1997. Changing Ceramic Produc-
tion and Exchange in the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala: Reconsidering
the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 275-291.
326 References

Foias, Antonia E., James E. Brady, and Stephen D. Houston. 1996. La

Produccién e Intercambio de la ceramica impresa del Clasico en la region
del Petexbatun, Petén. In LX Simposio de Investigaciones ~Arqueologicas en
Guatemala, 1995, ed. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 111-134.
Guatemala: Minesterio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia
e Historia, Associacion Tikal.
Folan, William J. 1988. Calakmul, Campeche: El Nacimiento de la Tradicion
Clasica en la gran Mesoamérica. Informacion 13: 122-190.
1992. Calakmul, Campeche: A Centralized Urban Administrative Center in
the Northern Petén. World Archaeology 24: 158-168.
Folan, William J., Ellen R. Kintz, and Laraine A. Fletcher. 1983. Coba: A Classic
Maya Metropolis. New York: Academic Press.
Folan, William J., Joyce Marcus, Sophia Pincemin, Maria del Rosario
Dominguez-Carrasco, and Laraine Fletcher. 1995. Calakmul: New Data
from an Ancient Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin American Antiqg-
uity 6: 310-34.
Férstemann, Ernst W. 1904. Translation of Various Papers. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 28: 393-590.
1906. Commentary on the Maya Manuscript in the Royal Public Library of Dres-
den. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers, vol. 4, no. 2.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Foucault, Michel. 1965. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age
of Reason. New York: Vintage Books.
1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.
1973. The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock.
Fowler, William R., ed. 1991. Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern
Mesoamerica. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
1997. Introduction to Special Section: The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional
Archaeological Project, 1989-1994. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 207-208.
Fox, John W. 1987. Maya Postclassic State Formation: Segmentary Lineage Migration
in Advancing Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1989. On the Rise and Fall of Tulan and Maya Segmentary States. American
Anthropologist 91: 656-681.
Fox, John W., Garrett W. Cook, Arlen F. Chase, Diane Z. Chase. 1996. Questions
of Political and Economic Integration: Segmentary Versus Centralized States
among the Ancient Maya. Current Anthropology 37: 795-801.
Fox, John W., Dwight T. Wallace, and Kenneth L. Brown. 1992. The Emer-
gence of the Quiche Elite: The Putun-Palenque Connection. In Mesoamer-
twcan Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, ed. D.Z. Chase and A.F. Chase,
pp. 169-190. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Freidel, David A. 1979. Cultural Areas and Interaction Spheres: Contrast-
ing Approaches to the Emergence of Civilization in the Maya Lowlands.
American Antiquity 44: 36-54.
1981. Civilization as a State of Mind: The Cultural Evolution of the Lowland
Maya. In The Transition to Statehood in the New World, ed. G.D. Jones and
R.R. Kautz, pp. 188-227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 References BT]

1986a. Maya Warfare: An Example of Peer Polity Interaction. In Peer Polity

- Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, pp.
93-108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1986b. Terminal Classic Lowland Maya: Successes, Failures, and Aftermaths.
In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and
E.W. Andrews V, pp. 409-430. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
1986c. Yaxuna Archaeological Survey: A Report of the 1986 Field Season. Report
submitted to Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic
Society, Washington, DC.
1992. The Trees of Life: Ahau as Idea and Artifact in Classic Lowland Maya
Civilization. In Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, ed. A.A. Demarest
and G.W. Conrad, pp. 115-133. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research Press.
1998. Sacred Work: Dedication and Termination in Mesoamerica. In The
Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in
the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica, ed. S.B. Mock,
pp. 189-193. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
In press. Flintshield: Maya War and the Classic Collapse. Boulder, CO: Westview
alates:
Freidel, David A., Kathryn Reese-Taylor, and David Mora-Marin. 2002. The
Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old Shell Game, Commodity, Treasure,
and Kingship. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, eds. M.A. Masson and
D.A. Freidel, pp. 41-86. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Freidel, David A., Robin A. Robertson, and Maynard B. Cliff. 1982. The Maya
City of Cerros. Archaeology 35(4): 12-21.
Freidel, David A., and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 1984. Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement
Patterns. New York: Academic Press.
Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele. 1988a. Kingship in the Late Preclassic
Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American
Anthropologist 90: 547-567.
1988b. Symbol and Power: A History of the Lowland Maya Cosmogram. In
Maya Iconography, ed. E.P. Benson and G.G. Griffin, pp. 44-93. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Freidel, David A., Linda Schele, and Joy Parker. 1993. Maya Cosmos: Three Thou-
sand Years on the Shaman’s Path. New York: William Morrow and Company,
Inc.
Freidel, David A., Charles Suhler, and Ruth J. Krochock. 1990. Yaxuna Archae-
ological Survey: A Report of the 1989 Field Season and Final Report on
Phase One. Dallas, TX: Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
University.
Freter, AnnCorrine. 1988. The Classic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras: A
Regional Settlement Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro-
pology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Freter, AnnCorrine. 1994. The Classic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras:
An Analysis of Maya Rural Settlement Trends. In Village Communities
328 References

and Complex Societies, eds. G. Schwartz and S. Falconer, pp. 160-176.

Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fried, Morton. 1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.
Friedman, Jonathan. 1974. Marxism, Structuralism, and Vulgar Materialism.
Man 9: 444-469.
1975. Tribes, States, and Transformations. In Marxist Analyses and Social
Anthropology, ed. M. Bloch, pp. 161-202. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Fry, Robert E. 1979. The Economics of Pottery at Tikal, Guatemala: Models of
Exchange for Serving Vessels. American Antiquity 44: 494-512.
1980. Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes of Lowlands Maya Pottery.
In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, ed. R.E. Fry, pp. 3-18. Society
for American Archaeology Papers 1. Washington, DC: Society for American
Archaeology.
Fry, Robert E., and Scott C. Cox. 1974. The Structure of Ceramic Exchange at
Tikal, Guatemala. World Archaeology 1: 209-225.
Furst, Peter T. 1976a. Hallucinogens and Culture. San Francisco: Chandler and
Sharp.
1976b. Vision Quest and Auto-Sacrifice. In The Art, Iconography, and Dynastic
History of Palenque, Part III, ed. M.G. Robertson, pp. 211—224. Pebble Beach,
CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School.
Furst, Peter T., and Michael D. Coe. 1977. Ritual Enemas. Natural History 86(3):
88-91.
Garcia, David. 2001. Resultados del Proyecto de Desarollo Comunitario en
Cancuen. In Proyecto Arqueologico Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 3: Tempo-
rada 2001, eds. A.A. Demarest and T. Barrientos Q., pp. 345-364.
Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and
Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Garcia, David, Arthur Demarest, and Tomas Barrientos. 2002. El Proyecto
Arqueologico Cancuén: Un Plan Piloto para la Interaccion entre Arque-
ologia y Desarrollo Social. In XV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, and B. Arroyo, pp. 401-411.
Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York:
Basic Books.
1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Gesick, Loraine, ed. 1983. Centers, Symbols, and Hierarchies: Essays on the Classical
States of Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia Studies Monograph Series, No. 26.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure
and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan
Press.
Gifford, James C. 1976. Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton
Ramue in the Belize Valley. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Memoirs 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 References 329

Gill, Richardson B. 2000. The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death.
: Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gilman, Antonio. 1981. The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age
Europe. Current Anthropology 22: 1-7.
Godelier, Maurice. 1977. Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
1978a. Economy and Religion: An Evolutionary Optical Illusion. In The Evolu-
tion of Social Systems, ed. J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, pp. 3-12. London:
Duckworth.
' 1978b. Politics as “Infrastructure”: An Anthropologist’s Thoughts on the
Example of Classical Greece and the Notions of Relations of Production
and Economic Determinism. In The Evolution of Social Systems, ed. J. Fried-
man and M. J. Rowlands, pp. 13-28. London: Duckworth.
Goodman, Joseph T. 1897. The Archaic Maya Inscriptions (Appendix).
In Biologia Centrali-Americana: Archaeology, A.P. Maudslay. London:
Murray.
Gordon, George B. 1896. Prehistoric Ruins of Copan, Honduras. Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers, vol. 1, no. 1. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Gordon, George B., and John A. Mason. 1925-1943. Examples of Maya Pottery
in the Museum and in Other Collections. Philadelphia: University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania.
Gossen, Gary H. 1974. Chamula in the World of the Sun: Time and Space in a Maya
Oral Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graham, John A. 1973. Inscriptions and Sculptural Art of Seibal. In The Classic
Maya Collapse, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 207-220. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research.
1977. Discoveries at Abaj Takalik. Archaeology 30: 196-197.
1979. Maya, Olmecs, and Izapans at Abaj Takalik. Actas 8: 179-188.
Griscom, Ludlow. 1932. The Distribution of Birdlife in Guatemala. American
Museum of Natural History Bulletin 64. New York: American Museum of
Natural History.
Grove, David C. 1981. The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex
Culture. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 1: Archaeology,
ed. J.A. Sabloff, pp. 373-391. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1989. Chalcatzingo and its Olmec Connections. In Regional Perspectives on the
Olmec, ed. R.J. Sharer and D.C. Grove, pp. 122-147. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Grube, Nikolai. 1994a. Epigraphic Research at Caracol, Belize. In Studies in the
Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, ed. A. Chase and D. Chase, pp. 83-122. San
Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
1994b. Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwest Yucatan. In Hidden
Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the Northwest Yucatan Peninsula, ed. H.
Prem, pp. 71-92. Mockmuhl, Germany: Verlag von Flemming.
Guderjan, Thomas H., and James F. Garber, eds. 1995. Maya Maritime
Trade, Settlement, and Populations on Ambergris Caye, Belize. Lancaster, CA:
Labyrinthos.
330 References

Guillemin, George F. 1965. Iximché: Capital del Antiguo Reino Cakchiquel.

Guatemala: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia.
1977. Urbanism and Hierarchy at Iximche. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory:
Studies in Honor of Sir Eric Thompson, ed. N.D.C. Hammond, pp. 227-264.
New York and London: Academic Press.
Haas, Jonathan. 1982. The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hammond, Norman D.C. 1972. Obsidian Trade Routes in the Mayan Area.
Science 178: 1092-1093.
1973. Models for Maya Trade. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in
Prehistory, ed. C. Renfrew, pp. 601-607. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
ress:
1974. On the “Square” Model of Maya Territorial Organization. Science 193:
875-876.
1975. Maya Settlement Hierarchy in Northern Belize. In Archaeological
Research Facility Contribution 24, ed. J.A. Graham, pp. 40-55. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
1976. Maya Obsidian Trade in Southern Belize. In Maya Lithic Studies: Papers
from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium, ed. T.R. Hester and N.D.C. Hammond,
pp. 71-81. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Texas.
1977. The Earliest Maya. Scientific American 236(3): 116-133.
1978. The Myth of the Milpa: Agricultural Expansion in the Maya Lowlands.
In Prehispanic Maya Agriculture, ed. P.D. Harrison and B.L. Turner II, pp.
23-43. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1981. Settlement Patterns in Belize. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, ed.
W.A. Ashmore, pp. 157-186. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1983. Lords of the Jungle: A Prospography of Maya Archaeology. In Civilization
in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, ed. R.M. Leven-
thal and A.L. Kolata, pp. 3-32. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
1990. Ancient Maya Civilization. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
1991. Inside the Black Box: Defining Maya Polity. In Classic Maya Political
Mistory: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 253-
284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, Richard D. 1984. Excavations on Structure 34 and the Tigre Area, El
Mirador, Peten, Guatemala: A New Look at the Preclassic Lowland Maya.
M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University.
1989. Archaeological Investigations at Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala: 1989 Season. Los
Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
1990. Excavations in the Tigre Complex, El Mirador, Petén, Guatemala. Papers
of the New World Archaeological Foundation 62. Provo, UT: New World
Archaeological Foundation.
1991a. An Early Maya Text from El Mirador, Guatemala. Washington, DC:
Center for Maya Research.
1991b. The Maya Rediscovered: The Road to Nakbe. Natural History May:
8-14.
 References 331

1992. The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Preclassic Architectural

E Sculpture at Nakbe, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles.
1994. Dinamicas Culturales y Ambientales de los Origenes Mayas: Estudios
Recientes del Sitio Arqueologico Nakbe. In VII Simposio de Investigaciones
Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 1993, eds. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo,
pp. 369-387. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacién Tikal.
1996. El] Clasico Tardio del Norte de Petén. Utz’ib 2: 1-15.
~ 1997. Developmental Dynamics, Energetics, and Complex Interaction of the
Early Maya of the Mirador Basin. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meet-
ing of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, Tennessee.
1998. Ideologia y arquitectura: poder y dinamicas culturales de los Mayas
Preclasicos de las tierras bajas. In Second Mesa Redonda de Palenque, 1997,
ed. S. Trejo. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
2001. The First Cities: The Beginnings of Urbanization and State Formation
in the Maya Lowlands. In Maya: Divine Kings of the Rainforest, ed. N. Grube.
Cologne, Germany: Ké6nemann.
Harris, Marvin. 1964. The Nature of Cultural Things. New York: Random House.
1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. New
York: Crowell.
1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York:
Random House.
Harrison, Peter D. 1970. The Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Prelimi-
nary Study of the Functions of Its Structural Components During the Late
Classic Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
1977. The Rise of the Bajos and the Fall of the Maya. In Social Process in Maya
Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, ed. N.D.C. Hammond,
pp. 470-508. New York and London: Academic Press.
1981. Some Aspects of Preconquest Settlement in Southern Quintana Roo,
Mexico. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, ed. W.A. Ashmore, pp. 259-
286. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1990. The Revolution in Ancient Maya Subsistence. In Vision and Revision in
Maya Studies, ed. F.S. Clancy and P.D. Harrison, pp. 99-114. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Harrison, Peter D., and B.L. Turner II, eds. 1978. Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hassig, Ross. 1988. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hatch, Marion Popenoe de. 1991. Comentarios sobre la ceramica de Abaj Taka-
lik. In IJ Simposio de Investigaciones Antropologicas en Guatemala, pp. 10-11.
Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
1997. Kaminaljuyu/San Forge: Evidencia Arqueologica de la Actividad Economica
en el Valle de Guatemala, 300 A.C. a 300 D.C. Guatemala: Universidad del
Valle de Guatemala.
332 References

Hatch, Marion Popence de, Christa Schieber de Lavarreda, Edgar Carpio R.,
Miguel Orrego C., José Héctor P., and Claudia Wolley. 2001. Observaciones
sobre el desarollo cultural en Abaj Takalik, Departamento.de Retalhuleu,
Guatemala. In XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala.
Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Haug, Gerald H., Detlef Giinther, Larry C. Peterson, Daniel M. Sigmun, Konrad
A. Hughen, and Beat Aeschlimann. 2003. Climate and the Collapse of Maya
Civilization. Science 299: 1731-1735.
Haviland, William A. 1970. Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican Urbanism.
World Archaeology 2: 186-197.
1974. Occupational Specialization at Tikal. eee Anthropologist 39: 494—
496.
1982. Where the Rich Folks Lived: Deranging Factors in the Statistical Analysis
of Tikal Settlement. American Antiquity 47: 427-429.
1992. Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: The View from Tikal. Amer-
ican Anthropologist 94: 937-40.
Haviland, William A., and Hattula Moholy-Nagy. 1992. Distinguishing the High
and Mighty from the Hoi Polloi at Tikal, Guatemala. In Mesoamerican Elites:
An Archaeological Assessment, ed. D.Z. Chase and A.F. Chase, pp. 50-60.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Helms, Mary W. 1975. Middle America: A Cultural History of Heartland and Fron-
tiers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
1979. Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Helmuth, Nicholas M. 1977. Cholti-Lacandon (Chiapas) and Peten-Ytza Agri-
culture, Settlement Pattern and Population. In Social Process in Maya
Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, ed. N.D.C. Hammond,
pp. 421-448. New York and London: Academic Press.
Henderson, John S. 1997. The World of the Ancient Maya. Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press.
Hervik, Peter. 1999. The Mysterious Maya of National Geographic. fournal of
Latin American Anthropology 4: 166-197.
Hester, Thomas R., ed. 1979. The Colha Project, 1979: A Collection of Interim
Papers. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Texas.
Hester, Thomas R., Jack D. Eaton, and Harry J. Shafer, eds. 1980. The Colha
Project, Second Season, 1980 Interim Report. San Antonio: Center for Archae-
ological Research, University of Texas.
Hester, Thomas R., and Norman D.C. Hammond, eds. 1976. Maya Lithic Stud-
tes. Papers from the 1976 Belize Field Symposium. San Antonio: Center for
Archaeological Research, University of Texas.
Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer. 1984. Exploitation of Chert Resources
by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize, Central America. World Archaeology
16: 157-173.
Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, Jack D. Eaton, Giancarlo Ligabue. 1983.
Colha’s Stone Tool Industry. Archaeology 36: 46-52.
 References 333

Hewett, Edgar L. 1912. The Excavations at Quirigua in 1912. Archaeological

_ Institute ofAmerica Bulletin 3(3): 163-171.
1916. Latest Work of the School of American Archaeology at Quirigua. In
Holmes Anniversary Volume Anthropological Essays, ed. F.W. Hodge, pp. 157-
162. Washington, DC: James William Bryan Press.
Hill, Robert M. 1992. Colonial Cakchiquels: Highland Maya Adaptation to Spanish
Rule, 1600-1700. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hirth, Kenneth G., ed. 1984. Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hoddell, David A., Jason H. Curtis, and Mark Brenner. 1995. Possible Role
of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. Nature 75:
391-394.
Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1985. Post-Processual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory, 8, ed. M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. New York and London: Academic
Press.
1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1987. Comment on Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique, by Timothy
_ K. Earle and Robert W. Preucel. Current Anthropology 28: 516-517.
Hoffman, Michael A. 1979. Egypt Before the Pharaohs: The Prehistoric Foundations
of Egyptian Civilization. New York: Dorset Press.
Holley, George R. 1983. Ceramic Change at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University.
Houston, Stephen D. 1992. Classic Maya Politics. In New Theories on the Ancient
Maya, eds. E.C. Danien and R.J. Sharer, pp. 65-70. University Museum
Monograph 77, University Museum Symposium Series, vol. 3. Philadelphia:
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
1994. Literacy among the Precolumbian Maya: A Comparative Perspective. In
Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes, ed.
E.H. Boone and W.D. Mignolo, pp. 27-49. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Houston, Stephen D., and Peter Mathews. 1985. The Dynastic Sequence of Dos
Pilas, Guatemala. Monograph 1. San Francisco: The Pre-Columbian Art
Research Institute.
Houston, Stephen D., and David S. Stuart. 1989. The Way Glyph: Evidence for
“Co-Essences” among the Classic Maya. Research Reports on Ancient Maya
Writing 30. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.
Houston, Stephen D., Héctor L. Escobedo, Mark Child, Charles Golden, and
René Munoz. 2003. Moral Community and Settlement Transformation
among the Classic Maya: Evidence from Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In
Social Construction of Ancient Cities, ed. M.L. Smith. Washington, DC: Smith-
sonian Institution.
Howell, Wayne K., and Denise R.E. Copeland. 1989. Excavations at El Mirador,
Petén, Guatemala: The Danta and Monos Complexes. Papers of the New World
Archaeological Foundation Nos. 60 and 61. Provo, UT: New World Archaeo-
logical Foundation.
334 References

Hunt, Eva M. 1977. The Transformation of the Hummingbird: Cultural Roots of a

Zinacantan Mythical Poem. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Inomata, Takeshi. 1995. Archaeological Investigations at the Fortified Center
of Aguateca, El Peten, Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic
Maya Collapse. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN.
1997. The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: Archaeological Inves-
tigations at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 337-351.
2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft Specialists in
Classic Maya Society. Current Anthropology 42: 321-350.
2003. War, Destruction, and Abandonment: The Fall of the Classic
Maya Center of Aguateca, Guatemala. In The Archaeology of Settlement
Abandonment in Middle America, eds. T. Inomata and R.W. Webb, pp. 43-60.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
In press. Aguateca: Warfare and the Collapse of a Classic Maya Center. Mono-
graphs of the Vanderbilt Institute of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Inomata, Takeshi, and Daniela Triadan. 2000. Craft Production by Classic Maya
Elites in Domestic Settings: Data from Rapidly Abandoned Structures at
Aguateca, Guatemala. Mayab 11: 2-39.
Inomata, Takeshi, and Ronald W. Webb, eds. 2003. The Archaeology of Settle-
ment Abandonment in Middle America. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Jennings, Jesse D. 1978. Origins. In Ancient Native Americans, ed. J.D. Jennings,
pp. 1-41. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Johnston, Kevin J. 1994. The “Invisible” Maya: Late Classic Minimally-
Platformed Residential Settlement at Itzan, Petén, Guatemala. Ph.D. disser-
tation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Johnston, Kevin J., Andrew J. Breckenbridge, and Barbara C. Hansen. 2001.
Paleoecological Evidence of an Early Postclassic Occupation in the South-
western Maya Lowlands: Laguna Las Pozas, Guatemala. Latin American
Antiquity 12: 149-166.
Johnston, Kevin J., Takeshi Inomata, Joel W. Palka, Antonia E. Foias, and Teresa
Robles. 1989. Rescate y registro de restos arqueoldgicos en Dos Pilas. In
Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe Preliminar No. 1: Segunda
Temporada, ed. A.A. Demarest and S.D. Houston, pp. 29-61. Guatemala
and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Johnston, Kevin J., Fernando Moscoso Moller, and Stefan Schmitt. 1992. Casas
No-Visibles de los Mayas Clasicos: Estructuras Residenciales sin Plataformas
Basales en Itzan, Petén. In V Simposio de Arqueologia Guatemalteca, 1991,
eds. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, and S. Villagran de Brady pp. 147-162.
Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Jones, Christopher. 1969. The Twin-Pyramid Group Pattern: A Classic Maya
Architectural Assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 References B35

1979. Tikal as a Trading Center. Paper presented at the 43rd International

‘ Congress of Americanists, Vancouver.
Jones, Grant D. 1989. Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a
Colonial Frontier. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1992. The Last Maya Confederacy. Natural History.
1998. The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Jones, Grant D., Don S. Rice, and Prudence M. Rice. 1981. The Location of
Tayasal: A Reconsideration in Light of Petén Maya Ethnohistory and Archae-
ology. American Antiquity 46: 530-47.
Jones, Grant D., Robert R. Kautz, and Elizabeth A. Graham. 1986. Tipu: A
Maya Town on the Spanish Colonial Frontier. Archaeology 39(1): 40-47.
Jones, Morris R. 1957. Map of the Ruins of Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Current Reports, Vol. 2, 1954-1957. Washington,
DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Joralemon, Peter David. 1974. Ritual Blood-Sacrifice among the Ancient Maya:
Part 1. In First Palenque Round Table, 1973, ed. M.G. Robertson, vol. 2, pp.
59-75. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School.
Kaufman, Terrence S. 1973. Areal Linguistics in Middle America. In Current
_ Trends in Linguistics 11, ed. T.A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton.
1976. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated
Areas of Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 8: 101-118.
Kelley, David H. 1962. Fonetismo en la Escritura Maya. Estudios de Cultura Maya
2: 227-317.
1976. Deciphering the Maya Script. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kepecs, Susan, and Sylviane Boucher. 1996. Pre-Hispanic Cultivation of Rejol-
ladas and Stone Lands: New Evidence from Northeast Yucatan. In The
Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, ed. S.J. Fedick,
pp. 69-91. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Kerr, Barbara, and Justin Kerr. 1988. Some Observations on Maya Vase Painters.
In Maya Iconography, ed. E.P. Benson and G.G. Griffin, pp. 236-259. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kerr, Justin. 1989. The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya
Vases. Vol. 1. New York: Kerr Associates.
1990. The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases.
Vol. 2. New York: Kerr Associates.
1992. The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases.
Vol. 3. New York: Kerr Associates.
Kidder II, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook. 1946. Excavations
at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution, publication 561. Washing-
ton, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Killion, Thomas W., ed. 1992. Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settlement
Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Killion, Thomas, Inez Verhagen, Dirk Van Tuerenhout, Daniela Triadan, Lisa
Hamerlynck, Matthew McDermott, and José Genovés. 1991. Reporte
de la Temporada 1991 del Recorrido Arqueoldgico Intersitio de Petex-
batun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe Preliminar No. 3:
336 References

Tercera Temporada, 1991, ed. A.A. Demarest, T. Inomata, H.L. Escobedo,

and J.W. Palka, pp. 588-645. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia, and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Kingsborough, Edward King. 1831-1848. Antiquities of Mexico. London: Aglio.
Kirchhoff, Paul. 1943. Mesoamerica. Acta Americana 1: 92--107.
Knauft, Bruce M. 1996. Genealogies for the Present in Cultural Anthropology. New
York: Routledge.
Knorosov, Yuri V. 1958. The Problem of the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphic
Writing. American Antiquity 23: 284-291.
1967. The Writing of the Maya Indians, trans. S. Coe. Russian Translation Series
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 4. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring. 1998. The Ceramics of Cuello,
Belize: A New Evaluation. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 55-66.
Kovacevich, Brigitte, Tomas Barrientos Q., Arthur A. Demarest, Michael
Callaghan, Cassandra Bill, Erin Sears, and Lucia Moran. 2001. Produccion
e intertercambio en el reinado de Cancuen. In XIV Simposio de Investi-
gaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, A.C. de Suasnavar, and
B. Arroyo, pp. 589-612. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Insti-
tuto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Kovacevich, Brigitte, Tomas Barrientos Q., Michael Callaghan, and Karen
Pereira. 2002. La economia en el reino clasico de Cancuén: evidencia de
produccion, especializacion e intercambio.In XV Simposio de Investigaciones
Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, and B. Arroyo.
Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Kowalski, Jeffrey K. 1987. The House of the Governor: A Maya Palace at Uxmal,
Yucatan, Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1998. Uxmal and the Puuc Zone: Monumental Architecture, Sculptured
Facades, and Political Power in the Terminal Classic Period. In Maya, ed.
P. Schmidt, M. de ia Garza, and E. Nalda, pp. 401-425. New York: Rizzoli
International Publications.
Kowalski, Jeff K., and Nicholas P. Dunning. 1999. The Architecture of Uxmal:
The Symbolics of Statemaking at a Puuc Maya Regional Capital. In
Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol, ed. J.K. Kowalski, pp. 274—
297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kubler, George A. 1961. Chichén Itza y Tula. Estudios de Cultura Maya 1: 47-80.
1962. The Art and Architecture of Ancient America: The Mexican, Mayan, and
Andean Peoples. Baltirnore, MD: Pelican History of Art.
Kunen, Julie L., T. Patrick Culbert, Vilma Fialko, Brian R. McKee, Liwy
Grazioso. 2000. Bajo Communities: A Case Study from the Central Petén.
In Culture and Agriculture 22(3): 15-31. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1975. Third Millennium Modes of Exchange and
Modes of Production. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, ed. J.A. Sabloff and
C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 341-368. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
 References Boy"

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. ed. 1989. Archaeological Thought in America.

i Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landa, Diego de. 1864. Relation des Choses de Yucatan, trans. C.E. Brasseur de
Bourbourg. Paris: Arthus Bertrand.
Langer, William L. 1974. Infanticide: A Historical Survey. History of Childhood
Quarterly 1: 353-366.
Lanning, L.P. 1970. Pleistocene Man in South America. World Archaeology 2:
90-111.
Laporte, Juan Pedro. 1996. Organizacion territorial y politica prehispanica en
el sureste de Petén. In Atlas Arqueolégico de Guatemala, No. 4. Guatemala:
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia.
2004. Terminal Classic Settlement and Polity in the Mopan Valley, Petén,
Guatemala. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition,
and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
Lathrap, Donald W. 1977. Our Father the Cayman, Our Mother the Gourd:
Spinden Revisited, or a Unitary Model for the Emergence of Agriculture in
the New World. In Origins of Agriculture, ed. C.A. Reed, pp. 713-752. The
Hague: Mouton.
1982. Complex Iconographic Features by Olmec and Chavin and Some
Speculations on Their Possible Significance. In Primer Simposio de Correla-
ciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, eds. J. Marcos and P. Norton,
pp. 301-327. Guayaquil, Ecuador: Escuela Politécnica del Litoral.
Laughlin, Robert M. 1977. Of Cabbages and Kings: Tales From Zinacantan. Smith-
sonian Contributions to Anthropology 23. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution.
Lee, Jr., Thomas A., and Carlos Navarrete, eds. 1978. Mesoamerican Communi-
cation Routes and Cultural Contacts. Papers of the New World Archaeological
Foundation 40. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation.
Leon-Portilla, Miguel. 1963. Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient
Nahuatl Mind, trans. J.E. Davis. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1968. Quetzalcoatl. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
1973. Time and Reality in the Thought of the Maya. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lesure, Richard G. 1997. Early Formative Platforms at Paso de la Amada,
Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 8: 217-235.
1999. Platform Architecture and Activity Patterns in an Early Mesoamerican
Village in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 26: 391-406.
Lincoln, Charles E. 1985. Ceramics and Ceramic Chronology. In A Consideration
of the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, ed. G.R. Willey and P. Math-
ews, pp. 55-94. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publication 10. Albany:
State University of New York.
Longyear III, John M. 1952. Copan Ceramics: A Study of Southeastern Maya
Pottery. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 597. Washington,
DC: Carnegie Institution.
Love, Michael W. 1991. Style and Social Complexity in Formative Mesoamerica.
In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, ed. W.R.
Fowler, Jr., pp. 47-76. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
338 References

1998. Economia e ideologia en El Ujuxte, Retalhuleu. In XJ Simposio de Inves-

tigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo,
pp. 309-318. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
1999a. Economic Patterns in the Development of Complex Society in Pacific
Guatemala. In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic
and Formative Cultures, ed. M. Blake, pp. 89-100. Pullman: Washington
State University Press.
1999b. La Cultura Olmeca en Guatemala. In Historia General de Guatemala,
Tomo: Epoca Precolombina, vol. 1, ed. M. Popenoe de Hatch, pp. 191-200.
Guatemala: Asociacién de Amigos del Pais y Fundacion para la Cultura y el
Desarrollo.
Love, Michael W., and Donaldo Castillo. 1997. Excavaciones en zonas
residenciales en El Ujuxte, Retalhuleu. In X Simposio de Investiga-
clones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, eds. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo,
pp. 143-154. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Lovell, W. George. 1992. Conquest and Survival in Colonial Guatemala: A Histor-
ical Geography of the Cuchumatan Highlands, 1500-1821, rev. ed. Montréal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Lowe, Gareth W. 1975. The Early Preclassic Barra Phase of Altamira, Chiapas: A
Review with New Data. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation
38. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation.
1977. The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya.
In The Origins of Maya Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 197-248.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1978. Eastern Mesoamerica. In Chronologies in New World Archaeology, ed. R.E.
Taylor and C.W. Meighan, pp. 331-393. New York: Academic Press.
1983. Los Olmecas, Mayas y Mixe-Zoques. In Antropologia e Historia de
los Mixe-Zoques y Mayas: Un Homenaje a Frans Blom, eds. L. Ochoa and
TA. Lee, Jr., pp. 125-130. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
México.
Lowe, Gareth W., Thomas A. Lee, Jr., and Eduardo Martinez E. 1982. Izapa: An
Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. Papers of the New World Archaeo-
logical Foundation 31. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation.
Lucero, Lisa J. 2002. The Collapse of the Ancient Maya: A Case for Water
Control. American Anthropologist 104: 814-826.
2003. The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic Maya Rulers. Current
Anthropology 44: 523-558.
Lundell, Cyrus L. 1933. The Agriculture of the Maya. Southwest Review 19: 65—
Wl.
1938. Plants Probably Utilized by the Old Empire Maya of Peten and Adja-
cent Lowlands. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters,
vol. 24, pp. 37-56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Lynch, Thomas F. 1978. The South American Paleo-Indians. In Ancient Native
Americans, ed. J.D. Jennings, pp. 455-489. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
 References 339

1990. Glacial-Age Man in South America? A Critical Review. American Antiq-

d uity 55: 12-36.
1991. The Peopling of the Americas: A Discussion. In The First Americans:
Search and Research, ed. T.D. Dillehay and D.J. Meltzer, pp. 267-274. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McAnany, Patricia A. 1989. Stone-Tool Production and Exchange in the East-
ern Maya Lowlands: The Consumer Perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp,
Belize. American Antiquity 54: 332-346.
1990. Water Storage in the Puuc Region of the Northern Maya Lowlands: A
Key to Population Estimates and Architectural Variability. In Precolumbian
Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice,
pp. 263-284. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1991. Ancestor Worship and Sanctification of Place: Excavations at K’axob,
Belize. Context 9: 12-16. Boston: Boston University Center for Archaeolog-
ical Studies.
1993. The Economics of Social Power and Wealth among Eighth-Century
Maya Households. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.,
ed. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, pp. 65-90. Washington, DC: Dumbar-
ton Oaks.
1995. Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
McAnany, Patricia A., and Barry L. Isaac, eds. 1989. Prehistoric Maya Economies
of Belize. Research in Economic Anthropology supplement 4. Greenwich,
Cie Agkresss
McAnany, Patricia A., Ben S. Thomas, Steven Morandi, Polly A. Peterson, and
Eleanor Harrison. 2002. Praise the Ajaw and Pass the Kakaw: Xibun Maya
and the Political Economy of Cacao. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, eds.
M.A. Masson and D.A. Freidel, pp. 123-139. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
McGuire, Randall. 1983. Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and
Heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 91-117.
McKillop, Heather I., and Paul F. Healy, eds. 1989. Coastal Maya Trade. Peter-
borough, England: Trent University.
McKinley, James C. 1997. In One Somali Town, Clan Rule has Brought Peace.
New York Times, 22 June 1997.
MacNeish, Richard S. 1964. Ancient Mesoamerican Civilization. Scientific
American 211(5): 29-37.
MacNeish, Richard S., S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, and Antoinette Nelken-Terner.
1980. First Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance.
Andover: Robert F. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Phillips Academy.
Mahler, Joy. 1965. Garments and Textiles of the Maya Lowlands. In Handbook
of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part
2, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 581-593. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Maler, Teobert. 1901. Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley:
Report of Explorations for the Museum, 1898-1900. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs vol. 2, no. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
340 References

1903. Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley: Report

of Explorations for the Museum. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology Memoirs vol. 2, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
1908. Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala, and Adjacent Region:
Topoxte; Yaxha; Benque Viejo; Naranjo. Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology Memoirs vol. 4, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
1911. Explorations in the Department of Peten, Guatemala: Tikal. Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs vol. 5, no. 1. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. .
Mallory IJ, Jack K. 1984. Late Classic Maya Economic Specialization:
Evidence from the Copan Obsidian Assemblage. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park.
Mamdani, Mahmood. 1974. The Myth of Population Control. Development Digest
12: 13-28.
Manahan, T. Kam. 2000. Reexaminando los Dias Finales de Copan: Nuevos
Datos de la Fase Ejar. In XIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, A.C. de Suasnavar, and B.
Arroyo, pp. 1149-1155. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Insti-
tuto de Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
2003. The Collapse of Complex Society and its Aftermath: A Case Study from
the Classic Maya Site of Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Manzanilla, Linda, and Leonardo Lopez Lujan, eds. 2000. Historia Antigua
de Mexico, 2nd edition. Mexico, DF: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
México.
Marcus, Joyce. 1976. Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An
Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1978. Archaeology and Religion: A Comparison of the Zapotec and Maya.
World Archaeology 10: 172-191.
1983a. Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads. American Antiquity 48:
454-488.
1983b. On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City. In Prehistoric Settlement
Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, eds. Evon Z. Vogt, Jr., and
R.M. Leventhal, pp. 195-242. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
1984. Mesoamerican Territorial Boundaries: Reconstructions from Archae-
ology and Hieroglyphic Writing. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 2:
48-62.
1989. Zapotec Chiefdoms and the Nature of Formative Religions. In Regional
Perspectives on the Olmec, ed. R.J. Sharer and D.C. Grove, pp. 148-197.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 References 341

1993. Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civilization in

4 the Eighth Century AD, ed. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, pp. 111-184.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1995. Where is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? fournal of Archaeological
Research 3: 3 — 57.
1998. The Peaks and Valleys of Archaic States. In Archaic States, ed. G.M.
Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 59-94. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
Research Press.
2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting
Early Classic Interaction, ed. G.E. Braswell, pp. 337-356. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube. 1994. Evidence for Macro-Political Organiza-
tion Amongst Classic Maya Lowland States. Manuscript.
1995. Maya Superstates. Archaeology 48(6): 41-46.
1996. Evidence for Macro-Political Organisation of Classic Maya States.
Manuscript on file. Washington, DC and Bonn, Germany: Dumbarton Oaks
and University of Bonn.
2000. Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the
Ancient Maya. London: Thames and Hudson.
Masson, Marilyn A., and David A. Freidel, ed. 2002. Ancient Maya Political
Economies. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Masson, Marilyn A., and Shirley B. Mock. 2004. Maya Cultural Adaptations
from the Terminal Classic to Postclassic Period at Lagoon Sites in North-
ern Belize as Reflected in Changing Ceramic Industries. In The Terminal
Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed.
A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder, University Press of
Colorado.
Matheny, Raymond T., 1976. Maya Lowland Hydraulic Systems. Science 193:
639-646.
1980. El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala: An Interim Report. Provo, UT: Brigham
Young University Press.
1986. Investigations at El] Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. National Geographic
Research 2: 322-353.
1987. Early States in the Maya Lowlands During the Late Preclassic Period:
Edzna and El Mirador. In City-States of the Maya: Art and Architecture,
ed. E.P. Benson, pp. 1-44. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute for
Precolumbian Studies.
Matheny, Raymond T., Deanne L. Gurr, Donald W. Forsyth, and F. Richard
Hauck. 1983. Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico: The Hydraulic
System, Vol. 1, Part 1: New World Archaeological Foundation Paper 46.
Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation.
Mathews, Peter. 1985. Maya Early Classic Monuments and Inscriptions. In A
Consideration of the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands, ed. G.R. Willey
and P. Mathews, pp. 5-54. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publication
10. Albany: State University of New York.
1988. The Sculptures of Yaxchilan. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro-
pology, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
342 References

1991. Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In Classic Maya Political History: Htero-
glyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 19-29. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, Peter and Gordon R. Willey. 1985. Early Classic Monuments and
Inscriptions. In A Consideration of the Early Classic Period in the Maya
Lowlands, ed. P. Mathews and G.R. Willey, pp. 5-55. Institute for Mesoamer-
ican Studies Publication 10. Albany: State University of New York.
1991. Prehistoric Polities of the Pasion Region. In Classic Maya Political
History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 30-71.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maudslay, Alfred P. 1889. Biologia Centrali-Americana: Contributions to the Knowl-
edge of Fauna and Flora of Mexico and Central America, ed. F.D. Godman and
O. Salvin. London: R.H. Porter and Dulau and Co.
Meggers, Betty J. 1954. Environmental Limitation on the Development of
Culture. American Anthropologist 56: 801-824.
Merwin, Raymond E., and George C. Vaillant. 1932. The Ruins of Holmul,
Guatemala. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs,
vol. 3, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Michels, Joseph W. 1977. Political Organization at Kaminaljuyu: Its Implications
for Interpreting Teotihuacan Influence. In Teotuhuacan and Kaminaljuyu:
A Study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, ed. W.T. Sanders and J.W. Michels,
pp. 453-467. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
leresse
1979. The Kaminaljuyu Chiefdom. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity.
Milbrath, Susan. 1988. Astronomical Images and Orientations in the Archi-
tecture of Chichen Itza. In New Directions in American Archaeoastronomy,
ed. A.F. Aveni. pp. 57-59. British Archaeological Reports 454. Oxford: BAR
International Series.
Miller, Arthur G. 1977. The Maya and the Sea: Trade and Cult at Tancah and
Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. In The Sea in the Precolumbian World, ed.
E.P. Benson, pp. 97-138. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard University.
1982. On the Edge of the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo,
Mexico. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1986. From the Maya Margins: Images of Postclassic Power Politics. In
Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and
E.W. Andrews V, pp. 199-222. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
eressa
Miller, Daniel. 1985. Ideology and the Harappan Civilization. Journal of Anthro-
pological Archaeology 4: 34-71.
Miller, Daniel, and Christopher Tilley, eds. 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Mary E. 1986. Art of Mesoamerica: From Olmec to Aztec. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
1991. Some Observations on the Relationship between Yaxchilan and Piedras
Negras. Paper presented at the 7th Texas Symposium, Austin.
 References 343

1993. On the Eve of the Collapse: Maya Art of the Eighth Century. In Lowland
Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century AD, ed. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Hender-
son, pp. 355-414. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
Millon, René. 1993. The Place Where Time Began: An Archaeologist’s Interpre-
tation of What Happened in Teotihuacan History. In Teotihuacan: Art from
the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, pp. 16-43. New York:
Thames and Hudson.
Mock, Shirley B., ed. 1998. The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication,
and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamer-
ica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula. 1990. The Misidentification of Mesoamerican Lithic
Workshops. Latin American Antiquity 1: 268-279.
1997. Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organiza-
tion of Classic Period Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala. fournal of Field
Archaeology 24: 293-313.
Moholy-Nagy, Hattula, Frank Asaro, and Fred H. Stross. 1984. Tikal Obsidian:
Sources and Typology. American Antiquity 49: 104-117.
Montejo, Victor. 1991. In the Name of the Pot, the Sun, the Broken Spear,
_ the Rock, the Stick, the Idol, Ad Infinitum and Ad Nauseam: An Expose
of Anglo Anthropologists’ Obsessions with and Invention of Mayan Gods.
Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropolog-
ical Association, San Francisco.
1999. Voices from Exile: Violence and Survival in Modern Maya History. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Montmollin, Oliver. 1989. The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement
Analysis in a Classic Maya Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Morgan, Kim, and Arthur A. Demarest. 1995. Excavacion de un Deposito
Basural Post Clasico. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe
Preliminar No. 6: Sexta Temporada, eds. A.A. Demarest, J.A. Valdés, and
H.L. Escobedo, pp. 321-327. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto
de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Morley, Sylvanus. 1915. An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphs.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 57. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
1920. The Inscriptions at Copan. Carnegie Institution Publication, 219. Wash-
ington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1937-38. The Inscriptions of Petén. Carnegie Institution Publication, 437. Wash-
ington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1946. The Ancient Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Morley, Sylvanus and George W. Brainerd. 1956. The Ancient Maya. 3rd edition.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Murie, Adolph. 1935. Mammals from Guatemala and British Honduras. In
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan Miscellaneous Publications 26:
7-30. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
344 References

Nash, June C. 1970. In the Eyes of the Ancestors: Belief and Behavior in a Maya
Community. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nations, James D., and Ronald B. Nigh. 1980. The Evolutionary Potential of
Lancandon Maya Sustained-Yield Tropical Forest Agriculture. Journal of
Anthropological Research 1: 1-30.
Neff, L.T., C. Robin, K. Schwartz, and M. Morrison. 1995. The Xunantunich
Settlement Survey. In Xunantunich Archaeological Project: 1995 Field Season.
Los Angeles and Belmopan: Xunantunich Archaeological Project.
Nelson, Diane. 1999. A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in Quincentennial
Guatemala. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Maya Subsistence:.Mythologies, Analogies, Possi-
bilities. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 229-333.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Nicholson, Henry B. 1971. Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Hand-
book of Middle American Indians, Vol. 10: Archaeology of Northern Mesoamer-
ica, Part 1, ed. G.F. Ekholm and J. Bernal, pp. 395-446. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Ohnstad, Arik, Walter Burgos M., and Claudia Arriaza C. 2003. A Lower Elite
House Compound and Its Ritual Water System. In Proyecto Arqueologico
Cancuen, Informe Preliminar No. 5, Temporada 2003, eds. T. Barrientos Q., B.
Kovacevich, M. Callaghan, and A.A. Demarest. Guatemala and Nashville,
TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
O’Mansky, Matt, and Arthur A. Demarest. 1995. La Temporada de
Reconocimiento de 1994 del Subproyecto del Patron de Asentamiento entre
Sitios La Region de Petexbatun. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun,
Informe Preliminar No. 6: Sexta Temporada, Vol. 2, ed. A.A. Demarest, J.A.
Valdés, and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 403-494. Guatemala and Nashville, TN:
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
O’Mansky, Matt, and Nick Dunning. 2004. Settlement and Late Classic Polit-
ical Disintegration in the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala. In The Terminal
Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.
Demarest, P. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
O’Mansky, Matt, and Robert Wheat. 1997. Investigaciones del Transecto
2. In Proyecto Arqueologico Punta de Chimino, Informe Preliminar de la
Primera Temporada, ed. A.A. Demarest, H.L. Escobedo, and M. O’Mansky.
Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia, and
Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Orrego, Miguel. 1998. Problematica de la Multiplicidad de Estilos y Patrones
Culturales en Abaj Takalik. In Taller Arqueologia de la Region de la Costa Sur de
Guatemala, ed. C. Schieber de Lavarreda, pp. 53-70. Guatemala: Ministerio
de Cultura y Deportes.
Paine, Richard R., and AnnCorinne Freter. 1996. Environmental Degrada-
tion and the Classic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras, AD 600-1250:
Evidence from Studies of Household Survival. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:
37-47.
 References 345

Palka W., Joel. 1995. Classic Maya Social Inequality and the Collapse at Dos
4 Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
1997. Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation and the
Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 293-306.
Palerm, Angel. 1973. Obras Hidraulicas Prehispdnicas en el Sistema Lacustre del
Valle México. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1974. The Development of a Prehistoric Complex Society: A
Regional Perspective from the Valley of Mexico. fournal of Field Archaeology
1: 81-108.
Parsons, Lee A. 1976. Excavations of Monte Alto, Escuintla, Guatemala. In
National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1968 Projects, pp. 325-332.
Washington, DC: The National Geographic Society.
1978. The Peripheral Coastal Lowlands and the Middle Classic Period. In
Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, pp. 25-34. New
York: Columbia University Press.
1981. Post-Olmec Stone Sculpture: The Olmec-Izapan Transition on the
Southern Pacific Coast and Highlands. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors, ed.
E.P. Benson, pp. 257-288. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
- Harvard University.
1986. The Origins of Maya Art: Monumental Stone Sculpture of Kaminaljuyu,
Guatemala, and the Southern Pacific Coast. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1988. Proto-Maya Aspects of Miraflores-Arenal Monumental Stone Sculpture
from Kaminaljuyu and the Southern Pacific Coast. In Maya Iconography, ed.
E.P. Benson and G.G. Griffin, pp. 6—43. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Pendergast, David M. 1986. Stability Through Change: Lamanai, Belize, from
the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization:
Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V, pp. 223-249.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Pohl, Mary. 1985. Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Econ-
omy. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 77.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Polgar, Steven, ed. 1975. Population, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Ninth Interna-
tional Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. The Hague:
Mouton.
Pollock, Harry E.D., Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, and A. Ledyard
Smith. 1962. Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institute of Washington
Publication 619. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Pollock, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pope, Kevin O., and Bruce H. Dahlin. 1989. Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture:
New Insights from Ecological and Remote Sensing Research. Journal of Freld
Archaeology 16: 87-106.
Porter-Weaver, Muriel. 1993. The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors: Archaeol-
ogy of Mesoamerica. 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
346 References

Potter, David F. 1977. Maya Architecture of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
Middle American Research Institute, publication 44. New Orleans: Tulane
University Press.
Prem, Hanns, ed. 1994. Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeoley of the Northwest
Yucatan Peninsula. Méckmiuhl, Germany: Verlag von Flemming.
Preucel, Robert W., ed. 1991. Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple
Ways of Knowing the Past. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Inves-
tigations, Southern Illinois University.
Price, Barbara J. 1978. Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model. In
Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, ed. R. Cohen
and E.R. Service, pp. 161-186. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of
Human Issues.
Pring, Duncan. 1977. The Preclassic Ceramics of Northern Belize. Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of London.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana A. 1950. Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication 593. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1960. Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras,
Guatemala. American Antiquity 25: 454-475.
1961. The Lords of the Maya Realm. Expedition 4(1): 14-21.
1963. Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Yaxchilan, Part I. The Reign of
Shield-Jaguar. Estudios de Cultura Maya 3: 149-167.
1964. Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Yaxchilan, Part II. Estudios de
Cultura Maya 4: 177-201.
Puleston, Dennis E. 1974. Intersite Areas in the Vicinity of Tikal and Uaxactun.
In Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches, ed. N.D.C. Hammond, pp.
303-311. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1979. An Epistemological Pathology and the Collapse, or Why the Maya
Kept the Short Count. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. N.D.C.
Hammond and G.R. Willey, pp. 63-74. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Pye, Mary E. 1995. Settlement, Specialization, and Adaptation in the Rio
Jesus Drainage, Retalhuleu, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Pye, Mary E., and Arthur A. Demarest. 1991. The Evolution of Complex
Societies in Southeastern Mesoamerica: New Evidence from El Mesak,
Guatemala. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern
Mesoamerica, ed. W.R. Fowler, Jr., pp. 77-100. W. Caldwell, NJ: Telford
enesss
Pye, Mary E., Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbara Arroyo. 1999. Early Formative
Societies in Guatemala and El Salvador. In Pacific Latin America in Prehistory:
The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures, ed. M. Blake, pp. 75-88.
Pullman: Washington State University Press.
Quezada, Heidy, Kim Morgan, Arthur A. Demarest, and Timothy Beach. 1996.
Investigaciones en asentamientos residenciales, sistemas agricolas y ecologia
de Punta de Chimino. In X Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, pp. 385-388. Guatemala:
Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia,
Asociacion Tikal.
 References 347

Quirarte, Jacinto. 1973. Izapan-Style

Art: AStudy of Its Form and Meaning. Studies
in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 10. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1977. Early Art Styles of Mesoamerica and Early Classic Maya Art. In The
Origins of Maya Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 249-283. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Rands, Robert L., and Ronald L. Bishop. 1980. Resource Procurement Zones
and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the Palenque Region. In Models and
Methods in Regional Exchange, ed. R.E. Fry, pp. 19-46. Society for American
Archaeology Papers 1. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology.
Rathje, William L. 1971. The Origin and Development of Lowland Classic Maya
Civilization. American Antiquity 36: 275-286.
1973. Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: The Classic Maya and
Their E-Group Complex. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Amer-
wcanists, vol. 4, pp. 223-235. Genova.
1975. Changing Pre-Columbian Commercial Systems: The 1972-1973 Seasons at
Cozumel, Mexico. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Mono-
graph 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
1977. The Tikal Connection. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, ed. R.E.W.
- Adams, pp. 373-382. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Redfield, Robert, and Alfonso Villa Rojas. 1934. Chan Kom: A Maya
Village. Carnegie Institution Publication 448. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Institution.
Reed, Nelson A. 1964. The Caste War of Yucatan. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Reents-Budet, Dorie. 1985. The Holmul Style Classic Maya Pottery. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
1987. The Discovery of aCeramic Artist and Royal Patron Among the Classic
Maya. Mexicon 9(6): 123-126.
1994. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
1998. Elite Maya Pottery and Artisans as Social Indicators. In Craft and Social
Identity, ed. C.L. Costin and R. Wright. Archaeological Papers of the Ameri-
can Anthropological Association No. 8. Washington, DC: American Anthro-
pological Association.
Reents-Budet, Dorie, and Ronald L. Bishop. 1985. History and Ritual Events
on a Petexbatun Classic Maya Polychrome Vessel. In Fifth Palenque Round
Table, 1983, ed. V.M. Fields, pp. 57-63. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art
Research Institute.
1987. The Late Classic Maya “Codex Style” Pottery. Memorias del Primer
Coloquio Internacional de Mayistas. Mexico, D.F.: Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico.
Reents-Budet, Dorie, Ronald L. Bishop, and Barbara McLeod. 1994. Painting
Styles, Workshop Locations, and Pottery Production. In Painting the Maya
Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period, ed. D. Reents-Budet, pp. 164—
233. Durham: Duke University Press.
Reina, Ruben E., and Robert M. Hill II. 1980. Lowland Maya Subsistence: Notes
from Ethnohistory and Ethnography. American Antiquity 45: 74-79.
348 References

Renfrew, Colin, and John F. Cherry, eds. 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-
Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Restall, Matthew. 1997. The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society 1550-1850.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Rice, Don S. 1981. Zacpeten: A Postclassic Center in the Central Peten,
Guatemala. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, San Diego.
1986. The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement Perspective. In Late Lowland Maya
Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V,
pp. 301-344. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1993a. The Making of Latin American Horizons: An Introduction to the
Volume. In Latin American Horizons: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 11th
and 12th October, 1986, ed. D.S. Rice, pp. 1-13. Washington, DC: Dumbar-
ton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1993b. Eighth Century Physical Geography, Environment and Natural
Resources in the Maya Lowlands. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth
Century A.D., ed. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, pp. 11-63. Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
Rice, Don S., and Prudence M. Rice. 1990. Population Size and Population
Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region, Guatemala. In Precolumbian
Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice,
pp. 123-148. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Rice, Don S., Prudence M. Rice, and Edward S. Deevey. 1985. Paradise
Lost: Classic Maya Impact on a Lacustrine Environment. In Prehis-
toric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, ed. Mary Pohl,
pp. 91-106. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
77. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Rice, Don S., Prudence M. Rice, and Grant D. Jones. 1993. Geografia politica del
Petén Central, Guatemala, en el Siglo XVII: La Arqueologia de las Capitales
Mayas. Mesoamerica 14(26): 281-318.
Rice, Don S., Prudence M. Rice, Romulo Sanchez P., and Grant D. Jones.
1995. El Proyecto Geografia Politica del Siglo XVII en el Centro del Petén,
Guatemala: Informe al IDAEH de Guatemala sobre la Primera Temporada del
Trabajo del Campo. Unpublished report on file at Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Rice, Don S., Prudence M. Rice, Romulo Sanchez Polo, and Grant D. Jones.
1996. Proyecto Maya-Colonial, Geografia Politica del Siglo XVII en el Centro
del Petén, Guatemala: Informe al IDAEH de Guatemala sobre Investigaciones del
Campo en los Anos 1994 y 1995. Unpublished report on file at Department
of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Rice, Prudence M. 1981. Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial
Model. Current Anthropology 22: 219-240.
1984. Obsidian Procurement in the Central Petén Lakes Region, Guatemala.
Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 181-194.
1986. The Peten Postclassic: Perspectives from the Central Peten Lakes. In
Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and
E.W. Andrews V, pp. 251-300. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
 References 349

1987a. Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late Classic Period. In Special-
< tzation, Exchange, and Complex Societies, ed. E.M. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle,
pp. 76-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1987b. Lowland Maya Pottery Production in the Late Classic Period. In Maya
Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, ed. P.M. Rice and
R.J. Sharer, pp. 525-543. British Archaeological Reports 345. Oxford: BAR
International Series.
1987c. Macanché Island, El Petén, Guatemala: Excavations, Pottery, and Artifacts.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
1990. Ceramic Diversity, Production, and Use. In Quantitative Diversity in
Archaeology, pp. 109-117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1991. Specialization, Standardization, and Diversity: A Retrospective. In
Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, eds. R. Bishop and F. Lange, pp. 257—
259. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
In press. Maya Political Science: The Political Organization of the Lowland Maya.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rice, Prudence M., Arthur A. Demarest, and Don S. Rice. 2004. The Terminal
Classic and the “Classic Maya Collapse” in Perspective. In The Terminal
Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, eds.
- A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice, pp. 1-11. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Rice, Prudence M., Helen V. Michel, Frank Asaro, and Fred H. Stross. 1985.
Provenience Analysis of Obsidians from the Central Peten Lakes Region,
Guatemala. American Antiquity 50: 591-604.
Rice, Prudence M., and Don S. Rice. 2004. Late Classic to Postclassic Trans-
formations in the Petén Lakes Region, Guatemala. In The Terminal Clas-
sic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, eds. A.A.
Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice, pp. 125-139. Boulder: University Press
of Colorado.
Ricketson, Jr., Oliver G., and Edith Bayles Ricketson. 1937. Uaxactun,
Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1931. Carnegie Institution Publication 477.
Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Ringle III, William M., and E. Wyllys Andrews V. 1988. Formative Residence at
Komchen, Yucatan, Mexico. In Household and Community in the Mesoamer-
ican Past, ed. R.R. Wilk and W.A. Ashmore, pp. 171-199. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Ringle III, William M., and E. Wyllys Andrews V. 1990. The Demography of
Komchen, An Early Maya Town in Northern Yucatan. In Precolumbian
Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice,
pp. 215-244. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ringle, William M., George J. Bey III, Tara Bond Freeman, Craig A. Hanson,
Charles W. Houck, and J. Gregory Smith. 2004. The Decline of the East:
The Classic-to-Postclassic Transition at Ek Balam, Yucatan. In The Terminal
Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A.
Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Ringle, William M., Tomas Gallareta N., and George J. Bey I. 1998. The Return
of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the Spread of a World Religion during the
Epiclassic Period. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183-232.
350) References

Robichaux, Hubert R. 2002. On the Compatibility of Epigraphic and Archaeolog-

ical Data, with a Drought-Based Explanation for the Classic ae Collapse.
Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 341-345.
Robles, J. Fernando, and Anthony P. Andrews. 1986. A Review and Synthesis
of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatan. In Late Lowland
Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V,
pp. 53-98. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Rowe, John H. 1956. Cultural Unity and Diversification in Peruvian Archaeol-
ogy. In Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress
of Anthropological and Ethnological pide aa pp. 627-631. Philadelphia,
PA.
Roys, Ralph L. 1962. Stages and Periods in Aenea Interpretation. South-
western Fournal of Anthropology 18(1): 40-54.
1965a. Lowland Maya Native Society after the Spanish Contact. In Archaeology
of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 2, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 659-678. Handbook
of Middle American Indians, Vol. 3. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1965b. Ritual of the Bacabs: A Maya Book of Incantations. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
1967. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
1972. The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan. Norman: University of Okla-
homa Press.
Roys, Ralph L, ed. 1949. The Prophecies for the Maya Tuns or Years in the Books
of Chilam Balam of Tizimin and Mani. In Contributions to American Anthro-
pology and History 51, pp. 153-186. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Publication 585. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Ruppert, Karl J. 1931. The Temple of the Wall Panels, Chichen Itza. In Contri-
butions to American Archaeology 3, pp. 117-140. Carnegie Institution of
Washington Publication 403. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1935. The Caracol at Chichén Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institution, Publi-
cation 454. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1943. The Mercado, Chichén Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. In Contributions to Amer-
ican Archaeology 4, pp. 223-260. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publi-
cation 546. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1975. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala:
The Ceramics. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnol-
ogy vol. 13, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
1977. Old Myths, New Myths: The Role of Sea Traders in the Development
of Ancient Maya Civilization. In The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World, ed.
E. Benson, pp. 67-97. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard University.
1985. Ancient Maya Civilization: An Overview. In Maya: Treasures of an Ancient
Civilization, ed. C. Gallenkamp and R.E. Johnson, pp. 34-46. New York:
Harry N. Abrams.
1986. Interaction among Classic Maya Polities: A Preliminary Examination.
In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J.F.
Cherry, pp. 109-116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1990. The New Archaeology and the Ancient Maya. New York: W. H. Freeman.
 References B5il

Sabloff, Jeremy A., and William L. Rathje. 1975. The Rise of a Maya Merchant
- Class. Screntific American 233(4):72-82.
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and Gordon R. Willey. 1967. The Collapse of Maya Civi-
lization in the Southern Lowlands: A Consideration of History and Process.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23: 311-326.
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and E. Wyllys Andrews V, eds. 1986. Late Lowland Maya
Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
ress:
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and John S. Henderson, eds. 1993. Lowland Maya Civilization
in the Eighth Century AD. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for
Harvard University.
Sabloff, Jeremy A., and William L. Rathje. eds. 1975. A Study of Changing Pre-
Columbian Commercial Systems: The 1972-1973 Seasons at Cozumel, Mexico.
Monographs of the Peabody Museum No. 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Sanders, William T. 1968. Hydraulic Agriculture, Economic Symbiosis, and the
Evolution of States in Central Mexico. In Anthropological Archaeology in the
Americas, ed. B.J. Meggars, pp. 88-107. Washington, DC: Anthropological
Society of Washington.
1972. Population, Agricultural History, and Societal Evolution in Mesoamer-
ica. In Population Growth: Anthropological Implications, ed. B. Spooner, pp.
101-153. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
1973. The Cultural Ecology of the Lowland Maya: A Reevaluation. In The Clas-
sic Maya Collapse, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 325-365. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
1977. Environmental Heterogeneity and the Evolution of Lowland Maya Civi-
lization. In The Origins ofMaya Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 287-297.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Sanders, William T:, and Joseph W. Michels, eds. 1969. The Pennsylvania State
University Kaminaljuyu Project-1968 Season, Part 1. The Excavations. Univer-
sity Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
1977. Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: A Study in Prehistoric Culture Contact.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. 1979. The Basin
of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. New York:
Academic Press.
Sanders, William T., and Barbara J. Price. 1968. Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a
Civilization. New York: Random House.
Sanders, William T., and Robert S. Santley. 1983. A Tale of Three Cities:
Energetics and Urbanization in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Prehistoric
Settlement Patterns, eds. E.Z. Vogt, Jr. and R.M. Leventhal, pp. 243-292.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Sanders, William T., and David L. Webster. 1988. The Mesoamerican Urban
Tradition. American Anthropologist 80: 521-546.
Santley, Robert S. 1983. Obsidian Trade and Teotihuacan Influence in
Mesoamerica. In Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdis-
ciplinary Approaches, ed. A.G. Miller, pp. 69-124. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
BDZ References

1984. Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification, and Evolution of Complex

Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica,
ed. K.G. Hirth, pp. 43-86. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Santley, Robert S., Thomas W. Killion, Mark T. Lycett. 1986. On the Maya
Collapse. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 123-159.
Scarborough, Vernon L. 1996. Reservoirs and Watersheds in the Maya Lowlands.
In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, ed. S.L.
Fedick, pp. 304-314. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Scarborough, Vernon L. 1998. Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the
Maya. Latin American Antiquity 9: 135-159.
Schele, Linda. 1981. Sacred Site and World-View at Palenque. In Mesoameri-
can Sites and World Views, ed. E.P. Benson, pp. 87-117. Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1982. Maya Glyphs: The Verbs. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1984. Human Sacrifice Among the Classic Maya. In Ritual Human Sacrifice
in Mesoamerica, ed. E.H. Boone, pp. 7-48. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1985. The Hauberg Stela: Bloodletting and the Myths of Classic Maya Ruler-
ship. In Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, vol. 7, ed. V.M. Fields, pp. 135-151.
San Francisco: The Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute.
1986. The Tlaloc Complex in the Classic Period: War and the Interaction Between
the Lowland Maya and Teotihuacan. Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum.
1987. Reading Mayan Images. Americas 39(2): 38-43.
1991. An Epigraphic History of the Western Maya Region. In Classic Maya
Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed. T.P. Culbert,
pp. 72-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1992. Notebook for the 16th Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas, March 14-15,
1992. Austin: University of Texas.
Schele, Linda, and David A. Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kings. New York: W.M.
Morrow and Co.
Schele, Linda, Nikolai Grube, and Erik Boot. 1995. Some Suggestions on the K’atun
Prophecies in the Books of Chilam Balam in Light of Classic-period History. Texas
Notes on Precolumbian Art, Writing, and Culture No. 72. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews. 1974. Lords of Palenque: The Glyphic
Evidence. In Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, part 1, ed. V.M. Fields,
pp. 63-75. Pebble Beach, CA: Robert Louis Stevenson School.
1991. Royal Visits and Other Intersite Relationships Among the Classic Maya.
In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed.
T.P. Culbert, pp. 220-252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1998. The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs.
New York: Scribner. .
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller. 1986. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and
Ritual in Maya Art. New York: George Braziller.
Schele, Linda, David S. Stuart, Nikolai K. Grube, and Floyd G. Louns-
bury. 1989. A New Inscription from Temple 22a at Copan. Copan Note 57.
Copan, Honduras: Copan Mosaics Project and the Instituto Hondurefio de
Antropologia e Historia.
 References 353

Schellhas, Paul. 1904. Comparative Studies in the Field of Maya Antiquities. In

- Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and History, ed.
C.P. Bowditch, pp. 591-622. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 28.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Schieber de Lavarreda, Christa, ed. 1998. Taller Arqueologia de la Region de la
Costa Sur de Guatemala. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes.
Schiffer, Michael B. 1976. Behavioral Archeology. New York: Academic Press.
Schmidt, Kristen P., and E. Wyllys Andrews IV. 1936. Notes on Snakes from
Yucatan. Field Museum of Natural History Zoological Series, vol. 20, no. 18,
167-187. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.
Scholes, France V., and Ralph L. Roys. 1948. The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-
Tixchel: A Contribution to the History and Ethnography of the Yucatan Penin-
sula. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 560. Washington, DC:
Carnegie Institution.
Schortman, Edward M., and Patricia Urban. 1991. Patterns of Late Preclassic
Interaction and the Formation of Complex Society in the Southwest Maya
Periphery. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica,
ed. W.R. Fowler, Jr., pp. 121-142. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Service, Elman. 1975. The Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of
~ Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.
Shafer, Harry J. 1979. A Technological Study of Two Maya Lithic Workshops at
Colha, Belize. In The Colha Project, 1979: A Collection of Interim Papers, ed.
T.R. Hester, pp. 28-78. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research,
University of Texas.
1982. Maya Lithic Craft Specialization in Northern Belize. In Archeology at
Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, ed. T.R. Hester, H.J. Shafer, and
J.D. Eaton, pp. 31-38. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research,
University of Texas.
1983. The Lithic Artifacts of the Pulltrouser Area: Settlements and Fields.
In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture and Settlement in
Northern Belize, ed. B.L. Turner IJ and P.D. Harrison, pp. 212—245. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Shafer, Harry J.. and Thomas R. Hester. 1983. Ancient Maya Chert Work-
shops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:
519-543.
1986. Maya Stone-Tool Craft Specialization and Production at Colha, Belize:
Reply to Mallory. American Anuquity 51: 148-166.
Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology:
Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1988. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Sharer, Robert J. 1974. The Prehistory of the Southeastern Maya Periphery.
Current Anthropology 15: 165-187.
1989. The Olmec and the Southeast Periphery of Mesoamerica. In Regional
Perspectives on the Olmec, ed. R.J. Sharer and D.C. Grove, pp. 247-271.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1991. Diversity and Continuity in Maya Civilization: Quirigua as a Case Study.
In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence,
354 References

ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 180-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
1994. The Ancient Maya. 5th edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sharer, Robert J., ed. 1978. The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador. University
Museum Monograph 36. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sharer, Robert J. 2003. Founding Events and Teotihuacan Influence at Copan,
Honduras. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interac-
tion, ed. G.E. Braswell, pp. 143-166. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sharer, Robert J., and David C. Grove, eds. 1989. Regional Perspectives on the
Olmec. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharer, Robert J., Loa P. Traxler, David W. Sedat, Ellen E. Bell, and Marcello
A. Canuto. 1999. Early Classic Architecture beneath the Copan Acropolis.
Ancient Mesoamerica 10: 3-23.
Sheets, Payson D. 1975. A Reassessment of the Precolumbian Obsidian Industry
of El Chayal, Guatemala. American Antiquity 40: 98-103.
1979. Environmental and Cultural Effects of the Ilopango Eruption in Central
America. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, ed. P.D. Sheets and D.K.
Grayson, pp. 525-564. New York: Academic Press.
1992. The Ceren Site: A Prehistoric Village Buried by Volcanic Ash in Central
America. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
1994, Tropical Time Capsule: An Ancient Village Preserved In Volcanic
Ash Yields Evidence of Mesoamerican Peasant Life. Archaeology 47:
30-33.
2000. Provisioning the Ceren Household: The Verticle Economy, Village Econ-
omy, and Household Economy in the Southeastern Maya Periphery. Ancient
Mesoamerica 11: 217-230.
Sheets, Payson D., Harriot F. Beaubien, Marilyn P. Beaudry, Andrea Gerstle,
Brian McKee, C. Dan Miller, Harmut Spetzler, and David B. Tucker. 1990.
Household Archaeology at Cerén, El Salvador. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 81-—
90.
Sheets, Payson D., and Brian R. McKee, eds. 1989. 1989 Archaeological Investiga-
tions at the Cerén Site, El Salvador: A Preliminary Report. Boulder: Department
of Anthropology, University of Colorado.
Shook, Edwin M. 1954. Three Temples and Their Associated Structures at
Mayapan. In Carnegie Institution of Washington Department of Archaeology
Current Reports vol. 1, no. 14, pp. 254-291. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Institution.
Shook, Edwin M., William R. Coe, Vivian L. Broman, and Linton S.
Satterthwaite, Jr. 1958. Tikal Reports. University Museum Monograph 15,
vols. 1-4. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Sidrys, Raymond V. 1976. Classic Maya Obsidian Trade. American Antiquity 41:
449-464.
1979. Supply and Demand among the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 20:
594-597.
Sidrys, Raymond V., and Jerome Kimberlain. 1979. Use of Maya Obsidian
Sources Through Time: Trace-Element Data from El Balsamo, Guatemala.
Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 116-122.
 References B55

Siemens, Alfred H. 1978. Karst and the Pre-Hispanic Maya in the Southern
: Lowlands. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, ed. P. Harrison and B.L. Turner
II, pp. 117-144. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Smith, A. Ledyard. 1937. Uaxactun. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook
36: 135-137.
1982. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Major Architecture
and Caches. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
vol. 13, no. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Smith, Robert E. 1954. Exploration on the Outskirts of Mayapan. In Carnegie
Institution of Washington Department of Archaeology Current Reports, vol. 1,
no. 18, pp. 53-69.
Smith, Robert E., and James C. Gifford. 1965. Pottery of the Maya Lowlands. In
Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 1, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 498-534.
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 2. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Spinden, Herbert J. 1913. A Study of Maya Art: Its Subject Matter and Historical
Development. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoir 6.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
1924. The Reduction of Mayan Dates. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
- American Archaeology and Ethnology, 6(4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.
Spooner, Brian, ed. 1972. Population Growth: Anthropological Implications.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stark, Barbara L. 1981. The Rise of Sedentary Life. In Handbook of Middle Amer-
ican Indians, Supplement I: Archaeology, ed. V.R. Bricker and J.A. Sabloff,
pp. 345-372. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stark, Barbara L., and Barbara L. Voorhies, eds. 1978. Prehistoric Coastal
Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology of Maritime Middle America. New York:
Academic Press.
Steele, D.G., Jack D. Eaton, and A. J. Taylor. 1980. The Skulls from Operation
2011 at Colha: A Preliminary Examination. In The Colha Project, Second
Season 1980 Interim Report, ed. T.R. Hester, J.D. Eaton, and H.J. Shafer,
pp. 163-172. San Antonio: Center for Archaeological Research, University
of Texas.
Stephens, John Lloyd. 1841. Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and
Yucatan. New York: Harper and Brothers.
1843. Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. New York: Dover Publications.
Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear
Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Stromsvik, Gustav. 1942. Archaeology: Honduras. In Carnegie Institution of Wash-
ington Yearbook 41, pp. 249-250. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1952. The Ball Courts at Copan. In Contributions to American Anthropology and
History 11, pp. 187-214. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Stuart, David S. 1984. Royal Auto-Sacrifice Among the Maya: A Study of Image
and Meaning. Res 7/8: 6-20.
1987. Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 14.
Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research.
356 References

1988. Blood Symbolism in Maya Iconography. In Maya Iconography, ed. E.P.

Benson and G.G. Griffin, pp. 175-221. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. -.
1989. The Maya Artist: An Epigraphic and Iconographic Study. Unpub-
lished B.A. thesis, Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton
University.
1993. Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse. In Lowland Maya Civi-
lization in the Eighth Century A.D., eds. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson,
pp. 321-354. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
1995. A Study of Maya Inscriptions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
2000. The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya
History. In Meosamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotthuacan to the Aztecs,
ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 465-513. Boulder: Univer-
sity Press of Colorado.
Stuart, David S., and Stephen D. Houston. 1994. Classic Maya Place Names. Stud-
ies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 33. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
Stuart, L.C. 1964. Fauna of Middle America. In Natural Environment and
Early Cultures, ed. R.C. West, pp. 316-362. Handbook of Middle Ameri-
can Indians, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sugiyama, Saburo. 1992. Rulership, Warfare, Human Sacrifice at the Ciudadela,
Teotihuacan: An Iconographic Study of the Feathered Serpent Repre-
sentations. In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotthuacan, ed. J.C. Berlo,
pp. 205-230. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
Sugtyama, Saburo, and Ruben Cabrera, eds. 2003. Informe del Proyecto de Investi-
gacion enla Piramide dela Luna, Teotihuacan. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional
de Antropologia e Historia.
Suhler, Charles, and David Friedel. 1998. Life and Death in a Maya War Zone.
Archaeology 51(3): 28-34.
Suhler, Charles, Traci Ardren, David Friedel, and Dave Johnstone. 2004. The
Rise and Fall of Terminal Classic Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. In The Termi-
nal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation,
ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
Sullivan, Lauren. A. 2002. Dynamics of Regional Integration in Northwestern
Belize. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, ed. M.A. Masson and D.A. Frei-
del, pp. 197-222. Wainut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Symonds, Stacey, Barbara Arroyo, and Stephen D. Houston. 1990. Operacion
DP11: Investigaciones en el Palacio de Dos Pilas. In Proyecto Arqueologico
Regional Petexbatun, Informe Preliminar No. 2: Segunda Temporada, 1990, ed.
A.A. Demarest and S.D. Houston, pp. 235-276. Guatemala and Nashville:
Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University.
‘Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 References B57

Tambiah, Stanley J. 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer. Cambridge:

- | Cambridge University Press.
1977. The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Traditional Kingdoms in Southeast
Asia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 293: 69-97.
1982. Famous Buddha Images and the Legitimation of Kings. Res: Anthropology
and Aesthetics 4: 5-20.
1984. The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets: A Study in
Charisma, Hagiography, Sectarianism and Millennial Buddhism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1998. Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of
Late Pleistocene Eastern North America. American Antiquity 63: 7-20.
Tate, Carolyn E. 1992. Yaxchilan: The Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Taube, Karl A. 1992. The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in Pre-
Columbian Art and Archaeology 32. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks,
Trustees for Harvard University.
2003. Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan. In The Maya and
Teotthuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G.E. Braswell,
pp. 273-314. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Taylor, R.E., and Clement W. Meighan, eds. 1978. Chronologies in New World
Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Tedlock, Barbara. 1992. Time and the Highland Maya. 2nd ed. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
1993. Mayans and Mayan Studies from 2000 BC to A.D. 1992. Latin American
Research Review 28: 153-173.
Tedlock, Dennis. 1985. The Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of Myth and History. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Thompson, Edward H. 1932. The People of the Serpent. New York: Literary
Classics.
Thompson, J. Eric S. 1950. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Introduction. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Publication 589. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Institution.
1954. A Presumed Residence of the Nobility at Mayapan. In Carnegie Institu-
tion of Washington Department of Archaeology Current Reports, vol. 2, no. 19,
pp. 71-87. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
1966. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. 2nd ed. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
1970. Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1971. Estimates of Maya Populations: Deranging Factors. American Antiquity
36: 214-216.
1974. “Canals” of the Rio Candelaria Basin, Campeche, Mexico. In Mesoamer-
ican Archaeology: New Approaches, ed. N.D.C. Hammond. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Tilley, Christopher. ed. 1990. Reading Material Culture: Structuralism, Hermeneu-
tics, and Post-Structuralism. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Tolstoy, Paul. 1989. Western Mesoamerica and the Olmec. In Regional Perspectives
on the Olmec, ed. R.J. Sharer and D.C. Grove, pp. 275-302. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
358 References

Tourtellot, Gair. 1988. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Petén, Guatemala:

Peripheral Survey and Excavations, Settlement and Community Patterns.
Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and-.Ethnology 16.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Tourtellot, Gair, and Jason Gonzales. 2004. The Last Hurrah: Continuity and
Transformation at Seibal. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and
D.S. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Tourtellot, Gair, and Jeremy Sabloff. 1994. Community Structure at Sayil: A Case
Study of Puuc Settlement. In Hidden Among the Hills: Maya Archaeology of the
Northwest Yucatan Peninsula, ed. H. Prem, pp: 71-92. Mockmuhl, Germany:
Verlag von Flemming.
Tourtellot, Gair, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Michael P. Smyth. 1990. Room Counts
and Population Estimation for Terminal Classic Sayil in the Puuc Region,
Yucatan, Mexico. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands,
ed. T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice, pp. 245-261. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941. Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 28. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner IJ, B.L. 1978. Ancient Agricultural Land Use in the Central
Maya Lowlands. In Prehispanic Maya Agriculture, ed. P.D. Harrison and
B.L. Turner II, pp. 163-183. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
1983. The Excavation of Raised and Channelized Fields at Pulltrouser Swamp.
In Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in
Northern Belize, ed. B.L. Turner IJ and P.D. Harrison, pp. 30-51. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
1985. Issues Related to Subsistence and Environment among the Ancient
Maya. In Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy, ed.
Mary D. Pohl, pp. 195-209. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology 77. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1990. Population Reconstruction for the Central Maya Lowlands: 1000 BC
to AD 1500. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed.
T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice, pp. 301-324. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Turner IJ, B.L., and Peter D. Harrison. 1978. Implications from Agriculture for
Maya Prehistory. In Prehispanic Maya Agriculture, ed. P.D. Harrison and B.L.
Turner II, pp. 337-373. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Turner II, B.L., and Peter D. Harrison. eds. 1983. Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient
Maya Habitat, Agriculture, and Settlement in Northern Belize. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. 1994. Information Report,
No. 14, 1994. Geneva: United Nations Division for Humanitarian Relief and
Rehabilitation.
Valdés, Juan Antonio. 1997a. El Proyecto Miraflores II Dentro del Marco
Preclasico de Kaminaljuyu. In X Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en
Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo, pp. 81-92. Guatemala:
 References 359

Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia,

- Asociacion Tikal.
1997b. Tamarindito: Archaeology and Regional Politics in the Petexbatun
Region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 321-335.
Valdés, Juan Antonio, and Federico Fahsen. 2004. Disaster in Sight: The Termi-
nal Classic at Tikal and Uaxactun. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya
Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M.
Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
Valdés, Juan Antonio, and Marion Popenoe de Hatch. 1996. Evidencias de
Poder y Control Social en Kaminaljuyu. In LX Simposio de Investiga-
clones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, ed. J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo,
pp. 377-396. Guatemala: Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de
Antropologia e Historia, Asociacion Tikal.
Varela Torrecilla, Carmen. 1998. El Clasico Medio en el Noroccidente de
Yucatan. British Archaeological Reports 739. Oxford: BAR International
Series.
Vogt, Jr., Evon Z. 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of
Chiapas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1976. Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Analysis of Zinacanteco Rituals.
- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1981. Some Aspects of the Sacred Geography of Highland Chiapas. In
Mesoamerican Sites and World Views, ed. E.P. Benson, pp. 119-142. Wash-
ington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
1983. Ancient and Contemporary Maya Settlement Patterns: A New Look
From the Chiapas Highlands. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in
Honor of Gordon R. Willey, eds. E.Z. Vogt, Jr., and R.M. Leventhal,
pp. 89-114. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Voorhies, Barbara L. 1976. The Chantuto People: An Archaic Period Society of the
Chiapas Littoral, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Founda-
tion 41. Provo, UT: New World Archaeological Foundation.
Voorhies, Barbara L. ed. 1989. Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the
Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Waldeck, Frederick M. de. 1838. Voyage Pittoresque et Archeologique Dans la
Province d’Yucatan Pendant les Annees 1834 et 1836. Paris.
Wallace, Dwight T. 1977. Ethnohistory of the Central Quiché. In The Commu-
nity of Utatlan: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Central Quiché, ed. D.T.
Wallace and R.M. Carmack, pp. 20-54. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies
Publication 1. Albany: State University of New York.
Wallace, Dwight T., and Robert M. Carmack, eds. 1977. The Community of
Utatlan. Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Central Quiché. Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies Publication 1. Albany: State University of New
York.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. LeBlanc, and Charles L. Redman. 1971. Explanation
in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
Wauchope, Robert. 1934. House Mounds of Uaxactun, Guatemala. Contribu-
tions to American Archaeology Publication 436. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Institution.
360 References

1938. Modern Maya Houses: A Study of Their Archaeological Significance.

Contributions to American Archaeology Publication 502. Washington, DC:
Carnegie Institution.
1962. Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents. Chicago: University ohChicago Press.
1965. They Found the Buried Cities: Exploration and Excavation in the American
Tropics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Webb, Malcolm C. 1973. The Peten Maya Decline Viewed in the Perspective of
State Formation. In The Classic Maya Collapse, ed. T.P. Culbert, pp. 367—
404. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
1975. The Flag Follows Trade: An Essay on the Necessary Interaction of
Military and Commercial Factors in State Formation. In Ancient Crviliza-
tion and Trade, ed. J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 367-404.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Webster, David L. 1976. Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, Mexico.
Middle American Research Institute Publication 41. New Orleans: Tulane
University.
1977. Warfare and the Evolution of Maya Civilization. In The Origins of Maya
Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 335-372. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
1979. Cuca, Chacchob, Dzonot Ake: Three Walled Northern Maya Centers. Occa-
sional Papers in Anthropology. University Park: Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Pennsylvania State University.
1978. Three Walled Sites of the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field
Archaeology 5: 375-390.
1993. The Study of Maya Warfare: What It Tells Us about the Maya and
What It Tells Us about Maya Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Civiliza-
tion in the Eighth Century A.D., eds. J.A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson,
pp. 415-444. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard
University.
1999. Warfare and Status Rivalry: Lowland Maya and Polynesian Compar-
isons. In Archaic States, ed. G. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 311-351. Santa
Fe, NM: School of American Research.
Webster, David L., ed. 1989. The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. Studies
in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton
Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University.
Webster, David L., and Anncorrine Freter. 1990. The Demography of Late Clas-
sic Copan. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed. T.P.
Culbert and D.S. Rice, pp. 37-61. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
Webster, David L., Anncorrine Freter, and Rebecca Storey. 2004. Dating Copan
Culture History: Implications for the Terminal Classic and the Collapse. In
The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transfor-
mation, ed. A.A. Demarest, P.M. Rice, and D.S. Rice. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Webster, David L., Jennifer Kirker, Amy Kovak, and Timothy Murta. 1999.
Investigaciones de Poblacion y Ecologia en Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In
XII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala. ed. J.P. Laporte,
H.L. Escobedo, A.C. Monzon de Suasnavar, pp. 419-434. Guatemala:
 References 361

Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropologia e Historia,

- Asociacion Tikal.
West, Robert C. 1964. Surface Configuration and Associated Geology of Middle
America. In Natural Environment and Early Cultures, ed. R.C. West, pp. 33-
83. Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
White, Christine D., and Henry P. Schwartz. 1989. Ancient Maya Diet: As
Inferred from Isotopic and Chemical Analysis of Human Bone. Journal of
Archaeological Science 16: 451-474.
White, Leslie A. 1959. The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to
the Fall of Rome. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Whitley, David S., and Marilyn P. Beaudry, eds. 1989. Investigaciones
Arqueologicas en la Costa Sur de Guatemala. Los Angeles: Institute of Archae-
ology, University of California.
Wilk, Richard R. 1985. The Ancient Maya and the Political Present. Journal of
Anthropological Research 41: 307-326.
Willey, Gordon R. 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Vir Valley, Peri.
Bureau of American Ethnology 155. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press.
1971. Commentary On “The Emergence of Civilization in the Maya
Lowlands.” In Observations on the Emergence of Civilization in Mesoamer-
ica, ed. R.F. Heizer and J.A. Graham, pp. 97-111. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
1973. The Altar de Sacrificios Excavations: General Summary and Conclusions.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 64(3). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
1974. The Classic Maya Hiatus: A Rehearsal for the Collapse? In Mesoamerican
Archaeology: New Approaches, ed. N.D.C. Hammond, pp. 417—430. London:
Duckworth.
1976. Mesoamerican Civilization and the Idea of Transcendence. Antiquity 50:
205-215.
1977. The Rise of Maya Civilization: A Summary View. In The Origins of Maya
Civilization, ed. R.E.W. Adams, pp. 383-423. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
1978. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Artifacts. Memoirs
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1—3). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
1981. Recent Researches and Perspectives in Mesoamerican Archaeology: An
Introductory Commentary. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 1: Archaeology, ed. J.A. Sabloff, pp. 3-27. Austin: University of
iiexaselress:
1982. Maya Archaeology. Science 215: 260-267.
1987. Changing Conceptions of Lowland Maya Culture History. In Essays in
Maya Archaeology, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 189-207. Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Willey, Gordon R., ed. 1975. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten,
Guatemala. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs,
vol. 13, nos 1-2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
362 References

Willey, Gordon R., and William R. Bullard, Jr. 1965. Prehistoric Settlement
Patterns in the Maya Lowlands. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica,
Part 1, ed. G.R. Willey, pp. 360-377. Handbook of Middle American Indi-
ans, vol. 2: Austin. University of Texas Press.
Willey, Gordon R., William R. Bullard, Jr., John B. Glass, and James C. Gifford.
1965. Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 54. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity.
Willey, Gordon R., T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E.W. Adams. 1967. Maya
Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference.
American Antiquity 32: 289-315. .
Willey, Gordon R., Richard M. Leventhal, Arthur A. Demarest, and William
Fash. 1994. The Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residen-
tial Zone. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 80.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips. 1958. Method and Theory in American
Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff. 1974. A History of American Archaeol-
ogy. San Francisco: Freeman.
Williams, A.R. 2002. A New Chapter in Maya History: All Out War, Shifting
Alliances, Bloody Sacrifices. National Geographic 202(4): 16-18.
Wittfogel, Karl A. 1957. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wolf, Eric R., ed. 1976. The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and
Society. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Wolley, Claudia. 1993. El Sistema Defensivo de Punta de Chimino, Petén. Licen-
ciatura thesis, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala.
Wolley, Claudia, and Lori Wright. 1990. Punta de Chimino: Sondeos en el
Sistema Defensivo. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe
Preliminar No. 2: Segunda Temporada, ed. A.A. Demarest and S. Houston,
pp. 423-437. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e
Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
1991. Sondeos en Punta de Chimino: Un Centro Fortificado del Clasico
Tardio y Terminal. In Proyecto Arqueologico Regional Petexbatun, Informe
Preliminar No. 3: Tercera Temporada, ed. A.A. Demarest, T. Inomata, H.L.
Escobedo, and J.W. Palka, pp. 558-587. Guatemala and Nashville, TN: Insti-
tuto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University.
Woodfill, Brent, Nicholas Miller, Margaret Tarpley, and Amalia Kenward. 2003.
Investigaciones Subterraneo y de Superficie en Chisec, Alta Verapaz, y La
Caoba, Sayaxche, Petén. In Proyecto Arqueologico Cancuen, Informe Tempo-
rada 2002, ed. A.A. Demarest and T. Barrientos, pp. 369-410. Guatemala
and Nashville, TN: Instituto de Antropologia e Historia and Department of
Anthropology, Vanderbilt University.
Woodfill, Brent, Matt O’Mansky, and Jon Spenard. 2002. Asentamiento y sitios
en la region de Cancuen. In XV Simposio de Arqueologicas en Guatemala,
ed. J.P. Laporte, H.L. Escobedo, and B. Arroyo, pp. 909-922. Guatemala:
Museo de Antropologia y Etnologia de Guatemala.
 References 363

Woods, James, and Gene Titmus. 1996. Stone on Stone: Perspectives on Maya
: Civilization from Lithic Studies. In Eighth Palenque Round Table, 1993, ed.
M. Marci and J. McHargue, pp. 479-489. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian
Art Research Institute.
Wright, Henry T., and Gregory A. Johnson. 1975. Population Exchange and Early
State Formation in Southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77: 267-289.
Wright, Lori E. 1994. The Sacrifice of the Earth: Diet, Health and Inequality in
the Pasion Maya Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Wright, Lori E. 1997. Biological Perspectives on the Collapse of the Pasion Maya.
Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 267-273.
In press. Nutrition, Diet, and Health at the Time of the Maya Collapse: Osteolog-
ical Evidence from the Petexbatun. Monographs of the Vanderbilt Institute of
Mesoamerican Archaeology. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Wright, Lori, and Christine White. 1996. Human Biology in the Classic Maya
Collapse: Evidence from Paleopathology and Paleodiet. In Journal of World
Prehistory 10: 147-198.
Wrigley, Edward A. 1969. Population and History. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yoffee, Norman, and George L. Cowgill, eds. 1988. The Collapse of Ancient States
and Civilizations. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
 Index

Abaj Takalik (Guatemala) 64, 67, 69, 72, animals

76, 78, 84, 102 association with kings and priests 184,
aboriculture 144-145 185
acropoli see epicenters and bird life, rain forests 123-126
agriculture 117-118 and rulers 229
animal husbandry 145 apiculture 145
Classic period 90, 146-147 archaeology
effects of the collapse, Petexbatun 254 and chronology 17, 26
operations in relation to the role of elites and cultural evolution 22-23, 26, 27
and rulers 213 history 31
post-Spanish Conquest 290 genesis of scientific archaeology 37-41
Postclassic period, Yucatan 278 multidisciplinary archaeology 41—43
in relation to kingship 206 nineteenth century 34-37
specialization 166 Spanish Conquest 31-33
and trade 150 processual archaeology 23, 26
see also farming practices; gardens; rain settlement pattern archaeology 50, 52
forests architecture 99
Aguateca 230, 251, 252, 259, 261 corbeled vault architecture 90, 94, 95
craft production 164 northern lowlands, Late Classic period
destruction 253 235-236
specialist craft production 168 Puuc area, Late Classic period 236
Ajaw complex 16 roof combs 95
qaws, cult 103 talud-tablero architectural facades
alliances, and vassalages 209 (Teotihuacan) 105, 108
Alméndariz, Ricardo 33 Arroyo de Piedras (western Petén) 259
alphabet 46, 48 astronomy 201
Alta Vista 79 and astrology 192-193
Altar de Sacrificios (Petexbatun) 38, 49, Atlantis (lost continent) 33, 35
81, 256, 261 autosacrifices 158, 176, 183
collapse 267, 275 family cults 189, 190
and the obsidian trade 163 Aztecs
political developments and trade, Late and the chocolate trade 153
Classic period 229 ideologies, effects on cultural evolution
altars 90, 91 29
and stelae 96, 98 trading practices 152
Alvarado, Pedro de 287
Anales de los Kagchikeles 284 Bakabs (gods) 181, 182
ancestor worship 96, 117, 176-177, 178, Balberta 67, 76, 78
191, 296 balche 144, 145, 192
Postclassic period, Yucatan 279 bands 57
see also burials Becan 82

364
 Index 365

Becan (Campeche), political development and the obsidian trade 163

S 222 political dominance by Calakmul 225
Belize and trade routes 162
collapse 266-268 Late Classic period 228-229, 230
hard stone trade 156 capitals, relocation, links with K’atun
and the obsidian trade 163 endings 279, 283
political fortunes 111 Caracol (Belize) 100, 265, 268
Postclassic period 283 agricultural activities 117, 147
Pulltrouser Swamp, raised field farming terracing 133, 135
methods 135 collapse 267
salt trade 152 epicenter 107
Belize River Valley, terracing 133, 138 evidence of Tikal’s political dominance
Berlin, Heinrich 45, 47, 209 106
Bernasconi, Antonio 33 political development 223-224, 226
bird and animal life, rain forests 123-126 Late Classic period 235
Bonampak, murals 230, 231 population 120, 214
Bowditch, C. P. 36 regional power 217
Brasseur de Bourbourg 36 royal palaces 116
Buena Vista 67, 78 state control 213
Bullard, William 49 and trade 151, 173
burials 116, 176-177, 191 Carnegie Institute (Washington) 41, 42,
see also ancestor worship 43
Castaneda, Jose 33, 34
Caana (Caracol), temple 224 Catherwood, Frederick 4, 31, 32, 33, 34,
cacao industry 144, 166 37, 282
Cahal Pech (Belize), political development, caves, sacred nature 202-204, 205
Late Classic period 235 Cays, trading importance 282
Calakmul (Campeche) 83, 100, 103, ceramics 40, 42
229 ‘Chicanel’ pottery 42
agricultural systems 147 Classic period 90
canal systems 142, 143 as evidence of the development of Maya
collapse 264 civilization 58-60
and the collapse of Dos Pilas 249 Mamom ceramics 42, 81
political development 108 northern lowlands, Late Classic period
and interregional alliances 222, 235
223-226 Puuc area, Late Classic period 236
and interregional conflicts 244 ruler with “Tlaloc’ eye treatment,
population 120, 214 Teotihuacan 109
regional power 215, 217 Seibal, collapse of western Petén 261,
state control 213 262
and trade 151, 173 slab-tripod vessels, Teotihuacan 105,
calendars 32, 36, 44, 183 108
Calendar Round and almanacs 190, Tzakol ceramics 101, 103
192, 193-196 use for dating purposes 101-102, 103
see also time see also crafts; trade
Campeche (Rio Bec region) ceramics industry 166
irrigation systems 235 and trade 148, 169, 170
terraced farming methods 138, 142 Cerros (Belize) 83, 87, 103
canal systems 141, 143 agricultural activities 117
Cancuen 104, 220, 230 canal systems 141
alliance with Dos Pilas 250 cosmogram of Preclassic temple 182
burial site 178 Chaaks (rain deities) 179, 181, 182
control of trade routes 173 Chaccob (Yucatan), fortifications 271
farming methods 139 Chachuapa 85
hard stone trade 154 Chalcatzingo (Morelos) 64
366 Index

Chalchuapa 102 Copan Valley

Charnay, Désiré 34 demography and the collapse of Maya
“check” dams, use for farming 137 civilization 246
chert (flint) 149, 155, 158, 166, 173 farming methods 139
Chiapas, salt trade 152 Cortez, Hernan 287
Chichen Itza (Yucatan) 38, 39, 42 cotton industry 154, 155, 166
collapse 268, 270, 271-274 couvade 188
destruction 280 Cozumel, trading importance 282
epicenter 201, 202 crafts
chiefdoms 57 production and specialization 163-164,
evolution in Maya civilization 60 a
Kaminaljuyu 74 attached to elite groups 167-171
Chilam Balam 42 community production 166-167
Chitinamit (Tzutuhil capital) 285, household production 165-166
287 see also ceramics; trade
Churchward, James 34, 35 Cuca (Yucatan), fortifications 271, 272
cities 51 Cuello 81, 82, 83
abandonment 5—6 cultural evolution 21—23, 25-27
see also epicenters and ideologies 25, 28-30
Ciudad Real, Antonio de 33, 37 and the Maya 24—25, 27-28, 30
civilizations
decline 240-242 deer, hunting 145-146
development 4—5, 6 del Rio, Antonio 33
climate, and the collapse of Petexbatun demography, effects on infrastructure, and
region 256 the collapse of Maya civilization 245
Coapexco (central Mexico) 64 diet 8
Coba (Yucatan) Dos Pilas (Petén) 97, 229, 230
architecture, Late Classic period 236 Murcielagos palace in relation to cave
collapse 268, 269, 270-271 systems 204
political fortunes 110 and the obsidian trade 157, 158
Cocom lineage 280 political dominance by Calakmul 224,
Coe, William 50 2251220
Colha (Belize) royal palaces 116
chert industry 166, 173 trading role 149
collapse 267 Dos Pilas (Petexbatun), collapse 249-252,
Colha Pech (Belize), political 25h
development, Late Classic period Dupaix, Guillermo 33
235 Dzibilchaltun (northern Yucatan) 49, 81,
Conquistadors 286-287 82, 103
Copan 42, 104 trading role 220
autosacrifices 189 Dzonot Ake (Yucatan), fortifications 271
collapse 263, 265, 269, 275
epicenter 94, 107 eccentrics 157
evidence of Tikal’s political dominance ecology
106 and the collapse of Petexbatun region
Mexican influence upon through 256
Teotihuacan 105 effects on Mayan cultural evolution 28,
and the obsidian trade 158, 160 30
political development 218 effects on population settlements 99
and interregional conflicts 244 see also rain forests
Late Classic period 231-235 economics 148-149
regional power 215 operations in relation to the role of elites
ritual function as reflected in and rulers 213
architecture 205 Postclassic period, Yucatan 278
stelae 98 see also trade
 Index 367

Edzna slash-and-burn practices 44, 51,

- agricultural systems 146 130-132
canal systems 141, 142 terracing 132-133, 134, 135, 142
ceramics 236 see also agriculture
irrigation systems 236 Foérstmann, Ernst 36
state control 213, 221 Fried, Morton, on political complexities in
egalitarian societies 57 human societies 57
Egypt, political dynamics 238
Ek Balam (Yucatan), fortifications 271 Galindo, Juan (governor of Petén province)
El] Duende (Petexbatun) 252 33537
El] Mesak (Guatemala) 64 gardens
Olmec were-jaguar figure 65 rejolladas gardens
E] Mirador (Petén) 83-84, 85, 87, 103 cacao cultivation 144, 153
agricultural systems 146 use for farming 137
regional power 215 stone box gardens 138, 139
and trade 148, 151, 161, 162 see also agriculture
use of bajos for farming 138 glyphs, emblem glyphs, role in determining
water supplies 141 Maya political dynamics 209-211,
E] Peru (Petén) 2 212, 214
elites gods
accommodation 93 and cosmology 177-183
as affected by warfare and the payment glyphic and iconographic symbols for
of tribute 172 deities 181
control of specialist craft production see also ideologies
167, 168 Goodman, Joseph 36
control of trade in high-status goods Gordon, George 38
160-162 government, post-Spanish Conquest 290
culture 175 Guatemala, salt trade 152
inter-elite rivalry, effects 295
Mexican influence upon 284 Haab 193, 194, 195, 196
and the obsidian trade 158-160 hegemonies 285-286
polygamy, effects on decline of states 245 Hewett, Edgar 40
Postclassic period, Yucatan 278 hieroglyphics, decipherment 48
role in the collapse 257, 259 Homul (Guatemala) 40
trading benefits 150, 155 households
see also rulers as basis of Maya society 113-116
epicenters 107 craft production 165-166
architecture in relation to use of sizes and distribution 118-120
astronomy and geography 201-205 houses 113-116
Copan 233 human societies
El Mirador 83, 85 political complexities 57-58
Olmec civilization 62, 63 Olmec civilization 60—67
Palenque 230, 232 Hunahpu, and Xbalanque (hero twins) 181
as sacred stages 205 hunting industry 145-146, 166
Tikal (seventh and eighth centuries) 228
see also cities; temples ideologies 6-7, 8, 50, 99, 175-176, 295
epigraphy, use in the study of Maya contribution to collapse, Postclassic
civilization 99, 108 period 279
Eznab complex (Tikal) 264 effects on cultural evolution 25, 28-30
influence on city developments 87
families, ancestor worship 176, 177, 178 states 206-207
farming practices 130, 137-139 see also gods
bajos 126, 133, 135-137, 138, 141, 257 Ilopango volcano (El Salvador) 86
household gardening 132 eruption, effects on population levels
raised fields 133-137 103
368 Index

Incidents of Travel in Central America, kingship 87, 92

Chiapas, and Yucatan (Stephens and and ancestor worship 176
Catherwood) 34 bloodletting rituals 205
infrastructures, stresses upon, and the cults 183
collapse of Maya civilization divine kingship, ideology 16, 30
245-246 economic roles 173
Inkas, ideologies, effects on cultural Kaminaljuyu 76, 77
evolution 28 matrilineal descent, Late Classic period
Inscriptions of the Petén (Morley) 40 251%
irrigation systems 118, 120, 139-143 royal bloodletting 226
Campeche (Rio Bec region) 235 succession systems 243
Kaminaljuyu 75, 76 see also. autosacrifices; rulers; shamanism
northern lowlands, Puuc area, Late K’inich Yax K’uk’Mo’ (ruler (Copan)) 218
Classic period 236 Knorozov, Yuri 45, 47
Itza Maya 288 Komchen (Yucatan) 81, 82, 103
migrations, Postclassical period political development 220
280 salt industry 166
Itzamnaaj (deity) 179 Kuhul Ajaw 88, 92, 174
Ix-Chel (moon goddess) 181, 182 authority and its geographical extent
Iximche’ (Kaqchiquel Maya hegemony) 214
285, 286, 288 political power 242
Ixlu 263 political weaknesses, effects on the states
Ixtepeque (Guatemala), and the obsidian 262, 263
trade 157, 160, 163 role 206, 238
Ixtonton (southeastern Petén), collapse see also kingship
266
Izapa 67, 70, 72, 78, 85, 102 La Amelia (Petexbatun) 252
La Blanca (Guatemala) 64, 67, 71
jade celts (Olmec civilization) 64 La Pasadita, royal bloodletting 186
Jasaw Chan K’awiil I (king of Tikal) 228, La Venta (Tabasco, Mexico) 62, 63, 71
262 Labna (eastern Yucatan)
Jimbal 263 collapse 268
Joya de Ceren (El Salvador), craft Puuc style arch 237
production 164 Lamanai (Belize) 83, 87, 103
jungle canopy 122, 123 collapse 266, 267
Landa, Diego de (Bishop of Yucatan) 32,
Kabah (eastern Yucatan), collapse 268 35, 36, 37, 46, 48, 196
Kaminaljuyu (Guatemala) 42, 67, 72-74, Le Plongeon, Augustus 34
75-716, 77, 78, 85, 86, 102 leisure activities 8
El Chayal outcrop, and the obsidian Loltun Cave 81, 82
trade 157 Long Count system 39, 40, 41, 67, 183
influence 108 dating by 100, 101
Mexican influence upon through and time cycles 197
Teotihuacan 105 see also time
political development 220 Lord Chaak (king of Uxmal) 269
Kan ’Ek (king of Itza) 288 Lounsbury, Floyd 46, 47
Kaqchiquel Maya hegemony 285,
286 Machaquila 229
K’atun endings 181, 183, 263 Maler, Teobert 37
and dating of texts 279 Mam Maya hegemony 285
and relocation of ceremonial capitals markets, local markets 150-152
279, 283 Marxism, views of the importance of
Kelley, David 46, 47 ideologies on cultural evolution 25
Kiche’ hegemony 286, 287 masks 83, 84
Kingsborough, Edward King, Lord 33 Maudslay, Alfred 37, 38
 Index 369

Maya Classic period 15-16, 22

- archaeological remains 1, 2, 4, 7, 30 continuous interregional interaction
chronology, Classic period 47 20
cities 45 Early Preclassic period 14
cultural evolution 24-25, 27-28, 30 horizons concept 18, 19
diet 8 interregional contacts 18
geographical area 11-12 Late Preclassic period 15
Lacandon Maya, farming practices 130, Middle Preclassic period 14
131 paleo-Indian period 13
leisure activities 8 Postclassic period 15, 16
_population sizes and distribution Terminal Classic period 16
118-120, 121, 129 cultural evolution 23
settlement patterns 117-118 Early Formative sites 61
state systems 52 maps 3, 9, 10
writings and books 32, 35, 36 nested civilizations 17—20
Maya civilization 100 Preclassic sites 68
ceremonial and urban developments village life 54, 55, 56-57
highland centers 72-79 Mesopotamia, political dynamics 238
lowland areas 83-86 Mexico
southern centers 67—72 cultural influence, Postclassic period
Classic period 89-92 284
chronology 100-102 influence 103-106, 285
_--epicenters 92-96 and the obsidian trade 158
structural problems 247 Mirador (Chiapas) 64
collapse 5—6, 7, 111, 240, 241-249, Monte Alban (Oaxaca valley) 15
274-276 Monte Alto (Guatemala) 67, 71
see also individual areas and sites Morley, Sylvanus G. 39, 40
Early Classic period 104-110 Motagua Valley (Ixtepeque), and the
chronology 102 obsidian trade 157, 163
Mexican influence upon 103-106 Motejo, Francisco de 287
Late Classic period, regionalism mountains, sacred nature 202,
110-111 205
origins 53-56 Mu (lost continent) 33, 35
population settlements 99-100 Murcielagos (Petexbatun), destruction
post-Spanish Conquest 289-293 252
Postclassic period 112, 277
lowland areas 279-283 Nakbe 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 103
southern highlands 284—286 farming methods 138
Yucatan 277-279 and long-distance trade 161
traditional views 43-45 Nakum, political fortunes 110
traditional views questioned 47 Naranjo (western Petén) 229
viewed as theocratic systems 45 political fortunes 110
villages, lowland centers 79-83 Negara states (Southeast Asia) 238
Maya lowlands 1, 12, 58-62, 66-67, comparison with the Classic Maya
86-88 206-207
Classic period 15 political dynamics 216
environmental features 121, 122, Nohmul (Belize) 81
126-127 collapse 267, 274
Late Classic sub-regions and sites
PIEDT Oaxaca 268
Mayapan (Yucatan) 280, 281, 283 obsidian, and trade routes 148, 156-160,
Merwin, Raymond 39 162-163
Mesoamerica 8-12 Olmec civilization 15, 18, 60-67
chronology 12-17 influence 67, 70, 71, 72, 84
Archaic period 14 Oxkintok (Puuc area), ceramics 236
370 Index

Palacio, Diego Garcia de 33 Puuc area (Yucatan)

Palenque (Chiapas) 4, 33, 34, 38, collapse 268-270, 271, 273
259 Late Classic period 236-238
epicenter 107
and the obsidian trade 163 Q’eqchi’ Maya 294
political development 110 queens see kingship
Late Classic period 230, 231, 232 Quintana Roo, collapse 271
ritual function as reflected in Quintana Roo (Yucatan), raised field
architecture 205 farming methods 135
Pasion Valley Quirigua 233
agriculture 146 collapse 265
collapse 260-261 evidence of Tikal’s political dominance
Paso de la Amada (Chiapas) 60 106
Peabody Museum (Harvard) 38, 39 political development 218
Petén political dynamics, and interregional
central Petén, collapse 262—265 conflicts 244
demography and the collapse of Maya stela showing Long Count system 197
civilization 245 stelae 234
eastern Petén, collapse 265-268 Q’umarkah (Utatlan; K’iche’ hegemony)
Postclassic period 283 285, 286
rain forest 6
southeastern Petén, collapse 266 rain forests 1, 120, 127-130
western Petén civilizations 4-5, 6
collapse 257-260 and the Maya 24, 25, 30
political development 228-231 difficulties created for archaeological
Petexbatun (Dos Pilas) 271 sites 56
ceramics industry 167 Maya adaptations to 113, 120-126,
collapse 275 127-130
regional power 215 see also agriculture; ecology
Petexbatun region (western Petén) rainfall 121
agriculture 146 ranked societies 58
collapse 249-257, 258 Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan (Landa)
epicenter locations 204 32, 36
Piedras Negras (western Petén) 259 Rio Azul (Guatemala)
political developments and trade, Late evidence of Tikal’s political dominance
Classic period 229, 230 106
Popol Vuh (creation tales) 42, 181, 284 political development 218
population levels 51, 294 Rio Bec (central Petén)
during period of collapse collapse 264
Belize 266 state control 213
central Petén 263, 265 Rio Bec zone (Campeche), terracing 133
eastern Petén 265 Roman Empire, fall 240, 242, 248, 275
Petexbatun 255 rulers
western Petén 257 and animals 229
Early Classic period 103 contribution to collapse 259, 277
Maya civilization, Early Classic period lineage government, Postclassic period
106 277, 283, 284
and trade 149 responses to infrastructure stresses
populations, migration, roles in the 246-248
collapse 260 roles 51
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 45, 47, 94 see also elites; kingship
Punta de Chimino (Petexbatun) 254, 255,
261 sacred cycles 182
collapse 267 Sacul (southeastern Petén), collapse 266
stone box gardens 139 salt industry 166
 Index ST

San Isidro (Chiapas) 64 regional politics 215-217

San José Mogote (Oaxaca) 64 sizes and populations 214-215
San Lorenzo (Veracruz) 62, 63 structural problems 243-245
San Martin Jilotepeaue, and the obsidian and trade 172-174
trade 158 stelae 69, 70, 83, 90, 91
Santa Leticia (El Salvador) 71, 78 and altars 96, 98
Santa Rita Corozal, trading importance Quirigua (Guatemala) 234
282 Stephens, John Lloyd 4, 31, 33, 34, 37,
Sayil (eastern Yucatan) 282
collapse 268, 270 stratified societies 58
household gardening 132 Stuart, David 46, 48
Sayil (Puuc area), ceramics 236 subsistence methods, as evidence of Maya
Schele, Linda 46, 48 origins 53-56
Seibal 38, 49, 81, 103, 252, 256, 261, 268,
274 Tabasco 256
ceramics industry 167 Tamarindito (Petexbatun) 251, 252, 257
collapse 267, 275 agricultural activities 117
and the obsidian trade 163 household gardening 132
and political developments and trade, and the obsidian trade 158
Late Classic period 229 water supplies 118
and trade routes 162 Tambiah 216
Service, Elman 57 Tancah, trading importance 282
shamanism 183-188 Tayasal (Petén) 288
bloodletting 184-189 Postclassic period 283
divination 184, 187, 191-193 temples
roles 206-207 relationship to family shrines 176
sacrificial systems 188-191 and tombs 96, 97
see also kingship see also epicenters
Sheets, Payson 164 Teopantecuantitlan (Guerrero) 64
Shook, Edwin 50 Teotihuacan (Mexico) 15, 18, 74, 75,
Short Count system 198 238
dating by 101 ceramics
see also time ruler with “Tlaloc’ eye treatment 109
Siyaj Chan K’awiil (ruler (Tikal)) 218 slab-tripod vessels 105, 108
Siyaj K’ak (war leader (Teotihuacan)) 218 influence 86, 104, 106, 108, 216,
Somalia, parallels with collapse of Maya 218-220, 222
civilization 260 and the obsidian trade 158
Spanish Conquest 16, 289 Pyramid of the Sun 106
effects on farming practices 130 road grid system 107
influence on Mayan archaeology 31—33 talud-tablero architectural facades 105,
spearheads 54 108
spinning 155 trading role 148
states 57, 58 Tepeu ceramics 101, 102
ideologies 206-207 texts, dating 279
political dynamics 208-211 Thompson, E. H. 38, 39
elites and rulers, roles 212-213 Thompson, Sir J. Eric S. 43, 44, 45
historical development 217: Early Tikal (central Petén) 38, 50, 74, 80, 81,
Classic period, lowlands 218-222: 87, 103, 229
interregional alliances 222—225: ceramics industry 167
Late Classic period; Belize 235; collapse 262-264
northern lowlands 235-238; development 100
southeast lowland 231—235; western drawing of animal associations with
Petén 228-231: regionalism and kings and priests 185
status rivalry 226-228 217 epicenter 92, 107
Late Classic period 238-239 farming methods, use of bajos 137
372 Index

Tikal (central Petén) (cont.) Tula (Hidalgo (Mexico)) 272

Mexican influence upon through Tulane University 42
Teotihuacan 105 Tulum (Quintana Roo, «.
and the obsidian trade 158 Mexico) (Catherwood’s drawing)
political dynamics 103, 104, 108, 110, 32
210 Tulum (Yucatan) 282
and interregional relations 223, Tzutuhil Maya hegemony 285
224-225, 244
seventh and eighth centuries 226, Uaxactun 42, 43, 74, 81, 103, 104, 263
PIRI evidence of Tikal’s political dominance
population 214 106
regional power 215, 216, 217, 218 excavation 100
royal palaces 116 farming methods, use of bajos 137
stelae and altars 91 ° political development 110, 218
and trade 148, 149, 151, 162 Ucanal (southeastern Petén), collapse
water supplies 141 266
time juxte 67, 78, 79
time cycles 196-198 niversity of Pennsylvania 42
see also calendars; Long Count system; eiele
pper Pasion river system, trade routes
Short Count system 228
Tlatilco (central Mexico) 64 Usumacinta region (western Petén),
Tohil (solar deity) 285 collapse 259
tombs, and temples 96, 97 Uxmal
tool industries 127 architectural styles 237
Topoxte (Petén), Postclassic period 283 ceramics 236
trace-element analyses, and identification collapse 268, 269, 270, 273
of trade routes 164 range structure 93
trade 51, 148-149
Early Classic period 107 vassalages, and alliances 209
and economics 51 villages
local markets 150-152 lowland centers 79-83
local products and raw materials Mesoamerica 54, 55, 56-57
149-150
long-distance trade, in high-status goods Waldeck, Jean-Fréderick 33
160-162 warfare
Postclassic period, Yucatan 280-283 role in the collapse of Petexbatun region
in relation to kingship 206 255)
and states 172-174 and tribute 172
trading commodities 152 water supplies see irrigation systems
chocolate 153 Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awil (king of
hard stone 153, 154-156 Copan) 233
obsidian 148, 156-160, 162-163 were-jaguars 63, 64, 65
salt 152-153 Willey, Gordon R. 48, 49
textiles 154 world systems theories 19
see also ceramics; crafts; economics
trade routes 159, 162-163 Xbalanque, and Hunahpu (hero twins)
and the ceramics industry 169, 170 181
political importance, Late Classic period Xcalumkin (eastern Yucatan), collapse
228-229 269
Upper Pasion river system 228 Xibalba (underworld) 182, 202
Tres Islas (Cancuen), stelae 221 Xultun 263
Tres Zapotes 62 Xunantunich (Belize), collapse 267
tribes 57
tribute, and warfare 172 Yax Nuun Ayiin (ruler (Tikal)) 218
Tsutuhil hegemony 287 Yax Pasaj (king of Copan) 263
 Index S3/3)

Yaxchilan (Chiapas) political fortunes 110

-autosacrifices 190 Yucatan 32
Maya queen experiencing a vision 187 collapse 268-274
and the obsidian trade 163 political fortunes 110, 111
political developments 218 Postclassic period 277-279
and trade, Late Classic period 229, salt trade 152
230 water supplies 141
and trade routes 162 Yum Cimil (death god) 183
Yaxchilan (western Petén) 259 Yum Kaax (maize god) 183
Yaxha, political fortunes 110
Yaxuna (Yucatan) Zaculeu (Mam Maya hegemony)
collapse 271 285
 oe or ayn

eheeeed ene
.Toa ~) ad
: Gethin oped?erultscreas a pa oraar

a -
atveeiis41 TA hy, OS
aaa
reyi, ats
> a ew
, er a aw 1s .
~ a ond wi
a Ga samy )Ry 80 |oF LL» oe @ pa) Aue

7 Sa aie. 1 be an “oS
nk.
a 6 tow
Sel ' — art ce
_ ie Ae or ee
*)) <A, —
° — PFT are, VW. 04 Loy pnedeas
7 7 > A wd aa ape es 7 7
<i oegei @ . ; ' a> 04) oer a -

a 1 7 FUR, ai ap re : : :
a. a Reet * a oe 8
- img Pith) Oe oats 2OR7 nad i ree

J) ee OCD <a a, SP See wr ye ME, DN? TLS 1%

7 7 we AS 064 (og wee -

. pam F 110-70 :
. ray? Bey meer al, Gar. ay
ol” \ 6 iba ’ eg ’
a egos ® a ee <8
wp ©< oon : =)
: = =
, ray 7 = oN hae

7] = | 7 — '

aw ~ : 4*
- 2 =
@
® anme 2 . y
7 7 > i hleg +

’ ———— é
AS i ?

= g@) ie ss

’ i : og @ |
oT . ne) celal
= - pee 7
r= bs vite = 54 ( i= rep 09) ch 7 7
? : : : 2
a ee
a
= s
a oe om oo pe Y Mer J?
S => > Aaa of 7 a
\\
%F
CASE STUDIES IN EARLY SOCIETIES

Series Editor Rita P. Wright New York University

Ancient Maya
In this new archaeological study, Arthur Demarest brings the lost pre-Columbian
civilization of Maya to life. In applying a holistic perspective to the most recent
evidence from archaeology, paleoecology, and epigraphy, this theoretical
interpretation emphasizes both the brilliant rainforest adaptations of the ancient
Maya and the Native American spirituality that permeated all aspects of their daily
life. Demarest draws on his own discoveries and the findings of colleagues to
reconstruct the complex lifeways and volatile political history of the Classic Maya
states of the first to eighth centuries. He provides a new explanation of the long-
standing mystery of the ninth-century abandonment of most of the great rainforest
cities. Finally, he draws lessons from the history of the Classic Maya cities for
contemporary society and for the ongoing struggles and resurgence of the modern
Maya peoples, who are now re-emerging from six centuries of oppression.

ARTHUR DEMAREST is the Ingram Professor of Anthropology at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee. For more than twenty-five years he has directed archaeological
field excavations at ancient sites in the highlands, coasts, and rainforests of Central
America and isconsidered a leading authority on the Olmec, Aztec, Inca, and,
particularly, the ancient Maya civilizations.

Cover illustration: Ancient Maya temple enveloped iin

rainforest (Tikal temple IV), ee CAMB RID GE
Photograph by Andrew Demarest UNIVERSITY PRESS
a a TAWAWAS=
[ule] are(etemo) ce)