The Ancient Maya [6 ed.] 0804748160, 9780804748162
This book traces the evolution of Maya civilization through the Pre-Columbian era, a span of some 2,500 years from the o
419 94 50MB
English Pages 984 [983] Year 2005
Contents
Tables
Figures
Boxes
Color Plates
Preface to the Sixth Edition
A Note on Names, Orthography, and Pronunciation
Introduction
Discovery and Conquest by Europeans
The Fate of the Maya Heritage
The Meaning of Maya Civilization
Foreign Domination and Rebirth of the Maya Heritage
Chapter 1 The Setting of Maya Civilization
ORIGIN OF MAYAN LANGUAGES
THE ORIGINAL MAYA HOMELAND
Natural and Cultural Subdivisions of the Maya Area
The Pacific Coastal Plain
CACAO
The Highlands
The Southern Highlands
STONE TOOLS
JADE
The Northern Highlands
FEATHERS
The Lowlands
ECCENTRIC FLINTS
The Southern Lowlands
The Central Lowlands
The Northern Lowlands
TEXTILES
The Consequences of Ecological Diversity
Chapter 2 Archaeology and Maya Civilization
Reconstructing the Past
• •
• •
POTTERY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
• •
MAYA ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECTS
• •
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT COPAN, HONDURAS
• •
Perspective and Goals of This Book
• •
Basic Concepts
• •
Models of Post Societies
• •
• •
Development of Complex Society and Civilization
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO
• •
The Evolution of Civilizations
• •
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT UAXACTUN, GUATEMALA
• •
Understanding the Evolution of Maya Civilization
The Maya Economy
Subsistence and Population Growth
• •
Specialization and Trade
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT KAMINALJUYU, GUATEMALA
• •
Economic Distinctions
• •
Maya Social and Political Systems
Social Stratification
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT TIKAL, GUATEMALA
• •
Polities and Kings
• •
• •
Competition and Warfare
• •
Maya Ideology and Religion
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT MAYAPAN, YUCATAN, MEXICO
• •
The Ancient Maya World
• •
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT BARTON RAMIE, BELIZE
• •
Elite and Nonelite Views of the Ancient Maya
• •
Chronology
Chapter 3 History and Maya Civilization
Time and Maya History
• • •
Numerals
• • •
• • •
The Calendar
• • •
The Almanac of 260 Days
• • •
The Haab of 3 65 Days
The Calendar Round of 52 Years
• • •
YEAR BEARERS
• • •
The Long Count
• • •
Distance Numbers
• • •
Period-Ending Dates and Count of the K'atuns (Short Count)
• • •
CORRELATION OF THE MAYA CALENDAR
• • •
• • •
Measuring the Cycles of Time
The Sun and Moon
• • •
Venus
Other Planets, the Stars, and the Constellations
• • •
Recording the Cycles of Time
• • •
Sources of Maya History
MAYAN DICTIONARIES AND LITERATURE
• • •
The Maya Chronicles
• • •
• • •
Ancient Writing Systems
Pre-Columbian Maya Texts
• • •
• • •
The Maya Codices
• • •
The Maya Inscriptions
• • •
The Language of the Classic Maya Texts
• • •
THE STRUCTURE OF MAYAN LANGUAGES
• • •
THE STRUCTURE OF MAYAN LANGUAGES (continued)
• • •
CLASSIC MAYA TEXTS
• • •
Ancient Maya Writing
• • •
PIONEERS OF DECIPHERMENT
• • •
PIONEERS OF DECIPHERMENT [continued)
• • •
The Discovery of Maya History
• • •
• • •
• • •
The Discovery of Phoneticism in Maya Writing
Chapter 4 The Origins of Maya Civilization
The Chronology of Pre-Columbian Development
• •• •
• •• •
The Archaic: Origins off Highland and Coastal Cultural Traditions
• •• •
The Early Preclassic: Agriculture, Warfare, and Evidence of Complex Society
EARLY PRECLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
• •• •
Preclassic Developments on the Gulf Coast of Mexico
MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE
Preclassic Developments in Highland Mexico
• •• •
• •• •
ORIGINS OF CARVED MONUMENTS
Summary of Archaic and Early Preclassic Developments
Patterns in the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization
Chapter 5 The Emergence of Maya Civilization in the Middle Preclassic
The Emergence of Complex Societies
Markers of Complex Society
MIRRORS AND MOSAICS
MIDDLE PRECLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
MAYA SCULPTURE AND MONUMENTS
The Pacific Plain in the Middle Preclassic
LA BLANCA, GUATEMALA
Middle Preclassic Commodities and Monuments
CHALCHUAPA, EL SALVADOR
The Highlands in the Middle Preclassic
KAMINAUUYU, GUATEMALA
THE SALAMÁ VALLEY, GUATEMALA
The Lowlands in the Middle Preclassic
Middle Preclassic Communities
CUELLO, BELIZE
K'AXOB, BELIZE
The Rise of Complex Society in the Lowlands
NAKBE, GUATEMALA
BALL COURTS
Further Middle Preclassic Developments in the Lowlands
MASONRY ARCHITECTURE
Chapter 6 The Origins of Maya States in the Late Preclassic
Late Preclassic Maya Civilization and Writing Traditions
The Late Preclassic Isthmian Tradition
IZAPA, CHIAPAS, MEXICO
The Late Preclassic Southern Maya
EL UJUXTE, GUATEMALA
TAK'ALIK AB'AJ, GUATEMALA
CHOCOLA, GUATEMALA
Southern Maya Pottery and Monument Traditions
LATE PRECLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
Late Preclassic Rulers in the Southern Maya Area
Late Preclassic Civilization in the Southern Maya Area
Highland-Lowland Interaction in the Preclassic
The Maya Lowlands in the Late Preclassic
EL MIRADOR, GUATEMALA
EL MIRADOR, GUATEMALA (continued)
Regional Hegemony in the Central Lowlands
SAN BARTOLO, GUATEMALA
Late Preclassic Rulers in the Maya Lowlands
CERROS, BELIZE
Patterns of Late Preclassic Rulership
KOMCHEN, YUCATAN, MEXICO
Preclassic Developments in the Northern Lowlands
Late Preclassic Lowland Maya Civilization
Decline in the Terminal Preclassic
Summary: Reconstructing the Maya Preclassic
Chapter 7 The Expansion of Maya States in the Early Classic
The Early Classic and the Origins of Maya Civilization
• •
EARLY CLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
The Southern Maya Area in the Classic Period
• •
Early Classic Changes on the Pacific Coast
• •
Early Classic Changes in the Highlands
• •
Teotihuacan and the Maya
The End of Teotihuacan Contacts
• •
The Classic Transition in the Lowlands
• •
The Expansion of States in the Maya Lowlands
• •
Divine Kings and Royal Houses
Titles and Emblems of Royal Power
Competition and Warfare in the Classic Lowlands
• •
• •
The Early Classic in the Maya Lowlands
• •
TIKAL, GUATEMALA
• •
TIKAL, GUATEMALA (continued)
• •
The Rise off Tikal in the Early Classic (ca. 100-378)
• •
• •
Neighboring Centers in the Central Lowlands (ca. 328-416)
UAXACTUN, GUATEMALA
Strangers in the Lowlands (378-456)
• •
• •
• •
RÍO AZUL, GUATEMALA
• •
RÍO AZUL, GUATEMALA (continued)
Expansion into the Southeastern Area (406-37)
• •
COPAN, HONDURAS
• •
• •
Archaeology, History, and Copan's Dynastic Founding Era (ca. 400-470)
• •
• •
QUIRIGUA, GUATEMALA
QUIRIGUA, GUATEMALA (continued)
• •
CALAKMUL, CAMPECHE, MEXICO
• •
CALAKMUL, CAMPECHE, MEXICO (continued)
• •
The Rise of the Calakmul Dynasty (435-561 )
• •
The Calakmul-Caracol Alliance
• •
Prosperity and Problems at Tikal (458-562)
• •
CARACOL, BELIZE
• •
The Defeat of Tikal (562)
• •
• •
Summary: The Early Classic States of the Maya Lowlands
BECAN, CAMPECHE, MEXICO
• •
BECAN, CAMPECHE, MEXICO (continued)
• •
NAKUM, GUATEMALA
YAXHA, GUATEMALA
Chapter 8 The Apogee of Maya States in the Late Classic
• • •
LATE CLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
Ascendancy of Calakmul (562-695)
• • •
NARANJO, GUATEMALA
• • •
• • •
• • •
Confrontation in the Petexbatun
• • •
• • •
• • •
DOS PILAS, GUATEMALA
• • •
• • •
The Resurgence of Tikal (682-768)
• • •
• • •
Defeat of Calakmul (695)
• • •
• • •
Breaking of the Calakmul Alliance
• • •
Rise and Fall of the Petexbatun Kingdom (682-802)
• • •
AGUATECA, GUATEMALA
• • •
ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS, GUATEMALA
• • •
• • •
The End of the Calakmul Dynasty (695-909)
• • •
Recovery and Decline at Caracol (798-859)
• • •
The End of the Tikal Dynasty (768-869)
• • •
Expansion of the Usumacinta Polities
Birth and Rebirth of the Piedras Negras Dynasty
• • •
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, GUATEMALA
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
History and Propaganda at Yaxchilan
• • •
• • •
• • •
YAXCHILAN, CHIAPAS, MEXICO
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
BONAMPAK, CHIAPAS, MEXICO
• • •
BONAMPAK, CHIAPAS, MEXICO (continued)
• • •
Expansion of the Western Polities
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO (confinued)
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO (continued)
• • •
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO (continued)
• • •
Apogee and Defeat at Palenque
• • •
TONINA, CHIAPAS, MEXICO
• • •
• • •
Expansion of the Southeastern Polities
Growth and Prosperity at Copan
• • •
• • •
A Tale of Two Cities
• • •
Revitalization and Decline at Copan
• • •
• • •
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY (confirmed)
• • •
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY (continued)
The Last Days of Quirigua
• • •
Summary: Development of States in the Late Classic Lowlands
• • •
• • •
Chapter 9 Transformations in the Terminal Classic
Decline in the Classic Heartland
TERMINAL CLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
Patterns of Change
The Collapse Issue
The Downfall of Classic Maya States
Explanations for the End of Classic Maya States
Theories Emphasizing Catastrophic Events
Theories Emphasizing Problems Within Maya Society
Theories Emphasizing Foreign Intervention
Theories Emphasizing Environmental Changes
A Scenario for the Downfall of Classic Maya States
Overpopulation
Warfare
Drought
XUNANTUNICH, BELIZE
The Breakup of Classic Polities
Abandonment and Migration
Survival and Revival of Classic Enclaves
SEIBAL, GUATEMALA
Transformation in the Terminal Classic
The Fate of Divine Kings
The New Lowland Economy
The New Power Brokers
The Transitional Regional Traditions
Polities in Northwestern Yucatan
The Puuc Region
UXMAL, YUCATAN, MEXICO
UXMAL, YUCATAN, MEXICO (continued)
KABAH, YUCATAN, MEXICO
SAYIL, YUCATAN, MEXICO
DZIBILCHALTUN, YUCATAN, MEXICO
Polities in Northeastern Yucatan
COBA, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO
CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO
CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO (continued)
CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO (continued)
CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO (continued)
METALWORK
The Itza State
The Cult of K'uk'ulkan
Changes in the Southern Maya Area
Summary: Culmination and Transition in the Terminal Classic
Chapter 10 Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic
POSTCLASSIC MAYA POTTERY
The Downfall of Chichen Itza
The Rise of Mayapan
MAYAPAN, YUCATAN, MEXICO
MAYAPAN, YUCATAN, MEXICO (continued)
The Mayapan State
The Fall of Mayapan and the Rise of Petty States
The East Coast of Yucatan
TULUM, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO
TULUM, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO (continued)
SANTA RITA COROZAL, BELIZE
The Southern Maya Area in the Postclassic
THE MYTHICAL CITY OF TOLLAN
Summary: Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic
Overview: Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization
Chapter 11 The Ancient Maya Economy
The Political Economy
The Social Economy
Mobilization of Labor
Ancient Maya Subsistence
Hunting and Gathering
Animal Husbandry
Extensive Agriculture
THE SWIDDEN HYPOTHESIS
Intensive Agriculture
Production of Goods
COLHA, BELIZE
COLHA, BELIZE [continued)
Distribution of Goods
The Importance of Trade
Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Long-Distance Trade
Chapter 12 The Organization of Society
RECONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL LANDSCAPE
• •
Maya Society in the Pre-Columbian Era
Personal Appearance
• •
• •
• •
Birth and Early Childhood
• •
Puberty
• •
Life and Death
• •
Marriage and the Family
• •
Ancient Maya Households
• •
CERÉN, EL SALVADOR
• •
Settlement in the Maya Lowlands
• •
• •
• •
Chronological Control
Population Reconstructions
• •
• •
• •
• •
Social Stratification
• •
• •
Residential and Descent Groups
• •
• •
• •
Residential Groups and the House Model
• •
RECONSTRUCTING THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
Divine Kings and the Hierarchy of Power
• •
Hierarchy within Polities
• •
• •
• •
Hierarchy among Polities
• •
• •
• •
Maya Polities
Location and Power
• •
Size and Power
• •
Number and Size of Polities
• •
• •
Cycles of Growth and Decline
• •
MAYA SOCIETY IN POSTCLASSIC YUCATAN
• •
MAYA SOCIETY IN POSTCLASSIC YUCATAN (continued)
MAYA SOCIETY IN POSTCLASSIC YUCATAN (continued)
State Organizational Models
• •
• •
• •
The Basis of Political Power
• •
• •
• •
MAYA SOCIETY IN THE POSTCLASSIC HIGHLANDS
• •
MAYA SOCIETY IN THE POSTCLASSIC HIGHLANDS (continued)
Chapter 13 Maya Ideology and Religion
• • •
Origins of Maya Ideology
• • •
• • •
Transformations by Outsiders
• • •
• • •
Cosmology
• • •
Creation Myths
• • •
• • •
The Maya Universe
• • •
• • •
Afterlife and Ancestors
• • •
• • •
• • •
Maya Deities
• • •
Itzamnaaj, the Creator Deity (Schellhas God D)
Chaak, the Rain and Storm Deity (Schellhas God B)
• • •
K’inich Ajaw, or Ajaw K’in, the Sun Deity (Schellhas God G)
K’awiil, the Lightning Deity (Schellhas God K)
Hun Hunapu, the Maize Deity (Schellhas God E)
• • •
Kimi, the Death Deity (Schellhas God A)
Ek Chuaj, a Merchant Deity (Schellhas God M)
Chaak Chel, or lx Chel, the Rainbow Deity
• • •
Pauahtun or Bakab, the Skybearer (Schellhas God N)
K’uk’ulcan, the Feathered Serpent
The Underworld Deity (Schellhas God L)
The Moon Goddess
Local Patron Deities
• • •
Other Deities
• • •
Rituals and Ceremonies
• • •
Royal Rituals of the Classic Period
Rituals of the Postclassic and Conquest Period
• • •
• • •
Divination and Altered Consciousness
• • •
Human Sacrifice
• • •
• • •
• • •
The Thirteen K’atun Endings
• • •
Other Calendrical Ceremonies
The Ideological Foundations of Maya Civilization
Epilogue: The Conquest of the Maya
First Contacts, 1502-25
The Francisco Hernández de Córdoba Expedition, 1517
The Juan de Grijalva Expedition, 1518
The Hernán Cortés Expedition, 1519
The Cortés Expedition through the Maya Lowlands, 1524-25
The Period of Conquest, 1524-1697
The Subjugation of the Southern Maya by Pedro de Alvarado, 1524-27
The Subjugation of Yucatan by the Montejos, 1527-46
First Phase: An Attempt from the East, 1527-28
First Interval, 1528-31
Second Phase: An Attempt from the West, 1531-35
Second Interval, 1535-40
Third Phase: Conquest Completed1540-46
The Independent Itza, 1525-1696
The Subjugation of the Itza, 1696-97
Appendix: Correlation of Maya Long Count Dates
Bibliographic Summaries
Introduction
Chapter 13: Maya Ideology and Religion
Bibliography
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Color Plates
Index
Recommend Papers
![The Ancient Maya [6 ed.]
0804748160, 9780804748162](https://ebin.pub/img/200x200/the-ancient-maya-6nbsped-0804748160-9780804748162.jpg)
- Author / Uploaded
- Robert J. Sharer
- Loa P. Traxler
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
T H E A N C I E N T MA Y A
SI XTH
THE
EDITION
A N C I E N T MAYA
R obert J. Sharer w ith
Loa P. Traxler
STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Stanford, California 200 6
Stanford University Press Stanford, California The first edition of this book, by Sylvanus G. Morley, was published in 1946; the second, with revisions by Morley, in 1947. The third edition, published in 1956, was prepared after Morley’s death by George W. Brainerd, except for the final chapter, which was written after Brainerd’s death by his editorial assis tant, Betty Bell. The fourth and fifth editions, prepared by Robert J. Sharer and published in 1983 and 1994, respectively, preserved much of the Morley-Brainerd text while adding considerable results of re search and reinterpretation then available. The present edition, prepared by Robert J. Sharer with Loa P. Traxler, is a thoroughly rewritten and much expanded treatment based on the advance of knowledge achieved in the years since the fifth edition was prepared. © 1946,1947,1956,1983, 1994, 2006 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univer sity. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me chanical, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system with out the prior written permission of Stanford University Press. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper Library of Congress Catalogmg-m-Publication Data
Sharer, Robert J. The ancient Maya.— 6th ed. / Robert J. Sharer with Loa P. Traxler. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8047-4816-0 (cloth : alk. paper)— isbn 0-8047-4817-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
i. Mayas. 2. Mayas—Antiquities. I. Traxler, Loa P. EL Title.
3. Mexico—Antiquities.
4. Central America—Antiquities.
F1435.S53 2006 972.8 i /o i 6 — dc22
2005003043 Designed by Gordon Chun Typeset by G 6c S Book Services in 10/13 Sabon Original Printing 2006 Last figure below indicates year of this printing: 15
14
13
12
ii
10
09
08
07
06
3 1223 07139 2923
CONTENTS xii
List o f Tables
xiii
List o f Figures
xxiii
List o f Boxes
xxvi
List o f Color Plates
xxvii
Preface
xxxi
Acknowledgments
xxxiii
i 4
A Note on Names and Pronunciation
INTRODUCTION Discovery and Conquest by Europeans
6
The Fate of the Maya Heritage
7
The Meaning of Maya Civilization
8 16 23 29 31
Foreign Domination and Rebirth of the Maya Heritage The Destruction of the Maya Heritage CHAPTER 1 The Setting of Maya Civilization Natural and Cultural Subdivisions of the Maya Area The Pacific Coastal Plain
34
The Highlands
41
The Lowlands
53
The Consequences of Ecological Diversity
57 57
CHAPTER 2 Archaeology and Maya Civilization Reconstructing the Past
60
Changing Perspectives on the Maya Past
71
Models of Past Societies
73
Development of Complex Society and Civilization
75
The Evolution of Civilizations
79
Understanding the Evolution of Maya Civilization
80
The Maya Economy
86
Maya Social and Political Systems
vi
CONTENTS
91
Maya Ideology and Religion
93
The Ancient Maya World
96
Elite and Nonelite Views of the Ancient Maya
98 99 99
Chronology CHAPTER 3 History and Maya Civilization Time and Maya History
100
Numerals
102
The Calendar
ii 6
Measuring the Cycles of Time
118
Recording the Cycles of Time
120
Sources of Maya History
123
The Maya Chronicles
125
Ancient Writing Systems
125
Pre-Columbian Maya Texts
134
Ancient Maya Writing
145
Milestones in Decipherment
147
Contributions to Understanding the Ancient Maya
152
History and Maya Civilization
153
CHAPTER 4 The Origins of Maya Civilization
153
The Chronology of Pre-Columbian Development
157
The Archaic: Origins of Highland and Coastal Cultural Traditions
160
The Early Preclassic: Agriculture, Warfare, and Evidence of Complex Society
164
Preclassic Developments on the Gulf Coast of Mexico
168
Preclassic Developments in Highland Mexico
173
Summary of Archaic and Early Preclassic Developments
174
Patterns in the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization
177
CHAPTER 5 The Emergence of Maya Civilization in the Middle Preclassic
178
The Emergence of Complex Societies
179
Markers of Complex Societies
CONTENTS
185
The Pacific Plain in the Middle Preclassic
190
Middle Preclassic Commodities and Monuments
194
The Highlands in the Middle Preclassic
201
The Lowlands in the Middle Preclassic
202
Middle Preclassic Communities
207
The Rise of Complex Society in the Lowlands
214
Further Middle Preclassic Developments in the Lowlands
219
Summary: The Middle Preclassic Precursors of Maya Civilization
223
CHAPTER 6 The Origins of Maya States in the Late Preclassic
223
Late Preclassic Maya Civilization and Writing Traditions
225
The Late Preclassic Isthmian Tradition
231
The Late Preclassic Southern Maya
251
Highland-Lowland Interaction in the Preclassic
251
The Maya Lowlands in the Late Preclassic
269
Patterns of Late Preclassic Rulership
276
Preclassic Developments in the Northern Lowlands
278
Late Preclassic Lowland Maya Civilization
279
Decline in the Terminal Preclassic
284
Summary: Reconstructing the Maya Preclassic
287
CHAPTER 7 The Expansion of Maya States in the Early Classic
287
The Early Classic and the Origins of Maya Civilization
288
The Southern Maya Area in the Classic Period
294
The Classic Transition in the Lowlands
295
The Expansion of States in the Maya Lowlands
299
Competition and Warfare in the Classic Lowlands
301
The Early Classic in the Maya Lowlands
310
The Rise of Tikal in the Early Classic (ca. 100-378)
317
Neighboring Centers in the Central Lowlands (ca. 328-416)
VÜ
vin
CONTENTS
3*1
Strangers in the Lowlands (378-456)
333
Expansion into the Southeastern Area (406-37)
34*
Archaeology, History, and Copan’s Dynastic Founding (ca. 400-470)
351
The Founder of Quirigua
358
The Rise of the Calakmul Dynasty (435-561)
361
The Calakmul-Caracol Alliance
362
Prosperity and Problems at Tikal (458-562)
369
The Defeat of Tikal (562)
371
Summary: The Early Classic States of the Maya Lowlands
377
CHAPTER 8 The Apogee of M aya States in the Late Classic
379 390
Ascendancy of Calakmul (562-695) The Resurgence of Tikal (682-768)
403
Rise and Fall of the Petexbatun Kingdom (682-802)
413
The End of the Calakmul Dynasty (695-909)
415
Recovery and Decline at Caracol (798-859)
417 411
The End of the Tikal Dynasty (768-869)
451 476
Expansion of the Western Polities
495
Summary: Development of States in the Late Classic Lowlands
499
Expansion of the Usumacinta Polities
Expansion of the Southeastern Polities
CHAPTER 9 Transform ations in the Terminal Classic
499
Decline in the Classic Heartland
503
The Downfall of Classic Maya States
505
Explanations for the End of Maya States
513 520
A Scenario for the Downfall of Classic Maya States
5*5
Transformation in the Terminal Classic
5*9
The Transitional Regional Traditions
531
The Rise of the Northern Lowland Polities
Survival and Revival of Classic Enclaves
CONTENTS
532.
Polities in Northwestern Yucatan
554
Polities in Northeastern Yucatan
55«
The Rise of Chichen Itza
570
The Itza Economy
580
The Itza State
S8 i
The Cult of K’uk’ulkan
î«3
Changes in the Southern Maya Area
î8 j
Summary: Culmination and Transition in the Terminal Classic
589
CHAPTER 10 Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic
591
The Downfall of Chichen Itza
592
The Rise of Mayapan
6OI
The Mayapan State
6O3
The Fall of Mayapan and the Rise of Petty States
604
The East Coast of Yucatan
613
Revival of Fortunes in the Central Lowlands
618
The Southern Maya Area in the Postclassic
626
Summary: Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic
628
Overview: Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization
63I
CHAPTER 11 The Ancient Maya Economy
632
The Political Economy
635
The Social Economy
636
Mobilization of Labor
637
Ancient Maya Subsistence
648
Reconstructing the Patterns of Subsistence
65I
Production of Goods
657
Distribution of Goods
66O
The Importance of Trade
661
Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Long-Distance Trade
ÍX
X
CONTENTS
665
CHAPTER 12 The Organization of Maya Society
665
Reconstructing the Social Landscape
666
Maya Society in the Pre-Columbian Era
675
Marriage and the Family
677
Ancient Maya Households
682
Settlement in the Maya Lowlands
690
Social Stratification
692
Residential and Descent Groups
695
Residential Groups and the House Model
696
Reconstructing the Political Landscape
696
Divine Kings and the Hierarchy of Power
703
Maya Polities
708
Cycles of Growth and Decline
711
State Organizational Models
714
The Basis of Political Power
719
CHAPTER 13 Maya Ideology and Religion
719
Maya World View
720
Origins of Maya Ideology
722
Transformations by Outsiders
726
Cosmology
735
Maya Deities
745
Rituals and Ceremonies
747
Royal Rituals of the Classic Period
748
Rituals of the Postclassic and Conquest Periods
755
The Ideological Foundations of Maya Civilization
757
EPILOGUE The Conquest of the Maya
758
First Contacts, 1502-25
762
The Period of Conquest, 1524-1697
763
The Subjugation of the Southern Maya by Pedro de Alvarado, 1524-27
766
The Subjugation of Yucatan by the Montejos, 1527-46
CONTENTS
77 2.
The Independent Itza, 1525-1696
776
The Subjugation of the Itza, 1696-97
779
APPENDIX Dates for K’atun and Half-K’atun Endings
785
Bibliographie Summaries
811
Bibliography
889
Illustration Credits
893
Index
XI
TABLES 2.1 2.2 3. i 3.2 7. i 7.2 7.3 7.4 8. i 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 10. i 11. i 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 12 .1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 E. i A. i
Chiefdoms and States 73 Pre-Columbian Chronological Periods in the Maya Area 98 Yukatek Mayan Sounds and Transcriptions 124 Names of Maya Rulers 149 Dynastic Chronology of Tikal 311 Dynastic Chronology of Copan 336 Dynastic Chronology of Calakmul 360 Dynastic Chronology of Caracol 365 Dynastic Chronology of Naranjo 382 Dynastic Chronology of Dos Pilas 384 Dynastic Chronology of Piedras Negras 422 Dynastic Chronology of Yaxchilan 433 Dynastic Chronology of Palenque 459 Dynastic Chronology of Tonina 474 Dynastic Chronology of Quirigua 483 Dynastic History of the Postclassic K’iche Maya 626 Common Wild-Animal Resources 639 Common Plant Cultigens 640 Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowland Economy 653 Distribution Modes in the Maya Lowland Economy 658 Principal Trade Goods from the Maya Area 662 Goods Traded to or through the Maya Area 663 Density of Structures (Selected Lowland Sites) 686 Densities of Late Classic Structures (Selected Lowland Sites and Rural Areas) 687 Population Estimates (Selected Lowland Sites and Rural Areas) 688 Relative Population Sizes by Eras (Selected Lowland Sites) 689 Relative Population Sizes by Eras (Selected Rural Areas) 690 Summary of Events of the Spanish Conquest Period 758 Correlation of Maya and Gregorian Chronologies 780
FIGURES Frontispiece: Maize god, Copan
INTRODUCTION
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11
1. 12
Principal buildings of Tikal, Guatemala 2 Temple IV, tallest structure at Tikal 2 Archaeologists excavating at Tikal and Tancah, Quintana Roo, M exico 3 Weaving with the backstrap loom, Huehuetenango, Guatemala 9 M odem market at Chichicastenango, El Quiché, Guatemala 10 Portraits of Lacandon Maya from Chiapas, M exico 12 Portraits of Yukatek Maya from Quintana Roo 13 Portraits of Yukatek, K’iche, and Mam Maya 14 Portraits of Tzotzil Maya from Chiapas 15 Maya teachers in the classroom 16 Destruction wrought by looting at Naachtun, Guatemala 18 Desecration of Stela 1 at Jimbal, Guatemala, by looters 19
CHAPTER 1 The Setting 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 i . 11
Map of the Maya area 24 Map of Mayan languages 25 Subgrouping of Mayan languages 27 Map of surface elevations in the Maya area 29 Map of Mean annual temperatures in Maya area 30 Map of mean annual rainfall in the Maya area 31 Pacific Coast mangrove growth 32 Southern highlands: Agua volcano 36 Southern highlands: house buried by volcanic ash 38 Northern highlands: view of the Salamá Valley 40 Southern lowlands: forest and Usumacinta River 43
i . 12 1.13 i . 14 i . 15 i . 16 1.17
Central lowlands: tropical forest 47 Central lowlands: Lake Peten Itza 48 Central lowlands: savanna 4 8 Northern lowlands: low forest 49 Northern lowlands: low hills 5 o Northern lowlands: cenote 52
CHAPTER 2 Archaeology and Maya Civilization 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Analysis of Maya pottery from Copan 60 Drawing of Jaguar Throne at Palenque from del Rio 1822 62 Alfred Maudslay’s research at Copan 63 Tikal Project multidisciplinary research supplied by aircraft 63 Contemporary archaeological excavations 66
CHAPTER 3 History and Maya Civilization 3. i 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20
Glyphs for completion (“zero” ) and numbers 100 Examples of positional mathematics 101 Glyphs for the Maya time periods 103 Glyphs for the Maya days 105 Glyphs for the Maya months 106 Diagram of the 260-day almanac and solar year 108 The Mesoamerican 52-year period 109 Example of a Maya Long Count date i n Maya period-ending date 113 K’atun wheel, after Landa 115 Astronomical alignment at Copan, Honduras 119 Astronomical observations from the Mexican codices 120 Recording Maya history (codex and scribe) 121 Maya “zodiac” from the Paris Codex 122 Almanacs from the Madrid Codex 128 Maya glyphs with historical meaning 134 Emblem glyph affixes and main signs 138 Title glyphs for elite women 140 The Landa “alphabet” 142 A syllabary of Maya phonetic glyphs 143
FIGURES
3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25
Syllabic spellings and complements 145 Glyphs for way (spirit companion) 147 Postclassic direction and color glyphs 148 Title glyphs for Maya rulers and secondary lords 150 Translation by Simon Martin of Seibal Stela 10 text 151
CHAPTER 4 The Origins of Maya Civilization 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Early chipped-stone tools from Belize 159 Early Preclassic pottery from Copan, Honduras Middle Preclassic house remains at La Venta, Mexico 166 Monument 12, Chalchuapa, El Salvador 169 Monument 3, San José Mogote, Oaxaca, M exico 172
162
CHAPTER 5 The Emergence of Maya Civilization in the Middle Classic 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16
Stela i i , Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala 184 Map of La Blanca, Guatemala 187 Mound i , La Blanca 188 Monument 1, La Blanca 188 Map of El Ujuxte, Guatemala 189 Monument 1, Tak’alik Ab’aj, Guatemala 192 Map of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala 196 Monument 65, Kaminaljuyu 198 Excavation of Monument 1, El Portón, Guatemala 199 Tomb at Los Mángales, Guatemala 200 Middle Preclassic platforms at Cuello, Belize 204 House platforms and subfloor burials, K’axob, Belize 205 Structure B i stratigraphic section, Blackman Eddy, Belize 207 Middle Preclassic houses at Blackman Eddy, Belize 208 Middle Preclassic stages of Str. B i, Blackman Eddy, Belize 209 Map of Nakbe, Guatemala 211
XV
5-17 5.18 5.19
Stela i , Nakbe, Guatemala 212 Cross sections of Maya corbelled vaults Plans of Maya structures 217
216
CHAPTER 6 Origin of States in the Late Preclassic 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6 .11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30
Stela i , La Mojarra, Veracruz, M exico 226 Tuxtla Statuette 227 Fragment of Stela C, Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, M exico 228 Map of Izapa, Chiapas, M exico 229 Stela 21, Izapa 230 View of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala 231 Stela 10, Kaminaljuyu 233 Structure E-III-3 tomb, Kaminaljuyu 234 Stela 2, Tak’alik Ab’aj 237 Stela 5, Tak’alik Abaj 238 Map of Chocola, Guatemala 240 Monument 1, Chocola 241 Fragmentary sculpture of bound captive, Chocola 242 Monument 1, Chalchuapa, El Salvador 243 Monument 16, Salamá Valley, Guatemala 246 Late Preclassic “pot belly” sculptures 247 Stela i , El Baúl, Guatemala 248 Map of Western Group at El Mirador, Guatemala 254 El Tigre Group, El Mirador 255 Structure 34, El Mirador 256 Stela 2, El Mirador 257 Drawing of Str. N i 0-43, Lamanai, Belize 258 Cave sculpture at Loltun, Yucatan, M exico 260 Map of San Bartolo, Guatemala 264 Tunnel section of San Bartolo Str. 1 264 Map of Cerros, Belize 266 S t r u c t u r e - 2nd, Cerros 268 Late Preclassic texts from Kichpanha and Pomona, Belize 270 Structure E-VH & E-VII-sub, Uaxactun, Guatemala 271 Structure E-VII-sub masks, Uaxactun 272
FIGURES
6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37
H Group mask, Uaxactun 273 Mirador Group platforms, Dzibilchaltun, Yucatán, M exico 276 Structure. 450, Komchen, Yucatán, Mexico 277 Structure 500, Komchen 278 Caldera of Ilopango, El Salvador 280 Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan, Mexico 282 Early Classic Teotihuacan-style pottery 283
CHAPTER 7 The Expansion of Maya States in the Early Classic 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7 .11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.27 7.28 7.29 7.30
Map of Tikal, Guatemala 306 Aerial view of Tikal 307 North Acropolis trench, Tikal 307 North Acropolis section, Tikal 308 North Acropolis Str. 5D-22, Tikal 309 Stela 29, Tikal 314 Stela 39, Tikal 315 Stela 26, Tikal 316 Central Acropolis plan, Tikal 318 Stela 9, Uaxactun, Guatemala 319 Group E, Uaxactun 321 Stela 5, Uaxactun 323 Structure B-XIII mural, Uaxactun 324 Map of Río Azul, Guatemala 328 Tomb i mural, Str. C -i, Río Azul 329 Stela 4, Tikal 330 Stela 31, Tikal 331 Burial 48, Tikal 332 Map of Copan, Honduras 334 Stratigraphic section of Copan Acropolis 335 Altar Q, Copan 341 Hieroglyphic Stairway, Copan 343 Hunal Structure, Copan 344 M otmot Marker, Copan 345 Hunal Tomb, Copan 345 Copan Hunal Tomb Vessels 346 Hunal Tomb shell mosaic, Copan 347 Margarita Tomb, Copan 350 Sub-Jaguar Tomb, Copan 351 Zoomorph P, Quirigua, Guatemala 354
XVII
7-31 7.32 7.33 7.34 7.35 7.36 7.37 7.38 7.39
Monument 26, Quirigua 355 Map of Calakmul, Campeche, M exico 359 Map of Caracol, Belize 362 Altar 21, Caracol 363 Caana Complex, Caracol 3 67 Stela 9, Tikal 368 Stela 23, Tikal 369 Stela 17, Tikal 370 Aerial view of Becan, Campeche, M exico 372
CHAPTER 8 The Apogee in the Late Classic 8. i 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8 .11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24
Map of Dos Pilas 385 Stelae 24 and 22, Naranjo 388 Stela 30 and Altar 14, Tikal 392 Temple I lintel, Tikal 394 Stucco portrait of Jasaw Chan K’awiil and captive, Str. 5D-57, Tikal 395 Stela 16, Tikal 396 Section of Burial 116, Temple I, Tikal 397 Temple I, Tikal 398 Tomb of Jasaw Chan K’awiil, Temple I, Tikal 399 Temple IV lintels, Tikal 401 Stela 20, Tikal 404 Aguateca, Guatemala, view from escarpment 406 Dos Pilas, Guatemala, before and after its downfall 408 Map of Aguateca 410 Structure M 7-22 (storage room in situ), Aguateca 411 Structure M 8-4 plan of in situ materials, Aguateca 411 Structure M 8-4 mask in situ; flute and headband, Aguateca 412 Punta de Chimino, Guatemala 413 Stela 51, Calakmul 414 Stela 17, Caracol 416 Twin Pyramid Group 4E-4, Tikal 418 Stela 22 and Altar 10, Tikal 419 Temple III lintel, Tikal 420 Stelae from Piedras Negras, Guatemala 427
FIGURES
8.25 8.26 8.27 8.28 8.29 8.30 8.31 8.32 8.33 8.34 8.35 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.40 8.41 8.42 8.43 8.44 8.45 8.46 8.47 8.48 8.49 8.50 8.51 8.52 8.53 8.54 8.55 8.56 8.57 8.58
Wall Panel 3, Piedras Negras 429 Throne, Piedras Negras 430 Map of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico 432 Lintels 24, 25, and 26, Yaxchilan 437 Stela i i , Yaxchilan 441 Lintels i , 2, and 3, Yaxchilan 443 Lintel 8, Yaxchilan 446 Map of Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico 448 Structure i , Bonampak 451 Aerial view of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico 456 Map of central Palenque 457 Stucco panels, Palenque Palace 458 Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque 463 Tomb of Pakal, Palenque 464 Tomb of Pakal, sarcophagus, Palenque 465 Tomb of Pakal, sarcophagus lid, Palenque 4 66 Temple of the Sun, Palenque 467 Temple of the Cross interior shrine, Palenque 468 Temple of the Cross tablet, Palenque 469 Palace Tablet, Palenque 470 View of Tonina, Chiapas, Mexico 472 Stela 12, Tonina 473 Monument 122, Tonina 475 Stela P, Copan 477 Structure 10L-22, Copan 479 Stelae H and A, Copan 480 Ball Court, Copan 481 Great Plaza, Quirigua 484 Stela E, Quirigua 485 Structure 10L-22A, Copan 486 Structure i oL-18, Copan 490 Altar L, Copan 491 Structure B-4, Altun Ha, Belize 492 Jade head of K’inich Ajaw, Altun Ha 493
CHAPTER 9 Transformations in the Terminal Classic 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
Xunantunich, Belize; view of Str. A-6 Seibal round structure 521 Stela 19, Seibal 522 Structure A-3, Seibal 523
518
XIX
XX
FI GURES
9.5 9.6
9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9 .11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.31 9.32 9.33 9.34 9.35 9.36 9.37 9.38 9.39 9.40 9.41 9.42 9.43
Stela iOj Seibal 524 View of Str. 1, Xpuhil, Campeche, M exico 530 View of Str. n , Chicanna, Campeche, M exico 5 3 1 Palace at Edzna, Campeche, M exico 533 Palace arch, Labna, Yucatan, M exico 535 Map of Uxmal, Yucatan, M exico 538 Stela 14, Uxmal 539 Aerial view of Uxmal 540 Palace of the Governors, Uxmal 540 Nunnery Quadrangle, Uxmal 541 Adivino, Uxmal 542 Palace of Masks, Kabah, Yucatan, M exico, 543 Doorjams, Kabah 543 Causeway arch, Kabah 544 Map of Sayil, Yucatan, M exico 547 Excavation of domestic structure, Sayil 548 Map of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, M exico 551 Central Group, Dzibilchaltun 552 Temple of the Seven Dolls, Dzibilchaltun 553 Aerial view, Coba, Quintana Roo, M exico 555 N ohoch Muí, Coba 557 Sacbe (causeway). Coba 558 Structure 1, Ek Balam, Yucatan, M exico 559 Aerial view of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, M exico 560 Map of Chichen Itza 561 Las Monjas Group, Chichen Itza 562 The Caracol at Chichen Itza 564 Plan of the Caracol, Chichen Itza 564 El Castillo, Chichen Itza 566 Red Jaguar Throne, Chichen Itza 567 Great Ball Court and Temple of Jaguars, Chichen Itza 568 Temple of the Jaguars mural, Chichen Itza 568 Tzompantli (skull rack), Chichen Itza 570 Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza 571 Temple of the Warriors mural, Chichen Itza 572 Turquoise mosaic, Chichen Itza 573 El Mercado, Chichen Itza 574 Sacred Cenote, Chichen Itza 575 Gold work from Chichen Itza 576
FIGURES
9.44 9.45 9.46
Motifs from gold disks from Chichen Itza 578 Aerial view of Isla Cerritos, Yucatan, Mexico 579 Monument 3, Bilbao, Guatemala 584
CHAPTER 10 Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18
Map of Mayapan, Yucatan, M exico 593 Map of Central Mayapan 596 Mayapan Castillo 597 Mayapan Round Temple 599 Mayapan-style effigy incensario 600 Map of island of Cozumel 606 Tulum, view from the north 607 Structure 16 mural, Tulum 608 El Castillo, Tulum (after Catherwood) 611 El Castillo and Str. 5, Tulum 612 Structure 5 mural, Tulum 613 View of Str. 45, Tulum 614 Mural from Santa Rita Corozal, Belize 616 Site of Zaculeu, Guatemala 621 Map of Utatlan, Guatemala 622 Temple of Awilix, Utatlan 623 Structure 3, Iximche, Guatemala 624 Site of Mixcu Viejo, Guatemala 625
CHAPTER 11 The Ancient Maya Economy 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9
Sowing maize, from the Madrid Codex 641 Preserved Late Classic maize field, Cerén, El Salvador 642 Map of agricultural terraces at Caracol, Belize 644 Aerial view of canal system, Edzna 646 View of relic raised fields, Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize 648 Dry-season excavations at Pulltrouser Swamp 649 Aerial view of relic raised fields, Pulltrouser Swamp 650 Aerial view of relic raised fields, Rio Candelaria 650 Aerial view of Xtampul salt pans, Dzemul, Yucatan, M exico 652
xxi
CHAPTER 12 The Organization of Maya Society 12. i Ancient Maya clothing: male loincloths 667 12.2 Ancient Maya clothing: sandals 668 12.3 Modern Maya huipils 670 12.4 Late Classic burial practice: Uaxactun Str. A -i 674 12.5 Maya house mound at Sayil, Yucatan,M exico 678 12.6 Ancient Maya residential group east of Xpuhil, Campeche, M exico 679 12.7 Map of Cerén, El Salvador 681 12.8 Reconstruction of Household 1, Cerén 681 12.9 Schematic plans of Maya settlement units 6 82 12.10 Map of Caracol causeway system 706 CHAPTER 13 Maya Ideology and Religion 13 .1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13 .11
Scenes of human sacrifice 724 Ritual burning of copal by the Lacandon Maya 725 Maya deities governing the world, from the codices 727 Maya deities depicted in Postclassic codices 730 Maya deities depicted on Classic pottery vessels 737 Scepters and other regalia 740 Classic eccentric chipped flints from Copan 741 Tikal incised bone from tomb of Jasaw Chan K’awiil 744 Bloodletting rituals, from Madrid Codex 747 Sacrificial knife from Chichen Itza 753 Graffiti from Tikal Temple II 753
BOXES CHAPTER 1 The Setting of Maya Civilization Origin of Mayan Languages 2 6 The Original Maya Homeland 28 Cacao 33 Stone Tools 37 Jade 39 Feathers 41 Eccentric Flints 45 Textiles 51 CHAPTER 2 Archaeology and Maya Civilization Pottery and Archaeology 61 Maya Archaeological Projects Archaeology at Copan 68 Archaeology at Chichen Itza Archaeology at Uaxactun 78 Archaeology at Kaminaljuyu Archaeology at Tikal 87 Archaeology at Mayapan 92 Archaeology at Barton Ramie
64 74 83
95
CHAPTER 3 History and Maya Civilization Year Bearers 109 Correlation of the Maya Calendar 114 Mayan Dictionaries and Literature 121 The Structure of Mayan Languages 131 Classic Maya Texts 133 Pioneers of Decipherment 135 CHAPTER 4 The Origins of Maya Civilization Early Preclassic Maya Pottery 161 Monumental Architecture 167 Origins of Carved Monuments 171
CHAPTER 5 The Emergence of Maya Civilization in the Middle Preclassic Mirrors and Mosaics 180 Middle Preclassic Maya Pottery 18 1 Maya Sculpture and Monuments 183 La Blanca, Guatemala 186 Chalchuapa, El Salvador 193 Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala 195 Salamá Valley, Guatemala 197 Cuello, Belize 203 K’axob, Belize 206 Nakbe, Guatemala 210 Ball Courts 214 Masonry Architecture 215 CHAPTER 6 The Origins of Maya States in the Late Preclassic Izapa, Chiapas, M exico 230 El Ujuxte, Guatemala 236 Tak’alik Ab’aj, Guatemala 239 Chocola, Guatemala 242 Late Preclassic Maya Pottery 244 El Mirador, Guatemala 252 San Bartolo, Guatemala 262 Cerros, Belize 265 Körnchen, Yucatan, M exico 275 CHAPTER 7 The Expansion of Maya States in the Early Classic Early Classic Maya Pottery 288 Tikal, Guatemala 302 Uaxactun, Guatemala 3 20 Río Azul, Guatemala 326 Copan, Honduras 339 Quirigua, Guatemala 352 Calakmul, Campeche, M exico 356 Caracol, Belize 364 Becan, Campeche, M exico 372 Nakum, Guatemala 374 Yaxha, Guatemala 375
CHAPTER 8 The Apogee of Maya States in the Late Classic Late Classic Maya Pottery 378 Naranjo, Guatemala 380 Dos Pilas, Guatemala 386 Aguateca, Guatemala 405 Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala 407 Piedras Negras, Guatemala 424 Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico 435 Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico 449 Palenque, Chiapas, M exico 452 Tonina, Chiapas, Mexico 471 Cities without History 492 CHAPTER 9 Transformations in the Terminal Classic Terminal Classic Maya Pottery 501 Xunantunich, Belize 516 Seibal, Guatemala 520 Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico 536 Kabah, Yucatan, Mexico 545 Sayil, Yucatan, M exico 546 Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, M exico 550 Coba, Quintana Roo, M exico 556 Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico 562 Metalwork 5 76 CHAPTER 10 Reformulation and Revival in the Postclassic Postclassic Maya Pottery 590 Mayapan, Yucatan, M exico 594 Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico 609 Santa Rita Corozal, Belize 615 The Mythical City of Tollan 620 CHAPTER 11 The Ancient Maya Economy The Swidden Hypothesis Colha, Belize 654
641
CHAPTER 12 The Organization of Maya Society Cerén, El Salvador 680 Maya Society in Postclassic Yucatan 709 Maya Society in the Postclassic Highlands
717
COLOR PLATES Following page 476
I 2
3 4 5 6
7 8
9 10, i i
1 2 , 13
I
4> 15
16
Jade objects from tombs excavated at Tikal Jade objects from Copan and Catherwood view of Uxmal Postclassic Maya book and Late Preclassic stucco mask Late Preclassic murals at San Bartolo Late Preclassic mural and Early Classic stucco mask Founding era architecture and vessel from Copan Early Classic architecture and vessels from Copan Objects from tombs excavated at Tikal and view of Palenque Late Classic ceramics Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 1) Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 2) Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 3) Terminal Classic architecture and mural
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION The foundation of our knowledge about the ancient Maya is provided by over a hun dred years of archaeological research that has excavated and recorded the remains of Maya civilization in eastern Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The results of archaeological research are supplemented by a variety of other disci plines, the richest of these being history. Most Maya hieroglyphic texts, once thought to contain only esoteric formulae and dates, have been deciphered by epigraphers, re vealing a wealth of new information about Maya kings and queens, their claims to power, supernatural patrons, alliances, wars, triumphs, and defeats. These ancient Maya accounts are extended by ethnohistory and its study of books and documents by and about the Maya. A handful of pre-Columbian Maya books have survived, and many documents remain from the era of the Spanish Conquest. Some of these are native Maya accounts, such as the famous Popol Vuh from the Maya highlands, writ ten in K’iche Mayan recorded by European script. The nature of these written sources is summarized well by Sylvanus G. Morley, from his Preface to the first edition of this work: During the century (1 5 5 0 -1 6 5 0 ) following the Spanish Conquest, a number of native as well as Spanish writers carry on the story for us. Educated Maya who had been taught by the early Catholic missionaries to write their lan guage in the characters of the Spanish alphabet in order to facilitate their in struction in the Catholic faith set down brief summaries of their own ancient history, probably copied directly from their then still surviving historical manuscripts in the Maya hieroglyphic writing. In addition to the foregoing native sources, several of the early Franciscan Fathers have left admirable ac counts of the Maya as they were in the middle-sixteenth century, by far the most important being the contemporary narrative by Fray Diego de Landa, the second Bishop of Yucatan. His Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, written in 1566 . . . is [and remains today] unquestionably our leading authority on the ancient Maya. But most of the cities of the ancient Maya remained undiscovered, and almost nothing was known about their civilization. This began to change in the nineteenth century when the ancient Maya were rediscovered by both scholars and the general public. To continue with Morley’s account: In 1 8 3 9 -1 8 4 1 John Lloyd Stephens, the American traveler, diplomat, and amateur archaeologist, accompanied by Frederick Catherwood, an English artist, visited the Maya area twice and embodied his impressions thereupon in two outstanding works: Incidents o f Travel in Central America, Chiapas,
and Yucatan (1841) and Incidents o f Travel in Yucatan (1843). Both were il lustrated by Catherwood’s superb drawings; today . . . they still remain the most delightful books ever written about the Maya area. Stephens’ writings were chiefly responsible for bringing the great cities of the Maya civilization to the attention of the outside world. Before the publication of his two books, the very existence of these cities was unknown outside of Yucatan and northern Central America, but, after their appearance, knowledge of the Maya, who developed our greatest native American civilization, became general on both sides of the Atlantic. With Stephens also begins the period of the modern exploration of this region. In the years that followed, a series of travelers explored the more accessible Maya ruins, and many earlier accounts were rediscovered. The study of these documents provided the first useful information about the organization of ancient Maya society, about its customs, myths, and religion, and about its calendrical and writing systems. During the final years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century, the first formal archaeological investigations of Maya sites got under way. Quoting once again from Morley’s original Preface: Since Stephens’ time many scientific institutions as well as individual stu dents have been engaged in piecing together different parts of the Maya picture-puzzle. To mention all would expand this preface beyond reasonable limits, but the three most important should be noted: (1) the English ar chaeologist Sir Alfred P. Maudslay, the results of whose fifteen years of ex ploration in the Maya region (1881-1894) were published in the magnifi cent section on archaeology of the Biología Centrale Americana, the first scientific publication about the Maya civilization; (2) the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology of Harvard University, which, between 1888 and 1915, sent many expeditions to the Maya area under able leaders w ho have made many important contributions to our knowledge of the ancient Maya; (3) the Carnegie Institution of Washington, which [carried] on inten sive studies in the Maya field for [over] three decades. N o fewer than twentyfive annual expeditions under trained archaeologists have been sent to dif ferent parts of the Maya area, and a vast amount of new material in many fields— archaeology, ethnology, anthropometry, history, linguistics, agricul ture, botany, zoology, geography, medicine, and epidemiology— has been obtained. To this list one could add institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania M u seum, the Middle American Research Institute of Tulane University, and a host of universities in Latin America, the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, and other countries that have also sponsored Maya archaeological research. O f central impor-
PREFACE
tance to this research, and to efforts to preserve and protect Maya sites, are govern mental agencies within the modem nations that make up the Maya area, the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia in M exico (INAH), the Instituto de Antropología e Historia in Guatemala (IDAEH), the Department of Archaeology in Belize, and the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia in Honduras (IHAH). This book has its origins in the work of Sylvanus G. Morley, a pioneering Maya archaeologist and leading authority on Maya calendrical texts who worked for the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Long before most Maya ruins were accessible by air or even roads, Morley spent years on muleback trekking through the tropical for ested lowlands, discovering and recording dates on scores of Maya monuments. This resulted in two landmark publications still consulted by Maya scholars today, The Inscriptions at Copan and The Inscriptions o f the Feten. He also found time to di rect the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s excavations at Chichen Itza (1 9 2 4 -4 0 ). Near the end of his career Morley wrote the first comprehensive account of Maya civ ilization, The Ancient Maya , published in 1946; a second edition appeared the fol lowing year. The second edition quickly became a landmark in Maya studies. Nonetheless, the normal course of scientific progress and archaeological discovery soon rendered much of the work out of date. These new findings, arising most no tably from the investigations at Mayapan, the excavation of the famous tomb be neath the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, and the discovery of the Bonampak murals, provided the basis for a revision of Morley’s book by George W. Brainerd, of the University of California. This was published as the third edition of The Ancient Maya in 1956. The third edition of this work was one of the books that got me hooked on the Maya, even though by the time it was required reading for my first graduate course in Mesoamerican archaeology, taught by William R. Coe at the University of Penn sylvania, the 1956 edition was already out of date. For the very year the third edition was published, the University of Pennsylvania Museum launched the Tikal Project, one of the largest and most comprehensive investigations of its kind ever undertaken by N ew World archaeologists. Its findings revolutionized our understanding of Maya civilization. The Tikal Project was also part of a veritable explosion of archaeologi cal research in the Maya area sponsored by institutions from the United States, Eu rope, M exico, Guatemala, and elsewhere. Fortunately when the Penn program at Tikal ended in 1970, excavations continued under a succession of IDAEH sponsored programs. The second half of the twentieth century saw several dozen major archaeologi cal research programs undertaken throughout the Maya area, beginning with largescale projects at Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal, sponsored by the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, and at Dzibilchaltun, sponsored by the Middle American Re-
XXIX
XXX
PREFACE
search Institute of Tulane University. The results of this unprecedented growth in ar chaeological research increased our store of information about the ancient Maya many times over. N ot only did the volume of information increase, but beginning in the mid-1960s Maya research also began to benefit from the problem-oriented and more explicitly scientific research designs that were adopted by archaeologists. An especially critical advance in Maya studies, the decipherment of Maya texts, began to gather momentum in the 1970s. This work provided archaeologists with unprecedented information from hieroglyphic inscriptions, so that the Maya of the Classic period in particular began to emerge from the dim perspective of prehistory into the brighter light of recorded history. By the m id-1970s advances in both ar chaeology and epigraphy demonstrated that some basic premises about ancient Maya subsistence, the organization of Maya society, and the course of Maya history were incorrect. These changes made an even more thorough revision of M orley’s original work necessary. After Stanford University Press approached me to undertake this task, I began work on revising the Morley and Brainerd edition in 1980. The resulting fourth edition was published in 1983. Yet the pace of new research only increased during the 1980s, and by the end of the decade the 1983 edition had begun to show its age. Once again, a wealth of new data made it necessary to began work on a fur ther revision. Research and writing began in 1992, and the fifth edition was pub lished two years later (1994). Since the completion of the fifth edition the pace of Maya research has acceler ated further, and as a result I began work on another revision in 2002 to incorporate an unprecedented amount of new information about the ancient Maya. In preparing the sixth edition I have been joined by my wife and colleague in Maya archaeology, Loa Traxler, who has helped me complete the manuscript and illustrations and in countless ways transform a host of new data into a book that represents the most thorough revision of The Ancient Maya undertaken to date. Like its predecessors, the sixth edition remains anchored in M orley’s original vi sion to present a synthesis of information about the ancient Maya assembled in a single volume. But that information is vastly different from what Morley had at his fingertips over a half century ago. In fact, so much new information is now available that the treatment of the evolution of Maya civilization in this edition has been com pletely rewritten and now makes up well over half of the volume. Since the overall length of the book could not expánd beyond that of the fifth edition, a number of difficult choices had to be made as to what could or could not be included in the pres ent work. This meant that some topics and illustrations from earlier editions had to be dropped. In their stead we have included as much new information as possible, al though in most cases this represents only a sample of the vast pool of data that has been published in the last decade.
PREFACE
The sixth edition is organized into an Introduction, thirteen chapters, and an Epilogue. The Introduction contemplates the enduring saga of the Maya people past and present and urges an end to the widespread desecration of Maya archaeological sites by thieves and vandals. Chapter i describes the rich and varied environmental setting of Maya civilization. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss the archaeological and histor ical perspectives that illuminate our understanding of the ancient Maya. Following this, the book traces the multifaceted evolution of Maya civilization through the preColumbian era. This discussion spans some 2,500 years, beginning with the distant origins of complex society within Mesoamerica (Chapter 4), followed by more de tailed consideration of Maya civilization from its earliest manifestations to the end of the pre-Columbian era when the Maya world was shattered by the sixteenthcentury Spanish Conquest (Chapters 5 -1 0 ). Throughout these chapters we return to the factors involved in the growth and development of this extraordinary civilization. The book then turns to a more detailed discussion of these underlying factors, ac complished by chapters devoted to the ancient Maya economy (Chapter 11), social and political organization (Chapter 12), and ideology (Chapter 13). The book closes with a brief history of the first contacts with Europeans and the Spanish Conquest that followed (Epilogue). As with previous editions, all citations to relevant source materials are to be found in chapter-by-chapter bibliographic summaries at the end of the book and the Bibliography furnishes references to the published sources.
Acknowledgments As was the case with the previous editions, the present work could not have been completed without the invaluable assistance of colleagues, friends, and family. I am especially grateful to the School of Arts and Sciences, the University of Pennsylvania, for granting me a scholarly leave for the fall semester of 2003 so that I could devote more time to completing this book. My students and professional colleagues have continued to generously share with me the results of their research and their thoughts about the ancient Maya. While it is impossible to mention all the people and institu tions who have helped us in this endeavor, I will try to mention as many as I can of those w ho have provided direct and vital assistance. Several colleagues kindly agreed to take the time to read and comment on the book manuscript, and I want to personally thank professors Joyce Marcus of the Uni versity of Michigan, Jeremy Sabloff of the University of Pennsylvania, and Jason Yaeger of the University of Wisconsin for taking on this task; all offered many im portant suggestions that have been of considerable benefit to the final published work. In addition, a number of scholars have been equally generous in sharing their expertise in reviewing specific chapters, thus enriching the content of this book. In particular I wish to thank professors E. Wyllys Andrews of Tulane University, An-
XXXI
XXX11
PREFACE
thony P. Andrews of N ew College of Florida, Eleanor King of Howard University, Pa tricia McAnany of Boston University, and Simon Martin of the University of Penn sylvania Museum for their valuable comments and suggestions. Over the years many colleagues have generously provided photographs and drawings that have greatly enhanced previous editions of this work; as many of these materials have been retained in the sixth edition as possible. I am extremely grateful to the following colleagues who have continued the tradition and furnished new il lustrations for this edition: Ellen Bell, Edwin Barnhart, Arlen Chase, Diane Chase, Martha Cuevas Garcia, Arthur Demarest, Francisco Estrada-Belli, Barbara Fash, William Fash, James Garber, Kenneth Garrett, Norman Hammond, Heather Hurst, Takeshi Inomata, Jonathan Kaplan, Marion Poponoe de Hatch, Michael Love, Si mon Martin, Patricia McAnany, Susan Milbrath, Mary Miller, Carlos Peraza Lope, Jerry Sabloff, William Saturno, Payson Sheets, Juan Antonio Valdés, and Jason Yaeger. Several readers of the fifth edition have written me with suggestions that have been incorporated in this edition. I am indebted to all of these people, and to many others who have assisted me, directly and indirectly, for their assistance, which has made the sixth present edition possible. Any errors that remain in this work are my responsibility. Finally, I am once again especially grateful to the many people at Stan ford University Press who have guided this book through the final stages of produc tion and publication— Kate Wahl, Robert Ehle, Gordon Chun, and Judith H ib bard— as well as Leah McAleer and her team at G & S Book Services. R .J. S. Yax Kan H a’ East Jordan, Michigan
A NOTE ON NAMES, ORTHOGRAPHY, AND PRONUNCIATION In this book the term “M aya” is used as a noun to refer to the Maya people, ancient and m odern, and as an adjective, as in “ M aya books,” “Maya pottery,” or “Maya w riting.” W hen referring to languages, however, it is custom ary to use the term “M ayan,” as in “the M ayan languages.” The names of some M aya cities were recorded at the time of the Spanish Con quest, so that “ G lichen Itza” and “M ayapan” are original Maya names that are still used today. In the highlands, where the invading Spaniards were aided by armies from Central M exico, many Maya place-names were translated into N ahuatl, the language of these M exica or Aztec allies. As a result, Q ’um arkaj, the K’iche Maya capital, is usually know n as “U tatlan,” its N ahuatl name. M any earlier Maya cities had been abandoned by the time of the Conquest, so their names were not recorded by Europeans. W hen the ruins of theses cities were rediscovered, they were often given new Spanish or M ayan names, such as El M irador (“the lookout” ), Piedras N egras (“black stones” ), Tulum (“ ram p art” ), U axactun (“eight stone” ), or Tikal (probably from ti a k ’al, “at the w aterhole” ). Today, however, the original names of a num ber of ancient cities have been rediscovered by the decipherment of Maya texts. As a result, we now know that the ruins of the city that became known in the eigh teenth century as Palenque (“ palisade” ) was called Lakam ha’ (“great w ater” ) by its original inhabitants. The orthography for the various M ayan languages (see Chapter 3) was first w orked o ut by Spanish clerics and scholars in the colonial period. This traditional orthography was in general use until recently. Today the Maya people have taken the lead in adopting a new orthography that more accurately expresses the sounds of their languages. This orthography is used in this book to refer to the M ayan lan guages, as in “K’iche” instead of “ Q uiché.” The traditional orthography is retained in referring to established geographic place-names such as “U axactun” or “El Q uiché” and to usage in the published literature. M ayan vowels are pronounced as in Spanish; rough English equivalents for M ayan vowels w ould be: a as in father e as in let i as in machine o as in forty u as in rule (but pronounced as an English w before another vowel, as in wo). D istinctions between long and short vowels have also been recognized from deciphered M aya texts. Long vowels are represented by doubled letters, as in Itzam naaj.
N O T E S ON NAME S , O R T H O G R A P H Y , AND P R O N U N C I A T I O N
Consonants are also pronounced as in Spanish, although some need special mention:
ch as in church (Mayan chak) k as in keen (Mayan kan) h (soft) as in his (Mayan baah) j (hard h) as in Bach (Mayan ajaw) ts as in nighfs (Mayan ts’ak) x as sh in she (Mayan Yaxchilan) Mayan languages also distinguish globalized from plain consonants; globalized consonants have no Spanish or English equivalents. These are represented by an aposbophe, as in k ’inich, to distinguish words like ch’ak (to chop) from chak (“great” or “red”). In contrast to its usual occurrence on the next to last syllable in both Spanish and Nahuatl, stress is generally on the final syllable in Mayan languages. Unlike m ost Mayan languages, Yukatek also has tonal differences, but these were not marked by most colonial lexicographers and are omibed here. In keeping with general practice, accents on Mayan and other indigenous words are not used in this book. Accent marks are used as needed in place names of Spanish origin (El Cerén) and in Hispanicized indigenous words, as in Departamento de Petén, Guatemala— otherwise Peten (Mayan for “island”) is used to refer to the geographic area in the central low lands of Guatemala. This book employs the m ebic system for measurements, the standard in both science and in the countries having jurisdiction over the remains of Maya civiliza tion. For those who want to use English measures, i meter (m) = 39.37 inches, or 3.28 feet; 1 kilometer (km) = 0.62 mile; 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.38 square miles.
T H E A N C I E N T MAY A
H *«h
>
Introduction This is the account o f how all was in suspense, all calm, in silence; all motionless, still, and the expanse o f the sky was empty. . . . There was nothing standing; only the calm water, the placid sea, alone and tranquil.. . . Then came the word. Tepeu and Gucumatz came together in the darkness, in the night, and Tepeu and Gucumatz talked together. They talked then, discussing and deliberating; they agreed, they united their words and their thoughts. —Popol Vuh (Recinos 1950: 81-82)
D eep in the tropical forest of Guatemala lie the remains of one of the great cen ters of pre-Columbian civilization and one of the foremost archaeological sites in all the world. Its modern name is Tikal, but when it was the capital of one of the most powerful of all Maya kingdoms, it was known as Mutul. Unseen by Spanish con quistadors and discovered by outsiders only in the mid-nineteenth century, Tikal’s splendors are seen by thousands of visitors today. There are magnificent temples ris ing more than 70 m (230 ft) above the ground, grand complexes of palaces and ad ministrative buildings, sculptured stelae bearing hieroglyphic texts and the portraits of Tikal’s powerful rulers. And there are plazas, platforms, reservoirs, causeways, de fensive walls, and a host of other constructions. Tikal was ruled by a dynasty of over thirty kings who presided over an elaborate hierarchy of nobles, priests, merchants, artisans, warriors, farmers, and servants. Tikal’s kings and their elite companions reaped wealth from conquests, tribute, and a trade network that extended from Cen tral America to Central Mexico. In times of prosperity all of Tikal’s inhabitants en joyed the fruits of this commerce and celebrated Tikal’s victories over its enemies. But there were also times of hardship when Tikal suffered the loss of commerce and the bitterness of defeat and humiliation. In good times and bad, Tikal’s scribes used their mastery of mathematics to record in folding books the movements of the sun, moon, and planets and the events of their world. Tikal’s priests conducted rituals to ask their gods to ensure success in agriculture, trade, and war, as well as to determine the overall destiny of their king and kingdom. Well over a 100,000 people lived at Tikal during its prime, 1,200 years ago, and the city’s farmers and artisans exchanged their products in a great market near the center of the city. But Tikal was not alone: the course of Maya history saw the rise and fall of several other cities that equaled Tikal in size and power and many others that were also capitals of independent kingdoms,
Fig. 1.1. The principal buildings of Tikal, rising above the tropical forest of lowland Guatemala (see also Fig. 7.2).
Fig. 1.3. Evidence gathered by a century of archaeological re search is answering many ques tions about the ancient Maya: (right) archaeologists Aubrey Trik and (in the foreground) Froelich Rainey excavating beneath Temple II, Tikal, Guatemala; (be/ow) art historian Arthur Miller and (at left) archaeologist George Stuart at Tancah, Quin tana Roo, Mexico.
4
INTRODUCTION
interconnected by commerce, alliances, and rivalries that often led to war. A thou sand years before Europeans even knew of their existence, millions of Maya people lived across a tropical lowland area in dozens^ of cities large and small, and in hundreds of smaller towns and thousands of villages from the seacoasts to the misty highlands.
Discovery and Conquest by Europeans Just as in the ancient Old World, the great Maya cities and their kingdoms rose and fell. Over a span of some 2,000 years the cities of Nakbe, El Mirador, Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, Calakmul, Copan, Caracol, Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Mayapan, and a host of oth ers enjoyed careers of expansion and prosperity, and then decline, each in its time. When the Spaniards arrived in the sixteenth century, Tulum, Tayasal, Utatlan, and Iximche had risen to become the most prominent of Maya powers. But these and other Maya centers were crushed in a protracted, traumatic subjugation that con sumed thousands of lives, soldiers and nonsoldiers alike. It was a scourge marked by brutality, catastrophic epidemic diseases introduced by Europeans, and the deter mined intervention of the Catholic Church. Thus did Maya civilization, along with the other indigenous societies of the Americas from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, succumb at the hands of nations from across the eastern sea. Ever since the remains of this brilliant civilization have been opened to explo ration and study in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the ancient Maya have attracted widespread interest and profound admiration. Part of this fascination de rives from the romantic image of a “lost civilization” and the seeming mysteries evoked by the discovery of ruined cities deep in the jungles of M exico and Central America. These discoveries pose many questions. Where had this civilization come from? How did the Maya sustain so many people in a tropical forest? What catas trophes had overwhelmed their abandoned cities? To some, blinded by their fascina tion with the mysterious, the answers to such questions lay in fantasy— that the Maya were colonies of Old World civilizations like Egypt, or came from mythical lands like Atlantis, or even were descended from ancient aliens from outer space! To day, scientific research, in a variety of disciplines, is answering such questions with hard evidence rather than fantasy. The mysteries are being solved, and basic miscon ceptions about the Maya are being corrected. As a result, we now understand the an cient Maya not as a mystery with mythical origins, but as a complex and resource ful society marked by many of the same features found in other preindustrial civilizations, whether they be in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Japan, or Peru. The more we learn about the Maya past, the more profound is our respect. For as the record shows, the Maya were a people of astonishing achievement in mathe matics, astronomy, calendrics, and writing; in technology, politicál organization, and
INTRODUCTION
commerce; in sculpture, painting, architecture, and the other arts. For the first time we are beginning to understand the origins of the civilization and the reasons for its growth and prosperity, as well as its setbacks. With this increasing knowledge we can recognize in the rise and decline of Maya civilization the same processes that under lie all human achievement, all human history. And although the ancient Maya may seem distant or even alien from our modern point of view, their story is our story, a central part of the saga of human cultural development. Many are familiar with the development of Western civilization, a cultural tra dition with its roots in the ancient cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia and in the classical world of Greece and Rome. Many are aware, too, of the great and enduring civilizations of India, China, and Japan. But most people are less well acquainted with a distinct cultural tradition that gave rise to another series of spectacular civi lizations, including that of the Maya. This tradition was unknown to the peoples of the Old World until 500 years ago, when European explorers suddenly encoun tered a vast N ew World, one inhabited by a variety of cultures, including sophisti cated peoples living in cities as large as or larger than those of Italy or Spain, w ho prac-ticed the arts of writing, metallurgy, architecture, and sculpture. These dis coveries shocked and amazed the Spaniards, who were intrigued by the civilizations of M exico and Peru even as they were destroying them. One of the soldiers in the army of Cortés that marched into the Valley of M exico in 1519, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, described the moment when Europeans caught their first view of the Mexica (Aztec) capital of Tenochtitlan from the mountain pass overlooking the sprawl ing city: and when we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land and that straight and level causeway going towards M exico, we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments they tell of in the legend of Amadis, on account of the great towers . . . and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things we saw were not a dream .. . . I do not know how to describe it seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about. (1963: 1 9 0 -9 1 ) To sixteenth-century Europeans, secure in the knowledge that they alone repre sented civilized life on earth, the discovery of the Mexica, the Inka, and the Maya came as a rude surprise. To try to imagine the European reaction 500 years ago, imagine what would happen today if we were suddenly to discover another planet in habited not only by life, but by a civilization at least as sophisticated as our own. H ow would we react? Would we establish a peaceful dialogue, and learn from each other? Or would we seize the advantage and destroy that new world? The peoples of the Americas, though capable of brutal practices, were not as efficient in the practice
5
6
INTRODUCTION
of warfare as the Europeans, and although offering brave and determined resistance, were ultimately crushed by the conquistadors.
The Fate of the Maya Heritage As the Old World armies of the sixteenth century destroyed the M exica, Inka, and Maya civilizations, their achievements were belittled, even their humanity was ques tioned, and their “pagan” rituals were held up as horrors to justify a conquest and colonization that resulted in the loss of millions of lives. But before we decry prac tices such as human sacrifice, we should remember that Europeans of 500 years ago burned people alive in the name of religion and submitted “heretics” to an array of tortures and protracted executions. N one of these peculiar Old World practices oc curred in the Americas prior to European colonization. Although Native Americans certainly practiced warfare and human sacrifice, the scale of destruction wrought by Europeans was beyond anything seen before. The policies and practices of the con querors were far from uniform: some set out to exploit native peoples; others tried to protect them and save their souls. But the greatest tragedy of the European con quest and colonization was accidental— for the introduction of European diseases that killed millions of indigenous people was an unintended consequence of the con tact between two populations that up to that time had developed without contact for well over 10,000 years. On the other hand, the destruction of the cultural and social fabric of Native American peoples was for the most part deliberate, the result of slavery, forced re settlement, religious persecution, and other coercive policies that took place in the wake of conquest. Of course some social and cultural changes were also due to pop ulation loss or responses to a host of new ideas, practices, and technologies intro duced from Europe. And while some newly arrived Europeans admired and studied the societies of the N ew World, few were interested in understanding their origins. Unfortunately the lack of empirical information only encouraged the invention of a host of fantastic “explanations.” By the nineteenth century a number of theories claimed that the rise of civilization in the Americas was due to imagined voyages and migrations from the Old World. Thus the Mexica, Inka, and Maya were seen as the survivors of forgotten colonists from the civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Phoenicia, Israel, Rome, Africa, India, China, and so forth. In the first published de scription of the important ruins of the Maya city of Palenque, in Chiapas, M exico (written at the end of the eighteenth century), we find the following explanation for these mysterious ruins: The conclusion drawn from thence must be, that the ancient inhabitants of these structures lived in extreme darkness, for, in their fabulous supersti tions, we seem to view the ideology of the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Ro-
INTRODUCTION
mans and other primitive nations most strongly portrayed. On this account it may reasonably be conjectured, that some one of these nations pursued their conquests even to this country, where it is probable they only remained long enough to enable the Indian tribes to imitate their ideas and adapt, in a rude and awkward manner, such arts as their invaders thought fit to inculcate, (del Rio 1822: 19) This and similar discredited ideas assert that the peoples of the Americas were in capable of shaping their own destiny or of developing sophisticated cultures inde pendently of Old World influence. Similar “theories” are still propagated today on television, in magazines and books, and on the Internet.
The Meaning of Maya Civilization Such popular myths are completely devoid of fact, for the evidence is clear that civi lization in the Americas evolved independently of developments in the Old World. After more than a century of gathering and analyzing archaeological evidence, noth ing has been found to support interventions by peoples from the Old World, let alone mythical lands such as Atlantis. Rather, the evidence points consistently to an in digenous cultural development in the Americas. After migrations populated North and South America from Asia over twelve thousand years ago, the peoples of the Americas began a long voyage of social and cultural development. They invented new hunting technologies that allowed Native American societies to grow and prosper. Although they followed the same general course as societies in the Old World, the peoples of the Americas independently invented agriculture, pottery, irrigation, met allurgy, and writing, culminating in the development of cities and civilization. This realization is not new. Even while archaeology was in its infancy in the nine teenth century, there were a few scholars who held that the Maya and other Native American societies had developed without contact from the Old World. One of the major figures in the discovery of Maya civilization, John Lloyd Stephens, anticipated what archaeology later documented when he wrote, “We are not warranted in going back to any ancient nation of the Old World for the builders of these cities___ There are strong reasons to believe them the creations of the same races who inhabited the country at the time of the Spanish Conquest, or of some not-very-distant progeni tors” (1841, Vol. 2: 455). This does not mean that accidental contacts between Old and N ew World peo ples could not have occurred before the age of European exploration. And it is just as likely that lost fishermen or merchants from the N ew World landed on the shores of Asia or Africa as vice versa (though this possibility is seldom, if ever, mentioned in such discussions). Still, the evidence to demonstrate such contact, with one notable exception, has failed to materialize. If firm evidence of such voyages is discovered in
J
8
INTRODUCTION
years to come, it will be significant only if it can be demonstrated that the meeting affected the cultural development of one or both societies. Obviously, the contact ini tiated in 1492 has been significant for the changes it wrought in both the Old World and the Americas thereafter. While there are accounts of earlier voyages to “lands across the sea,” only one has been documented by archaeology. The Vikings recorded New World landings by Leif Eriksson in 1001, and by Thorfinn Karlsefni eight years later. Support for these accounts comes from the archaeological excavation of an eleventh-century Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Can ada. But this contact clearly had no lasting effect on either Native American or Norse society, the usual consequence of such limited encounters. Because the courses of cultural development in the Americas and the Old World were independent and devoid of significant contact until 1492, this book assumes that we must understand the ancient Maya on their own terms. The course of Maya civilization was shaped by a combination of internal cultural processes, interactions with adjacent peoples of Mexico and Central America, and, to a lesser degree, stim uli from more distant societies as far away as North and South America. As such, this book seeks to explain ancient Maya civilization not as a product of transplants from the Old World, but as the result of the processes that underlie the growth of all hu man societies, including those that lead to the kind of social and cultural complexity we call civilization.
Foreign Domination and Rebirth of the Maya Heritage Our account will conclude with the Spanish Conquest, for the destruction that re sulted from European subjugation irretrievably transformed Maya society. The wars of the Conquest accounted for much of the immediate destruction, for the Maya re sisted the loss of their independence with great tenacity. The prolonged conflict also disrupted agricultural production and commerce, and the resulting famines took their toll, while the greatest loss of life came from the diseases unwittingly introduced by the Europeans, against which the Maya had no immune defenses. M ost of the in stitutions that had governed Maya society were swept away and replaced by a colo nial administration that was an integral part of the Spanish Empire. The Maya elite class— rulers, scribes, priests, military leaders, and even craftsmen and merchants— was decimated, and most of its survivors were stripped of their wealth and power. Religious conversion was a fundamental policy of the new authority, and while some missionary efforts were peaceful, coercive measures, including the Inquisition, were also used to crush the vestiges of Maya ritual and belief. In the course of these changes, many of the intellectual achievements of the ancient Maya were lost. Thou sands of Maya books (codices) were deliberately burned as “works of the devil,” and the use of Maya script vanished. As a result, a considerable body of knowledge and beliefs^—centuries of accumulated information about the Maya calendar, cosmology,
I N T R O D U C T I O N
deities, ritual, medicine, and history— was lost forever. M any of the traditional a rts— painting, sculpture, metallurgy, lapidary w ork, and feather w ork— also ex pired, along w ith their practitioners. The M aya economic system, too, was drastically altered. As European colonies expanded, the best lands were seized, and plantations requiring slave or forced labor were established by the new m asters of the land. N ew products (such as coffee, sugar cane, and cattle) soon replaced the goods that were fundam ental to ancient com merce (cacao, cotton, obsidian, jadeite, and feathers), and new m arkets and methods of tran sp o rt replaced much of the com plex network of trade routes that had linked the m any cities and outposts of the M aya area. N ot all the changes were violent or forcible: for the m ost p art the M aya readily accepted the new European technology, and iron and steel tools, for example, quickly replaced those of flint and obsidian. Yet, in the face of this profound destruction and change, much of traditional Maya culture survived and has continued to develop right up to the present day. Al though m ost of the hallm arks of pre-Colum bian Maya civilization were stripped away w ith the Conquest, the very heart of M aya society— the nuclear family and com m unity— clung to its traditions and preserved many of its lifeways. For the most p art the Spanish adm inistrators could not reach the agricultural villages, except in areas where forced resettlement was instituted, and many of these communities con tinued largely to govern their own affairs.
Fig. 1.4. The Maya people today continue many of their ancient traditions and crafts: Mother and daughter weaving with the ancient backstrap loom in the Maya highlands (San Pedro Necta, Huehuetenango, Guatemala).
9
IO
INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.5. Centralized markets were an important economic institution in ancient times that continue to flourish today (Chichicastenango, El Quiche, Guatemala).
After the Conquest, M aya families slowly began to rebuild their shattered lives. M any fled to find sanctuary in areas beyond Spanish control. The social institutions of marriage and kinship that governed family life continued, adapting to new condi tions. The men of each family continued to cultivate maize, beans, and other ancient crops, sometimes improving their output w ith newly arrived steel tools. The w om en of each family continued traditional crafts, including weaving, basketry, and pottery making. Local agricultural and m anufactured products, together w ith essentials in scarce supply (salt, tools, etc.), were exchanged in com m unity m arkets th a t persisted long after the Conquest; native commerce survived, albeit on a m ore limited scale. In some cases colonial adm inistrators encouraged the indigenous economy, by requir ing tribute in cotton textiles or dem anding pottery cooking or storage vessels. But be cause these products were usually made to European specifications, their production altered ancient traditions in other ways. Among the m ost enduring elements of M aya culture were spoken languages and beliefs, elements that lie at the heart of all societies. The traditions of M aya ideology and language permeated and reinforced all facets of family and com m unity life, and today they continue to be resistant to change. Despite the vigorous efforts by m is sionaries to convert the Maya to Christianity, the traditional beliefs governing fam ily life and the agricultural cycle have m anaged to survive even while accom m odat ing the new religion. The M ayan languages, too, continued in the new setting. A
INTRODUCTION
secondary knowledge of Spanish was obviously useful in dealing with the wider world— for civil and economic interaction, for example— but the Mayan tongues have persisted as the first-learned and sometimes only languages in traditional fam ily life. But even the most traditional elements of Maya culture are not static, but have changed through the colonial era, and continue to change today. The direct heirs to these Maya traditions live in the area once occupied by their ancestors. Speaking many related dialects and languages, there are today several million Mayan-speaking people in M exico, Belize, and Guatemala. Obviously, to the extent that traditional social organization, agricultural practices, technology, and belief systems (including vestiges of the ancient calendar) survive, the study of contemporary Maya commu nities offers an important source of information for the reconstruction of the ancient Maya civilization. Anthropologists who have studied traditional communities, in cluding native-born Maya scholars, have preserved information that is invaluable to our understanding of past and present. The Maya people, their culture and society altered by Conquest and subsequent colonial policies, did not regain their freedom when the modern nations of M exico and Central America gained their independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century. Rather, the Maya people, like indigenous peoples throughout the Americas, continued to be systematically suppressed by newly independent governments and socioeconomic institutions. Today the impact of the modern world is transforming the outward forms of Maya culture at an unprecedented rate, changing profoundly what conquerors and colonizers could only partially disturb. Today, in Maya com munities from Yucatan to Guatemala, mass-produced clothing has replaced handwoven textiles, plastic containers are more common than traditional pottery vessels, and satellite television and the Internet bombard the Maya with alien languages, im ages, and ideologies that accelerate the process of “westernization.” As a result, the younger generations in formerly isolated communities are turning away from the tra ditions that once assured the survival of traditional Maya culture. Yet the Maya of today have not lost their powerful resistance to the outside forces that oppress their lives. Fortunately, recent events show that at least some of the repression is diminishing. After fifty years of brutal civil war waged by the Guatemalan army against the highland Maya, a peace treaty was signed at the end of the twentieth century. If the provisions of this treaty become reality, the efforts to de stroy the culture, languages, and lives of the Maya people of Guatemala may at last come to an end. In the meantime the Maya continue to struggle to regain control over their own destiny, not only in Guatemala but in M exico and Belize as well. The Maya of Chiapas have suffered the same economic, social, and political repression as their counterparts in Guatemala and are also attempting to reverse this process with just as much determination.
Fig. 1.6. The Lakandon are a Maya group that still live in the lowland forest of Chia pas, Mexico: [above] a small girl holding a tamed peccary; [righ/j a young man in front of Stela 1 at the Classic Maya site of Bonampak; (be/ow) a family with their dugout canoe. The photographs date from the mid-twentieth century.
Fig. 1.8. Portraits of Maya people taken in the early twentieth century (upper row and middle row): (upper row) Maya from the northern lowlands, Yucatan, Mexico; (middle row) K'iche Maya from the high lands of Guatemala; (lower left) 1963 photograph of Mam Maya officials from the highland community of San Pedro Necta, Huehuetenango, Guatemala, hold ing staffs of office, traditional symbols of authority.
Fig. 1.9. Mid-twentieth century portraits of Tzotzil Maya from the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico: (upper right) youth from Chamula; (middle right) young girl from Iza pa; (lower right) young man from Chamula; (below) man from Zinacantan.
I 6
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Fig. 1.10. In the twenty-first century Maya people of all ages are rediscovering their past. Here Maya teachers are shown being trained to instruct their students in Mayan languages (Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Altiplano Campus, Solola, Guatemala).
For the past 500 years the Maya have protected their traditions and understood their past by m aintaining both oral and w ritten histories, dances, and rituals, often conducted at long-remembered sacred locations. But the M aya are also now able to learn about their own past from the results of scholarly research. It is bitterly ironic that for 2.00 years foreign scholars have been gathering and publishing inform ation about Maya civilization, but only in the past few years have the M aya themselves been able to participate in this educational process. Fortunately, today M aya teach ers are learning more about their past and are able to use this inform ation to educate Maya children. And more and more classroom instruction is being carried o u t in M ayan languages, rather than the language of the Spanish Conquest. Long overdue, at last the Maya themselves are rediscovering the achievements of M aya civilization, including knowledge of their pre-Colum bian w riting system. This knowledge of their own past is engendering a sense of pride and self-worth in M aya people th at has been absent for 500 years. Archaeology also brings tourism and opportunities for eco nomic development. M any archaeologists w ork closely w ith M aya people and their communities to help them realize the educational and economic benefits of archaeo logical research.
The Destruction of the Maya Heritage It is ironic that as the M aya people are able for the first time to learn ab o u t their own cultural heritage and begin to benefit from tourism , much of the evidence of their her itage is being destroyed. Some of this destruction is due to m odern developm ent— new highways and other construction. Yet the greatest destruction comes from loot-
INTRODUCTION
ing, as thousands of ancient Maya sites are pillaged for jade, painted pottery, and sculpture that can be sold on the thriving antiquities market. Examples of Classicperiod Maya “art” fetch the highest prices, so that many ruined cities never seen by the Spanish conquistadors, sites that have lain undisturbed for a thousand years, have been utterly destroyed for a few objects that have commercial value. Today, as sad as it may seem, archaeologists acknowledge that almost every Maya site has been pillaged. Outside of the few well-known examples that have been subject to archae ological investigation, many of these sites have been utterly destroyed. As we shall see, the studies of Maya sites by archaeologists, epigraphers, and other scholars have produced considerable advances in our understanding of the an cient Maya. The key to this knowledge is archaeological evidence, the careful dis covery and recording of the remains of buildings and artifacts that, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, reveal a picture only when all are found and put properly into place. N ew excavations and new data from scientific analyses constantly expand the corpus of archaeological evidence. One of the most profound advances has been the deci pherment of Maya writing— a breakthrough that has transformed our understand ing of Maya civilization. But these recent successes have been possible only because archaeologists were able to record the sources of information at specific sites and document the associations of artifacts found together within specific contexts, such as caches (ritual deposits), burials, or middens. Without this kind of contextual in formation, it is impossible to realize the full potential of the archaeological record. When looters plunder tombs for their jade and pottery, or rip sculptures from build ings, or saw them from stone monuments, they destroy the full meaning of these ob jects as evidence of past activities and beliefs. The destruction wrought by archaeological looting is a complex and controver sial topic, and the solution to the problem is by no means clear. But make no mis take, any archaeological object sold without documentary proof that it was legally acquired and exported from its country of origin was almost certainly looted. Some collectors of Maya “art”— including, sad to say, even some with scholarly stand ing— have defended the pillage of ancient sites by claiming that the fragments of sculpture and the painted pots sold on the market are at least being saved from de cay or neglect. In addition, it is often maintained that these looted materials are found by humble peasants who of course sell these pots and carvings to help support their families. While it is true that some people add to their meager living by digging up antiq uities, only a small fraction of the archaeological plunder comes from such sources. In reality, the purchasers of looted artifacts support an elaborate black market em ploying hundreds of plunderers and middlemen. This illicit network begins with wellfinanced crews of looters who are skilled at finding burials and tombs that contain pottery and jade that fetch the highest prices. It continues with local buyers, smug glers, “restorers,” and dealers. Well-organized and equipped looting expeditions
17
l8
INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1.11. The destruction of archaeological sites by illegal looting continues to rob the Maya people of their cultural heritage and the entire world of knowledge about their ancient civilization. Shown here is a trench leading to a plundered tomb at the site of Naachtun, Guatemala, strewn with bro ken plain pottery destroyed in the search for a few prized polychrome vessels to be sold on the "art" market.
often target a specific site or region. In some areas of the M aya low lands these lo o t ers live in well-furnished camps from w hich they conduct systematic excavations at targeted sites over several years in a perverse mockery of archaeological research. W hen these looters are finished w ith a site, every building is gutted and destroyed, and of course the locations and associations of the looted objects are never docu mented. And for every pot or sculptured stela th at is “preserved” by this activity, dozens or even hundreds of objects, not to m ention the bones of long-dead M aya kings, queens, and com moners alike are utterly destroyed. W hile the few objects deemed valuable enough for the art m arket may be physically preserved, their full meaning for archaeological interpretation has been lost. In some cases inform ation
Fig. 1.12. The looting of carved monuments also destroys priceless histori cal texts: [above) Stela 1 at the site of Jimbal, Guatemala, photographed after its discovery in 1965 by archaeologists from the Tikal Project; (be/ow) the same stela a few years later, after looters failed in an attempt to saw off the sculptured front surface, utterly destroying the up per part of the carving and its inscription.
20
INTRODUCTION
can be gleaned from looted objects— the best example being the hieroglyphic texts inscribed on artifacts, which can often be deciphered. Yet even in the best-case ex amples, the information obtained from such texts would be far more complete and meaningful if we knew exactly where these objects came from, what they were found with, and the other kinds of contextual data that archaeologists carefully record but that looters kick aside and destroy because they have no commercial value. Looted artifacts also present scholars with another problem: many objects des tined for the black market are “restored” to increase their value. Such restoration often alters the original piece, by repainting scenes or hieroglyphic texts, or it may even add a text where originally there was none. In fact, the black market is infected with such “restored” objects, not to mention complete forgeries, some so skillful that they go undetected. Thus all attempts to gain legitimate archaeological data from undocumented objects run the risk of accepting distorted or even completely bogus information. Does art collecting preserve objects that would otherwise be lost? The truth is that all physical remains of the past will inevitably decay, whether they are still in the ground, in the hands of a professional archaeologist, or on the shelf of a private col lector. Of course a repainted looted pot may appear better preserved than a vessel still buried in the ground. But the fact remains that most pottery vessels will last for many thousands of years whether they remain in a tomb or on a shelf. The issue is not preservation: thanks to skilled conservators, archaeologists can glean a great deal of information from even poorly preserved remains. The real issue is how do we gain as much knowledge as possible from the remains of the past. The information that can be gained from an archaeological site by modern archaeological methods will never decay. But once an archaeological site has been pillaged to recover a few mar ketable objects, all humanity has irretrievably lost the information that archaeolo gists might have assembled from that site. The loss of this kind of data is irreversible; once a tomb is torn apart to loot a single pottery vessel, all the evidence that had ac companied that artifact is also destroyed. The remains of the past, including those of ancient Maya civilization, are a nonrenewable resource representing knowledge about a vanished society. With every site that is plundered, we lose another portion of that knowledge forever. What can be done to halt this destruction? There may be no slowing the cultural changes wrought by progress within traditional Maya communities, but most coun tries do have laws against archaeological looting. In M exico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador, it is illegal to plunder archaeological sites. It is also ille gal to import looted materials into the United States from these countries (and many others). Still, no country has the money or the personnel to police all of its archaeo logical sites, or to prevent all antiquity smuggling. And lest we criticize those nations that have custody of the ancient Maya sites, we should recognize that every year
INTRODUCTION
dozens of prehistoric and historic sites are looted and destroyed in the United States as well. As market forces in other illegal products— from Prohibition-era alcohol to today’s crack cocaine and other drugs— amply demonstrate, the allure and power of big profits completely overwhelm even well-financed governmental attempts to stop the smuggling of contraband. As with other illegal products, it is demand that drives the worldwide market in looted antiquities. Archaeological sites are looted for one reason: some people will pay astounding prices for antiquities. Art collecting is a respectable and rewarding hobby or business, as long as it trades in paintings, sculptures, and other art that has been produced by artists, past or present, for our edification and enjoyment. But the buying and selling of artifacts fresh from an archaeological site is not art collecting; it is archaeological artifact collecting. A Classic-period Maya vase does not come from an artist’s studio but from a looted tomb. Since nothing can be done to replace the information lost by an already-looted object, the buying and selling of items known to be in private collections for many years can do no further harm. But the art market that supports ongoing looting continues to take an increasing toll on the world’s ever-diminishing archaeological resources. The only solution to this expand ing destruction is to decrease the demand for new objects. Collectors and dealers can usually recognize newly looted artifacts, so they have the power to stop the destruc tion if they refuse to buy these objects . It would be tragic if today’s world, respon sible for the interest and research that has done so much to recover the lost glories of Maya civilization, should also be responsible for the final destruction of the physical remains of the ancient civilization and the severing of the last living links— cultural, ideological, linguistic— that bind the modem Maya to their own heritage. What we do know about the ancestors of the modern Maya is prodigious, and as the chapters that follow will demonstrate, ancient Maya civilization is fascinating and edifying, for it reveals much about ourselves and our world. There remains much to study— provided the opportunities are not denied us— and how much more we will learn in the future depends on how much of the archaeological record can be pre served from destruction.
21
%W'
\
I
I
The Setting of Maya Civilization There is the white sea, and there is a red sea. They say that there is a sea like milk . . . . Because they say that there is just water under the earth. And over the water we are floating. Because they say that where the edge o f the world remains . . . there is just water . . . there they join , the edge o f the world and sky . — Contemporary Ch’orti’ Maya view of their world (after Fought 1972: 373)
T his
book is about the past of an extraordinary Native American society, the ancient Maya. The distribution of the ancient ruins of Maya civilization, and the settlements of their descendants, covers a geographic area of some 324,000 km2 (125,000 sq. mi.), a region roughly the size of the state of N ew M exico (Fig. 1.1). De spite five centuries of social change since the Spanish Conquest, the Maya people and their languages have survived, and some are expanding in number of speakers. There are several million people who speak one of the twenty-eight Mayan languages as their primary language (note that the adjective Mayan is usually reserved to refer to the languages spoken by Maya people, while Maya refers to all other aspects of these people and their culture). Except for the Waxtek speakers of Veracruz, the Mayan languages occupy a fairly compact zone in eastern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, west ern Honduras, and until recently, western El Salvador (Fig. 1.2). M ost Mayan speakers are at least minimally bilingual in Spanish (or English in Belize), and other languages have influenced all Mayan languages. There is gram matical evidence for ancient contacts between the Mayan and the adjacent MixeZoquean language family (including Zoque and Tapachultec shown in Fig. 1.2). Bor rowing between these groups almost certainly took place in the Preclassic era and was mostly from Mixe-Zoquean to Mayan. For example, several basic Mayan kin ship and body-part terms are related to Mixe-Zoquean, as are several other words such as ajaw (lord) and kakaw (cacao or chocolate). Most Mayan languages also have a small number of loanwords from Nahuatl (the language of native peoples from Central M exico, especially the Postclassic Mexica, or Aztecs). These loanwords presumably reflect the rising prominence of the Central Mexican states in the Post classic era or in earlier times. The Maya were also donors of linguistic influence. Xinca, a nearly extinct non-Mayan language of southeastern Guatemala (Fig. 1.2), has a fairly large number of loanwords from Mayan. This process has continued with Spanish and English since European contact. The already-mentioned Mayan word
GULF OF M E XI C O „ -Tzibanche • 7/ " Í ) ( / J Ichpaatun"/Bahia de ' ,{ •yXpuh,lr Sanca I C ham al ) \) J * . * ' ' T o Bee • *■ V Xcalak . -f'C E N T R A L L O W L A N D S ^ ^ V « Pull^ouser Swamp .» *
_ / Calakmul '!••
* B Palmar / * ,Cu • r ¿ • ¡^Ambergris Cayt *B
* L * *^ T laSK ~ f c°,ha
^ __ Altar de los Reyes *
Marco Gonzalez
Lamanai *(,' \ s^ÁÍtun^í a • Nakbe^San Bartolo • La Corona Xultun «vc¿n josé* Uaxactun • ( urviiSTif ^ ru /
„- . Ä ™ Yaxchilan^R
Po)0|V
.
33
. • ^
CARIBBEAN
T!
L Petén ^ U c J n a l ^ ' ^ T ’
Bonampak. pun'Q d e J JCT b a r a c o l ToP ° * e , v Ä S /— r----Xoc • ■) ' -L Chimino* Ixkun*') ( f , fChiapa de Corzo ,X y Altar de Sacrificios^ #V^S Seibal- - ■ - j - J V * * N i m l i p u n i t ^ Dos Pilas • Aguateca N - . |s|af TunicK y f n n
SOUTHERN L O W LA N D S
ÿl*Abtlônm *EI
Um,„al|„r„_^C,ope, i
YlrumelJ\
p Kaminaljuyu-
, i ‘EI Baúl ÇQs .'Asunciónv M ita / Bilbao• ^ M'^n.te A!toy SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS
'
)$S
' Montana* * ■&«“ "» COASTAL PLAIN AND PIED M O NT
(
\
.
X \* \Tenampua
V(
Cha'lchuapa -t (1
1
Cara Sucia "
/J Cihuatan
Gering
5
q . L I(opongo
Quelepa
PACIFIC OCEAN
Fig. 1.1. M ap of the Maya area, showing principal archaeological sites, major rivers, and generalized environmental-cultural subdivisions (owing to density of settlement, not all sites mentioned in the text appear on this map).
Fig. 1.2. M ap of the geographic distribution of the Mayan languages: areas of nonMayan languages are stippled; dashed boundaries indicate approximate extent of extinct languages; dash-double-dotted lines are national boundaries.
26
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
ORIGIN OF MAYAN LANGUAGES The origin of M ayan languages has been inves
the relevant words from each language, calcu
tigated in studies that quantify both the amount
lating the percentage of shared words, and a p
and rate of linguistic change to estimate how
plying the retention rate in a simple formula.
long Mayan-speaking peoples have occupied
W hile
the
assumption
that
a
language
the presently defined M aya area. The efficacy
changes at a constant and universal rate is sus
of such studies is by no means certain. O ne
pect, and the results of glottochronological stud
technique,
ies are at best only approximations, such calcu
known as glottochronology,
pre
sumes there is a core vocabulary that is rela
lations carried out for M ayan languages tend to
tively resistant to borrowing (i.e., body-part
agree that the major language groups (Greater
terms, kin terms, numerals, and pronouns) and
K'ichean,
tends to be replaced by new words at a constant
Tzeltalan-Ch'olan, Yukatekan, and W axtekan)
M om ean,
Greater
Q 'an jo b 'alan ,
and universal rate (derived from the rate of
likely became distinct between ca. 2 0 0 0 BC
change in Romance languages, where about
and AD 10 0, with distinctions between individ
8 0 percent of this basic vocabulary remains af
ual M ayan languages (such as among the
ter one millennium). The degree of separation of
Ch'olan languages; Fig. 1.2) occurring later
languages is then given time depth by collecting
during the pre-Columbian era.
kakatv has entered English as cacao and cocoa, as has the Mayan word xook (pro nounced “shok”) as the English shark. The grouping of the twenty-eight Mayan languages into a single language fam ily recognizes their close relationships. With the exception of Waxtek, these Mayan languages have been in contact with one another for many centuries and often grade into one another. Over time changes have spread from one language to another in different degrees. N ew languages often emerge as the result of isolation, as when communities once speaking the same language become separated from each other. Thus it is usually assumed that an original Proto-Mayan language first diverged into Waxtekan, the most remote subgroup, and the ancestor of the other Mayan lan guages, which in turn diverged into Yukatekan and the remaining four subgroups: Greater K’ichean, Mamean, Greater Q ’anjob’alan, and Tzeltalan-Ch’olan (Fig. 1.3). In time these subgroups became differentiated through migration or other social pro cesses until the present-day variety of Mayan languages evolved. It is clear, therefore, that the Maya have occupied southeastern M exico and up per Central America for thousands of years. Within M exico, the Maya area includes all of the Yucatan Peninsula, and within upper Central America it includes the na tions of Guatemala and Belize and the western parts of Honduras and El Salvador. The surrounding Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea provide the only firm geographic limits to the Maya area. To the east and west, boundaries correspond
Years before present 4000
3000
2000
I
0 I
1000 c
I
Waxtek Chikomuceltek (extinct)
Proto-Mayan
Yukatek Lakandon Itzaj Mopan Ch’orti’ Ch’olti’ (extinct) Ch’ol Chontal Tzotzil Tzeltal Tojolab’al Popti’chuj Mocho Jakaltek Akatek Q ’anjob’al
(0
Ô ^ J
M
a
m
1
Awakatek
c I-----------------------------Teko -----------------------------Ixil Q ’eqchi’ Uspantek PoqomchiV Poqomam Sakapultek Sipakapense Tz’utujil Kaqchikel K’iche
I
I
I
I
I
Fig. 1.3. Diagram of proposed interrelationships, subgroups, and time depth of the Mayan languages.
28
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
THE ORIGINAL MAYA HOMELAND The original M aya homeland has been inferred
neric maize, the green ear, the mature ear, the
by
Proto-
cob, maize flour, m aize dough, the tortilla, a
M ayan, the ancestral M ayan language. Some
toasted maize drink, the grindstone, and three
reconstructed ancestral words refer to natural
terms for the increasingly fine grindings of
reconstructing the vocabulary of
items with a limited distribution in the environ
maize. The earliest word for slaked lime, used
ment of the M aya area, such as specific animal
for processing maize and other foods, was
or plant species. Thus, comparing specific re
closely related to the word for ashes, suggesting
constructed Proto-Mayan
natural
that ashes may have preceded slaked lime in
environmental distributions suggests an area
this function. Since limestone is not found in
where the Proto-Mayan speech community orig
most highland areas, this may be additional ev
terms with
inally resided. Most results of these kinds of stud
idence of a highland origin for M ayan . There
ies point to the Guatemalan highlands as the
was also a set of words about weaving (the verb
Proto-Mayan homeland, in particular regions in
"to weave," "spindle," "cotton," etc.). Similar
the western or northern highlands, but these ar
cognate sets identify other important resources,
guments are not without weaknesses, and more
including salt, chili, bean, squash, sweet potato,
evidence is needed before this issue can be
sweet manioc, avocado, tobacco, and honey.
resolved.
Other terms reflect key items of material cul
More importantly, the meanings of recon
ture, such as sling, blowgun, hammock, b rid g e /
structed Proto-Mayan words reveal much about
ladder, sharpening stone, hearthstones, plate,
early M aya society, including areas of special
bench, mat, sandal, and comb. An early and
emphasis and importance to M aya culture. For
enduring interest in record keeping and history
example Proto-Mayan has a rich vocabulary for
is indicated by the Proto-Mayan words for book
maize agriculture, with separate words for ge
and "to write."
to zones of cultural interaction and transition between Maya and non-Maya peoples, rather than discrete geographic features. On the west the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a narrowing of the Mexican landmass to just under 200 km (124 mi.), is a convenient boundary between predominantly Maya and non-Maya areas of southern M exico. On the east the zone of transition falls roughly along a line from the lower Lempa River in central El Salvador northward to Lake Yojoa and along the Ulua River to the Gulf of Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Fig. 1.1). The diffuse nature of these cultural boundaries is a reminder that Maya civiliza tion was not an isolated development. Beyond sharing common roots in language and tradition, the ancient Maya were very much a part of a larger cultural area, Mesoamerica, which extends from northern M exico into Central America. Like the Andean culture area of South America, Mesoamerica has been called a “nuclear area,” because it was host to a series of crucial cultural developments during the last
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
several millennia before European colonization. These include permanently settled villages, agriculture, and complex societies with urban centers, monumental archi tecture, calendrical systems, writing, and other cultural features that commonly define civilization. As part of Mesoamerica, the ancient Maya were influenced by, and in turn exerted an influence on, neighboring cultures, such as the Olmec of the Gulf coastal plain, the Zapotee and Mixtee of Oaxaca (west of the isthmus), the cul tures centered in Teotihuacan and Tula (to the northwest, in Central Mexico), and the less well known societies to the southeast in Central America.
Natural and Cultural Subdivisions of the Maya Area For its size, the Maya area represents one of the most varied environments on earth. Its terrain ranges from rugged, almost inaccessible mountains to vast level plains. Agriculture is highly productive in areas with deep alluvial or volcanic soils but al most impossible in regions with thin, rocky soils. Cool temperate climates prevail in higher altitudes and hot tropical conditions at lower elevations (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5).
Fig. 1.4. Surface elevations above mean sea level in the Maya area; note the general division between the highlands to the south and lowlands to the north.
29
30
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.5. Mean annual tempera tures in the Maya area; note that the pattern generally corre sponds to elevation.
Traditional climatic subdivisions reflect these differences: tierra caliente (hot country) from sea level to about 8oo m (2,625 ft), tierra templada (temperate country) from 800 m to about 2,000 m (6,560 ft), and tierra fría (cold country) above 2,000 m. But altitude alone does not determine climate. Variations in the amount and timing of rainfall create contrasts across the full range of elevation (Fig. 1.6): dry desert con ditions are found in areas of both highlands and lowlands, and rain forests can exist at any altitude. But rainfall is seasonal throughout the Maya area, so even the wettest tropical forested areas may be completely dry for several months each year. In some areas water is available year-round from rivers and lakes, but elsewhere it is almost inaccessible, found only in caverns deep beneath the surface. The Maya area is divided into three basic geographic zones, the Pacific coastal plain in the south, the highlands in the center, and the lowlands in the north (Fig. 1.1). The boundaries of each zone are not precise since they include subtle en vironmental changes or transitions from one zone to another. Environmental condi tions also vary considerably within each zone, so each can be further divided into
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.6. Mean annual rainfall in the Maya area; the pattern is quite complex in the highlands to the south, but rainfall steadily diminishes northward through the lowlands.
subzones. More importantly, ecological and archaeological research shows that un derstanding the considerable diversity and interplay of environment and culture is crucial to understanding the origins and development of Maya civilization and in teraction between Maya groups in neighboring zones.
The Pacific Coastal Plain A fertile plain stretches along the Pacific coast from Chiapas in M exico through southern Guatemala and into El Salvador, composed of recent (Quaternary) sedi ments from the flanking volcanic highlands to the north. Some of the earliest traces of permanent settlement in Mesoamerica have been found along the margins of man grove swamps, lagoons, and meandering rivers that lie behind the Pacific beaches (Fig. i .7). Extending inland is the gently rising coastal plain proper, long known for its rich volcanic soils and as an avenue for migration and commerce, but now de nuded of most of its original forest cover. Many south-trending rivers cut across the plain as they flow from the chain of volcanoes that parallel the coast some 50 to
31
3
*
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.7. Pacific coastal plain: mangrove growth in a coastal lagoon, Guatemala.
70 km inland. The largest river is the Lempa in El Salvador, the traditional south eastern boundary of the Maya area. The climate of the coastal area is tropical (tierra caliente), with mean annual tem peratures between 25°C and 35°C (77°-95°F), becoming somewhat cooler with in creasing altitude in the piedmont. As in most of the Maya area, there are two seasons each year: a dry period generally from January to April and a rainy season from about May to December. The rains are produced as the warm westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean rise and cool against the slopes of the volcanic highlands. This pro duces one of the highest rainfall rates in the Maya area, averaging over 3,000 mm per year on the Pacific slopes of Chiapas and western Guatemala and over 2,000 mm for most of the rest of the coastal area (Fig. 1.6). In some areas there are still relic stands of rain forest. The tallest trees may reach 3 0 - 4 0 m in height, and a lower canopy averages 20 m above the ground. Beneath this cover are a variety of palms, ferns, shrubs, and small trees, including cacao (the chocolate tree). As one moves into higher elevations, the relic lowland forest gives way to seasonal growth of mixed oak and pine. Although much of the original animal life of the south coast has been disturbed or destroyed by modern settlement and agriculture, many species remain. The sea and coastal lagoons still abound with fish, shellfish, amphibians, and sea birds. There
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
CACAO A mainstay of the M a ya economy, cacao trees
form of chocolate known today originated after
were domesticated in Mesoamerica and Central
cacao beans were imported by Europeans in
America as early as 6 0 0
BC, and
the lush tropi
cal environment of the southern M a ya coastal
the seventeenth century.
C acao
beans are
highly perishable, but excavations at Cerén, El
plain was one of the prime areas for cacao pro
Salvador, have revealed impressions of cacao
duction and trade. The M a ya processed cacao
trees and seeds. Residues of cacao have also
(derived from the M ayan word kakav/) for use in
been identified in a number of M aya pottery
foaming chocolate drinks, flavored with spices
vessels from tombs, and the preparation and
such as cinnamon and chili and sometimes
consumption of foaming cacao drinks is de
sweetened with honey. But the highly sweetened
picted on M a ya painted pottery vessels.
are aquatic reptiles, like the sea turtle, water moccasin, and caiman (a relative of the alligator). Inland, iguanas and various smaller lizards, small mammals, and birds are typical, along with snakes such as the python and several poisonous species. The Pacific coast also teems with mosquitoes, biting flies, and other insect pests. Rich habitats for animals, birds, and both salt- and freshwater creatures are in close proximity, so early settlers could hunt and gather a variety of wild food with out moving great distances. Since the availability of these food sources does not vary greatly from year to year, small groups began to live permanently in one place. With good soils nearby, such as the rich silt deposits along rivers, people began to use agri culture to produce additional food. Products from the coast, such as dried fish and salt from evaporated seawater, were traded far and wide. As populations thrived and grew, a series of sites grew to importance as centers of marketing, ceremonial, and political activity. Early centers such as Tak’alik Ab’aj, Chocola, and El Baúl (Fig. 1.1) represent the first flowering of Maya civilization by ca. 400 bc. Their successors were still thriving 2,000 years later, at the time of the Spanish Conquest, although by ca. ad 1 0 0 -2 0 0 the great cities of Maya civilization had shifted to the lowlands, while the Pacific plain became secondary to developments farther north. For far longer than elsewhere in the Maya area, the peoples of the Pacific plain have contended with waves of foreign migrants and invaders. The earliest may have been Olmec traders from the Gulf coastal region to the northwest. A succession of peoples from Central M exico also settled here, mixing with Maya and other local groups. In the final century before the Spanish Conquest, the western portion of the Pacific plain became an Aztec province (Soconusco). Before the Conquest the coastal plain was well known for its production of chocolate and cotton. Today, peoples of
33
34
THE s e t t i n g
OF MAYA c i v i l i z a t i o n
European descent also inhabit the area, and the best lands produce sugarcane, cot ton, and cattle, while the higher slopes support coffee plantations.
The Highlands To the north of the coastal plain is an area generally above 800 m in elevation that is ecologically diverse, rich in a variety of resources, and geologically active. Here three continental plates converge, generating destructive volcanic eruptions and earth quakes that cause recurrent disasters for its inhabitants. Differences in elevation pro duce both tierra templada and tierra fría climates. From its margins lowland valleys penetrate deep into its interior, carved by rivers that flow toward the coasts. Al though this mountainous area has many subdivisions, we will consider two major highland areas: one to the south, highly populated and dominated by recent volcanic activity, and the other to the north, less disturbed and characterized by older metamorphic formations. The climate over most of the highlands is temperate (tierra templada), with mean annual temperatures between 15°C and 25°C (59°-77°F). On the sparsely occupied upper slopes of the higher volcanoes, above the 3,000 m level, and in the higher ele vations of Los Altos Cuchumatanes, the highest mountains of the region, much cooler temperatures prevail (tierra fría), with frequent frosts and occasional snow falls. In most of the highlands the dry season usually extends from January to April, followed by a May-to-December rainy season. Although the wet season may bring periods of steady rainfall lasting for several days, mornings are often clear fol lowed by showers or thunderstorms in the afternoons or evenings. Rainfall increases toward the north. In both Chiapas and the Alta Verapaz, rainfall averages over 3,000 mm (120 in.) per year. In other places rainfall averages 2 ,0 0 0 -3 ,0 0 0 mm (8 0 -1 2 0 in.) annually. Rainfall is much lower in areas sheltered from the prevailing easterly trade winds, such as the interior of the Motagua Valley and the central Chiapas depression, where annual rainfall averages less than 1,000 mm (Fig. 1.6). The effect of long-term human settlement has diminished much of the original flora and fauna in the highlands. The mixed evergreen-and-deciduous forest has been reduced in many areas, although original stands of oaks, laurels, sweet gum, dog wood, and many kinds of pine are still found in the most remote lands and higher el evations. In higher elevations pines often predominate, sometimes mixed with cy press or juniper. Bands of hunters and gatherers roamed the Maya highlands long before perma nent settlements and agriculture. These developments seem to have come later to the highlands than on the Pacific coast, although many traces of early occupation must lie undiscovered beneath deep volcanic and alluvial deposits. Much of the northern highlands was less densely occupied than the highlands to the south, which share with the Pacific plain the precocious growth of Maya civilization. During much of
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
the pre-Columbian era the major population centers were located in the midst of the largest and richest highland valleys. Kaminaljuyu, situated in the Valley of Guatemala, dominated the entire southern highlands during the early development of Maya civilization. Adjacent regions were dominated by important centers such as Chiapa de Corzo in the central depression of Chiapas to the west, El Portón in the Salamá Valley to the north, and Chalchuapa in the southeast portion of the Maya area. Later, during the peaking of lowland Maya civilization, lowland cultural in roads can be detected in the western highlands, in the Chama Valley of the Alta Verapaz, and at Asunción Mita in the southeastern highlands. Two major Maya capi tals prospered in transitional highland-lowland valleys that served important trade routes. Copan is located near the eastern margin of the southern highlands, and To nina is situated near the northwest margin of the northern highlands (Fig. i . i ). Several centuries before the Conquest, highland settlements began to shift away from the valley floors until most major centers were located in more defensible set tings, such as hilltops or plateaus surrounded by ravines. Here the Spanish encoun tered the capitals of the dominant southern Maya highland kingdoms, such as Utatlan, Iximche, and M ixco Viejo. Since the Spanish Colonial era, wasteful agricultural methods and overgrazing by cattle and sheep in the southern highlands have led to erosion, rendering entire landscapes almost uninhabitable. Efforts have been made to halt or even reverse this process, including reforestation projects. But modern devel opment in the form of highways, logging operations, mineral exploitation, and hy droelectric power plants still threatens even the most remote portions of this beauti ful area.
The Southern H ighlands The southern highlands lie in an east-west band between the belt of volcanic cones that parallels the Pacific coast and a great rift-valley system to the north (Fig. i . i ) that marks the junction of continental plates. As a result, the southern highlands ex perience frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The nearly continuous line of recent volcanoes forms the continental divide from Chiapas, Mexico, through Guatemala and into Central America (Fig. 1.8). From west to east the major cones are Tacana, Tajumulco, Santa Maria, Zunil, San Pedro, Atitlan, Toliman, Acatenango, Fuego, Agua, and Pacaya, all in Guatemala, and Santa Ana, Izalco, and San Salvador in El Salvador. Tajumulco is the highest at 4,220 m (14,470 ft). Over the years, Santa María, Fuego, and Pacaya have been especially active, and Izalco, the youngest, erupted almost continuously from its birth in 1770 until 1968. North of the volcanic belt are rugged older volcanic highlands, capped by thick deposits of lava and ash. Rivers and streams have dissected these deposits to form deep, steep-sided gullies, or barrancas. Within this area the fertile volcanic soils of the valleys and basins have supported large human populations for thousands of
35
36
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.8. Southern highlands: Agua volcano (summit elevation 3 ,7 6 6 meters), with Antigua, the capital of Guatemala during most of the Spanish Colonial era, in the foreground.
years. The largest basin is the Valley of Guatemala, the location of modern Guatemala City. Others include the Valley of Quezaltenango, in western Guatemala, and the Ahuachapan and Zapotitan basins, both in western El Salvador. Several highland basins and volcanic calderas contain lakes, such as Lake Amatitlan in the southern portion of the Valley of Guatemala. The most famous, owing to its ex traordinary beauty, is Lake Atitlan in central Guatemala. The principal rivers of the southern highlands flow northward as tributaries of the Motagua, which follows the continental rift eastward to the Gulf of Honduras in the Caribbean Sea. To the west, a similar drainage pattern forms the Grijalva River, which flows through the central depression of Chiapas into the Gulf of Mexico. The southern highlands have long provided important resources for their in habitants. The ancient Maya quarried obsidian (volcanic glass, used for sharp cutting tools) at several locations, the most favored being El Chayal on the flanks of the Motagua Valley, northeast of the Valley of Guatemala, and Ixtepeque, some 85 km to the southeast. Basaltic rocks such as andesite, available throughout most of the southern highlands, were used to make manos and metates and other tools.
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
STONE TOOLS The M a ya relied on a variety of stone materials
cutting and scraping tools, the most common be
to make a range of artifacts, from utilitarian
ing the obsidian blade, which was used for both
tools to beautifully fashioned prestige goods.
domestic tasks and ritual bloodletting. Pecking
Obsidian (volcanic glass) from several sources
and grinding techniques were used to shape
in the M a ya highlands was traded throughout
basalt and other igneous stones from the M aya
the M a y a area and beyond. Chipping by per
highlands. These hard stones were used to make
cussion or pressure flaking was used to shape
axes for felling trees, smaller celts and chisels
obsidian, along with flint or chert from the
for carving stone, and a variety of grinding or
M a y a lowlands (see the box on Colha, Belize,
processing implements, the most common being
in Chapter 11). These techniques produced
the mano and metate used to this day to pro
everything from spear and arrow points to sharp
duce food from maize or other seeds.
While European-introduced steel cutting tools have replaced obsidian ones, many Maya still prefer the traditional mano and metate for grinding maize and other foods. Today the rich valleys and basins of the southern highlands support the greatest population concentrations in the entire Maya area. The fertile volcanic soils and “springlike” climate have lured settlers from many other areas for over 3,000 years. Yet, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions would seem to belie the rich promise of this area. Over 1,500 years ago a catastrophic eruption of Ilopango destroyed everything within a 2 0 - 3 0 km radius, and a widespread ash fall rendered a larger zone (up to 100 km from the volcano) uninhabitable for perhaps a century. But even small-scale volcanic eruptions endanger life and livelihood— witness the excavation of a farm ing settlement instantaneously buried under several meters of ash from a nearby vol canic vent at Cerén, El Salvador, around ad 6 0 0 -7 5 0 (Fig. 1 . 9 ; discussed in Chap ter 11). So-called minor eruptions, bringing ash falls and occasional lava flows, continue to disrupt people’s lives today. Earthquakes in the southern highlands have taken an even larger toll in lives and property. Historical accounts beginning with the Spanish Conquest document a se ries of major quakes during the past 500 years. The first recorded event occurred dur ing the campaign of Pedro de Alvarado in 1526 (see the Epilogue). According to Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s account, “[we] came upon this valley . . . where now this city of Guatemala is settled . . . and I remember that as we were descending a slope the earth began to tremble so that many soldiers fell to the ground, for the earth quake continued a long time.” Among the most significant of these earthquakes are the cluster that destroyed the colonial capital of Antigua in the eighteenth century,
37
Fig. 1.9. Southern highlands: archaeological excavations at Cerón, El Salvador, have revealed por tions of a village covered by a sudden and very localized volcanic eruption, including the remains of the adobe house seen here (Classic period, ca. AD 600).
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
JADE For the ancient M a ya, jade was the most pre
and water. Hollow bird bones were used for
cious of stones, and ¡ade carvings represent the
drilling circles. In finer pieces a modeled effect
finest examples of M a ya lapidary art. Miner
was achieved by careful incising, followed by a
alógica! studies of M a ya ¡ades show they are
deepening and smoothing of the grooves.
jadeite, which differs in chemical composition
The shape and size of the original piece often
from nephrite, the most common Chinese jade.
influenced its final design, and the shapes of
M a ya jade is slightly harder, less translucent,
some M aya jade artifacts indicate they were
and more mottled than Chinese jade. It varies
probably
from dark green to light blue-green, although all
pebbles. The only known natural deposits of
found
in
streams
as
water-worn
shades from near-black to white are known.
jadeite in the M aya area are found in the
Jadeite is extremely hard (6.5 to 6 .8 on the min
middle Motagua Valley of Guatemala. An
eralógica! scale, with diamond graded at 10),
ciently worked jade boulders and debris from
so the M a ya mastery of jade carving is a re
jade working have been discovered in this re
markable technical achievement. M a ya crafts
gion, where jadeite was formed deep beneath
men sawed pieces of jadeite by drawing cords
the earth and brought to the surface by tectonic
back and forth through grooves, using hard
forces. The largest known carved jade weighs
stone grit and water as cutting agents. Holes
almost 10 pounds (Fig. 8 .5 8 ). A variety of
were bored from both ends with drills of bone or
M a ya jade objects are shown in Plates 1, 2a,
hardwood, again using finely crushed stone
and 2b.
the 1918 quake that all but destroyed Guatemala City, and the violent rupture of the Motagua fault, which took more than 24,000 lives in 1976.
The N o rth ern H ighlands North of the continental rift marked by the Motagua and Grijalva valleys lies the rugged northern highlands (Figs. 1.1 and 1.4). The highest peaks exceed 3,000 m (9,850 ft) and are composed mostly of Paleozoic and Cenozoic metamorphic de posits. To the west are the Chiapas highlands and the Altos Cuchumatanes of north western Guatemala, followed by the Sierra de Chuacus in central Guatemala and the Sierra de las Minas that extends eastward almost to the Caribbean. The rich mineral deposits in these rugged formations have been mined for centuries. The most impor tant in pre-Columbian times were the jadeite and serpentine deposits quarried by the ancient Maya, which are found along the southern flanks of the Sierra de las Minas, in the middle Motagua Valley. As one proceeds north, the higher metamorphic ridges give way to Cenozoic limestone formations, such as those north of the Grijalva River in Chiapas and in the
39
40
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Alta Verapaz of Guatemala. In this region of spectacular karst topography typified by “haystack” hills and beautiful underground caverns, waterfalls spring from the sides of mountains, and rivers disappear beneath the porous hills only to reappear miles away. Although the slopes of the northern highlands tend to be poor for agri culture, richer alluvial soils have accumulated in many of the valleys and basins, such as the Rabinal and Salamá valleys (Fig. i . i o ) north of the Sierra de Chuacus. Farther north, good soils, plentiful rainfall, and cool temperatures make the basins of the Alta Verapaz a prime area for modern coffee cultivation. Much of the northern highland area is drained by the tributaries of the Usumacinta River, which in turn flows northwest into the southern lowlands and on into the Gulf of Mexico. Beginning in the west, the Jatate River flows out of the limestone highlands of Chiapas and joins the Lacantun, which originates along the eastern flank of the Altos Cuchumatanes. The main tributary of the Usumacinta, called the Chixoy in the highlands, drains most of the modern Guatemalan Department of El Quiché, the central portion of the northern highlands. The other major tributary, the Pasión, originates farther east, in the Alta Verapaz. The eastern flank of the northern
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
FEATHERS The cloud forests of the northern highlands of
ceed, had three canopies and the other brothers
Guatem ala are the habitat of the spectacularly
or sons, two." The most highly prized feathers
beautiful quetzal, and the highlands and low
were the brilliant iridescent-green tail plumes of
lands alike teem with macaws, parrots, and
the quetzal, reserved for royal use. According to
many other species with bright and beautiful
Bartolomé de Las Casas, to kill or even to cap
plumage. The M a ya trapped and bred birds for
ture one was a capital offense.
feathers that they used to make headdresses,
A few examples of Mexico (Aztec) feather
crests, capes, and shields and to decorate
work from Central Mexico have been pre
canopies, fans, personal ornaments, and pen
served, but only impressions of ancient M aya
dants for spears and scepters. Feather work was
feather work have survived. M aya art, such as
also used in embroideries and fringes for cotton
the Bonampak murals and carved royal por
fabrics and baskets. Early Spanish writers relate
traits, shows how elaborate and highly devel
the importance of this craft among the highland
oped it must have been. O ne of the best ex
M a ya, who had aviaries where birds were bred
amples is the panache of the headdress worn
for their plumage. In describing the M aya rulers
by a ruler on W all Panel 3 at Piedras Negras
at Utatlan, a Spanish account states: "The
(Fig. 5 .1 7 ). Such long plumes must have been
throne of the king was notable because it had a
the tail feathers of the quetzal, which reach up
canopy of very rich plumes and above this pro
to a meter in length. The lavish use of quetzal
tection or covering, other coverings of different
feathers is well documented by the Bonampak
colors, in such a w ay as to give an effect of
murals (Plates 1 0 -1 5 ).
great majesty. The prince, or he who has to suc
highlands is drained by the Polochic River, which flows through a lush, steep-sided valley into Lake Izabal in the coastal lowlands of the Caribbean coast. Izabal’s out let to the sea is via the Golfete and the spectacular gorge of the Río Dulce. Human disturbance has been less severe in the northern highlands than in areas to the south. Here there are both howler and spider monkeys, kinkajous, coatimundis, weasels, foxes, peccaries, armadillos, opossums, bats, owls, hawks, vul tures, parrots, and the rare harpy eagle. The Alta Verapaz is famed for its highland rain forest, the traditional preserve of the rare and prized quetzal, now the national bird of Guatemala. The quetzal was of special importance to the ancient Maya, whose ruling elite used its long, slender, brilliant-green plumes in their headdresses.
The Lowlands The transition from highlands to lowlands is gradual, although elevations may drop dramatically in some river gorges. The rain forest of the karst region of the northern
41
42
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
highlands continues northward into the lower elevations that extend over northern Guatemala, Belize, and the Yucatan Peninsula of M exico. This is the largest portion of the Maya area, and except for the Maya Mountains of southern Belize, the entire lowland zone lies below 800 m in elevation and is characterized by a tierra caliente climate (Fig. 1.4). Although the lowlands have been viewed as less diverse and poor in resources, this is a misconception. The Maya lowlands provide an array of re sources within a varied environment created by many of the same factors found in the highlands— although differences in elevation, rainfall, drainage, and soils are spread over a far more vast terrain. Until recently, the most conspicuous feature of the lowlands was a lush tropical forest that is rapidly being destroyed by new roads, settlers, and mbdern develop ment. Rainfall decreases from south to north, and as it does, so does' the height and density of the tropical forest cover. These forests are evergreen, with only brief peri ods of leaf fall, and flourish in areas of consistently high rainfall (Fig. 1.11). They are characterized by a great number and diversity of plant species. Multistory canopies are formed by hundreds of tree species. The uppermost canopy, some 4 0 - 7 0 m (1 3 0 -2 3 0 ft) above the ground, is dominated by the giant ceiba (the sacred tree of life for the Maya), mahogany, sapodilla (or chicozapote), Spanish cedar, American fig (amate), and many other species. There is often a secondary canopy between 25 and 50 ni in height, and a lower story, usually 1 5 -2 5 m in height, that includes the ramón, or breadnut tree, rubber, allspice, and avocado trees, and a profusion of palms. Many trees support other plants, including strangler vines, Spanish moss, lianas, bromeliads, and orchids. In the deep shade beneath the canopy are ferns, young trees, and large-leafed plants. The ancient Maya used many of these species; trees provided w ood for buildings and fires. Ramón and avocado trees furnished food, the vanilla vine and the allspice tree provided condiments, logwood yielded a dye, and the palms were used for thatch, oil, and many other products. Rubber trees were essential for the Maya ball game. The role that these and other plants played in the ancient Maya economy will be considered in Chapter 11. ' The lowland forest is host to a great variety of animal life, used by the ancient Maya for food and raw material for artifacts. These life forms were also sources for the rich symbolic and supernatural traditions of the Maya. Many of these species were once found throughout the Maya area, including anteaters, agoutis, pacas (large edible rodents), and other food animals such as tapirs, white-tailed and brocket deer, peccaries, and rabbits. There are primates (howler and spider monkeys) and carnivores such as the ocelot, jaguarundi, and the largest N ew World cat, the jaguar. The ancient Maya held the jaguar in high esteem, and its pelt, canines, and claws were symbolic of elite and ceremonial status. Bird life abounds: doves, parrots, macaws, woodpeckers, and toucans, and game birds, such as quail, curassows.
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.11. Southern lowlands: tropical forest along the Usumacinta River, a major communication route between highlands and lowlands, here near the site of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico.
chachalacas, and the prized ocellated turkey. Reptiles and amphibians are also abun dant: many species of toads, tree frogs, turtles, lizards, and snakes, including boas, racers, coral snakes, rattlesnakes, and the deadly pit viper, the fer-de-lance. The emergence of the primitive wo frog each year from its underground habitat contin ues to signal the onset of the rainy season, just as it did for the ancient Maya. The rivers and lakes of the region provide edible snails (jute), crayfish, and fish such as the mojarra and catfish. Lake Izabal is famed for its tarpon, as well as robalo (snook) and snapper. The lowland coasts and Caribbean reefs abound with corals, sea fans, shellfish— shrimp, spiny lobsters, crabs, conch, and spiny oysters (Spondylus)— and sea turtles, probably the single most important source of food from the sea in ancient times. The manatee is also native to the southern coasts, and evidence from coastal Belize, supported by the sixteenth-century narrative of Bishop Diego de Landa, indi cates that the ancient Maya also hunted this animal. Of course the most common forms of terrestrial animal life are invertebrates, including countless species of spiders, scorpions, and insects. Most remain little
43
44
THE s e t t i n g
OF MAYA c i v i l i z a t i o n
known, but one commonly sees dragonflies, myriad butterflies (including the famous iridescent blue morpho), leaf-cutting and army ants, termites, and a variety of bee tles and bugs. More often felt than seen are mosquitoes, gnats, fleas, ticks, chiggers, biting flies, and wasps and other stinging insects. The ancient Maya raised stingless bees as a source of honey and wax, and their descendants continue to keep hives today. Less beneficial are species that transmit serious diseases: sand flies that carry American leishmaniasis, assassin bugs that carry trypanosomiasis (Chagas* disease), and the malaria mosquito. However, many of these did not plague the ancient Maya; malaria and a host of other diseases were unknown in the Americas until they were introduced from Europe after the Conquest. Although those living in temperate climates often assume this tropical environ ment is unproductive and even dangerous, the adaptations of the ancient Maya made it highly productive and hospitable. Accumulated knowledge about the variety of ter restrial and aquatic species furnished food, fibers, raw materials, and medicines. The local limestone made excellent material for buildings and carved monuments; not only was it easily quarried with stone tools (the Maya rarely used metal tools), but it hardens on exposure to air. When burned, it reduces to lime used to make mortar and plaster. In several areas the limestone bedrock holds deposits of chert, or flint, which the ancient Maya shaped into a variety of cutting, chopping, and scraping tools and fashioned into elaborate symbols of royal authority. Environmental modifications increased food production and ensured year-round sources of water. Canals and reservoirs were constructed to provide water during the dry season. Ex tensive areas of good soils were cultivated and replenished. Marginal areas were made productive by constructing terraces on hillsides and canals to drain swamps. Archaeological research furnishes the outline of human cultural development sustained by this lowland environment. As we will see, the Caribbean coastal mar gins of the southern lowlands were exploited long before settled village life emerged. Some of the earliest Maya villages appeared in this same region, and with the arrival of agriculture, early settlements spread into the interior along the lowland rivers. The earliest centers of lowland Maya civilization appeared in the interior of the central lowlands, most notably at Nakbe and El Mirador. In their wake a host of new states emerged, such as Caracol and Lamanai in Belize, Piedras Negras, Yaxchilan, Palenque, and Seibal in the Usumacinta drainage, and far to the southeast at Copan and Quirigua. M ost of these were dominated by the rivalry between two great states, Tikal and Calakmul, along with their allies. At the same time, there were large cen ters in the northern lowlands, including Coba, Edzna, Izamal, and Dzibilchaltun. But as the southern and central lowlands declined, the northern lowlands increased in importance, dominated by centers such as Uxmal, Chichen Itza, Mayapan, and a host of smaller sites (Fig. i . i ).
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
ECCENTRIC FLINTS M a ya craftsmen produced important ritual and
the most difficult objects to make, reflecting the
symbolic objects by intricately chipping flint and
considerable skill of their artisans. A cache
other stones. Known as eccentric flints (or ob
found inside a buried Early Classic building at
sidians), these objects include large sacrificial
Copan (Rosalila structure; see Plate 7a) included
knives, scepters, and elaborate profile images
an array of twelve elaborate figures rendered in
of M a ya rulers and deities that rank among the
eccentrically chipped flint (Fig. 13.7) that were
finest examples of lithic technology produced by
probably once royal scepters hafted with wood
the M a ya. In fact, archaeologists who have
handles. Caches of eccentric flints and blades
learned to reproduce ancient chipped stone ob
are often found buried under M aya monuments
jects testify that M a ya eccentric flints are among
and buildings as dedicatory offerings.
The Southern L o w la n d s The lowlands are usually divided into a southern and northern area. A central area corresponding to the Peten region of Guatemala is also often defined (Fig. i . i ). A convenient distinction between the northern highlands and southern lowlands is the gradual transition from a tierra templada to a tierra caliente climate. This generally corresponds to elevations between 800 and 1,000 m, running from northern Chia pas through the northern portions of the departments of Huehuetenango, El Quiché, Alta Verapaz, and Izabal in Guatemala (Fig. 1.4). This is a region of high rainfall, averaging 2 ,0 0 0 -3 ,0 0 0 mm (8 0 -1 2 0 in.) each year (Fig. 1.6). Temperatures are also very high, with averages in the 25°-35°C (77°-95°F) range typical of tierra caliente climates (Fig. 1.5). In several areas of highest rainfall the dry season may be limited to only a month or two (usually between March and May), but rain may oc cur even during these periods. Mangrove and other swamp flora predominate in the low-lying and coastal regions on the margins of the southern lowlands, but through out the rest of the region conditions are often ideal for the growth of true tropical rain-forest species. The terrain of the southern lowlands ranges from a broken karst topography, composed mostly of M esozoic and Cenozoic limestone formations, to the lower re lief of its coastal margins. The largest rivers flow out of the adjacent highland regions. A number of rivers and lakes are available for year-round access to water, as well as food and canoe transport. Furthermore, much of the southern lowlands possesses relatively deep and fertile soils, especially along its rivers. Within this area are found the middle drainage basins of the Usumacinta River (Fig. i . i 1) and its tributaries (the Jatate, Lacantun, Chixoy, and Pasión rivers), the Sarstoon (which forms the southern
45
4
6
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
boundary of Belize), Lake Izabal, the Río D uke, and the great alluvial valley of the lower Motagua, as well as the adjacent floodplains and coastal areas of northwest ern Honduras (the Chamelecon and Ulua rivers). To the east, along the border with southern Belize, are the jagged Maya Mountains, an igneous upthrust that has ex posed an outcrop of metamorphic formations (Fig. 1.4)* With elevations reaching a little over 1,000 m, the Maya Mountains are aptly called the “highlands in the low lands,” providing the only sources of basalt, granite, hematite, pyrite, slate, and other materials that otherwise had to be imported from the more distant Maya highlands. The narrow coastal plain east of the Maya Mountains is watered by a number of short streams flowing into the Caribbean. On the western (Gulf) coast a much broader alluvial plain makes up most of the Mexican states of Tabasco and southern Campeche. This low-lying and often swampy region of lagoons, oxbow lakes, and is lands was the homeland of the Chontal Maya and their canoe-borne commerce (see Chapter 9). Here two major rivers, the Candelaria and the Mamantel, empty into the great Laguna de Términos on the Gulf of M exico. Farther south, the San Pedro Mártir joins the larger Usumacinta before reaching the sea.
The C entral L ow lan ds North of the Usumacinta, rainfall begins to diminish and the landscape becomes less rugged, although still characterized by low, generally east-west ridges of folded and faulted Cenozoic limestone. Within this region is a diverse range of soil and forest types, of lakes and low seasonal swamps (bajos). Although temperatures here are little different from the southern lowlands, total rainfall is less, with annual averages of about 2,000 mm (80 inches) (Fig. 1.6). M ost of this falls from May through Jan uary, with a dry season from February to May. Less rainfall combined with porous limestone bedrock means there is less surface drainage. Rivers are smaller and, ex cept near lakes, water may not be readily available in the dry season. Despite the re duced rainfall, the tropical forests of the central lowlands appear little different from those to the south (Fig. 1.12). There are also grassland areas, and bajos (seasonal wetlands, akalche in Yukatek Mayan) covered with low scrub and thorn growth. To day, most of the bajos of the Peten become swampy or water-filled during the rainy season, and it may be that in the past more of these depressions held permanent w a ter, forming an area pocked by shallow lakes. These features help define the overall environment of the vast central lowland re gion of northern Guatemala, often referred to as the Peten, along with the adjacent ar eas of northern Belize. Much of this region is drained by three major rivers, the H ondo, the New, and the Belize, and their tributaries. These rivers flow generally northeast and discharge into the Caribbean, the first two into Bahia de Chetumal, the largest bay on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Near the heart of the Peten is an interior drainage basin, some 100 km long from east to west and about 30 km wide. Along the base of
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.12. Central lowlands: tropical-forest undergrowth at Tikal, Guatemala.
the hills that form the northern side of this basin is a chain of about fourteen lakes, sev eral of which are connected during the rainy season. The largest, Lake Peten Itza, is lo cated about midway within the basin (Fig. 1.13 ); it is some 3 2 km long and 5 km wide. South of the Peten lakes lies a great irregularly shaped savanna (Fig. 1.14). Few trees grow on this grassy plain, and the soil is a compact red clay, poor for cultiva tion. Although research indicates that at least some Peten savanna lands were occu pied in ancient times, poor soil and low densities of remains of ancient occupation suggest that this area was not heavily populated in the past. The average elevation of the savanna is about 150 m, above which the karst ridges rise an average of 300 m. The ranges of hills surrounding the savanna lands are covered with a dense tropical forest. The southern slopes of the Peten hills are unusually sharp, whereas the north ern slopes drop almost imperceptibly from each crest to the next watercourse. North of the Peten lakes, the bajos become more common, forming a zone of bajos and mixed forest growth. The El Mirador basin, another important area of interior drain age, lies in this area, marking the northern limits of the Peten.
47
Fig. 1.13. Central lowlands: Lake Peten Itza and the island town of Flores, capital of the Depart ment of the Peten, Guatemala, and the site of Tayasal, the last independent Maya capital (see Epilogue).
Fig. 1.14. Central lowlands: savanna landscape near Lake Peten Itza, Guatemala.
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
The N o rth ern L o w la n d s North of the El Mirador basin another subtle transition marks the beginning of the northernmost lowland subarea, roughly corresponding to the northern half of the Yucatan Peninsula (Fig. 1.1). Rainfall averages less than 2,000 mm (80 in.) annually in most of this region, usually during a well-defined wet season (June-December), and the driest areas of northwestern Yucatan receive less than 500 mm (20 in.) in a given year. Temperatures are typical of the tierra caliente. But this climate was opti mal for the growing of crops such as cotton, and Yucatan was a major producer of woven textiles in both the pre-Columbian and early Colonial eras. With decreasing rainfall, the high forest of the central lowlands diminishes grad ually to low bush and scrub forest in the northern Yucatan Peninsula (Fig. 1.15). Palmetto grows in abundance along the east coast of the Peninsula. Farther inland there is a long, fingerlike extension of the southern rain forest— mahogany, Spanish
Fig. 1.15. Northern lowlands: low forest and bush in the dry season on the plains of Yucatan, Mexico.
49
50
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
cedar, sapodilla, and other hardwoods— nourished by the higher rainfall of north east Yucatan. The fauna of the northern lowlands is essentially the same as in regions to the south, except that species adapted to drier habitats increasingly predominate, especially in the northwest corner of the peninsula where agave and cacti become in creasingly commonplace. Directly north of the central lowlands is the llio Bec-Chenes area, which is ge ographically and culturally transitional between the southern and northern low lands. As we shall see, the development of the Maya centers in the Rio Bec-Chenes area initially paralleled the development of the centers to the south in the Peten, but later followed the course charted by the Maya of northern Yucatan. Northern Yucatan is low and flat; the humus is thin, as little as a few centimeters in depth, in contrast to the Peten soil, which may be up to a meter deep. The only pronounced relief is the Puuc hills, or serranía (Fig. 1.16). With elevations up to
Fig. 1.16. Northern lowlands: low range of the Puuc hills.
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
TEXTILES The M a y a were major producers of cotton, con
means sacrifice. The royal color is green, sym
verting this plant fiber into woven textiles that
bolizing the quetzal bird's plumage reserved for
were traded throughout Mesoamerica. M aya
M aya rulers. Women do the spinning and weav
sculptures show that elite M aya cotton fabrics
ing. Although seldom found today, the tradi
were of rich and complicated weaves, with elab
tional method involved gathering cotton and
orate embroidery. Representations of these tex
spinning it into thread using as a spindle a slen
tiles can be seen on carved monuments and the
der pointed stick about 2 4 cm long, weighted
Bonampak murals (Plates 1 0 -1 5 ) . Handwoven
near the lower end with a disk of pottery. These
cotton mantles of fixed length and width (patis)
disks, or spindle whorls, also survive in the ar
were used as articles of pre-Columbian trade
chaeological record. They gave balance and
and after the Conquest became the principal
weight to the spindle as it was twirled, while the
form of tribute exacted by the Spanish in Yuca
lower end of the spindle rested in a gourd on the
tan. But only a few examples of ancient M aya
ground.
textiles have survived. Numerous small pieces of
The ancient M aya loom was like the back-
carbonized cloth were recovered from the Sa
strap loom still used today. One wooden rod is
cred Cenote at Glichen Itza in central Yucatan,
fastened to each end of the warp to keep the
including examples of many different weaves.
cloth stretched to the desired width. A thick
Fragments of textiles were still wrapped around
hemp cord (yam al), attached to each end of the
some of the eccentric flints found in the Rosalila
lower rod, passes behind the weaver, permitting
cache at Copan.
her to adjust the tension and tighten the warp by of
leaning backward. The upper rod is attached to
Guatem ala and Chiapas pursue a rich textile art
a tree or post. The strip of cloth produced may
The
modern
M a ya
of the
highlands
that derives from their ancestors. The color sym
be up to 2 .5 m long, and as it lengthens it is
bolism used in highland textile designs still re
wound around the upper rod. The looms are
lates to the past. Black, the color of obsidian,
about a meter w ide, and when wider cloth is de
represents weapons; yellow, the color of corn,
sired, two strips are sewn together.
symbolizes food; red represents blood; and blue
100 m, this range begins at Champoton on the west coast, runs north to the city of Campeche, turns northeast to the town of Maxcanu, and then extends southeast ward into south-central Yucatan. Otherwise there are extensive outcroppings of the underlying porous Cenozoic limestone (Tertiary and Recent), honeycombed by ex tensive cave systems. These compose an underground drainage system that, com bined with low rainfall, makes access to water increasingly critical for human settle ment. There are almost no surface streams and only a few lakes. The largest body of water, Lake Bacalar in southeastern Quintana Roo, is about 56 km long and 10 or
51
52 .
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
Fig. 1.17. Northern lowlands: cenote (limestone sinkhole formation), Yucatan, Mexico.
11 km wide. There are several smaller lakes, such as those around the site of Coba in northeastern Yucatan, and three small rivers, little more than shallow arms of the sea. On the east coast are two large shallow bays, Ascención and Espíritu Santo. Inland, however, the only water sources are cenotes (from the Yukatek Mayan d z’onot). These large natural wells are found throughout the area, with the excep tion of the Puuc region. Cenotes are natural formations, places where the surface limestone has collapsed and exposed the subterranean water table (Fig. 1.17). Some of these natural wells are up to 100 m in diameter; their depth varies according to the local water-table level. Near the north coast the subterranean water is less than 5 m below ground level, but as one proceeds southward the depth of the cenotes increases to more than 30 m. In country as devoid of surface water as northern Yucatan,
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
cenotes are a principal source of water today and were equally important for deter mining locations of ancient settlements. The construction of water storage facilities was critical to human settlement and agriculture in many areas of the northern low lands. In the Puuc region, for example, the Maya constructed chultuns (underground cisterns) to collect rainwater for use during the long dry season each year.
The Consequences of Ecological Diversity Differences in elevation, amount of rainfall, availability of water, temperature, dis tribution of plant and animal life, soil conditions, and location of natural resources combine in the Maya area to produce one of the most diverse environments for its size found anywhere in the world. We have characterized this diversity by describing a series of different environmental zones, while bearing in mind that variations within each zone may sometimes be as great as those that distinguish one from another. But to understand the origins and development of Maya civilization, it is crucial to understand how the Maya people adapted to this environment in all its variations. Equally important is understanding how interaction between human populations and the environment affected both and produced changes in both human society and the natural setting. To assess this ecological interaction, modern investigators at tempt to reconstruct the natural conditions that existed in the past and how those conditions have changed over time. The starting point for such studies is a descrip tion of the present environment, combined with the available evidence reflecting ancient environmental conditions. Although some elements of the archaeological record are durable, most evidence of past environments is fragile and may be impos sible to recover. Furthermore, while the archaeological record is, by definition, a di rect reflection of past human activity, the environment is usually indirectly reflected in the residues of human events. Finally, of course, the effects of human activity of ten mask or destroy clues to past environments. Attempts to reconstruct the environmental past have to contend with these difficulties. Ecological research in the Maya area ranges from studies that describe past environmental conditions to attempts to understand and explain ancient envi ronmental change. Descriptions of past conditions rely on recovery of environmental data such as pollen samples, soil profiles, volcanic deposits, cores from lake beds, and even historical records such as surviving Maya accounts. Increased understanding of changes in past environmental conditions comes from studies of broader tropical cli matic conditions in the Caribbean region, trends in temperature change such as global warming, the El N iño cycle, solar cycles, and singular events such as catastrophic vol canic eruptions, which may cause cooling and droughts on a worldwide scale. Such studies make it clear that environmental changes in the past influenced the course of Maya civilization. Evidence of critical environmental changes includes
53
54
THE s e t t i n g
OF MAYA c i v i l i z a t i o n
fluctuations in temperatures and rainfall, including long-term rainfall trends and pe riodic droughts that may have devastated some areas. Dramatic onetime events— earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes— may have disrupted local areas, but only rarely affect broad regions. It is also clear that over time the Maya changed their natural environment. The evidence of their environmental impact may not be as dra matic as catastrophic events, but its consequences certainly had profound long-term effects. The greatest environmental impacts derived from population increase, which led to deforestation, erosion, and soil exhaustion. In addition, causeways, terraces, reservoirs, and other constructions transformed landscapes, soil conditions, and drainage patterns. In combination, both natural environmental changes and the impact of Maya populations on their environment played critical roles in shaping the cycles of growth and decline of Maya civilization visible in the archaeological record. This does not mean that the environment determined the course of Maya civilization. But it is apparent that the complex interaction between Maya populations and their en vironment changed both over time, and that the cumulative effect of such changes created both problems and opportunities that, when responded to, changed Maya society. As we have seen, the most critical environmental factor in many parts of the low lands was water. In areas with rivers and lakes water was readily available yearround. Rivers not only provided water for drinking, cooking, and construction, but during the rainy season floods deposited new álluvial soil that restored fertility and increased crop production. The annual rainy season also usually replenished lakes and bajos for the next dry season. But significant ancient lowland populations de pended on rainfall, since they lived in areas without access to rivers and lakes. In or der to settle such areas, and to grow and prosper there, these populations modified their local environments to maintain a year-round supply of water. Maya families built small reservoirs, dug wells or chultuns, and communities joined together to con struct larger facilities. In time, these efforts led to complex systems of water man agement, including the construction of diversions, canals, and reservoirs, that made the growth of Maya civilization possible in many lowland areas. Ecological research has produced a deeper understanding of the origins and de velopmental trajectory of Maya civilization over a span of several thousand years. But Maya history is the sum of countless specific events that took place within thou sands of communities in the lives of millions of Maya people. Each of these individ uals lived out their lives within one of countless local settings that make up the envi ronmental diversity of the Maya area. Thus, to understand the past we not only have to define the major processes of both environmental and cultural change, but we have to understand the interactions between each local environment and their inhabi tants individuals, families, and communities— over spans as short as a human life-
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
time. This requires exacting research to define local environmental conditions and changes at individual Maya sites. • Recent archaeological research has placed a greater emphasis on understanding local communities, the specialized ways in which their inhabitants adapted to local conditions over time, and how these communities were tied together by economic, sociopolitical, and religious networks. Examples include excavations of the remains of ancient communities in the Rio Amarillo Valley near Copan in western Honduras, in the hinterlands of Xunantunich in western Belize, and in the Three Rivers region of northern Belize. These and similar investigations have begun to define the diver sity of resource exploitation within and among pre-Columbian Maya communities. These ancient communities varied in size, composition, and organization. Some tended to specialize in certain activities— farming, fishing, extraction of resources, production of goods, trade, and the like. The ways in which these communities were interrelated, and the degrees to which their destinies were tied to or even controlled by larger communities and cities, also varied from place to place. But all these com munities changed over time: some prospered and grew, others faltered and were abandoned; some enjoyed relatively brief careers, others continued for many cen turies; some were tightly controlled by more powerful neighbors, others were rela tively autonomous. These differences across time and space were shaped by many factors, including both human actions and natural forces. Rainfall is just one example of these factors, albeit an obviously critical one, that demonstrates how local variations in environ mental conditions affected families, communities, and entire polities and led to changes over time. N ot surprisingly, it appears that the earliest Maya settlements were located near dependable water sources— lakes, springs, rivers. But in time pop ulation growth pushed people into new environments, some into areas with less de pendable sources of water. As regions beyond the margins of rivers and lakes were settled by village agriculturalists, reliance on rainfall increased. In the central low lands, for example, low-lying bajos filled during the rainy season and were fairly re liable water sources. But at times of decreased rainfall some bajos did not accumu late enough water to last through the dry season. As a result, communities had to increase their water supply by pooling their labor to divert more rainfall into bajos or dig artificial reservoirs. This lessened the effect of yearly rainfall fluctuations by in creasing the supply of stored water. These responses also changed local environments by disrupting natural drainage patterns. As populations increased over time, these community-level water-storage facili ties proved vulnerable, especially in low rainfall years. A likely response to such wa ter shortages was to harness the labor of many communities to build much larger wa ter storage facilities, perhaps under the direction of one of the many polities that controlled most of the Maya lowlands. O f course, there are limits to any solution to
55
56
T H E S E T T I N G OF MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
water supply problems. If rainfall decreased over à number of years, even the largest reservoirs would run dry, forcing people to move to new areas to find water. If a se vere and widespread drought occurred, entire water management systems could fail, from local community bajos to state-controlled canals and reservoirs. Such largescale environmental changes could displace huge numbers of people, and their movement to new areas could affect the overall course of Maya civilization. Reliance on rainfall under conditions of population increase raises a number of possible ecological scenarios. In contrast, settlements adjacent to rivers or other de pendable water sources were subject to very different constraints and opportunities. Other well-documented consequences of population growth include deforestation and soil depletion. Similar localized and more widespread responses to both long term and sudden environmental changes took place in the past and are also at work in the Maya area today. For example, gradual deforestation and soil erosion around many highland Maya communities have forced farmers to abandon their land and move to cities or to coastal plantations to become wage earners to support their fam ilies. The 1976 Motagua fault earthquake in Guatemala not only destroyed thou sands of lives, it changed settlement and architectural patterns over large areas of the Maya highlands. The huge amounts of rainfall from Hurricane Mitch in 1998 changed the courses of rivers and thousands of lives and livelihoods for people in western Honduras and eastern Guatemala. The most drastic long-term changes in human societies, in both the Maya area and worldwide, often result from overpopulation. In the Maya area today, overpop ulation is causing highland peoples to migrate northward into lowland areas their an cestors occupied and then abandoned over a thousand years ago. Once resettled, the lowland forests are being cleared and burned for new maize fields. But after only a few years, the tropical forest soils are exhausted and transformed into useless hardpan. Where once great tropical forests grew in abundance, there are now grasslands or sterile landscapes. How did the ancient Maya adapt to this same lowland environment and produce food for millions of people for well over a thousand years, while today this same landscape is exhausted after only a few years of growing crops? The answer, dis cussed later in this book, reveals the importance of adopting agricultural methods that harmonize with, rather than disrupt, the environment. The lowland forest eco system supports a great diversity of species dispersed over the landscape. Maya set tlement tended to be dispersed, and the Maya also relied on diverse plant species and methods of cultivation. As Maya populations grew over time, these agricultural adaptations remained in harmony with the lowland ecosystem. But every adaptive system has its limits, and when these were exceeded, even the harmonious environ mental adaptations of the Maya ultimately failed.
Archaeology and Maya Civilization The Prehistory o f the Americas offers, as we hope to show, such great opportuni ties to add to understanding o f the nature o f man and o f the man-culture relation ship, that most Americanists wish to be very sure o f their facts before venturing far into the field o f generalization. —Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, E x c a v a tio n s a t K a tn in a lju yu , G u a te m a la (1946: 259)
For well over a century Maya civilization has been the subject of archaeological research, seeking to reveal its origins, to explain how ancient Maya society became more complex over time, and to understand the workings of Maya society and its re lationships to its neighbors. Study of the Maya past, however, not only helps us un derstand Maya civilization, but also offers an outstanding opportunity to understand the complex processes inherent in the evolution of all human societies. In other words, the Maya past allows us to better understand ourselves and all other peoples, past and present, from an anthropological perspective.
Reconstructing the Past Archaeologists reconstruct the past from remains of ancient activities— everything from cooking pots to palaces. To reconstruct the past, archaeologists analyze and in terpret the archaeological record using scientific methods— procedures designed to make our observations and conclusions as objective as possible. Scientific methods are aimed at eliminating subjective beliefs or opinions so that our knowledge of the past is based on objective inferences drawn from well-documented evidence— the ar chaeological record. Interpretations of archaeological data are products of a selfcorrecting process, for scientific research constantly produces new evidence that modifies or sometimes completely changes our view of the world— including the world of the past. This means that what we know about the past is constantly chang ing, offering ever more complete reconstructions of ancient societies. O f course this scientifically based view is not the only view of the past. The mass media provide a variety of fantastic views of the past based on “surprising” or “in credible” new discoveries, almost always promoted to increase the numbers of tele vision viewers or magazine buyers rather than to educate the public. We are told that “shocking new discoveries prove” that the Maya and many other ancient civiliza tions were the creations of people with psychic powers or were founded by the “lost
58
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
civilization of Atlantis.” The Internet is a growing outlet for people and cults that im pose their own fantasies on the past. N one of these fantasies are supported by ar chaeological evidence. Fortunately, the scientific method is designed to insulate scientific research and researchers from such commercial exploitation and fantasies. But it must be remem bered that scientists, including archaeologists, cannot totally escape the influences of their own experiences and cultural traditions. This can and does lead to distorted conclusions about the past. But sooner or later these are corrected by more objective research. For example, in the early twentieth century a theory that the ancient Maya were a peaceful society arose from limited research that at the time had not found convincing evidence for warfare. This theory became so entrenched that by the mid twentieth century scholars clung to it even when faced with new evidence for Maya warfare. A romantic view of the past was perpetuated despite evidence to the con trary because archaeologists and other scholars lost their objectivity. Eventually, however, the weight of new research and new evidence overturned the “peaceful Maya” theory. This experience provides a valuable lesson for archaeologists, and all scientists, about what can happen when observations and conclusions are not based on objec tive criteria. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems likely that the “peaceful M aya” theory was perpetuated because some scholars wanted to believe that at least one early civilization was more peaceful than ours. This idyllic view of the past may have provided an escape from the harsh realities of the mid-twentieth century— a time when most of the world was overwhelmed by the horrors of two successive world wars and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Despite their scientific rigor, archaeologists cannot escape the fact that the ar chaeological record is always incomplete and biased to some degree. The record of the Maya past is embedded in thousands of archaeological sites, representing every thing from hunting camps or small villages to huge cities, spread over thousands of square kilometers of territory. Archaeologists have sampled only a few of these sites and have excavated only a small percentage of the archaeological record at the few sites that have been investigated. This means that our current understanding of the Maya past is based on data from a small proportion— certainly less than ten per cent— of the existing archaeological record left by the ancient Maya. Sadly, looters have devastated or destroyed a large portion of that record (see Introduction), and every day information that could improve our understanding of the Maya past dis appears forever. The fact remains that almost every new excavation of a Maya site has the potential to alter, or even completely overturn, some previous conclusion. Furthermore, most material culture is not preserved for archaeologists to re cover. The durable grinding stones made and traded by people to process their maize (com) may survive, but fishnets, food remains, and other organic materials usually
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
59
• •
vanish. Other biases stem from archaeological research itself. For example, much more time and money has been invested in the excavation of large Maya cities than in smaller towns and communities. In the same way, far more «sites dating to the Maya Classic period (ca. ad 2 5 0 -8 0 0 ) have been investigated than sites occupied be fore and after this era. In many cases archaeologists are able to use the available ev idence to propose hypotheses that can be tested by new evidence. In other cases the archaeological record is too incomplete to allow adequate testing, and the best that can be offered are well-informed speculations. But speculations of this sort should never be confused with more certain conclusions about what happened in the past. Both tested hypotheses and informed speculations will be modified, and, in time, most will be replaced by the results of new research. The incompleteness and ambi guities of the archaeological record may also lead to several competing interpreta tions of the same evidence. There is no better illustration of this than the multiple ex planations that have been offered to explain the so-called collapse of Classic Maya civilization (discussed in Chapter 9). But science gains knowledge by never standing still: today’s research results are not the final word; rather they will continue to be tested and refined by further investigation. This is true of all scientific investiga tions— what we know about our world, whether from geologists, microbiologists, or archaeologists, is constantly changing and improving based on better evidence from new research and innovative methods. The fact that there are different interpretations of the past does not always indi cate that some interpretations are wrong. There are many ways to view the past, and we will never fully grasp all that is to be known about the past of any society. Ar chaeologists do constantly increase their knowledge of the past by new research. They do this by research designed to discover, document, and interpret the remains of past human activity, but archaeologists could not do this without help from a host of other specialists. NASA engineers using radar or satellite imagery and soil scien tists detecting chemical traces in the ground aid the discovery of Maya sites. Archi tects and computer specialists facilitate the documentation of the archaeological record. The recovery of delicate and poorly preserved remains is made possible by the skill of professional conservators. On the other hand, the movement of multiton carved monuments often requires the expertise of civil engineers. When it comes to the interpretation of the archaeological record, the list of specialists making essential contributions grows even larger. Botanists and zoologists identify remains of food and other natural resources. Physicists in radiocarbon laboratories provide dates from organic remains. Bioanthropologists determine the age, sex, health status, and even cause of death from the examination of human burials. N ew laboratory tech niques also furnish information about past people’s diet, life history, and place of origin from their teeth and bones. The place of manufacture of ancient pottery and locations of obsidian sources are identified by highly trained specialists using instru-
6o
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
T o m b B urial H u n al
M a rg a rita
S u b -J a g u a r
Total
Local (Copan Region)
9
1
5
15
Lower Motagua Valley (Quirigua Region)
1
0
15
16
Southern Highlands (Kaminaljuyu Region)
1
1
0
2
Central Lowlands (Peten Region)
2
1
0
3
Central Mexico (Teotihuacan Region)
3
5
0
8
Unknown
3
4
5
12
M a n u fa c tu re
Fig. 2.1. Analysis of Maya pottery is a key part of modern archaeological research based on a variety of disciplines; instrumental neutron activation analysis of pottery vessels excavated at Copan, Honduras, reveals these mortuary offerings were imported from locations throughout Mesoamerica.
mental neutron activation analyses (INAA), enabling the reconstruction of patterns of ancient exchange and trade (Fig. 2.1).
Changing Perspectives on the Maya Past The practice of archaeology continues to change. The constant improvements in methods of recovering and analyzing evidence have already been mentioned— and these changes will continue to make more information available to archaeologists. But over archaeology’s own history, the questions archaeologists ask and the ways material evidence is interpreted have also changed and will doubtless continue to change in the future. Archaeology emerged as a distinct discipline in the nineteenth century, a culmi nation of a long-standing interest, centered in Europe and later transplanted to the Americas and elsewhere, in discovering and attempting to understand ruined cities (Plate 2c) and “artifacts,” objects made and used by vanished people and societies.
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
61
• •
POTTERY AND ARCHAEOLOGY Some of the most valuable clues to past human
glyphic texts that label their use as, for example,
activity come from artifacts made of fired clay—
a chocolate (ka/caw) pot. These functional de
pottery vessels,
terminations lead to reconstructions of ancient
figurines,
adornments,
and
other items. Ceramics survive far longer than
human activity. Thus if the remains of a structure
most other human products, even in the humid
are strewn with potsherds from storage jars,
tropics of the M a ya area. The most common ce
cooking pots, and griddles, it was likely a resi
ramic artifacts are potsherds, fragments of bro
dence. Another building, littered with sherds
ken pottery vessels. These are excellent time
from incensarios and offering bowls, was prob
markers, because the forms and decorations of
ably used for ritual activity. Identification of dif
pottery change over time, usually gradually,
ferent sources of clay used in pottery (using neu
sometimes more rapidly. Studies of these pat
tron activation analyses) has defined production
terns of change allow archaeologists to date an
centers and patterns of pottery distribution and
cient pottery fragments. Thus, archaeologists
trade (Fig. 2 .1 ). Other studies of pottery distri
can
quickly verify that an
excavàtion
has
butions have contributed information about the
reached the level of a specific era simply by ex
origins and development of the earliest M aya,
amining the potsherds from that deposit. Ancient pottery has many other uses for the
the development of social and occupational dis tinctions, ancient diet and culinary practices, re
archaeologist. Vessel size and shape indicate
ligious beliefs and rituals, kinship relationships,
uses. Identified food residues testify to vessel
funerary practices, and other details of the lives
functions,
of both the elite and commoners.
sometimes
verifiable
by
painted
As such, archaeology became a new means for scholars to understand the origins of ancient civilizations all over the world. The desire to explain the rise of civilization was only increased when an entirely new assortment of societies, including astound ing civilizations, were discovered in the “N ew World” (see Introduction). Although Europeans initially “explained” civilizations in the Americas as transplants from the Old World, by the late nineteenth century the new discipline of archaeology had mus tered overwhelming evidence for the independent origins of N ew World civilization. This conclusion, and more generally, the increasing sophistication of archaeological interpretations of prehistoric Native American societies throughout the N ew World, came about largely because of an alliance between archaeology and the new disci pline of anthropology. The emergence of an anthropological archaeology in the Americas was nourished by an ever-increasing number of archaeological investiga tions of past cultural development within the N ew World. Since the nineteenth century one of the mainstays of this research has been the Maya area (Figs. 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4).
. H '' O tuant i Yo /.U A*y
Fig. 2.2. Drawing by Jean-Frédéric Waldeck of the Jaguar Throne from Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, from one of the earliest published descriptions of an ancient Maya site (from del Río 1822).
Fig. 2 .3 . Alfred Maudslay s research opened the modern age of investigation of ancient M a ya civi lization. M audslay m apped, excavated, and photographed a number of major M a ya archaeologi cal sites at the end of the nineteenth century (photograph of Copan Stela C as discovered in the G reat Plaza, from Maudslay 1 8 8 9 -1 9 0 2 ).
Fig. 2 .4 . The Tikal Project ( 1 9 5 5 - 7 0 ) , sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Museum, was one of the first and largest multidisciplinary archaeological investigations of a M a ya site; this work was supplied almost entirely by aircraft such as this DC-3 at a time before Tikal was accessible by road (July I9 6 0 ) .
64
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
MAYA ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECTS The ruins of M aya civilization have been ex
Frederick Catherwood, discovered and docu
plored, recorded, and plundered for centuries.
mented dozens of M a ya sites, their carved mon-
In 17 8 7 , Antonio del Rio, a Spanish artillery
umenfs, and buildings (Plate 2c). The transition
captain, was dispatched to investigate reports
between this exploratory period and the begin
of a ruined city at Palenque, now in Chiapas,
nings of modern, systematic archaeological in
Mexico. He explored the site, reported his in
vestigations was gradual. But by the late nine
vestigations to his superiors, and collected pot
teenth century the work of Alfred P. Maudslay
tery, flint artifacts, and fragments of sculpture.
at Copan, Honduras, opened the era of scien
His report was eventually published in 18 22
tific archaeological research in the M a y a area
(Fig. 2.2 ). But del Rio's methods were haphaz
(Fig. 2 .3 ). From that time to the present day,
ard, even by the standards of his day (in his own
investigations by a series of institutions and
words, "there remained neither a window nor a
individual archaeologists from many nations
doorway blocked up; a partition that was not
have contributed to a growing body of informa
thrown down").
tion about the ancient M a ya and the broader
In the century that followed, a number of tire less explorers, such as John Lloyd Stephens and
context of the development of pre-Columbian civilization.
This growth in archaeological research over the past century has also been driven by the application of an increasingly sophisticated body of theory to guide the acquisition and interpretation of archaeological evidence. The most basic example is cultural historical theory, based on stratigraphy and meaningful comparisons that construct the temporal and spatial frameworks to define chronologies and “archaeological cultures.” These frameworks continue to be used to define the chronological span and territorial extent of past Mesoamerican societies, including the ancient Maya. Since the mid-twentieth century, cultural historical frameworks have been con siderably augmented by more explicitly scientific research and interpretations guided by theory based on cultural ecology and cultural materialism, often combined under the label of processual archaeology. As a result, in the second half of the twentieth century there was an explosive growth in new information about the ancient Maya. This began with the holistic perspective on the past provided by settlement pattern studies, pioneered in the Maya area at Barton Rami, Belize; com prehensive multidisciplinary investigations, such as the Tikal Project in Guatemala; and more focused problem-oriented re‘search, such as the Cozumel Project in Yuca tan. These investigations, and their many successors, have produced a flood of new information about adaptive responses within different environments, resource
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
65
• •
acquisition, trade, population size and organization, and other data that has allowed unprecedented reconstructions of ancient Maya economic, social, and political systems. But it is also clear that processual approaches have their limitations, especially when used in ways that excluded other research strategies and interpretations. For example, some processual research defined “prime movers,” such as ecological adap tation or population pressure, that were proposed as the dominant causes for major changes in the past, including the development of agriculture and the origins of states. But further research invariably revealed exceptions to these proposed causes, or the critical involvement of additional factors. In fact, the combination of a variety of factors, often modeled as interacting systems, usually held more promise to ex plain changes seen in the archaeological record. But processual approaches usually assumed that changes in the archaeological record reflected monolithic trends within society as a whole, and did not allow for the diversity of responses by individuals or factions within society. History is replete with cases where the actions of individuals and groups have changed the entire direction of societies. There were other problems with processual approaches. For example, cultural materialism in particular tended to disregard the importance of nonmaterial factors such as ideology. But, as history also shows, ideology is often critical in reinforcing the legitimacy of decision makers and often plays a decisive role in either fostering or resisting the currents of change within society. In the late twentieth century these and other problems led to what is usually called postprocessual archaeology, a loose collection of diverse theoretical ap proaches that depart from processual approaches. Some of these alternative ap proaches certainly predate the rise of postprocessual archaeology. For example, Marxist archaeology draws on Marxist theory to examine the internal conflicts within past societies, effectively countering the processual assumption that the ar chaeological record represents a kind of social consensus. Feminist archaeology is correcting the prevailing male-centered stereotypes embedded in processual views of the past, demonstrating that women were a critical part of past societies and active agents of change. These and other postprocessual approaches share the common goal of broadening the ways archaeologists attempt to understand the past. The means to do this include focusing on the importance of agency in the past— the ability of in dividuals, families, and small groups to act and effect change within larger societies. Related to this are approaches that concentrate on ethnic, gender, and other differ ences within past societies and how these diverse interests affect the course of soci ety. Finally, it is important to note that all of these newer approaches to the past also acknowledge that the actions and perspectives of the investigator influence the con duct and results of research (Fig. 2.5).
66
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
Fig. 2 .5 . Contemporary archaeological research combines the most modern methods with tradi tional excavation techniques (excavations under w a y at Cancuen, G uatem ala).
Etic and Em ic Views o f the Past Despite these changing theoretical perspectives, archaeology remains a discipline re lated to both anthropology and history. But because anthropology in North Amer ica began in the nineteenth century with the study of Native American societies, the archaeology of the pre-Columbian ancestors of these peoples has always been more closely allied to anthropology, often labeled anthropological archaeology. In the twentieth century, anthropology developed two broad perspectives to understand liv ing societies: an “etic” view, with a goal of providing an unbiased, nonintrusive, sci entific perspective; and an “emic” view, with a goal of providing an internal per spective (these terms were coined after two linguistic terms, phonetic , referring to the basic sounds used in all human languages, and phonemic , the inventory of sounds with meaning in each individual language). These distinctions highlight another contrast between processual and postprocessual archaeology. Processual archaeology has striven to become more sci entific— in other words to adopt an etic, or scientific, perspective from which to re construct the past. But human societies, past or present, cannot be fully understood by scientific viewpoints alone. While human beings are subject to natural conditions and processes, such as soil fertility and genetic variation, human behavior is condi tioned by more than environment and natural selection, to cite only two examples. Human behavior also reflects beliefs, customs, and traditions that are unique to each
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
society. Postprocessual approaches aim at a more balanced view by seeking an emic perspective, one that attempts to develop a more comprehensive and internally based understanding of each individual past society. Both approaches have merit, and a number of archaeologists attempt to balance a scientific etic stance with a more humanistic emic perspective. Of course many an thropologists are able to develop a sophisticated emic view because they can converse with living people, participate in their activities, learn their language, and become accepted as a member of their society. It is obvious that archaeologists seeking an emic perspective on the past cannot converse and participate with people long dead or become members of a long-vanished society! But there are ways to at least ap proach emic understandings. History provides one obvious means to gain such an in ternal view, since this allows researchers to read the records written by past people about themselves. But unfortunately no surviving (or deciphered) texts represent the vast majority of past societies. Although some archaeologists may believe that pottery sherds speak to them, in truth, written records are the richest foundation for an emic approach. But there are less direct means to gain at least a partial view. Ethnohistory is one. Archaeologists use oral histories or documents from later periods written by descendent members of a prehistoric society to interpret the remains left by that society. Portions of the ar chaeological record itself may encode meanings that can provide an emic perspective. For example, the ways past people viewed their universe may be reflected in every thing from burial offerings to the way buildings are arranged across the landscape. If the patterns that reflect these concepts can be recognized in the archaeological record, for instance by using analogy or ethnohistory, an emic perspective on the past can be realized. Both etic and emic perspectives have their virtues, and both have their failings and their biases. Etic archaeology limits itself to making inferences from material re mains, assuming that, at a basic level, people and groups in all human societies be have in a more or less consistent manner. Thus a household midden, or a human bur ial accompanied by imported goods, reflects the same basic kinds of behavior whether it is found at a Maya site or at a site in Africa or Asia. Emic archaeology questions this assumption and attempts to discover the particular, idiosyncratic pat terns within each vanished society. This is why oral traditions or written sources are so important, for they often reveal not only events but clues about attitudes, beliefs, and motivations that would be impossible to glean from material remains alone. Still, as we all know, historical documents reflect the biases of their creators, and even when we can read an ancient text, we must factor out fact from fiction. Archaeologists of the Maya are especially fortunate because, more so than with any other pre-Columbian society, the ancient Maya left us not only a rich array of material remains for etic investigations, but also a sizable corpus of written records for emic study (discussed in Chapter 3). Thus the ancient Maya provide us with an
67
68
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT CO PA N , HONDURAS This famous site has been known since 1 5 7 6
ever since, producing one of the longest and
when it was described by Don Diego G arcía de
largest archaeological investigations conducted
Palacios. In 1 8 3 4 Juan Galindo excavated a
at any M a ya site. Willey's Copan Valley Project
tomb beneath the East Court of the Copan
(1 9 7 5 - 7 7 ) defined the basic settlement pat
Acropolis. Although the excavated materials
terns in the valley and excavated the first sample
have since disappeared, "Galindo's Tomb" was
of residential compounds. The Instituto Hon-
the first reported excavation of a M a ya royal
dureño de Antropología e Historia sponsored
tomb. A few years later the outside world dis
the first phase of the Copan Archaeological
covered Copan through the descriptions and il
Project from 1 9 7 7 to 1 9 8 0 , which conducted
lustrations of John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick
further valley settlement work and opened exca
Catherwood. Beginning in 1 8 8 5 Alfred Maud-
vations in the M ain Group. The second phase of
slay mapped and excavated in Copan's M ain
this investigation, from 1 9 8 0 to 1 9 8 5 , contin
Group and photographed Copan's sculptures
ued these programs with more valley settlement
(Fig. 2 .3 ). The Peabody Museum of Harvard
work. Since 1 9 8 5 , research at Copan has con
University continued these investigations from
tinued under a variety of programs. These in
1891 to 1 8 9 4 . In the early twentieth century
clude further valley settlement investigations and
Sylvanus Morley documented Copan's carved
the excavation of outlying elite complexes in the
monuments and was also the first to point out
North Group and Group 8 N -1 1. At the same
that Copan's M ain Group was only part of the
time the Copan Mosaics Project identified the
remains of ancient settlement spread throughout
huge corpus of fallen sculptural facades in the
the Copan Valley. This work was followed by ex
M ain Group. The largest effort in the M ain
cavations and restoration work by the Carnegie
Group was the Copan Acropolis Archaeologi
Institution of Washington for over a decade be
cal Project, or PAAC (1 9 8 8 - 9 5 ) . The PAAC pro
ginning in 1 9 3 5 , including saving the Copan
gram conserved and consolidated the Acropolis
Acropolis from destruction by diverting the Co
Corte and excavated the Cemetery Group im
pan River aw ay from the Corte or river cut that
mediately south of the Acropolis. Other PAAC
had eroded aw ay its eastern side. The Carnegie
research relied on extensive tunneling excava
project also reset fallen and broken monuments,
tions beneath the Acropolis, including the Struc
excavated five major structures, including the
ture 10L-26 program, the Structure 10L-16 pro
famed Hieroglyphic Stairway and Ball Court,
gram, and the Early Copan Acropolis Program,
and tunneled beneath three Acropolis structures
which excavated a series of tunnels at various
to find earlier constructions.
levels from the Corte to document the Early Clas
Archaeological research at Copan was re
sic architectural history of the Acropolis, com
newed in 1 9 7 5 when Gordon W illey began to
pleting its excavation and consolidation work
investigate Classic-period settlement in the Co
in 2 0 0 3 .
pan Valley. Research at Copan has continued
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
69
• • emic w indow — one that is restricted to only a portion of the long trajectory of Maya development and almost exclusively to the uppermost segment of society but that nonetheless supplements the scientific viewpoint with a more historical perspective. So long as we acknowledge that all our inferences about the past are but earnest approximations, and that all will be supplemented, modified, or even rejected by to morrow’s discoveries, we can combine the best of both approaches to useful effect.
Perspective a n d G oals o f This B ook There are those who champion one avenue of investigation while maintaining all others are invalid. My own experiences as an archaeologist have taught me to reject no single theory or viewpoint out of hand but accept all that provide well-founded contributions to better understand the past. Thus this book adopts an all-inclusive perspective on the Maya past, beginning with the well-established chronologies and spatial patterns recognized by culture historical approaches. It also includes the processual approaches of cultural ecology and cultural materialism, especially as foundations for a broad perspective on the evolution of societies. And this book in corporates Marxist, feminist, and postprocessual archaeologies by recognizing that the archaeological record also reflects the tensions and conflicts within society, the actions of women and men, individually and collectively, along with the factions, eth nic groups, and other subdivisions that comprised ancient Maya society. In a broader sense, my experience also tells me that both etic and emic perspec tives on the past are valid, and that although either one may be preferable under cer tain circumstances, the best route to an understanding of the past is to combine the resources of the two, especially when one can be used to check or amplify the other. This book, therefore, incorporates both the findings and interpretations of rigorously scientific archaeology and the readings and insights from emic historical decipher ment of Maya inscriptions. Because the historical texts record little or nothing about certain topics, some discussions— about Maya subsistence, for example— will be heavily based on the results of old-fashioned scientific processual archaeology. But elsewhere— in summarizing the political history of the Classic period, for example— Maya texts provide a great deal of unique and fascinating information. To be sure, some of this information is mythical or may be distorted versions of events, yet by comparing one text with another, or checking the historical accounts against the ev idence from dirt archaeology, we can often determine the reliability of these accounts. But the myths and distortions of history are also important, for they tell us something about the beliefs and the sources of power of Maya rulers— especially how events were manipulated and something about the purpose of such manipulation. So the book will include historical accounts that are one-sided or distorted in order to gain some insight into the problems faced by individual Maya rulers and how they at tempted to solve the problems that confronted them.
70
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • This book has two overall purposes. First, it presents a synthesis of what we know about ancient Maya society as it developed over a span of some twenty-five centuries. This synthesis is based on both the archaeological and historical record that furnishes the empirical evidence for deriving the second purpose: to better understand the causes and consequences of this 2,500-year process of social and cul tural development. This first goal is important in its own right, especially as a step toward preserv ing the cultural heritage of the Maya people of today. As mentioned in the Introduc tion, the Maya have long been lauded for their outstanding accomplishments in art, architecture, and mathematics. While some claims for the uniqueness of ancient Maya achievements, most notably their supposed peaceful social order, have been thoroughly disproved by accumulating evidence, it is still appropriate to highlight their many positive and admirable accomplishments. The promotion of the genuine achievements of the Maya past has a positive effect on the present, especially for the descendant Maya people of today. This is important, because European colonizers have long denigrated the Maya, along with other Native American peoples. Thus the accomplishments of the ancient Maya have become an important means for modern Maya peoples to rediscover their past and enhance their self-esteem. Fortunately Maya archaeologists are now taking an increasing active role in working with Maya communities to foster this process of rediscovery. The second goal is important because, for archaeologists, the Maya past offers one of the best documented cases of the evolution of a preindustrial civilization found anywhere in the world. Revealed by over a century of archaeological research, the course of Maya civilization offers numerous parallels with similar developments in the Old World, such as ancient Egypt. In fact, the Maya are often placed on the ros ter of the world’s early civilizations, along with their Mesoamerican neighbors (the Olmec, Zapotee, and Teotihuacan), Andean civilization, and the Old World civiliza tions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China. As with other Native American societies, the evolutionary course of Maya civilization was not influenced in any way by the civilizations of the Old World. The Maya therefore provide an out standing opportunity for the anthropological study of the processes involved in the growth of economic, social, political, and ideological systems and their role in the de velopment of an increasingly complex society.
Basic Concepts Complex society and civilization are overlapping concepts that have a variety of definitions. For our purposes “complex society” refers to societies that have more in tricate and heterogeneous organizations than egalitarian societies where the only in equalities are based on gender and age (nonadult and adult, for example). Complex societies are both larger than egalitarian societies and organized with status and role
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
71
• •
categories beyond those defined by gender and age. They are also characterized by differential access to resources, which produces economic and sociopolitical in equalities such as ranking or social stratification. “Civilization” is a more subjective term, but it usually refers to societies with sophisticated cultural, social, and intel lectual developments, often characterized by well-defined architectural and art styles, engineering achievements, and writing. In a word, all civilizations are complex soci eties, but civilization refers to only the largest and most developed complex societies. Cities are often seen as the hallmarks of civilization— large and integrated settle ments for people who specialize in a variety of non-food-producing activities. People living in cities often produce food as well— in household gardens, or on farm plots outside the city— but a significant proportion of city inhabitants specialize in other things, such as administration, manufacturing, trade, or religion. City populations live by exchanging goods and services with an agricultural hinterland that produces most of the food consumed by the city. A few archaeologists claim the ancient Maya did not have cities because of a more dispersed pattern of settlement that gives most Maya archaeological sites a less “urban” appearance. While the populations of most Maya cities were not as highly concentrated as those of Mesopotamia, or even Cen tral M exico, the more dispersed settlement of most Maya cities is in fact an adaptive response to their setting in a tropical lowland environment. Maya cities should not be considered less complex, or less important, because their appearance does not fit our conceptions of what a city should look like. Dispersed settlement was an efficient adaptation to a tropical environment by providing space for food production in the midst of other activities that define cities worldwide. Thus Maya cities were also spe cialized centers for administration, manufacturing, commerce, and religion, and therefore served the same purposes as other ancient cities. The origins and causal factors involved in the growth of complex societies and civilizations have long been the subject of anthropological inquiry. The recent and unprecedented increase in information about the Maya from both archaeological and historical sources allows an opportunity for more precise and detailed explana tions for this process. This not only increases our understanding of Maya sociocul tural evolution but amplifies our understanding of the factors that underlie the ori gins and development of complex societies worldwide.
Models of Post Societies In comparing the array of human societies throughout the world, anthropologists have identified many varieties of organizational complexity, defined by ethnographic and historical studies. The different ways people have organized their societies pro vide cross-cultural models that can be used to interpret the archaeological record and help reconstruct aspects of ancient societies by matching these models to archaeo logical data. This allows archaeologists to identify both the conjunctions (similari-
72
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • ties) and disjunctions (differences) between models and data. This, in turn, provides new options for the interpretation of archaeological data and allows new questions to be formulated to explain inconsistencies between models and archaeological data. But anthropological models are abstractions, not complete templates that allow the past to be reconstructed. Obviously, to assume a model based on one society com pletely explains the organization of another disregards the fact that all societies are unique to a certain degree. Furthermore, as will become clear, Maya civilization was not a uniform development but manifested considerable diversity across time and space. Thus the application of any single organizational model based on another so ciety to the Maya data would also imply a degree of uniformity within ancient Maya society that simply did not exist. There is also a considerable body of data derived from ethnohistorical and ethnographic studies of the Maya themselves. These sources provide Maya-based models that often contain more specific information about Maya patterns and be havior. Maya-based models can add crucial details to our interpretations of the ar chaeological record, especially in resolving the disjunctions between cross-cultural models and archaeological data. But these models also must take into account the changes and diversity inherent in the Maya past. By applying both anthropological and Maya-based models, archaeological data is interpreted in a way that allows cross-cultural comparisons and identifies many specific features unique to Maya society. The result is the most complete picture of ancient Maya society possible. An example is the description of Maya cities in the previous section, which points out the characteristics that Maya cities shared with other societies, based on cross-cultural anthropological models, as well as salient characteristics known from ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological research (patterns of dispersed settlement and subsistence) that differentiates Maya cities from most others. In the process, an explanation for several distinct features of Maya cities was also identified (an effective settlement adaptation for food production within cities). This book will refer to several anthropological models that help interpret Maya archaeological data. Some of these pertain to specific arenas of organization defined by anthropologists, such as social or political organizational models. These are syn chronic models in that they seek to describe organizations at one point in time with out considering how these organizations changed through time. To describe this tem poral dimension, archaeologists also use diachronic models. This book will refer to one such diachronic model, multilinear social evolution, to better define the timing and the critical changes that took place in the course of the development of Maya civilization.
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
73
• • TABLE 2 .1
Some distinctions between chiefdoms and state societies
A r c h a e o lo g ic a l h a llm a rk s
C h ie f d o m i
S la te s
M o n u m e n ta l a rc h ite c tu re
M o n u m e n ta l a rc h ite c tu re
‘
(tem p le s, a s s e m b ly a re a s )
(tem p le s, a s s e m b ly a re a s ,
T h re e -tie r site h ie ra rc h ie s
p a la c e s , fo rtific a tio n s , e tc .)
P restig e g o o d s
Four-tier site h ie ra rc h ie s P restige g o o d s , te rrito ria l b o u n d a rie s , etc.
S o c ia l in te g ra tio n
W e a k — b ased on w a rfa re a n d
S tro n g — b a s e d o n c e n tra liz e d
re d is trib u tio n o f g o o d s (chiefs)
c o n tro l o f a d m in is tra tiv e
S o c ia l in e q u ity
R a n k in g b a s e d o n re la tio n s h ip
S o c ia l stratifica tio n b a s e d on
to c h ie f
status a n d w e a lth
S o u rc e s o f p o w e r
Success in w a r ; id e o lo g y ;
Success in w a r ; id e o lo g y ;
o b lig a tio n s c re a te d b y gifts ,
o b lig a tio n s ; m a n a g e m e n t o f
feasts, etc.
e c o n o m y ; c o e rc iv e fo rc e a n d la w
h ie ra rc h ie s (rulers o r kings)
Development of Complex Society and Civilization The multilinear cultural evolutionary model used here derives from a long history of anthropological and archaeological research. In its prevalent form it is based on com bining evolutionary sequences defined by archaeological indicators of increasing lev els of economic and social integration and increasing degrees of social inequity. This model proposes that the earliest societies were small-scale egalitarian organizations that over time developed into larger and more complex organizations with increased inequities. The earliest complex societies culminated in an organizational type often termed a chiefdom , which provided the foundations for an even more complex sys tem, the state , often equated with civilizations (Table 2.1). By defining broad regularities, this theoretical evolutionary sequence finds sup port in the archaeological record of the ancient Maya. However, this is not a rigid or deterministic evolutionary sequence but a multilinear view that sees every society changing over time in unique ways according to prevailing conditions and circum stances. Because every society is the product of its own set of conditions and cir cumstances, no two societies follow the same evolutionary path. The “stages” defined in this multilinear evolutionary model are merely reference points that allow meaningful cross-cultural comparisons of similar societies. Although Maya states in the eighth century ad shared some qualities with the Saxon states of about the same time, or with the Greek states twelve hundred years earlier, there is no doubt they also differed in many ways. Furthermore, as already mentioned, Maya states were never uniform or static. They were diverse in size and organization across the Maya landscape at any point in time, and each changed in profound ways over time.
74
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN, MEXICO This was the site of the first large-scale M aya ar
valuable recording of architectural and ceramic
chaeological investigations by the Carnegie In
data. Overall archaeology has revealed that
stitution of Washington. Sylvanus Morley di
Chichen Itza was one of the largest of all an
rected excavations at Chichen Itza from 1 9 2 4
cient M a y a cities.
to 1 9 4 0 . Most of the famous architecture at the
The Carnegie research assigned most visible
site, the Great Ball Court, El Castillo, the Temple
structures at Chichen Itza to one of two archi
of the Warriors, and the Caracol, were exca
tectural periods: the "florescent" (Terminal Clas
vated and restored by the Carnegie archaeolo
sic), associated with
gists working with Morley, including Earl M or
"modified florescent" (Postclassic), associated
a
Puuc style,
or the
ris, Ann Morris, Harry Pollock, Karl Ruppert,
with the addition of non-Maya architectural
Gustav Stromsvik, J. Eric Thompson, and Robert
traits to a M a ya masonry tradition. This twofold
Wauchope. W hile working at Chichen Itza,
architectural chronology was linked to a pottery
Morley outfitted expeditions to explore and map
sequence, with Terminal Classic Cehpech ce
other sites, including the ruins of two major
ramics predating Postclassic Sotuta ceramics.
M aya capitals, Coba and Calakmul.
M ore recent research has revised these conclu
- Since the Carnegie work, there have been a
sions, with evidence for substantial overlap be
series of investigations at Chichen Itza and fur
tween the pottery traditions and the two archi
ther excavation and restoration of the site's ma
tectural styles at Chichen
jor buildings. In the process several nearly intact
findings indicate that Chichen Itza first rose to
Itza. These new
structures have been discovered beneath later
power in the Late Classic, reached its apogee in
constructions, and the limits of the great city
the Terminal Classic, and was abandoned by
have been traced, along with several surround
the beginning of the Postclassic.
ing secondary centers. There also has been
Still, comparisons drawn between Maya states and those of Saxon England, clas sical Greece, or Southeast Asia, can lead to better understanding of the dynamics and workings of all societies. Comparisons may reveal similar causes and consequences of change within different societies. They may also reveal that similar causes can pro duce different consequences, or that similar consequences derive from very different causes. Every society has developed its own traditions and ways of doing things. These different styles can often be recognized in the archaeological record in everything from cooking vessels to architecture. Accordingly, archaeologists are flexible in their interpretations of the past, recognizing that evolutionary and other anthropological models are abstractions that subsume considerable variation. While past societies may generally follow patterns recognized from ethnography or ethnohistory, there
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
75
• • are always unique factors and exceptions to take into account. Furthermore, because evolution is a continuous process, it is usually impossible to determine the points of transition between different “stages” in any evolutionary sequence. For example, the transition from an egalitarian society to a society with initial manifestations of social inequities may be gradual and almost impossible to detect archaeologically. But in some cases transitions are sudden, as when a chiefdom expands through conquest and incorporates the territory, resources, and populations of its neighbors, in the pro cess instituting a larger and more complex state organization. With these caveats in mind, a general sequence of increasingly complex societies can be proposed as a model that describes the trajectory of Maya development gleaned from the archaeological record.
The Evolution of Civilizations Throughout the world, the earliest human societies were egalitarian and relied on hunting and gathering of wild food for subsistence. Under most circumstances, hunt ing and gathering required seasonable movement of people to follow wild game and harvest wild plants. The foundations for all complex societies, including the Maya, lie in a shift from a nomadic hunting and gathering way of life to one based in per manently settled communities reliant on locally available food sources. The causes for this shift remain a topic of debate— casual choice, accident, or necessity all prob ably played a part. Regardless of cause, permanent settlement requires steady food sources close at hand and available year-round, or production of surpluses large enough to last through periods when food is unavailable. In most cases this subsis tence base comes from domesticated food production— agriculture and animal hus bandry— and allows the establishment of autonomous settled communities. But agriculture did not happen overnight, and in both the Old World and the Americas it took many generations of experimentation to create the steady, reliable, and pro ductive food sources from domesticated plants and animals to produce enough food surpluses to support year-round settled communities. Detecting ancient permanent settlements is subject to the vagaries of the archae ological record. There is also the question of what constitutes evidence of permanent settlement. Some indication of investment in substantial architecture— houses and storage facilities— is often used. If one can find evidence of permanent settle ment, then how does one demonstrate that agriculture, let alone domesticated sources of food, was instrumental in its support? Here the archaeologist must recover preserved organic residues— pollen, seeds, leaves of food plants, or the bones and teeth of domesticated animals. But to differentiate wild from domestic species, the archaeologist must rely on specialists trained in botany and zoology. If the sites of early settled communities can be detected, their pattern across the land scape can indicate how they were organized. For example, the settlement pattern-
76
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • ing of autonomous communities may reflect a series of small sites within a local region, none of which is significantly different from its contemporaries in size or composition. Depending on the potential for increased production of food and other re sources, these settled autonomous communities may make possible increased popu lation and social distinctions beyond those based* on gender and age. Inequality is the foundation for the growth in social complexity. For example, individuals capable of producing more food, more wealth, or controlling more labor (“aggrandizers”) may gain status and be able to direct the activities of other members of the community. Social and economic differences, especially those that led to some individuals having authority over others, represent the roots of complex societies. The beginnings of in equalities may be detected from differences in house remains— some being larger, or better equipped, than others. If these differences extend beyond one community, one site within a local region may be distinguished by being bigger than others or having unique features, indicating it may have had authority over smaller nearby communi ties. In this way, hierarchies of economic or sociopolitical control are usually reflected in hierarchies of different-sized sites— in this case seen as a simple twotiered site hierarchy. Increased status and prestige earned during an individual’s lifetime, but not in herited by later generations, define achieved status. In contrast, if differences in sta tus are inherited, they become perpetuated over the generations. This defines inher ited (ascribed) status— whereby offspring too young to have achieved prestige and wealth on their own gain higher status from their parents. Some aggrandizers had the ability to pass on to their offspring not only their wealth and prestige but also their increased authority. If certain families or groups within society monopolized higher status and authority, an elite subgroup could emerge. The end result is social stratification, whereby a small elite subgroup maintains its elevated status, wealth, and ultimately its power over the remainder of society. These status distinctions may be reinforced socially with endogamy (marriage restricted within a group or class) and ideologically (by myths of separate, even supernatural, origins from the nonelite). As part of this process, members of the elite often gain control of key political and religious positions in the community. When such an early complex organization expands and incorporates several communities under the authority of a single leader, it often fulfills the definition of a chiefdom. This expansion may be accomplished by marriage alliances or similar peaceful means, or by coercive means such as warfare. In cases where one commu nity expands to control its neighbors, we can begin to refer to a territory or polity as sociated with individual chiefdoms. But chiefdoms typically emphasize control of people rather than territory, so polities in this sense are not as large or well integrated as the territories controlled by states. There are several key indications of chiefdomlevel societies in the archaeological record. These include evidence of a degree of craft
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
specialization and trade, especially in exotic (foreign) materials used as status and religious symbols; collection and redistribution of tribute; inherited social ranking (clear differences in houses, burial customs, and wealth within society); and public works (large-scale constructions requiring the mobilization of labor, usually under the direction of someone in authority). A fairly standard settlement pattern signature of a chiefdom is a three-tiered hierarchy of sites defined by differences in size or composition. Chiefdoms are managed by an elite group under the ultimate authority of a chief who has little coercive or true political power. The chief’s authority often depends on his success as a war leader, but ultimately his ability to command other members of society comes from controlling religion and wealth. A chief usually gains this au thority from relationships with the supernatural and his own illustrious ancestors. Power comes from people believing that the chief has special supernatural contacts or abilities that can be used to either help or harm others. To ensure this supernatu ral power is used for proper purposes, people may offer tribute to the chief— food, goods, and their labor— from the economic surpluses they produce. But the chief’s authority is usually limited to what can be done by persuasion and using collected tribute to create obligations and establish alliances through feasts, gift giving, and rituals. By bestowing these favors, the chief maintains the loyalty of his subjects and allies. With further increases in population and organizational complexity and, most importantly, increased power in the hands of the society’s leader or leaders, a chief dom may become more complex and well integrated until it fits the definition of a state. These changes can take place in several ways. One of these involves warfare, since warfare often breeds power. Success in battle usually requires good organization and clear lines of command and control that emanate from a single leader. This gives the war leader coercive power over others. States may result when this coercive power deriving from organizations and lines of command perfected in battle is extended throughout society. These changes in the balance of power within society might be instituted to better administer and control the increased pop ulation and resources resulting from the conquest and takeover of one chiefdom by another. Unlike chiefdoms, states are defined by the territory they control— in a word, they form a bounded polity or kingdom. M ost Maya polities were small in scale, so that at any given time the Maya area was made up of many independent states, each controlling a relatively limited territory. But there were significant exceptions, and some grew into larger and more powerful kingdoms that dominated smaller polities. There are many archaeological indicators of a state-level society, beginning with the most obvious, evidence of centralized political control, along with management of production and distribution of goods, major public works, and true cities. In terms of settlement pattern, there is usually at least a four-tiered hierarchy of sites within a
77
jS
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT UAXACTUN, GUATEMALA Located in the central lowlands about a day's
cluding the discovery of the first major Preclassic
walk (some 4 0 km) north of Tikal, Uaxactun was
temple in the lowlands, known as Str. E-VIII-sub,
first reported to Sylvanus Morley, who orga
and Group E, the first astronomically aligned ar
nized an expedition to the site in 1 9 1 6 . Morley
chitectural assemblage. The mapping of the site
coined the name Uaxactun, meaning "eight
led to the earliest settlement survey of a lowland
stone/' in recognition of Stela 9, a monument
M a ya site, the excavation of domestic remains
with an 8 Bak'tun date in the M a ya Long Count
by Robert W auchope constituted some of the
calendar (discussed in Chapter 3), which when
earliest household archaeology in the M a y a
discovered by Morley was the earliest known
area. The first archaeological chronology for the
M aya date (ad 3 2 8 ). Following Morley's recon
central lowlands was founded on Robert Smith's
naissance, Uaxactun was the site of the first
Uaxactun pottery sequence, combined with cal-
comprehensive archaeological investigations in
endrical inscriptions, architectural development,
the central lowlands, conducted by the C ar
and other indicators. The ceramic chronology
negie Institution of Washington ( 1 9 2 6 - 3 7 ) . Par
reflects Uaxactun's span of occupation, with ori
ticipants included Franz Blom, Oliver Ricketson,
gins in the M iddle Preclassic and abandonment
Edith Ricketson, A. Ledyard Smith, Robert Smith,
in the Terminal Classic. The Uaxactun chronol
Edwin Shook, and Robert Wauchope. The pio
ogy has been used as a starting point for almost
neering research of these scholars provided
every other excavation in the central lowlands,
many firsts in lowland M aya archaeology, in
including the later work at Tikal.
region definable by differences in size or composition, headed by a single site that is far larger and more complex than its companions (the polity capital). Maya states varied considerably from period to period and place to place, with differences in size, organization, and power. As with other early states, warfare allowed some Maya polities to expand in both territory and population size. Thus, some of the most aggressive and successful Maya states controlled large polities with populations in the hundreds of thousands. A centralized political authority, usually institutionalized in a paramount office held by a single ruler or king, reigned over most Maya states. Although the authority of Maya kings also waxed and waned over time, their power was measured by success in religion, war, and the welfare of their subjects. These kings had at least some coercive power— life and death authority over others, supported by a state cult or religion, a hierarchy of administrators and officials, palace guards, and armies. The first states to develop in various parts of the world were preindustrial states. In general these correspond to the early civilizations mentioned previously, defined by their architectural and art styles, engineering achievements, writing systems, and
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
79
• • cities. States are also characterized by full-time craft specializations and complex so cial stratification (division of society into a ruling elite and a nonelite), but as the name implies, preindustrial states were very different from moder/i industrial states that arose during the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth cen turies. Preindustrial states did not possess machine-based mass production, rapid communication, and efficient transport typical of modern states. Preindustrial states relied on human and animal power, rather than the far greater energy available from steam, electric, internal combustion, and nuclear power. This means that the eco nomic output of preindustrial states was far less than that of industrial states of the modern era.
Understanding the Evolution of Maya Civilization Although social evolutionary theory implies changes in complexity over time, this is far from a uniform process. The evolution of Maya civilization is a case in point, for the archaeological record reveals a series of fits and starts, or cycles of expansion and contraction. The development of ancient Maya society can be traced from about 1000 BC to a d 1500, during which time chiefdomlike organizations were succeeded by preindustrial states. But this time span was also marked by considerable fluctua tions in the size and complexity of the mosaic of Maya polities. Unlike the state de velopment process of ancient Egypt, with its rather uniform riverine setting, the evo lution of Maya civilization was sustained in an extremely diverse environment of coastal plains, rugged highlands, and tropical lowland forests. Reminiscent of classi cal Greek city-states, or the Saxon kingdoms of Britain in the Dark Ages, Maya civ ilization was defined by the rise and fall of a succession of independent kingdoms. But unlike Greece under Alexander the Great, or Britain after William the Con queror, the Maya were never politically united by conquest and empire, so the cycles of expansion and contraction of individual polities continued right up to the time of European intervention in the sixteenth century. Yet the characteristics of Maya states, and to a large degree the distinctiveness of Classic Maya civilization, were the product of major factors that parallel those un derlying the rise of early civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Greece, and elsewhere. Along the way, each of these preindustrial civilizations developed their own traditions and styles. But as in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Greece the foundations of Maya states were shaped by cultural traditions manifested by eco nomic, sociopolitical, and ideological systems that regulated human activities and re lationships. These factors did not operate in isolation but, as we shall see, were in terwoven and reinforced each other. In fact, it is in their complex interactions that these economic, sociopolitical, and ideological systems become the keys to under standing the development of Maya civilization over time. O f course it is we, as scientific observers, who based on our own way of think-
8o
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
ing categorize realms of human behavior as economic, social, political, and ideolog ical. Yet, although it is convenient to do this to better study the past, not all societies recognized these same behavioral distinctions. In fact, the ancient Maya certainly did not view their world according to our categories. Examination of these different be havioral realms does allow us to better understand the origins and development of Maya civilization, but the key to unlocking the past lies in discovering the ways eco nomic, social, political, and ideological systems were interrelated. At the same time, we must not allow our inquiry to fix on some realms of behavior while assuming others were less important. In the final analysis, the diverse environment of the Maya area also shaped ancient Maya society, from its economy to its ideology, for the op portunities and constraints of climate, landscape, and resources, along with rela tionships with neighboring societies, helped define the Maya people. These topics will be discussed further later in this book, but at this point we will briefly look at some of the ways all these factors contributed to the traditions of Maya culture and the rise of ancient Maya civilization.
The Maya Economy Broadly speaking, economic systems refer to the allocation of resources available to a society— labor, food, raw materials, and the production and distribution of goods. A basic distinction is often made based on the degree to which these resources were collectively managed by members of society (the “social econom y”) or centrally man aged by a privileged elite (the “political economy”). There is no centralized control over the economies of egalitarian societies, while at the other end of the spectrum, state-level societies operate with varying degrees of centralized management of the economy. Thus, one factor critical to the growth of complex societies lies in the de velopment of the political economy— the degree to which the political elite controls labor and the production and distribution of goods— and the ways the political economy is integrated with the social economy.
Subsistence an d Population G ro w th The foundations of Maya civilization lie in the relationships between environmental conditions, food production (subsistence), and population growth— factors impor tant to every human society. As we have seen, seasonal availability of rainfall made some portions of the Maya area especially dependent on water storage, and those who controlled these sources of water also acquired power. But for the most part other aspects of food production remained outside of the Maya political economy. Of course, the environment and food production shape the characteristics of all hu man societies, including people’s health and nutritional status, and the society’s growth in size, density, and organizational complexity. The Maya made the most of
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
8l
• •
the opportunities afforded by an extremely diverse environment, rich in resources and blessed with a variety of food sources that were first harvested by hunting and gathering. Throughout the pre-Columbian era, in fact, hunting and gathering of wild foods provided essential dietary protein. Later innovations included artificial ponds for the raising of fish and pens for nurturing deer and other wild game. The earliest form of cultivation was swiddening— clearing, burning, and plant ing fields with maize, beans, squashes, and a variety of other domesticated crops. Since tropical soils become exhausted after several years of cultivation if not replen ished, new fields were cleared and planted while old fields lay fallow. Careful man agement, such as leaving large trees in place and inter-cropping several species of food plants, allowed soils to recover more rapidly. Swidden agriculture is also adaptable to a wide range of environments, from mountain slopes to lowland jungle and scrub for est. Marginal areas unsuitable for other methods, such as some drier lowland bajos, were cultivated by swiddening. It remains a common method of cultivation for the Maya today from the highlands of Guatemala to the lowlands of Yucatan. Swiddening is an example of extensive agriculture in which large areas are needed to support relatively low population densities. Higher population densities require intensive agriculture, where soil fertility is naturally or artificially replenished to produce higher yields. Silt deposited by periodic flooding in river valleys naturally restores soil fertility. The fertility of household kitchen gardens was maintained by domestic refuse, and this technique continues to be found in Maya communi ties today. Other intensive methods, less common or unused today, included agricul tural terracing, raised fields, and irrigation. Evidence for ancient terracing is found in parts of the Maya highlands and in hilly portions of the lowlands. Raised fields, like the chinampas (“floating gardens”) of Central Mexico, allowed productive use of swampy or poorly drained land. Crops were grown on parallel or intersecting ridges of fertile soil replenished by periodically dredging swamp muck. The canals drained the raised fields and also were used for raising fish and other aquatic food. Examples of ancient irrigation in both the highlands and lowlands have been documented. These different subsistence adaptations were crucial to the rise of Maya civiliza tion. As we have seen, the mosaic of different agricultural methods and cultivated species mimicked the diversity and dispersed characteristics of the natural ecosystem. Each subsistence method was well suited to particular environments. As new areas were colonized, new environmental niches were exploited by one or more cultivation methods. Successful methods were redefined and expanded. Areas especially suited for intensive food production and rich in other resources supported population growth and larger settlements, which in turn produced powerful incentives for fur ther expansion of a diversity of intensive agriculture methods. Population growth not only requires increases in food production but necessitates changes in the organiza-
82
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
tion of society. In a given environment, hunting and gathering subsistence may sup port several independent family-sized groups. Extensive agriculture like swiddening may support several autonomous villages composed of numerous families, with or ganizations for decision making, such as a council made up of family heads. A m o saic of intensive agricultural methods could support many such communities headed by a much larger town, thus adding another level to the decision-making organiza tion. These consequences of population growth follow from increases in absolute numbers of people (demographic growth) and increases in concentrations of people at a single location. But even with the growth of higher population concentrations, as in the larger Maya cities, overall, Maya settlement was far more dispersed than in m ost other preindustrial states. At the same time, the diversity of the Maya environment sup ported a variety of subsistence modes and resources and, consequently, different po tentials for specialization, population growth, and political control. The dispersal of settlement and production, of both food and many commodities, fostered the devel opment of centralized markets that provided efficient nodes for the exchange of goods. Although there is debate on the issue, the weight of evidence points to a de gree of elite management of the market system— in other words, markets integrated important components of the political and social economies under at least a measure of elite control. Dispersed settlement and resources also fostered the growth of trade routes throughout the Maya area, and control of routés and goods was another point of in tersection of the political and social economies. As part of the social economy, lo calized trade allowed communities that possessed some products in abundance to ex change these with other communities to acquire what was unavailable locally. This promoted a complex economy based on symbiotic relationships between communi ties and regions, as each relied on others to furnish a portion of their needs in return for their efforts. Thus differences in environment and adaptive responses encouraged both trade and mutual interdependence in ever-widening networks. The growing web of trade connections also led to increased prosperity and ultimately, spurred ad ditional population increase.
Specialization an d Trade Long before civilization emerged, the Maya had developed customs and means for allocating goods and services among their families and communities. Communal la bor sufficed to meet most of the needs within Maya settlements. But even at the com munity level some individuals gained an edge over others as a result of economic dif ferences. Some individuals produced more food or goods than others and gained greater status and prestige as a result. The advent of these kinds of social and eco nomic differences provided opportunities for some individuals to gain control over
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
83
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT KAMINALJUYU, GUATEMALA This is the largest of all M a ya highland sites, but
the soccer club began digging to expand their
it has been all but destroyed by the expansion
playing fieldl) revealed a succession of adobe
of modern Guatemala City. W hen mapped in
structures, some designed in the talud-tablero
the 1 880s by Alfred Maudslay, over 2 0 0 large
style of Central Mexico. Beneath these buildings
earthen mounds lay in a rural landscape be
were a series of tombs, containing the bones of
yond the limits of Guatemala City. In 1 9 25 the
Early Classic rulers of Kaminaljuyu and their
Mexican archaeologist Manuel Gam io con
sacrificed retainers. Twenty-first-century analy
ducted the first archaeological excavations at
ses of these bones shows the occupants were lo
Kaminaljuyu
cally born, while the sacrificed retainers were
and
discovered
Preclassic
de
posits, recognized by their similarities to early
foreigners, probably war captives.
material from the Valley of Mexico. Urban ex
In the 1960s, a second major archaeological
pansion began to encroach on Kaminaljuyu by
project was launched at Kaminaljuyu to rescue
1 9 3 5 when Alfred Kidder and Oliver Ricketson
information from the site before it was com
began
pletely lost to urban expansion. These excava
new
excavations
sponsored
by the
Carnegie Institution of Washington to gain a
tions greatly expanded on the findings of the
more complete understanding of M aya Preclas
Carnegie work and were able to provide a
sic development. This goal was greatly ad
more complete reconstruction of the develop
vanced when Kidder and Edwin Shook exca
mental career of the site from its Preclassic be
vated Mound E-lll-3, a large Preclassic structure
ginnings to the time of the Spanish Conquest.
that had to be salvaged before it was destroyed
Since then, as the toll from modern construction
by the quarrying of construction material. Two
has increased, a series of smaller-scale rescue
large and well-furnished tombs revealed inside
excavations have been conducted by archaeol
E-lll-3 provided the first evidence of what is now
ogists from Guatemala, Japan, and the United
recognized as an apogee of M a ya develop
States; the most recent of these began in 2 0 0 3 .
ment in the Late Preclassic period.
In the 1990s salvage excavations discovered a
The Carnegie Kaminaljuyu project was the
series of large irrigation canals dating to the
first to identify contact between the M a ya and
Middle and Late Preclassic periods. In 2 0 0 2 a
the great Early Classic city of Teotihuacan in
new museum devoted to Kaminaljuyu opened
Central Mexico. The excavation of two mounds
near the site of Gamio's first excavations.
on either side of a soccer field (discovered when
the distribution of goods— the beginnings of a political economy and a first step along the road toward a more complex society. But while the political elite eventu ally controlled some aspects of the Maya economy— especially in long-distance trade networks and most likely in major markets— even in its most complex form the over all system combined features of both a social and political economy.
84 •
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N •
One reason for the rise of social and economic distinctions within Maya society was environmental and adaptive differences. Some people, and some communities, had better access to resources than others, or had access to different resources. These distinctions led to specializations and exchanges of goods. Coastal communities spe cialized in marine resources; communities adjacent to sources of flint or obsidian specialized in producing cutting tools and tradihg them widely over long distances. Other products such as foodstuffs were traded locally, as within highland valleys. For the most part this localized trade remained part of the social economy and not only established economic links but forged social and political ties between communities. The ancient Maya also became crucial links in a system of long-distance trade routes that ran the length and breadth of Mesoamerica. These long-distance routes con nected Central M exico (to the west of the Maya area) with Central America (to the southeast). A southern route ran along the Pacific coastal plain, and northern routes ran across the lowlands. North-south trade routes tied together the Maya area, con necting northern Yucatan and its plentiful salt resources with the highlands and coastal regions to the south. Elite control over these routes and the products they fur nished became a mainstay of the Maya political economy. As intermediaries between Mexico and Central America and as producers of highly desirable resources and commodities (jadeite, obsidian, salt, cacao, cotton, quetzal feathers, textiles, pottery, and much more), members of the Maya elite became middlemen and masters of much of the Mesoamerican economic system. As Maya communities grew over time, people began to concentrate their efforts in making goods for specific needs and markets. This led to increasing craft special ization. Initially most producers were part-time specialists, but increasing demand for some products led to full-time craft specialization. People who specialized in skilled and labor-intensive crafts, such as those who produced objects made from jade and other hard stones, often worked under the patronage of more powerful men and thereby became part of the political economy. In return for support from their patrons, these artisans produced high-prestige objects made of jade, feathers, and other exotic materials that often symbolized political or religious authority. Some prestige goods were consumed locally, but by controlling production, elite patrons could also trade the output of their workshops to other elites for goods from other regions. Evidence of the exchange of a variety of products is in the archaeological record. But the movement of goods also implies the movement of ideas. N ew ideas fueled in novations and improvements, so those in the best position to take advantage of in novations enjoyed an edge over their competition. Crucial for the exchange of both goods and ideas were markets that allowed goods to be exchanged in a single, cen tral location. There is debate as to who controlled Maya markets— whether they were managed by the elite or by nonelite producers and sellers. More than likely, as
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
85
• •
in the case of trade networks, markets were part of both the political and social econ omy. On the local level, markets allowed producers and entire communities to en gage in specialized production (stone tools or textiles, for example), take their prod ucts to a market center, and exchange them for other necessities from other communities, as well as exchange information and ideas. Interaction in market cen ters forged socioeconomic unity and interdependence within Maya society. Major markets were linked by long-distance trade networks controlled by elites that fur nished exotic goods unavailable locally. While some exotic items like obsidian could be used for household tasks, others like jade or magnetite represented wealth and were status symbols monopolized by the ruling elite.
E co n o m ic D istin ctio n s People who controlled resources, especially labor, production of certain goods, and trade routes, gained power over others and formed the beginnings of a ruling elite within Maya society. Control of market centers tied to a growing hierarchy of smaller communities led to dominion over networks of settlements. Elites who controlled major trade links could hold sway over chains of communities. Patrons who con trolled the production of prestige goods enjoyed increased economic and political power. These sources of economic power became a crucial foundation for elite sta tus and authority. Towns and cities in locations that supplied essential goods or con trolled important trade routes had an advantage and developed organizations to con solidate their control over the acquisition, production, and distribution of trade goods. The elite managers of these primary trading centers increased their wealth, prestige, and power far beyond that of lesser centers. At the same time, trade centers that also held prime lands for food production undoubtedly served greater numbers of people. Temples for public ceremonies attracted even more people into population centers. The advantages held by centers that controlled favorable locations for food production, commerce, and ceremonies often led to their becoming the capitals of the first Maya polities. All seats of elite power, from small trading and temple centers to the capitals of entire kingdoms, were supported by the labor of the majority of the population. Most nonelite labor was devoted to the production of food and goods to support individ ual family households. But some labor could be exploited as a source of wealth and power by Maya rulers using a system of corvée labor. This was a labor tax that re quired nonelites (mostly males) to work a specified number of days for the state, es pecially during the dry season when agricultural tasks were minimal. Corvée labor was used to build and maintain temples, causeways, canals, and even royal palaces. Households or communities could also be taxed by being required to give a portion of their output to the ruler as tribute. Thus, the state acquired a variety of goods, in cluding stone tools, textiles, or pottery, produced by its subjects. The ruler, in turn,
86
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • could use this tribute for his own use, to reward his elite administrators, or seal al liances with other rulers.
Maya Social and Political Systems The organization of Maya society defined and structured relationships between people. Organizations were influenced by Maya cultural traditions and underlay every level of Maya society, from individual families and communities to the highest echelons of Maya states. Although these organizations were diverse, over time dis tinctions in status, wealth, and power gave rise to a complex society with two major social groups or classes, an elite and a nonelite. Although these distinctions were of ten blurred, the privileges and power monopolized by the highest echelons of society shaped many of the fundamental attributes of Maya civilization.
Social Stratification The earliest social and economic distinctions were minor and subtle. But over time they grew until Maya society was divided into a small ruling elite that monopolized wealth and power and a far more numerous nonelite with little wealth and power. This distinction was not sharply drawn; Maya society was more of a continuum of wealth and power differences than two completely distinct classes. For convenience, however, the term class can be used to refer to these basic distinctions within Maya society, recognizing that the economic and social differences within Maya society evolved and changed across time and space. It is also likely that ability and economic success provided some mobility be tween nonelite and elite status. Time and the availability of increased wealth also al lowed a “middle class” to emerge that maintained positions of status and power be tween those of the elite and nonelite. Nonetheless, members of the Maya elite, especially those in the uppermost echelons of authority that can be labeled “royal,” clearly distinguished themselves from the rest of society. The distinctions between elite and nonelite were often maintained by endogamy, ideology, and custom. H ow these differences originated is a matter of much debate among archaeologists and so cial scientists. But this process was repeated time and time again in preindustrial states throughout the world. For at the foundation of all the great ancient civiliza tions lies the development of social stratification— the division of society into a rul ing elite that held great wealth and power and a broader subordinate nonelite popu lace that provided the labor and resources that supported the elite and fueled society. The origins of social inequality can be traced to a number of things, including in herent differences in ambition, aggression, and intelligence among people in all soci eties. Over their lifetimes some individuals gain, lose, and regain prestige from their actions. As already mentioned, some people acquire more resources than others.
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
87
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT TIKAL, GUATEMALA O n e of the largest of M a ya cities, Tikal was the
of Pennsylvania Museum initiated the Tikal Proj
subject of comprehensive archaeological inves
ect, which continued for the next fifteen years.
tigations that fundamentally changed the course
Shook was the first project director, and W illiam
of M a ya archaeology. Although Cortés and his
Coe directed research during its last seven
soldiers came very close to the ruins during their
years. The Tikal Project was unprecedented in
1 5 2 5 march from Mexico to Honduras (see Epi
scale for M aya archaeology. By its close in
logue), Tikal was unknown to the outside world
1 9 7 0 , its professional staff had totaled 113 ar
until discovered by a Guatemalan expedition
chaeologists and other scientists. The research
led by Modesto M endez and Ambrosio Tut
results are being published in over thirty Tikal
in 1 8 4 8 . Later in the nineteenth century sev
Reports including six volumes on the excava
eral magnificently carved wooden lintels from
tions in the Great Plaza and North Acropolis
Temples I and IV were removed by Gustav
published in 1 9 9 0 . Well over a hundred schol
Bernoulli to the Museum für Völkerkunde in
arly articles based on the Tikal Project research
Basel. During visits in 1881 and 1 8 82 Alfred
have also appeared. Among the many ground
Maudslay photographed Tikal's sculpture and
breaking results,, the Tikal Project established
architecture, work continued by Teobert M aler
that M a ya sites, previously considered "empty
in 1 8 8 5 and 1 9 0 4 while recording M a ya sites
ceremonial centers," were in fact preindustrial
for Harvard University's Peabody Museum. Al
cities with huge populations supported by ex
fred Tozzer and R. E. Merwin finished this work
tensive subsistence and trade networks. Today
and published the first map of Tikal. During sev
all the research records of the Tikal Project are
eral visits between 1 9 1 4 and 1 9 2 8 Sylvanus
being assembled in a digital archive for website
Morley recorded Tikal's monuments as part of
access.
his pioneering study of M a ya hieroglyphic texts.
W ith the close of the University of Pennsyl
During the Carnegie Institution of Washington's
vania project in 1 9 7 0 , the Instituto de Antro
excavations at nearby Uaxactun, Edwin Shook
pología
visited Tikal, discovered Group H and two new
continued excavations and architectural consol
e
Historia
of Guatemala
(IDAEH)
causeways (named after M aler and Maudslay),
idation. The first concentrated on Group G , a
and planned Tikal's future investigation.
large palace complex southeast of the Great
Tikal had been reachable only by mule back
Plaza. This was followed by investigation in the
using trails blazed by chicleros, collectors of
Lost W orld Pyramid Group. Since the comple
raw chewing gum, but in 1951 a dirt airstrip
tion and publication of both of these projects,
was opened near the ruins. This made large-
further research at Tikal has continued by a
scale transport of people and supplies possible,
number of archaeologists from Guatemala and
and an archaeological research program be
other countries to the present day.
came feasible (Fig. 2 .4 ). In 1 9 5 6 , the University
88
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • Aggrandizers of resources gain prestige and power over people with fewer resources. By redistributing their resources, aggrandizers create obligations and indebtedness, gaining the allegiance of others by gift giving or hosting feasts. Over time, these processes led to differences in status and prestige (ranking) and greater economic power in the hands of a small segment of society. Different locations present differ ent opportunities for their inhabitants, so that aggrandizers who controlled favorable settings often gained more economic power than those in less favored locations. For example, some areas produced more food, while others held important resources and trade routes. Water is always a critical resource, and in some areas of the Maya low lands power probably came from the control over bajos and reservoirs that supplied water during dry seasons. But not all sources of inequality and power were economic. Some individuals monopolized religious authority, gaining more knowledge of natural forces— the timing of seasons that determined the agricultural cycle, the movements of the plan ets, sun, and moon, or plants that could cure illness— and thereby claimed a special relationship with the supernatural world. Those who controlled religious rituals that were believed to be able to ensure rainfall, food, and protection from harm held a great deal of potential power over others in society. Knowledge of the environment and the belief that some people could foretell and influence events spawned religious specialists and became another source of inequality and power within Maya society. As in Egypt, Mesopotamia, or China, the evidence from archaeology is clear for these processes among the Maya. Differences in prestige, status, and wealth are often first detected in human burials— some people were buried with greater amounts and more symbolically important grave goods than others. These may reflect either achieved or inherited status. Burials of infants and children found with status mark ers may indicate inherited status and provide evidence for differences in social rank. But not all burial goods represent status, and with children especially, adornments could reflect mourning and special treatment accorded premature deaths. But in time, the emergence of a ruling elite becomes apparent not only in burials but throughout the archaeological record. The clothing, utensils, and buildings associ ated with the elite become increasingly elaborate and distinguishable from the far simpler possessions of the nonelite. In general, individuals who could monopolize both economic and supernatural resources had the potential to become the most powerful members of society.
Polities an d Kings Political power refers to the ability to make decisions that control economic, social, religious, and military activity within society and perpetuate this control over time. The ruling elite monopolized decision making, although specifics of political organi zation in Maya society varied in time and space. In some instances, councils com-
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
89
• •
posed of prominent elite men enjoyed considerable power; in other cases they were advisory at best. But the history of Maya political organization was dominated by the development of independent polities and centralized political power— the rise of the institution of divine kingship— within most of these polities. Maya kings (most were men, but some were women) were known by the title of k ’uhul ajaw (divine or holy lord) and derived their authority from a number of sources, some varying according to time and circumstance. But religion was fundamental to royal power, for all Maya kings controlled rituals that were believed to be responsible for the necessities of life— water, food, and security. Maya rulers also embodied the passage of time itself and monopolized access to their royal ancestors, who gave them a unique source of legitimacy to rule. Royal authority also depended on a king’s success as a warrior, his abilities as a military leader, and his ability to provide security for his subjects. Maya kings derived power from their control over critical resources, beginning with pres tige goods that provided wealth and reinforced status. In the Maya lowlands power also came from managing certain critical resources unavailable locally, such as im ported highland obsidian and sea salt. In some locations Maya kings were able to control major trade routes, such as those that followed rivers. In kingdoms removed from such dependable water sources, control over water storage facilities could also be a source of power. The decipherment of royal texts has led to more information about divine kingship than the rest of Maya political organization. Each Maya king headed an administrative hierarchy composed of elite officials and quite likely an advisory council, but the details of this organization and its functions are hazy at best. Texts do show that Maya kings claimed a divine or sacred status, similar to that of Egypt ian pharaohs, and were responsible for the prosperity, health, and security of their kingdoms and their subjects by maintaining a favorable relationship with the gods. In ancient Maya society, therefore, kings were both political leaders and priests. The religious power of Maya kings was manifest in the construction of temples— houses for the gods— where the king could demonstrate his special con nections to the supernatural through the performance of elaborate public rituals that nourished and placated the gods. For their part, subjects were obliged to provide corvée labor to build and maintain the temples and furnish tribute to both their king and their gods. Within such a system, success bred success, for each bumper crop of maize or each victory over a rival power demonstrated that the gods looked favorably on both the king and his kingdom. The allegiance to the ruler by the ruled was strengthened, and the morale of the entire kingdom was bolstered. Likewise, failures diminished the power and prestige of the king. Minor failures could be explained by other fac tors, rather than be taken as signs of supernatural disfavor toward the ruler. Thus, as long as the belief in the king’s supernatural connections remained intact, the system
90
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • would not be threatened. But major failures, such as conquest by a rival power, cat astrophic epidemics, or droughts, could shake belief in royal power and place both king and kingdom in jeopardy. In Maya society, the greatest wealth and power was monopolized by the k ’uhul ajaw who ruled each kingdom at the apex of the elite and all society. As in ancient Egypt, Maya kings controlled most available resources and power. But as we have seen, instead of being a unified state like Egypt, the Maya landscape was divided into a mosaic of independent states, each ruled by a succession of divine kings whose power derived in large measure from economic and religious sources conditioned by prowess in war and diplomacy. These states were diverse— some were large and powerful, others were small and weak. But all Maya kings used propaganda to try to monopolize art and history, sponsoring carved and painted portraits accompanied by written records of their accomplishments, while ignoring the very existence of the nonelite people who supported them by their labor and resources.
C o m p etitio n an d Warfare Maya kings could gain or lose power in competition with other kings, whether for the control of food supplies, trade, territory, or the loyalty of their subjects. As in every society such competition ultimately led to armed conflict. The origins of war fare among the Maya can be traced back to competition for critical resources. Even in the initial colonization of the Maya area, there was undoubtedly competition for water, the best land, and other resources. As the population grew, these resources be came increasingly scarce, and competition intensified. One response to increasing populations and agricultural land shortages was to practice more intensive methods of cultivation. But as people began to congregate in ever-larger settlements to reap greater economic, social, and religious benefits, competition developed between these emerging centers. The elite rulers of early market and temple centers attempted to gain control over larger territories and win the allegiance of greater numbers of sub jects to increase their prestige, wealth, and power. The emergence of chiefdom or ganizations and the formation of the first Maya polities seems to be marked by the subordination of formerly autonomous settlements by more powerful centers. Maya warfare was conducted to secure economic, political, and ideological ad vantages. The economic aim of warfare was to secure additional labor and resources by payment of tribute, as well as extend control over trade routes. Political advan tage came from conflicts that expanded polity boundaries or eliminated threats by defeating rival polities. Ideological goals were pursued in the taking of captives to be used as sacrifices to sanctify religious ceremonies, as well as in enhancing the pres tige of both king and polity by military victories. Originally, these goals were un doubtedly pursued in sporadic and limited conflicts, but the threat of attack was probably essential to maintain the dominance of the earliest polity capitals over their
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
91
• •
subordinates. When actual conflict occurred, it increased the economic power and prestige of the victorious leader, while vanquished rivals were disgraced or elimi nated as ritual sacrifices. In time, victors were able to incorporate conquered settle ments into ever-larger realms. Eventually, military competition led to greater con flicts between the most powerful polities and resulted in expanding the victor’s economic, political, and religious power. This growth in warfare had developmental consequences, beginning with an in creased need for security and protection from attack. Security came from arming more people, building fortifications, establishing alliances, and resorting to super natural appeals. All of these responses have consequences— many of which we can see in the development of Maya civilization. For example, people congregating to gether for protection are easier to control and can be more efficiently put to work by their elite rulers to build fortifications or temples. The need for more armed people leads to a new occupational specialty, warriors, who can also enforce the ruler’s or ders. As warfare increased in scale and frequency, it is likely that many commoners were also required to serve in the army of the king. Conflict between kingdoms cre ated new demands on social organization, and centralized authority became the most efficient means of directing military forces, in both aggressive and defensive situa tions. Thus, competition and warfare spawned more complex and more efficient or ganizations and increased the king’s authority. All these factors undoubtedly con tributed to the origins and maintenance of a more coherent political organization, the preindustrial state.
Maya Ideology and Religion Ideology and religion were both crucial to the growth of Maya civilization. Ideology refers to the basic beliefs that underlie, justify, and explain a society’s existence, in cluding concepts about the universe and how it works (cosmology). Religion refers to the codified beliefs and rituals directed to supernatural powers believed to control both society and the universe. Like people in other preindustrial states, the Maya be lieved the supernatural world was populated by a series of powerful deities who had to be placated by rituals and offerings. These concepts held throughout Mesoamerica, among all members of Maya society. In time this ideology was elaborated by the ruling elite into religious cults that reinforced and justified their power and dominant place in society. In addition, since trade was also the conduit for the interchange of ideas, the elite who controlled commerce could also monopolize both practical and esoteric information— especially knowledge of the supernatural world, which was granted additional power because of its exotic or distant origins. Of course, since ideological systems leave few tangible traces for archaeologists to recover, it is usually more difficult to reconstruct the beliefs of a long-vanished so ciety than it is to reconstruct trade networks. Yet clues can be found in the archaeo-
92
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT MAYAPAN, YUCATAN, MEXICO Described by Bishop Lando (1 5 6 6 ), and later
Landa's description of the site. Evidence of de
by a series of nineteenth-century visitors, this
struction and burning supported Landa's ac
major Postclassic M aya capital was the subject
count, of Mayapan's violent end. In the 1990s
of intensive archaeological excavations con
excavations at M ayap an were resumed under
ducted by the Carnegie Institution of Washing
a program sponsored by Mexico's Instituto N a
ton between 1951 and 1 9 5 5 . The Carnegie
cional de Antropología e Historia (IN A H ) to
dominated M aya archaeology in the first half of
consolidate and preserve its endangered struc
the twentieth century, but the M ayapan project
tures. This program conducted additional exca
was the swan song for this institution's long
vations that have significantly refined the site's
record of M aya research. The Carnegie re
architectural and developmental history. Above
search produced a detailed map of the site and
all, the IN A H program built on the C arnegie In
its surrounding defensive wall and published a
stitution's original goal to connect the archaeo
series of reports of the excavations conducted
logical site with the M a y a historical chronicles
within its central area.
dating from the Colonial era.
Its results generally
confirmed the historical chronicles, including
logical record. Cached deposits reflect rituals held to dedicate or terminate buildings. Remains of offerings and shrines testify to veneration of sacred locations on the land scape. The locations and positions of human burials, and associated mortuary ob jects, all indicate ancient beliefs and customs. In addition, Maya architecture, writ ing, sculpture, murals, painted pottery, and other representations are a rich legacy of their ideas and beliefs. By combining what we know about contemporary Maya ide ology with records from the time of the Spanish Conquest and deciphered Maya texts, much of this legacy can be reconstructed. It is also difficult to separate ideology from other aspects of Maya culture. Su pernatural forces were believed to be involved in all aspects of Maya life, even the daily activities of individuals and the ways by which food and other resources were acquired. Economic transactions, political events, and social relationships, including family and community life, were seen as subject to supernatural influence. Thus ide ology was embedded in the environment, in social organization, and the economy, the crucial underpinnings of increasing social complexity. The structure of Maya society was defined and sanctioned by an elaborate cos mological system. Its foundation lay in its unified view of the world as animate, with no distinction between what we call the natural and supernatural realms. The Maya cosmos was a living system with deities governing all aspects of the invisible and vis ible world— all that could be seen in the earth and the sky— and even the under-
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
93
• •
world beneath the earth. Each individual and social group had its role to play in this system, and the elaborate hierarchy of social roles and classes, surmounted by the elite and rulers, existed to maintain this cosmological order. The ultimate sanction, which reinforced elite authority and allowed kings to control their subjects, was the threat of supernatural retaliation for an offense to the gods. All Maya people, even kings, were subject to these supernatural beings. Any individual, from farmer to king, who deviated from an appointed task or failed in his or her obligations to the gods, would be punished by misfortune, illness, or even death. Supernatural specialists, intermediaries between humans and the supernatural world, could intervene to gain favor, or use divination to discover the meaning of events and determine what the future would hold. The earliest supernatural inter mediaries were local shamans, part-time specialists who cured illness and divined the future. But as Maya society grew larger and more complex, members of the emerg ing ruling elite also took on priestly powers. Some became full-time specialists with both supernatural and political authority and acted as mediators between the super natural and the rest of society. Ultimately, religious and political power were fused in the office of the k’uhul ajaw, the Maya divine king.
The Ancient Maya World As we have seen, Maya civilization, rather than being a uniform, monolithic entity, spans some twenty-five centuries from ca. 1000 b c to a d 1500, within a vast and di verse environment. The spatial and cultural diversity of Maya civilization was main tained by both natural and cultural boundaries, such as language, custom, and eth nic differences. Cultural and linguistic diversity is especially apparent in the much more broken topography of the Maya highlands. These environmental and cultural boundaries are reflected in the organizational diversity of Maya society. The ancient Maya political landscape was divided into a series of independent polities. Capitals with advantages in size or location used war fare to expand their polity at the expense of their less powerful neighbors. Unchecked military expansion can lead to conquest states and empires, such as the Inka of the Andes. So why did the Maya never unite politically? One answer lies in the size and diversity of the environment that provided effective barriers to rapid communication across great distances. Another factor was the diversity within Maya society, for Maya civilization comprises a multitude of ethnic and linguistic groups. Yet despite similar conditions in the Andes, the Inka were able to conquer and control a vast em pire in a diverse environmental and cultural setting. Thus, the answer probably lies in cultural differences, or more specifically, in the organizational structure of Maya states and the ideology that governed Maya political and military affairs. Conquest states like the Inka benefited from organizations that efficiently incorporated con quered territories and populations, but perhaps even more important, were moti-
94
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • vated by an ideology that promoted their destiny to rule over their empires. Maya states were not organized to incorporate conquered territory and populations, and were also motivated by an ideology that reinforced the continuity of each kingdom and its king. In the Maya view, to extinguish a Maya kingdom and its dynasty would threaten the world order and thereby threaten the existence of all kingdoms and the Maya world. In Maya society, although kings were divine and all-powerful in theory, in prac tice they depended on the cooperation of a hierarchy of elite subordinates with whom they had to negotiate to secure their loyalty and support. At various times in Maya history kings were successful in putting together large alliances and leading their armies to major victories over enemy states. But to administer and control the larger territories and populations realized from these successes would require changes in the organization of the state. It would also profoundly change the traditional order of the Maya world. As revealed in historical accounts of diplomacy and conquest, Maya kings, in addition to pursuing their practical objectives, also wished to avoid upsetting the established order of their world. One consequence of this concern was that victorious kings allowed defeated polities to maintain their identity, and con tinue to be ruled by their own kings, as long as proper tribute was paid and vassalage was acknowledged. There is no question that Maya kings were pragmatic in both diplomacy and war. Defeated kings were humiliated and even sacrificed by their con querors. But once the fruits of victory were in hand, winning kings were dedicated to maintaining their vision of a proper world order by ensuring the continuity of each kingdom and its royal dynasty. Thus, when the ruling house of the Naranjo kingdom was extinguished, the victorious king of Calakmul oversaw the reestablishment of its dynasty. As a result Naranjo continued its destined role within the Maya world rather than being terminated by conquest and incorporated into the Calakmul state. This balance of ideology with the pragmatism of military conquest obviously dif fers from what we see in Western history. But it is important to try to reconstruct how the Maya viewed their world, and how that view shaped their political affairs, in their own terms. There have been attempts to reconstruct Maya political organization us ing non-Maya ethnographic or historical sources. Comparisons with feudal systems have been proposed, along with analogies to a medieval European system in which political authority is maintained by control of distribution of goods. Another model is peer polities, or a cluster of independent petty states, where proximity and com petition checked the growth of any single polity and discouraged political unification, similar to classical Greek city-states. Certainly some aspects of these analogies, in cluding the Greek example with its dictum “all things in moderation,” parallel what we know about Maya states and offer useful insights. But analogies drawn from unrelated societies also have drawbacks, especially since by definition none include the specific qualities that define Maya society. An-
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
95
• •
ARCHAEOLOGY AT BARTON RAMIE, BELIZE In 1 9 5 3 , Gordon W illey of Harvard University's
full range of ancient settlement remains became
Peabody Museum began investigating a series
the standard for M aya archaeology. W illey had
of sites in the fertile Belize River valley. W hile no
earlier pioneered this approach in the Virú Val
match for Tikal in size or duration, the Belize
ley of Peru. Brought to the M aya lowlands, this
Valley Settlement Patterns Project certainly ri
focus on ancient settlement patterns became an
valed the Tikal Project in its impact on M aya ar
indispensable method for reconstructing every
chaeological research. Departing from the kind
thing from ancient M aya social organization to
of research that had
previously dominated
ideology. In respect to the socioeconomic realm,
M a ya archaeology, Willey's work at Barton
the excavations of the remains of Barton Ramie's
Ramie was the first major archaeological inves
nonelite households showed that most ancient
tigation aimed solely at the remains of M a ya set
M aya people were producers and consumers of
tlement apart from a major urban center. There
a rich array of goods— even beautifully painted
had been earlier surveys of M a ya settlement but
polychrome pottery— once thought to be exclu
none as comprehensive as that at Barton Ramie.
sively the domain of the ruling elite.
As a result, after Barton Ramie the study of the
other difficulty with models from other societies is that they often portray Classic Maya sociopolitical organization as static and uniform in character. Maya society changed and evolved over a long time span and was socially, ethnically, and linguis tically diverse. Maya states differed in size, duration, and measures of success. Some prospered through colonization, alliances, and military victories. Others were rela tively small scale and weak— often victimized by their larger and more powerful neighbors. Still others may have managed to steer clear of the rivalries that preoccu pied competing polities. Evidence from deciphered texts reveals organizational di versity among these polities, as well as important historical differences resulting from their individual destinies. At the same time, important integrative factors also operated throughout the course of Maya civilization. Some derived from historical connections, such as the founding of daughter colonies, marriage or military alliances, and conquests. More pervasive were structural factors of economic and ideological integration. These and other unifying factors produced a degree of mutual interdependence among Maya polities that helps to explain several episodes of overall growth and decline throughout Maya history. Although politically divided, socioeconomic networks, an elite subculture, and a common ideology integrated Maya civilization. It is in this sense that the ancient Maya political order is comparable to the classical Greek citystates, or those of the Italian Renaissance, since while politically divided, and often
9
6
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • at war with one another, the ruling elite within most if not all polities interacted so cially and were united by common languages and traditions governed by cultural standards and ideology. Maya rulers were also concerned with preserving the cos mological order as they understood it. This undoubtedly meant they had to balance pragmatic demands and needs against a desire to preserve the. Maya world as it had been ordained. Thus success in the affairs of state, including conquests of other polities, was desirable only if these actions did not cause profound changes in the world order. If such dangerous changes occurred, as in the demise of the legitimate ruling house of a Maya state, a royal successor had to be restored to preserve the world order.
Elite and Nonelite Views of the Ancient Maya The diversity of Maya society contrasts with our sense of a homogeneous Maya civ ilization based on similarities in the material remains from the archaeological record. Since it is material culture that provides the basis of archaeological inquiry, it is not surprising that for many years descriptions of Classic Maya civilization emphasized its essential, almost monolithic, unity. The archaeological homogeneity of Maya civ ilization is most apparent from material remains that reflect high sociopolitical sta tus or complex ideology— the very things that represent the ruling elite. Our unified definition of Maya civilization rests on the traits and activities of this dominant but numerically minor stratum within society: preferences for particular exotic materials (jade, seashells, quetzal feathers, etc.), distinctive styles in architecture, painting, and sculpture, highly developed writing and calendrical systems, conventions of site plan ning, and shared costuming, adornments, and symbols of authority. In other words, the apparent homogeneity of Classic Maya society was imposed from above, not formed from below. Thus, our definition of Maya civilization rests heavily on the material remains of the elites that managed and directed the course of each polity. The elite also main tained the economic, social, and ideological ties that formed an interdependent sys tem of states across the Maya area. Seen in a dynamic perspective, it was these elitedirected activities, both within and between the independent Maya kingdoms, that drove the evolutionary course of Maya civilization. Elites sponsored many innova tions— recognizable in the archaeological record— that stimulated the cycles of growth and decline we can see throughout the course of Maya civilization. These range from managing trade networks to warfare tö more efficient political institu tions. During the Classic period, authority centered on the divine king w ho ruled the major lowland polities. Royal power was legitimized in many ways, including carved monuments for displaying the image of the king and records of genealogies and m o mentous events and the transmission of power within the ruling house or dynasty.
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
97
• •
Political legitimacy was also reinforced by the construction of elaborate tombs and monumental funerary temples to venerate royal ancestors. Smaller or less successful centers may never have adopted all these royal symbols of political authority, and their perpetuation of older elite institutions, and the evolution of new institutions of political power after the Classic period, contributed to the organizational diversity of Maya civilization. The richness of our knowledge of Maya elite culture and institutions comes at a price— the relative lack of information about the nonelite populace that com prised well over 90 percent of Maya people in the past. The commoners of the Maya past cannot be found in the histories recorded by Maya kings. A better under standing of these millions of nonelite Maya people can be provided only by archae ology. For a number of reasons, including a preoccupation with the spectacular ru ins by scholars and public alike, until recently most of the resources of archaeology have been directed toward the great temples and palaces of Maya kings and their elite subordinates. This bias was amplified by the greater difficulty in recognizing the far less substantial remains of Maya commoners. Compared to the masonry palaces of Maya kings, the houses of the nonelite were built mostly of perishable materials and have all but vanished. Although many were supported by low earth and stone plat forms that still can be located, an unknown percentage were not and can be detected only by expensive and time-consuming remote-sensing surveys and excavations across broad areas of so-called vacant terrain. Even the physical remains of Maya commoners are more difficult to recover and study than those of their elite counter parts. Nonelite burials were not protected like the tombs of royalty, so their bones and teeth are usually poorly preserved. As a result we are just beginning to gain in formation on nutrition, life expectancy, and the life histories of most ancient Maya people. Fortunately, the tide is turning in favor of the ancient Maya commoner. There is a new emphasis within archaeology to reveal the lives of the full range of an cient Maya people through concerted excavations of local household and commu nity sites. As a result, Maya archaeologists are building a far more complete picture of Maya society and are learning how the mosaic of class and gender and occupa tional, ethnic, and linguistic differences was fashioned and integrated. Far from being devoid of power, nonelite people profoundly influenced the course of Maya civilization: from the production and distribution of food, pottery, and tools in times of stability to migrating to new regions and thus “voting with their feet” in times of crisis.
98 •
A R C H A E O L O G Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N •
TABLE
2.2
Pre-Columbian chronological periods in the Maya area Period
Estimated dates
A r c h a ic
12,000/ 20,000-8000 8000-2000 bc
E a rly Preclassic
2000-1000
M i d d l e Preclassic
1000-400 bc 400 BC-AD 100 AD 100-250 ad 250-600 AD 600-800 AD 800 - 900/1100 ad 900 / 1100-1500
P a le o in d ia n o r Lithic
Late Preclassic T e rm in a l Preclassic E a rly C la s s ic Late C la s s ic T e rm in a l C la ss ic Postclassic
bc
Major cultural developments bc
In itia l s ettlem e n t o f th e A m e ric a s S e ttle d c o m m u n itie s a n d a g ric u ltu re In itia l c o m p le x socie ties G r o w th in s o c io e c o n o m ic c o m p le x ity In itia l states D e c lin e a n d tra n s fo rm a tio n o f states E x p a n s io n o f lo w la n d states A p o g e e o f lo w la n d states D e c lin e a n d tra n s fo rm a tio n o f states R e fo rm u la tio n a n d re v iv a l o f states
Chronology To understand the process of development of past human societies, archaeologists must determine the temporal order of events. Maya archaeologists use a chronolog ical framework divided into five broad periods to define the pre-Columbian era: Paleoindian (or Lithic), Archaic, Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic. Two of these are further subdivided, creating ten periods in total, which are listed in Table 2.2 and used throughout this book. Unless radiocarbon dates are specified, the dates used in this book follow the traditional Gregorian calendar.
History and Maya Civilization America, say historians, was peopled by savages; but savages never reared these structures, savages never carved these stones . . . standing as they do in the depths o f a tropical forest, silent and solemn, strange in design, excellent in sculpture, rich in ornament. . . their whole history so entirely unknown, with hieroglyphics ex plaining all, but perfectly unintelligible. . . . No Champollion has yet brought to them the energies o f his inquiring mind. Who shall read them ? —John Lloyd Stephens (1841, vol. 1: 104, 148, 160)
While the methods and interpretations of archaeology are guided by the scientific method, archaeologists also integrate their findings with those from the humanistic disciplines— including history, art history, epigraphy, ethnohistory, and iconogra phy. This humanistic perspective complements and expands the information about the Maya past gained from scientific archaeology. Nowhere is this more obvious than in realizing the benefits of combining archaeology with history. For the study of preColumbian Maya society is greatly enriched by a variety of historical sources that, when combined with archaeology, provide a far more comprehensive view of ancient Maya civilization. These historical sources amplify the interpretations of archaeologists for the final fifteen hundred years of Maya civilization. Some of this history is retrospective— written after the Spanish Conquest— but a great deal is pre-Columbian, dating from the Late Preclassic through the Postclassic periods. Of all Native American societies, the Maya provide the most detailed contemporaneous records— names, dates, and events— to combine with archaeology. Like the archaeological record, the Maya his torical record is incomplete, since many fragile texts have not survived— Classicperiod Maya books, for example. But the historical record that has survived is far and away the most extensive and data rich of any Native American society. In this chapter we will consider the two foundations of native Maya history: the calendrical system that anchored events in time, and the Maya writing system that recorded the array of people and events from the pre-Columbian past.
Time and Maya History A chronology of events is essential to any historical study. Fortunately, Maya history was linked to their endless cycles of time, defined by a sophisticated system of arith-
I OO
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • •
metic and a series of complex calendars. The Maya texts dealing with the various cy cles of the Maya calendar have been understood since the nineteenth century. Like the medieval alchemists of our own Western tradition, the ancient Maya pursued these realms for both mystical and practical purposes. In the Maya view, supernatu ral forces ruled over numbers, time, and the cosmos. By discovering and recording regularities in these realms, the Maya believed they could better understand and even predict the events of history. These regularities were expressed in the various cycles of the calendar; given what we know from Postclassic sources, to the ancient Maya each passing cycle brought with it the possibility of repeated destiny— the idea of cyclic history. Of course, the calendrical system was also used to record important events, the reigns of rulers, their conquests and achievements, and other earthly mat ters. The Maya numbering system is basic to an understanding of these calendrical cycles.
Numerals Maya numeral systems were vigesimal (base twenty), counted by twenties, four hun dreds, eight thousands, and so on, rather than by tens, hundreds, and thousands as in a decimal system. In Mayan languages, there are new words at the vigesimal mul tiples (twenty, four hundred, eight thousand, etc.). The Maya numerals one through nineteen, however, were like our own, with unique numerals up to and including ten, and the teens produced as combinations of one through nine with ten. According to
•
0
•
5
•
•
7
•
11
•
Fig. 3.1. Maya glyphs for the
•
2
6
•
10
•
1
•
12
•
•
• • •
••••
3
4
• • •
••••
8
9
• • •
••••
13
14
• • •
••••
18
19
numbers one to nineteen and the Postclassic symbol for zero.
15
16
17
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
IOI
• • •
Bishop Landa, the Maya vigesimal system and a system of positional notation was used by merchants to keep track of their commercial dealings. Maya merchants used counters, often cacao beans, to make their computations on the ground or any avail able flat surface. This positional numerical system was in use by the Late Preclassic period. This was a notable intellectual accomplishment, since it involved the use of the mathe matical concept of zero, the earliest known instance of this concept. In writing their numbers, the Maya usually used a bar-and-dot notation. In this system, the dot (•) had a numerical value of one, and the bar (— ) a numerical value of five. A shell had the value of zero (used in the Postclassic period; in the Classic period other zero symbols were used). Combinations of the bar and dot symbols represented the numbers one to nineteen (Fig. 3.1). The numbers above nineteen were indicated by position. In our decimal system, each position to the left of the decimal point increases by a power of ten. In Maya mathematical calculations the values of the positions in crease by powers of twenty from bottom to top. Figure 3.2 illustrates the Maya vi gesimal place notational system. In the left column, the number twenty is represented by a single dot in the second order (“2o’s”) and a shell in the first order, symbolizing zero units in this position. Examples of other numbers recorded in this system are also shown. The ease of adding Maya numbers is also apparent: combining the bars and dots in the two following columns (806 and 10,145) yields the sum of these num bers in the next column (10,951). The ancient Maya also used an alternative notational system to record numbers in some calendrical inscriptions. This is the head-variant system, relying on a series of distinctive deity head glyphs to represent zero and the numbers one to thirteen.
Vigesimal count •
•
8 ,0 0 0 * 8
4 0 0 ’s
2 0 ’s
Chronological count
•
•
•
•
—
•
•
•
7 ,2 0 0 ’s
•
3 6 0 ’s
2 0 ’s
•
•
•
•
•
20
806
1 0 ,1 4 5
I 0 ,Q 5 I
•
•
•
•
i ’s
i ’s
• —
i ,9 5 7
Fig. 3.2. Examples of positional mathematics as recorded by the ancient Maya.
9 ,8 6 6
102
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • • The head-variant glyph for ten is a skull, and to form the numbers fourteen to nine teen the fleshless lower jaw is used to represent ten. For example, for the number sixteen, the fleshless jaw is attached to the head glyph for six, characterized by axe elements in each eye.
The Calendar The Maya calendar was complex and served a variety of purposes, both practical and esoteric (such as divination). The Maya elite probably guarded the full knowledge of the Maya calendar, since it was a source of great power. The complexities of calendrical calculations demonstrated that kings and priests held close communion with the supernatural forces that governed the cosmos. It can be assumed, however, that even the poorest farmer had some knowledge of the basic system to guide his fam ily’s daily life. The Maya calendrical system records a series of recurring cycles of time based on the movements of celestial deities, such as the sun, the moon, and the planet Venus. In this system any given date would recur at cyclic intervals, just as a date in our cal endar recurs every 365 days. These cycles were compounded into much greater cy cles, and by counting from a single beginning date, the system could be used for an absolute chronology where any given date is unique, as July 4, 1776, is in our own system. The basic calendrical unit was the day, or k’in. The second order was the winal (20 k’in), equivalent to our month. In mathematical calculations the third order is 400 (20 X 20 X 1). But for calendrical reckoning (Fig. 3.2, right side), the third or der, the tun, was composed of 18 winals, or 360 days, apparently to create a closer approximation to the length of the solar year (365 days). Above the third order the unit of progression was uniformly vigesimal, as follows: 20 k’ins 18 winals 20 tuns 20 k’atuns 20 bak’tuns 20 piktuns 20 kalabtuns 20 kinchiltuns
i i i i i i i i
winal, or 20 days tun, or 360 days k’atun, or 7,200 days bak’tun, or 144,000 days piktun, or 2,880,000 days kalabtun, or 57,600,000 days kinchiltun, or 1,152,000,000 days alawtun, or 23,040,000,000 days
The normal and head-variant glyphs for these time periods are shown in Figure 3.3. Although these terms are used by scholars for convenience, the ancient Maya names for these time units are only partially known. The three most common cyclic counts used by the ancient M aya— the 260-day almanac, the 365-day year, and the 52-year Calendar Round— are ancient concepts,
i Fig. 3.3 . Glyphs for the Maya time periods: (a) K'in; (b) Winal; (c) Tun; (of) K'atun; (e) Bak'tun; [f) Piktun; (g) Calabtun; (h) Kinchiltun; (/) Alawtun (Long Count introductory glyph).
104
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • • shared by all Mesoamerican peoples. But the Maya also had other day counts to reckon cycles that were important to their understanding of the universe. For ex ample, there was a count of 819 days associated with each of the four quadrants of the universe, each ruled over by one of the four color and directional aspects of the lightning deity K’awiil, the red aspect for the east, black for the west, white for the north, and yellow for the south. We will consider each of the three basic calendrical cycles, then follow with a de scription of a chronological system unique to the Maya: the Long Count and its two derivatives, Period-Ending and Short Count dating. The Long Count operated inde pendently of the 260-day and 365-day cycles; it functioned as an absolute chronol ogy by tracking the number of days elapsed from a zero date to reach a given day recorded by these lesser cycles.
The A lm anac o f 26 0 D a ys The sacred almanac of 260 days determined the Maya pattern of ceremonial life and provided a basis for prophecy. Astronomical bases for this count have been pro posed, but there is no agreement as to the origin or meaning of the 260-day count. The fact that this span approximates the human gestation period may be an impor tant clue. In fact, this almanac recorded birth dates, and the patron deity of the par ticular day became closely associated with the person’s destiny. Among the Kaqchikel Maya of the Guatemalan highlands, where this calendar is still used, parents named their children based on their birth dates in the 260-day almanac. The almanac was not divided into months but was an endless succession of 260 days, each designated by prefixing a number from one to thirteen before a sequence of twenty day names. The Yukatek day names are given below, and their hieroglyphs are shown in Figure 3.4. Imix Ik’ Ak’bal K’an Chikchan
Kimi Manik’ Lamat Muluk Ok
Chuwen Eb Ben lx Men
Kib Kaban Etz’nab Kawak A jaw
Because each of the day names had a number prefixed to it, the calendar ran: i Ak’bal, 2 K’an, 3 Chikchan, 4 Kimi, and so on. The thirteenth day, 13 Men, was followed by 1 Kib, 2 Kaban; and so forth. An almanac cycle was completed when every one of the thirteen numbers had been attached in turn to every one of the twenty day names. Since 13 and 20 have no common factor, 260 days (13 X 20) elapsed before 1 Ak’bal recurred and a new 260-day cycle began.
t Fig. 3.4. Glyphs for the twenty Maya days: (a) Imix; (6) Ik'; (c) Ak'bal; (cf) K'an; (e) Chikchan; (f ) Kimi; (g) Manik'; (h) Lamat; (/) Muluk; (/) Ok; [k) Chuwen; (/) Eb; (m) Ben; (n) lx; (o) Men; (p) Kib; (q) Kaban; (r) Etz'nab; (s) Kawak; (f) Ajaw.
b
a
h
d
c
i
q
r
s
Fig. 3.5. Glyphs for the nineteen Maya months: (a) Pop; (b) Wo; (c) Sip; (c/) Sotz#; (e) Sek; (f) Xul; (g) Yaxk'in; (h) Mol; (/) Ch'en; (/) Yax; (k) Sak; (/) Keh; (m) Mak; (n) K'ank'in; (o) Muwan; (p) Pax; (q) K'ayab; (r) Kumk'u; (s) Wayeb.
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
107
• • •
The H a a b o f 3 65 D a ys The Haab was composed of nineteen months— eighteen named -winals of 20 days each and a closing month of 5 days (Wayeb), totaling 365 days that approximated the solar year, which is actually slightly longer than 365 days. The nineteen months in Yukatek are given below, and their hieroglyphs are shown in Figure 3.5. Pop Wo Sip Sotz’ Sek
Xul Yaxk’in M ol Ch’en Yax
Sak Keh Mak K’ank’in Muwan
Pax K’ayab Kumk’u Wayeb
Although the Maya N ew Year’s Day was 1 Pop, the previous day was called “the seating of Pop” (expressed as o Pop), when the influence of Pop began to be felt (the day count in each Maya winal ran from o to 19; or o to 4 in Wayeb). To show how the 260-day almanac was combined with the 365-day Haab, they are graphically represented on three cogwheels (Fig. 3.6). The meshing of wheels A and B represents each day of the almanac, and wheel C represents the days of Keh, one of the Haab months. To show the complete designation of any day in the Maya calendar, wheels A and C are meshed; in this case the slots of Wheel A, 8 Ajaw, fit into the cogs for 13 Keh on Wheel C, giving the designation of this day as 8 Ahaw 13 Keh.
The C alendar R o u n d o f 52 Years The combination of the 260-day almanac and the 365-day Haab produced another repeated cycle, this one of 52 years, known as the Calendar Round. In other words, 52 years passed before a given day designated by the almanac and Haab dates re curred, determined by the least common multiple of 260 and 365, which is 5 X 52 X 73, or 18,980 days (52 years). Except for the Maya, the 52-year cycle was the largest calendrical unit of all Mesoamerican societies. The Mexica (Aztecs), for example, conceived of time as an endless succession of these 52-year periods, named the xiuhmolpilli, meaning “year bundle.” The Mexica year bundle glyphs were a knot indicating that the bundle of 52 years had been tied up, or a fire drill and stick for kindling the Sacred Fire (Fig. 3.7). The Mexica believed that the world would come to an end at the close of one of these 52-year periods, and on the last night of the xiuhmolpilli, the people withdrew to the hills to await the dawn. When the sun rose on that morning, there was general rejoicing, the Sacred Fire was rekindled, the houses were cleaned and furnished with new utensils, and life resumed— the gods had given the world another 52-year lease on life.
Fig. 3.6. Diagram illustrating the meshing of the 260-day almanac (A and B) with the 365-day year (C), the latter represented here by a wheel for just one of the Maya months (Keh).
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
109
• • •
Fig. 3.7. The Mesoamerican 52-year pe riod (the Maya Calendar Round): (a) two examples of the knôt glyphs for the x/uhmolpiUi, the Mexico (Aztec) version of the 52-year cycle; (b) two examples of
a
the fire drill used to kindle the sacred fire in the renewal ritual every 52 years.
YEAR BEARERS Because of the permutations of the calendar, only four days of the almanac could ever occupy the first position of the H aab, or any of its months. In Classic times these were the days Ak'bal, Lamat, Ben, and Etz'nab, known as year-bearers. Because each of these four day names had the numbers 1 to 13 prefixed to them in turn, only 5 2 (4
13) days of the almanac could begin the H aab or
X
any of its months. These 5 2 possibilities fell on the following days: 1 Ak'bal
1
Lamat
1 Ben
2 Lamat
2
Ben
2
Etz'nab
1 Ak'bal 2 Lamat etc.
3 Ben
3
Etz'nab
3
Ak'bal
3 Lamat
4
4
Ak'bal
4
Lamat
4
Ben
5 Ak'bal
5
Lamat
5
Ben
5
Etz'nab
6 Lamat
6
Ben
6
_Q 0 c "n LU
1 Etz'nab 2 Ak'bal
6 Ak'bal
7 Ben
7
Etz'nab
7
Ak'bal
7
8 Etz'nab
8
Ak'bal
8
Lamat
8 Ben
9 Ak'bal
9
Lamat
10 Lamat
10
Ben
10
Etz'nab
10 Ak'bal
11
Etz'nab
11
Ak'bal
11
12
Ak'bal
12
Lamat
12
Ben
13
Lamat
13
Ben
13
Etz'nab
11
Etz'nab
Ben
12 Etz'nab 13 Ak'bal
9
Ben
9
Lamat
Etz'nab
Lamat
By the time of the Spanish Conquest, the M aya year-bearers had shifted forward to the days named K'an, Muluk, lx, and Kawak.
IIO
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • •
The L on g C ou n t We take for granted the need to have a fixed point from which to count chronologi cal records, but the ancient Maya seem to have been the only pre-Columbian society to use this basic concept. Different societies select different events as starting points for their calendars. Our Western chronology, the Gregorian calendar, begins with the traditional year for the birth of Christ. The Greeks reckoned time by four-year peri ods called olympiads, beginning in 776 bc. Other chronologies begin with supposed dates for the creation of the world. The chronological system used by the Greek Or thodox Church begins in 5509 bc, while the Jewish calendar begins with an equiva lent date of 3761 bc. The ancient Maya reckoned their chronology from a fixed point corresponding to the end of the preceding great cycle of thirteen bak’tuns (a period of approximately 5,128 solar years). The end of the previous great cycle, 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u (corresponding to a day in 3114 bc ), established the time of the creation of the cur rent world in the Maya cosmology, and precedes the earliest contemporary Long Count date (Stela 2 at Chiapa de Corzo) by over 3,000 years. According to the gen erally accepted calendrical correlation, the current great cycle will end on Decem ber 21, 2012 (see Appendix). Because great-cycle dates were reckoned from a fixed point in the distant past, this form of chronology is known as the Long Count. Long Count dates open most Classic Maya inscriptions, and so were named the “Initial Series” by Alfred Maudslay in the nineteenth century. Long Count dates first appear on Late Preclassic m on uments in the southern Maya area and are later found throughout the Maya low lands during the Classic period, providing dedicatory dates for monuments and other inscriptions. A Long Count date (Fig. 3.8) fixes a given Calendar Round day within the cur rent great cycle of thirteen bak’tuns (1,872,000 days). It is preceded by an oversized introductory glyph with a variable central element that names the patron deity of the month of the Haab in which the date that follows falls. The next five glyph blocks record the number of bak’tuns, k’atuns, tuns, winals, and k’ins that have elapsed from the beginning of the current great cycle. As mentioned, the Maya recorded twenty units for each order except for winals, where only eighteen units were counted (360 k’ins). The first part of the Calendar Round date, the almanac desig nation, follows, and after a series of intervening glyphs the second part of the Calen dar Round date, the Haab designation, closes the Long Count. The basic unit of the Long Count is the day (k’in), and that of our chronology is the year, but the two systems are similar in their methods of recording. When we write the date Saturday, January 1, 2005, we mean that two periods of one thousand years, zero periods of one hundred years, zero periods of ten years, and five periods of one year have elapsed since the beginning point in our chronology to reach the day
9 bak’tuns (9x 144,000 days = 1,296,000 days)
17 k’atuns (17x 7,200 days = 122,400 days)
0 tuns (0 x 360 days =0 days)
0 winals (0x20 days =0 days)
0 k’ins (0x1 day = 0 days)
13 Ajaw (day reached by counting forward above total of days from starting point of Maya era)
Glyph G9: name glyph of the deity who is patron of the ninth day in the nine-day series (the Nine Lords of the Night)
Glyph F: probably a tide of the Lords of the Night
Glyphs E and D: glyphs denoting the moon age of the Long Count terminal date, here “new moon”
Glyph C: glyph denoting position of current lunar month in lunar half-year period, here the second position
Glyph X3: Information on the current lunation
Glyph B: “it is named” (referring to the lunation)
Glyph A9: current lunar month, here 29 days in length. Last glyph of the lunar series.
18 Kumk’u (month reached by counting forward above total of days from starting point of Maya era). Last glyph of the Long Count.
Fig. 3.8. Example of a Maya Long Count date, from the inscription on the east side of Stela F, Quirigua, Guatemala.
Lunar Series-------------------- ►| b u t th e y w e r e n o t d iffe r en tia te d in tra n sc r ip tio n ; m o d e m
Y u k atek h a s o n ly
h. W h e r e c o l o
n ial o r th o g ra p h y d iffered fro m th e tra n sc r ip tio n u se d here (as in th e o ld u se o f b o th s a n d z fo r o u r s ), th e m o s t c o m m o n v e r sio n s are p la c ed h ere in p a r e n th e se s f o llo w in g th e m o d e m s y m b o l. S ee a ls o “A N o t e o n N a m e s a n d P r o n u n c ia tio n ” in th e fro n t m a b e r.
The elegance of the language and the literary style of the Popol Vuh emphasize the loss the K’iche and all humankind have suffered in the annihilation of native Maya learning during the colonial period. The poetic structure of the Popol Vuh is seman tic and grammatical rather than phonetic. Little use is made of rhyming, alliteration, or meter; rather, elaborate couplets or triplets are built up of semantically and gram matically parallel lines. The Popol Vuh has been crucial to the reconstruction of Post classic K’iche history and, more generally, Classic Maya ideology. The Popol Vuh was evidently written in sixteenth-century Utatlan, the K’iche capital, by Spanish-trained native scribes, very probably using a combination of oral and written pre-Columbian sources. It also shows evidence of colonial Spanish influence. The manuscript was evidently copied several times; the original was lost by the m id-i8oos. The Flemish Abbé Charles Brasseur de Bourbourg, onetime parish priest of Rabinal, Guatemala, discovered the only known copy, now in the Newberry Library in Chicago. To his great credit, Brasseur also brought to light the Annals o f the Cakchiquels (a history of the highland Kaqchikel Maya state); the Rabinal Achi (a K’iche dance-drama that Brasseur transcribed from a final performance); a portion of the Madrid Codex; and the Diccionario de Motul, a colonial Yukatek dictionary. Last but not least, Brasseur discovered the only surviving copy of the Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, a unique sixteeenth-century account of Maya history and society
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
I2.5 • • •
traditionally credited to Bishop Diego de Landa. Although recent evidence suggests the Relación may be a combination of works by several different authors, for con venience Landa will be referred to as its author. The Relación includes what is termed an “alphabet” of Maya glyphs that proved to be a critical clue to the decipherment of ancient Maya writing, discussed below. These works, together with other frag mentary documents from both the highlands and Yucatan, are priceless sources of in formation about Postclassic Maya language, history, social and political institutions, religion, and other facets of a long-vanished way of life.
Ancient Writing Systems Scholars have long considered writing to be one of the hallmarks of civilization, and the ancient Maya writing system is justly hailed as one of the most significant achievements of pre-Columbian peoples. By allowing its users to keep relatively per manent records, writing greatly facilitates the transmission and accumulation of knowledge from generation to generation. As we have seen, the ancient Maya recorded seasonal and astronomical information over long periods, and these ac counts contributed to the development of accurate calendars and to impressive breakthroughs in their tracking of astronomical events. The Maya developed writing to an extraordinary degree, but theirs was not the only Native American writing system. The origin of Maya writing is intertwined with that of the neighboring Mixe-Zoqueans, who developed a script related to Maya writing during the Late Preclassic. The Zapotees of Oaxaca also had a writing sys tem that developed by about 500 b c . In the Postclassic period the Mixtee and Mexica (Aztec) states recorded historical and commercial information using pictorial writing systems far less tied to their spoken languages than the Maya system. Like these other pre-Columbian recording systems, Maya writing was not static, but de veloped and changed over some 2,000 years of use, and great progress has been made in elucidating its principles and their origins. But, unlike a phonetic or languagebound script such as Maya writing, speakers of different languages could read the Mixtee and Mexica systems once a few basic orthographic conventions were under stood. Phonetic systems have their own advantages (including ease of learning, efficiency, and precision of meaning), but the flexibility of the Mixtee and Mexica systems made them efficient for handling the trade and tribute records of these ex panding multiethnic states. Similarly, the Inca quipu system, based on a still undeci phered system of knotted cords, was well adapted for the bookkeeping functions of a state that was more centralized than any other in pre-Columbian America.
Pre-Columbian Maya Texts Until the late twentieth century most eminent Maya scholars believed that the Maya texts were devoted entirely to astronomy, astrology, and calendrics, in spite of
126
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • • colonial accounts that spoke of pre-Columbian Maya histories, genealogies, medical texts, and treatises on plants and animals. In 1950, J* Eric Thompson stated that the Maya did not record history on their stone monuments and described the Maya as “excelling in the impractical, yet failing in the practical.” Before this, Sylvanus Morley was so unconcerned with noncalendrical glyphs that he did not draw them in his records of inscriptions. But in the nineteenth century the prevailing view held that Maya texts contained undeciphered historical records, as the quotation from Stephens at the beginning of this chapter attests. In the early twentieth century Her bert Spinden wrote these prophetic words: “we may expect to find in the Mayan in scriptions some hieroglyphs that give the names of individuals, cities, and political di visions and others that represent feasts, sacrifices, tribute, and common objects of trade as well as signs referring to birth, death, establishment, conquest, destruction, and other fundamentals of individual and social existence.” N ow with the decipher ment of Maya hieroglyphs, it is obvious that Stephens and Spinden were correct. Many ancient Maya texts, especially those from the Classic period, deal with histor ical events, including “birth, death, establishment, conquest, destruction, and other fundamentals of individual and social existence,” in addition to calendrical and other esoteric matters. Thus, like the records of ancient Egypt, Sumer, and other early states, Maya texts deal with the histories of Maya states and the reigns of their kings, their political fortunes, genealogy, marriages, alliances, and conflicts. And like the records of Old World civilizations, these accounts must be treated critically, for they contain varying degrees of bias!. Nonetheless, access to this rich resource of histori cal information has significantly altered our understanding of Maya civilization and transformed the study of the ancient Maya from the realm of prehistory to that of history. . Modern decipherment has recovered knowledge of a writing system lost because of diligent Spanish church and government officials who destroyed Maya texts along with any other manifestations of “paganism.” At the time of the Conquest, the heri tage of 2,000 years of Maya learning was recorded by Maya scribes using both texts and images painted with brushes on the pages of codices (folding books), made of bark paper coated by a thiii wash of lime (Fig. 3.13). Landa’s account describes the destruction of these books and the knowledge of Maya writing: “We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which there were not to be seen superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.” M ost of the books that escaped such destruction eventually succumbed to neglect and the ravages of the climate. By extraordinary good fortune, however, colonial officials sent a few books back to Europe. Three of these pre-Columbian Maya books, dated to the Post classic era, survived in the Old World, where they are now known as the Dresden, Madrid, and Paris codices.
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
127
• • •
The M aya C odices The Dresden Codex was bought for the Dresden Library in 1739 by its director, Jo hann Christian Götze, who found it in a private library in Vienna. Its earlier history is unknown, but the book may have been sent back to the emperor Charles V, ruler of Spain and Austria at the time of the Conquest, since he resided in Vienna. Cortés sent examples of Mesoamerican books to Charles V in 1519, and much of the Moctezuma treasure (originally gifts to Cortés) and the five letters from Cortés to Charles V were also discovered in Vienna. N ow in the Sächsische Landesbibliothek in Dresden, Germany, the Dresden Codex suffered water damage as a result of bomb ing during World War II, but has been restored. A page can be seen in Plate 3 a. The Paris Codex was rediscovered by León de Rosny in the Bibliothèque N a tionale at Paris in 1859, in a basket of old papers in a chimney corner, its existence apparently forgotten after earlier discoveries in the nineteenth century. Only a small fragment of a longer original book, the Paris Codex is in much worse condition than the other two codices. The lime coating has eroded away at its margins, taking with it all the pictures and glyphs except those in the middle of the pages. A sample page is shown in Figure 3.14. The Madrid Codex, divided into two unequal parts, was found in Spain in the 18 60s. Although the fragments were found at different places, León de Rosny real ized that they were parts of the same manuscript. The larger section was published by Brasseur de Bourbourg; the smaller part was sold in 1875 to the Museo Arque ológico in Madrid, which now owns both. The smaller portion was said to come from Extremadura, and since the conqueror of Yucatan, Francisco de Montejo, and many of his soldiers were from this province, one of these men may have brought the codex to Spain. A page is shown in Figure 3.15. While all three codices record little history, they do contain similar almanacs that present texts, calendrical dates, and pictures of activities such as planting or har vesting crops, and religious ceremonies. Research by Gabrielle Vail suggests these al manacs were used to schedule seasonal events and ceremonies within cycles of 260 days, the 365-day year (Haab), and the 52-year Calendar Round. Otherwise, the Dresden Codex is mostly a treatise on divination and astronomy. The Madrid Codex is devoted to horoscopes and almanacs used to assist Maya priests in their divina tions and ceremonies, but it contains fewer astronomical tables. What we have of the Paris Codex is also ritualistic, one side being completely devoted to a k’atun sequence and its patron deities and ceremonies, but it also contains a depiction of the Maya zodiac (Fig. 3.14). While some have suggested that at least one codex, the Madrid, may be postConquest in date, there is overwhelming evidence for a pre-Conquest origin. The evidence also clearly points to origins in Yucatan for all three codices. J. Eric Thomp son concluded the Dresden Codex was from central and eastern Yucatan, probably
Fig. 3.15. Various almanacs from the Madrid Codex, p. 91 : the bird hanging from a noose in a tree in the top section is an ocellated turkey; its glyphic name (reading kutz; see text) appears above the tree branch.
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
129
• • •
Chichen Itza, and dated to the early 1200s, although it, like the other two, was prob ably at least partly copied from earlier books. Günter Zimmermann found evidence of the work of eight different scribes in the Dresden Codex. Thompson felt the Paris and Madrid codices came from western Yucatan, and assigned them to the period 1 2 5 0 -1 4 5 0 , later than the Dresden Codex. Other scholars have noted parallels be tween the Madrid Codex and mural paintings from Chichen Itza, Mayapan, and sites along the eastern coast of Yucatan (Tulum, Tancah, and Santa Rita). The climate in most of the Maya area is too humid for the survival of buried books, but it is clear that Classic Maya kings and priests kept libraries of codices. Fragments identified as decayed codices have been found in Classic-period tombs at Uaxactun, Altun Ha, and Guaytan. Another example from Mirador, Chiapas, in an area of uncertain ancient linguistic affiliation, is much smaller than the intact Mayan codices. It remains unopened in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City, its paper long since rotted away and its lime page coatings coalesced into a solid block. In the twentieth century, a looted fragment of another pre-Columbian Maya book, the Grolier Codex (named after the Grolier Club in N ew York City, where it was first displayed), appeared in a private collection, although it now also resides in M exico City. Tests indicate that the bark paper is pre-Columbian, but some scholars still suspect it may be repainted or even a forgery. The Grolier Codex deals entirely with Venus almanacs in a simplistic fashion, adding little to the sophisticated treat ment of Venus in the Dresden Codex. Scholars hope that more Maya books will be found in recoverable condition, but no one expects to find libraries like the claytablet archives of the ancient Near East. In contrast to the books from the Maya area, over four hundred native MixtecMexica manuscripts have survived, of which about thirteen are of pre-Columbian origin. Some of these are made of deerskin, others of cotton or bark paper. If mate rials other than bark paper were ever the primary ones used in Maya books, no ex amples have survived, nor does Landa mention them. Remains of an animal-hide binding connecting separate sections of the paper strip have been found in the Dres den Codex, but it is not known whether this is original or from later repairs. Colo nial texts also mention the use of pre-Columbian maps made with a cotton backing, but none have been found.
The M aya Inscriptions Fortunately, a large number of Maya texts on more permanent media have survived time, neglect, and the destruction of the Conquest, although they have fared less well at the hands of modern looters and smugglers of pre-Columbian art (see the Intro duction). The earliest known texts are from the Late Preclassic, and most that have survived were carved on stone monuments, but other examples are incised on small
130
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • • portable objects, and painted glyphs have been found on the murals at the Late Preclassic site of San Bartolo, Guatemala (Plate 5a). M ost of the texts surviving from the Classic period were carved on free-standing monuments, set in masonry buildings (as lintels and wall panels), or were fashioned in stucco on building facades. At Tikal and a few other sites, wooden lintels with carved texts have survived. At some sites, es pecially in the Usumacinta region, the sculptors of monuments signed their works, including their titles as royal artisans of kings. Many shorter Classic texts were in cised on portable artifacts made of bone, stone, or pottery. In other cases texts were painted on murals and on elaborately decorated ceramic vessels. A series of extraor dinary texts carved on bone strips have been excavated from a Late Classic burial at Çomalcalco, the westernmost major Maya site. Excepting a few brief carved or painted texts, the corpus of Postclassic Maya writing is best represented by the codices, already described. Thanks to the epic efforts to record Maya monuments, made by Alfred Maudslay, Sylvanus Morley, Ian Graham, and other dedicated archaeologists, most known carved pre-Columbian Maya texts have been recorded, although new inscriptions are still being discovered. Gaining access to these recorded Maya texts can still be a daunting task but is now facilitated by the Internet and digital photography. Ian Graham and his associates at Harvard University’s Peabody Museum are publishing photographs and drawings of the monumental inscriptions in the Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Roll-out photographs and drawings of polychrome ce ramic vessels, including those with texts, are now available in both published and website versions, as are glyph dictionaries and guides to Maya hieroglyphic writing.
The Language o f the Classic M aya Texts Long before Maya writing was deciphered, scholars debated the linguistic identity of the people who inhabited the Maya lowlands, where the bulk of Maya texts origi nated. A century ago scholars established the close relationship among modern Ch’orti’, Ch’ol, and Chontal in the Ch’olan subgroup of Mayan. This allowed Karl Sapper and J. Eric Thompson to independently conclude that the modern distribu tion of the Ch’olan languages reflects the former existence of a belt of Ch’olan speak ers in the southern lowlands, from the Usumacinta drainage to Guatemala’s Carib bean coast and the Copan Valley (still occupied by Ch’orti’ Mayan speakers). These clues pointed to a Ch’olan language as the language spoken in the Classic Maya heartland. N ow that decipherment allows phonetic readings of Mayan words, specific characteristics of Ch’olan languages have been identified in the Classic Maya texts, such as the presence of the verbal suffix wan. Initially, John Justeson and James Fox concluded from inscriptional evidence that Ch’olan was the language used at several Classic sites (Palenque, Dos Pilas, Aguateca, Copan) along the southern edge of the lowland Ch’olan belt, but they also proposed that Yukatekan Mayan was used
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
131
• • •
THE STRUCTURE OF MAYAN LANGUAGES The sound systems of the M ayan languages
The root morphemes (that is, the roots of
have close similarities, like other aspects of their
words) of M ayan are generally regular in their
structure. But there are diagnostic differences,
sound structure. Most consist of three sounds,
and these are key to determining the specific
namely a consonant (cd followed by a vowel
languages
on
(v), followed by a consonant (c2); that is, they
Although
have the shape C]VC2. Typical M ayan word or
Ch'olan was the predominant language of the
der, reflected in both written pre-Columbian texts
Classic M a ya inscriptions, many Yukatek words
and spoken language, is verb-object-subject in
detailed
represented phonetic
by
texts
decipherments.
based
have become embedded in M a ya scholarship,
transitive sentences, verb-subject in intransitive
as in the names for the time units of the M aya
sentences.
calendar. The Yukatek sound system includes
M ayan verbs are accompanied by pronouns
five vowels, each of which may be either short
of subject and object, even if there are separate
or long. Yukatek is also one of the few M ayan
nouns serving these functions. In M ayan lan
"tone" languages: its long vowels carry distinc
guages there are two basic types of pronouns:
tive pitch, which may be either rising-falling or
the ergative, used for possession and the subject
low-level, marked with acute and grave accents,
of transitive verbs, and the absolutive, used for
respectively. The Ch'olan languages have es
the object of transitive verbs and the subject of
sentially the same sounds as Yukatek, though
intransitive verbs. Their use contrasts with that of
they do not have distinctive pitch. Ch'orti' also
English pronouns, which are differentiated de
has the consonant r, which is lacking in Yukatek.
pending on whether they represent subject, ob
Yukatek has eighteen consonants, some of which involve "glottalized" consonants. These
ject, or possessor, without regard to the nature of the verb.
are sounded like their nonglottalized ("plain")
M ayan languages thus distinguish between
counterparts, except that in doing so, the vocal
actors in transitive events and actors in intransi
folds of the larynx are closed tightly. The release
tive events, and treat transitive verbs and pos
of this closure has a phonetic effect that is often
sessive constructions similarly. This ergative
described as "explosive" and "guttural." All
structure is quite common in the languages of
M ayan languages have plain and glottalized
the world, though its specific mode of expres
consonants, though some have more than oth
sion varies.
ers. M ayan languages also have a "glottal
Another feature of the grammar of both colo
stop," which is simply the closing and blowing
nial and modern M ayan is a large class of
apart of the vocal folds without accompanying
words, termed numeral classifiers, that are in
oral articulation. English has this same sound,
serted between a number (or other quantifier,
used expressively as in "uh-uh" and "oh-oh," but
such as "many" or "some") and the thing num
in M ayan languages it distinguishes words as a
bered. This word encodes information about
consonant.
the shape, position, or size of the numbered
132
H I S T O R Y A N D MAYA C I V I L I Z A T I O N
• • • THE STRUCTURE OF MAYAN LANGUAGES (continued) object(s). A pseudo-English equivalent might be
two different verbs glossed as "arrival" are
"four arranged-in-a-straight-line stones," where
used. O ne, tali, refers to arriving from a place
our hyphenated phrase stands for a single
aw ay from the speaker, as in "he comes from
M ayan numeral classifier. Such classifiers are
th e re / The other, huli, specifies arriving toward
obligatory in such expressions, although there
the speaker, as in "he comes here." Such gram
are several general classifiers that can be used
matical concern for the semantics of space is
when the speaker does not wish to be precise.
not uncommon in the languages of the world,
A few numeral classifiers have been identified in
though it perhaps strikes English speakers as
M aya writing, and these seem to be of the ge
unusual.
neric, or less discriminating, type.
Finally, M ayan languages in colonial times
Mayan languages also have special conju
had well-developed systems for personal names
gations for positional verbs, that is, a class of
and titles, including two morpherçies (the mas
verbs that refer to various ways of taking posi
culine and feminine proclitics, also found in
tion: for example, Ch'orti' a'
—
ca. 4 7 0
Events
Y a ja w T o ' K 'in ic h 1
9 .2 .9 .0 .1 6
464
Accession
Reigned A pr. 1 2 , 4 8 4 - 5 3 1
9 .4 .0 .0 .0
514
C elebrated k'atun ending (Stela 13)
K a n 1 (Ruler II)
9 .4 .1 6 .1 3 .3
531
Accession
Father: Y a ja w Te' K'inich 1;
9 .5 .0 .0 .0
534
C eleb rated k'atun ending; unknown
(ca. 4 7 years); dedicated: A ltar 4 , Stela 13
w ife: Lady K 'al K'inich;
event mentioning Balam N e hn, ruler
Reigned A pr. 1 3 , 5 3 1 - 5 3
of C o p an (Stela 16)
(ca. 2 2 years); ded icated A ltar 1 4 , Stela 1 6
Y a ja w T o ' K 'in ic h II (Ruler III)
9 . 5 .1 9 1 . 2
553
Accession overseen by W a k C han
K 'al K'inich; wives: Lady 1,
9 .6 .0 .0 .0
554
C elebrated k'atun ending (Stela 14)
Lady Batz' Ek'; reigned
9 .6 .2 .1 .1
556
D efeated by Tikal
A pr. 1 6 , 5 5 3 - c a . 5 9 9 (ca. 4 6
9 . 6 .8 .4 . 2
562
Victory over Tikal by C a ra col and
1 4 Stelae 1 , 1 4
9 .8 .0 .0 .0
593
C elebrated k'atun ending (Altar 1,
K n o t A ja w (Ruler IV)
9 .8 .5 .1 6 .1 2
599
Accession
Born N o v. 2 8 , 5 7 5 ; d ie d 6 1 8
9 .9 .0 .0 .0
613
C e leb rated k'atun ending (Stela 5)
9 .9 .4 .1 6 .2
618
Accession
K'aw ill, ruler of Tikal
Father: Kan 1; mother: Lady
its new ally, Calakm ul
years); dedicated: Altars 1, 6 ,
Stela 1)
(ag e 4 3 ); father: Y a ja w Te' K'inich II; mother: Lady 1 ; reigned June 2 4 , 5 9 9 - 6 1 8 (1 9 years); d ed icated A ltar 1 5 , Stelae 5 , 6
K a n II (Ruler V) Born A pr. 1 8 , 5 8 8 ;
—
619
father: Y a ja w Te' K'inich II;
Unknown event overseen by Yuknoom C h an, ruler of Calakm ul
d ie d July 2 1 , 6 5 8 (age 7 0 ); —
mother: Lady Batz' Ek';
626
D efeated N a ra n jo
658
Death
658
Accession (2 9 days before death
reigned M a r . 6 , 6 1 8 -July 2 1 , 6 5 8 (4 0 years); ded icated Altars 2 , 7 , 1 7 , 1 9 , 2 1 , Stelae 3 , 2 2
K 'a k ' U jo l K 'in ic h II (Ruler VI)
9 .1 1 .5 .1 4 .0
of Kan II) 680
D efeated by N a ra n jo
702
C elebrated period ending (Stela 2 1 )
During the Interregnum o f 6 8 0 - 7 9 8 tw o C a ra c o l rulers have been identified: VII a n d VIII
R u le r VII Turn Y ohl K 'in ic h (Ruler VIII)
9 .1 3 .1 0 .0 .0 —
ca. 7 9 3 (c o n tin u ed )
3 66
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
• •
TABLE 7 .4 {c o n tin u e d )
Ruler K 'in ic h J o y K 'o w iil (Ruler IX)
Long Count date
_
D ate AD
Events
798
D edic ate d B G ro u p ball court
80Q S
C e leb ra ted period ending (Stela 11)
800
C a ptu re d rulers o f U c an al a n d B'ital
9 .1 8 . 1 3 . 1 0 .1 9 ?
804?
Accession
9 .1 9 .0 .0 .0
810
C e leb ra ted k'atun end ing (Stela 18)
820
A llianc e with U c an al ruler P apam alil
9 .1 8 :1 0 .0 .0 —
(Altar 2 3 )
K l n k h T o o b 'il T o p o a t (Ruler X)
—
(Altars 1 2 , 13)
K a n III (Ruler XII)
1 0 . 1 . 0 .0 .0
(8 4 9 )
C e leb ra ted k'atun ending w ith ano ther
R u le r XIII
1 0 . 1 . 1 0 . 0 .0
859
C e leb ra ted period end ing (Stela 10)
lord (Stela 17)
S ou rces: B eetz fie S a tte r th w a ite 1 9 8 1 ; C h a se e t a l. 1 9 9 1 ; G ru b e 1 9 9 4 a ; H o u s to n 1 9 8 7 ; M a r tin & G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; S to n e e t al. 1 9 8 5 .
Ten years after his accession, Kan Chitam dedicated Stela 40, modeled closely after his father’s Stela 31. But unlike Stela 31, where his father holds a Mayastyle headdress aloft, on Stela 40 Kan Chitam holds a Central Mexican-style shell platelet war headdress over his head. His portraits on Stelae 9 and 13 abandon the foreign-inspired motifs used by his predecessors. On Stela 9, the first of a series of “staff stelae” dedicated in 9.2.0.0.0 (475), Kan Chitam is depicted in a traditional standing profile posture, holding a fire drill and wearing a cape decorated with jaguar masks (Fig. 7.36). Although the end of his reign is not known, in 486 he probably led Tikal in a war against Maasal, a site to the north, mentioned in a later retro spective text. The son of Kan Chitam, Chak Tok Ich’aak II, came to the throne about the time of the Maasal war. His first monument is Stela 3 (488), and he celebrated the 9.3.0.0.0 (495) K’atun ending with three stelae (7 ,1 5 , and 27) in his father’s staff ste lae style. After this time Tikal’s dynastic record becomes increasingly obscure, owing to the severe erosion and deliberate destruction of many monuments. The death of Chak Tok Ich’aak II in 508 is mentioned at the distant city of Tonina to the west. A few days later the king of Yaxchilan, Knot-eye Jaguar I, records the capture of an elite Tikal lord, a portent of disasters to come. The next half century can be characterized as a time of decline and dynastic tur moil for Tikal. Neither archaeology nor epigraphy can provide a detailed picture of events, but at the start of this interval Tikal was ruled by a queen. Because her name remains unknown, she is usually nicknamed “Lady of Tikal.” She is portrayed on Stela 23 (Fig. 7.37), found in an elite complex on the southeastern edge of the
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E E AR L Y C L A S S I C
Fig. 7 .3 5. Caracol, Caana: a monumental architectural complex at the center of the city, seen from the south after excavation and consolidation.
capital, identified by W illiam Haviland as her residence. Stela 23 records her date of birth in 504 and her accession as a six-year-old girl in 511. Circum stantial evidence indicates she was the daughter of Chale Tok Ich’aak II, but her tender age, not to m ention her gender, probably motivated the powers behind the throne to pair her w ith a male co-regent. We can also assume that a young girl ruler would have pre sented an opportunity for an am bitious man to rule Tikal. A m an named K aloom te’ Balam appears to have fulfilled this role. Stela 10 tells of his victory over the site of M aasal in 486. Apparently his military reputation allowed him to become co-regent w ith Lady of Tikal. In fact, Stela 12 lists K aloom te’ Balam as the nineteenth ruler in the line of the Tikal founder, while Lady of Tikal is not accorded the successor title. Lady of Tikal may have outlived her consort, for she is m entioned again on Stela 8, which portrays a m an nicknam ed Bird Claw, apparently the successor of K aloom te’ Balam. There is better docum entation for the twenty-first ruler, Wak Chan K’awiil, whose only know n m onum ent, Stela 17, is heavily dam aged (Fig. 7.38). W hat survives of its text indicates he was the son of Chak Tok Ich’aak II (and probably the brother of Lady of Tikal) and seems to have returned in 537, possibly from exile, to become T ikal’s king. We know little about his reign, except it was a time of a growing threat from Calakmul. T ikal’s defensive earthw orks may date to this time, probably in response to the danger posed by Calakmul. In 546 one of
3^7
A
B
Fig. 7.3 6. Tikal Stela 9: drawing showing (left) the standing portrait of the ruler Kan Chitam holding a staff; the text (center and right), inscribed on both narrow sides of the monument, ends with Kan Chitam's name glyph and the Tikal emblem glyph (B6, 7).
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E AR L Y C L A S S I C
Fig. 7 .3 7 . Tikal Stela 23: drawing of a badly eroded fragment that records the birth of "Lady of Tikal."
Tikal’s neighbors to the east, Naranjo, fell under Calakmul’s control. Wak Chan K’awiil countered Calakmul’s move by cementing Tikal’s alliance with the more dis tant city of Caracol to the southeast, overseeing the inauguration of that polity’s new ruler in 553. But these efforts were in vain, for less than a decade later a disastrous defeat ushered in a century-long dark age for Tikal and plunged much of the central lowlands into a series of wars.
The Defeat of Tikal (562) During the Early Classic, Calakmul consolidated its power by establishing a series of alliances with other lowland kingdoms that eventually nearly surrounded Tikal. One of the key components in this strategy was Caracol, up to this time an ally of Tikal. Caracol was now ruled by Yajaw Te’ K’inich II, who had been inaugurated in 553
370
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
• • E
F
G
H
Fig. 7 .3 8. Tikal Stela 17: drawing of the broken monument of the ruler W ak Chan K'awiil, showing his eroded portrait on the front and the text on one side that refers to his apparent accession on 9 .5 .3 .9 .1 5 (ad 53 7; glyphs F1-F3) and his position as the twenty-first successor of the dynastic founder (glyphs G l , H I).
under the authority of Tikal’s king, Wak Chan K’awiil. But by 556 there was a war between Tikal and Caracol in which Wak Chan K’awiil dispatched a Caracol lord. Either Yajaw Te’ K’inich II had already switched sides and Tikal was taking its re venge, or Tikal’s attack motivated Caracol’s move into the Calakmul alliance. For in 562 Tikal suffered a defeat marked by the “star-war” glyph, referring to outright conquest. Since Tikal’s conquest is recorded on Caracol’s Altar 21 (Fig. 7.34), this could indicate that the victory belonged to Yajaw Te’ K’inich II. But Simon Martin has
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E E AR L Y C L A S S I C
371
• •
noted that although the name glyphs of the victor’s name on Altar 21 are effaced and unreadable, the outlines do not match those of Yajaw Te’ K’inich II. Instead the out lines of the glyphs match those of the name of the Calakmul king then in power, known by his nickname, Sky Witness. This indicates that Calakmul, with assistance from Caracol, orchestrated the 562 conquest of Tikal. It is likely that Wak Chan K’awiil was captured and sacrificed by the victorious forces of Caracol and Calak mul. In any case, he disappears from history after 562. The defeat of Tikal marks the sudden end of its dominance in the Early Classic period. For the next century Tikal was eclipsed by Calakmul and its allies in a series of wars that embroiled much of the Maya lowlands.
Summary: The Early Classic States of the Maya Lowlands The Early Classic period saw a series of independent states emerge in the Maya low lands. Two of these grew to dominate the area, although neither could integrate their subordinate polities, or even their conquests, into a single state. The characteristics of these lowland Maya states are recognizable in the archaeological record and from the historical texts that were recorded at a number of polity capitals. Early Classic Maya lowland society was stratified into two largely endogamous groups, the elite and nonelite, each comprising a diverse array of constituencies. At the head of this order in each polity stood the k’uhul ajaw, or king, and a royal house defined by an cestry and residency within a royal palace. Each k’uhul ajaw presided over a royal court and a large administrative hierarchy. The administration of the state is also vis ible in a hierarchy of subordinate centers beneath the polity capital. Each Maya king possessed economic, religious, and political power, reinforced by a supernaturalbased sacred authority, bolstered by commonly held definitions of proper behavior and responsibilities for both king and his subjects. The first steps toward the emergence of a lowland Maya state were taken at El Mirador in the Late Preclassic. But the unexplained collapse of El Mirador and many of its companion Late Preclassic polities was, for a time, a setback for the develop ment of all of lowland Maya society. In the wake of this decline, as part of events that are still poorly understood, a series of new states emerged in the Early Classic Maya lowlands. This in situ growth of more complex societies began in a number of poli ties that survived the disruptions at the end of the Preclassic. Perhaps freed from the domination of El Mirador, the rulers of these polities were able to harness their pop ulations and resources and increase their authority, fueled by competition and ex panded trade and commerce. The best-documented example of this development is at Tikal, which had its be ginnings in the Preclassic. Its texts indicate a king named Yax Ehb’ Xook founded a new ruling house at Tikal before the downfall of El Mirador, about ad ioo. The ori gins of Tikal’s dynastic founder are unknown, but he may have come from the Maya
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
BECAN, CAMPECHE, MEXICO Situated north of Calakmul, and some 15 0 km
out from 1 9 6 9 to 1 9 7 1 , and much of this work
from Tikal, Becan is within the heart of the Yu
focused on Becan. The research also examined
catan Peninsula. The site was discovered in
the settlement and subsistence activities around
1 9 3 4 by two Carnegie Institution archaeolo
Becan and the nearby, unfortified, elite center of
gists, Karl Ruppert and John Denison, who
Chicanna. This was followed by further research
named it after its most conspicuous feature, an
directed by Richard E. W . Adams and more re
encircling moat and rampart [becan: "ditch
cent work conducted by IN A H .
filled with water"). Three seasons of archaeo
The core of Becan is defined by the moat and
logical investigations in the Rio Bee region di
rampart, which enclose an oval-shaped area of
rected by E. Wyllys Andrews IV were carried
about 0 .2 km2 (Fig. 7 .3 9 ). Clearing revealed
Fig. 7 .3 9 . Aerial view of Becan, Campeche, M exico, showing the surrounding protective ditch and earthen rampart, with an access ramp at the left.
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
373
• •
BECAN, CAMPECHE, MEXICO ( continued) that the M a ya had originally excavated the
Maya-style decoration) containing a
moat to a depth of 5 m and about 16 m wide,
Teotihuacan figurine, excavated from Str. XIV
using the removed limestone rubble (sascab) for
(Fig. 6 .3 7 ).
hollow
an interior rampart rising another 5 m. Access
Becan's defensive facilities may have main
to the site was by seven narrow and solid cause
tained its political and economic independence,
ways across the moat, formed by intact sections
at least for a time. But Becan's population
of the limestone bedrock. There is no evidence
seems to have contracted shortly after the moat-
of a parapet and interior walkway, as found at
and-rampart system was constructed and con
the smaller but later fortifications of M a yapan
tinued to decline through the end of the Early
and Tulum. Construction of the moat and ram
Classic. The reasons for this are unknown, but it
part is dated to the first part of the Early Classic,
is likely that its heavy investment in defenses
likely as a defensive measure in response to
proved futile and Becan fell victim to Calakmul.
the expansion of its larger and more powerful
Nonetheless, to close out the known story of
neighbor, Calakmul.
this site, in the Late Classic Becan was revital
Ceramic evidence indicates that Becan and
ized, as the population dramatically increased
its surrounding region were first settled near the
and vigorous building activity resumed. The ma
end of the M iddle Preclassic (by ca. 5 5 0 BC).
jority of the civic structures at the site, and the
Rapid population growth seems to have oc
nearby centers of Chicanna and Xpuhil, reflect
curred throughout the Late Preclassic, when an
the Rio Bee architectural style that developed
elite center first emerged. Str. IV-sub, some 15 m
during this period (Fig. 9 .6 ). The building activ
high, was built during this era. This expansion
ity of the Late Classic ceased by ca. 8 3 0 .
appears to have been promoted by the combi
Changes in the ceramic inventory, however, in
nation of the region's good agricultural potential
dicate that peoples from northern Yucatan set
and Becan's strategic position in controlling lo
tled at Becan during the ninth century. There
cal trade routes. Trade contacts as far aw ay as
after,
Teotihuacan are indicated by the presence of
region experienced a second population de
Central Mexican obsidian and by a famous
cline, and the elite centers of the Rio Bee region
cache of a slab-leg cylindrical vessel (with
were soon abandoned.
however,
Becan
and
its surrounding
374
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
• •
NAKUM , GUATEMALA Another close neighbor of Tikal, located only
Nakum's political history. O f the fifteen stelae
2 5 km to the east near the headwaters of the Rio
known from the site, only three are dated (cor
Holmul, Nakum probably once served as an im
responding to 7 7 1 , 8 1 0 , and 8 4 9 ). Nakum ap
portant trade link between Tikal and the Carib
pears to have been subordinate to Tikal during
bean coast. Unfortunately, like most M a ya sites,
most of the Classic period, but the most recent
Nakum has been heavily looted. Nakum was re
research indicates that Nakum may have as
ported to the outside world as a result of the ex
serted its political independence during the Ter
plorations of Maurice de Perigny in 1 9 0 5 - 6 .
minal Classic.
Alfred Tozzer published a preliminary study and
The site core of Nakum is composed of two
map in 19 1 3 , revealing, among other things,
large architectural complexes, connected by a
one of the longest palace-type structures in the
sacbe (the Perigny Causeway). The southern
M aya area. From 1 9 9 4 to 1 9 9 6 an IDAEH-
complex contains a Group E astronomical align
sponsored project directed by Oscar Quintana
ment (see earlier box on Uaxactun). Temple A,
mapped the site and conducted a series of ex
on the east side of this group, is noteworthy in
cavations, consolidated a number of threatened
having two unusual corbel-vaulted doorways
structures, and documented an important series
flanking a central doorway with a wooden lin
of graffiti within its buildings. The IDEAH exca
tel. To the south is a large acropolis supporting
vations indicate that Nakum was initially settled
a series of apparently residential structures and
in the Middle Preclassic, with growing occupa
courts, comparable to the Central Acropolis at
tion continuing into the Terminal Classic (ca.
Tikal. N ear its center is a higher platform sur
8 0 0 - 9 5 0 ) , when the site reached its apogee,
mounted by four buildings facing an inner court,
but was abandoned soon after. Little is known of
possibly the residence of Nakum's ruling family.
highlands. To the north another new capital, Calakmul, eventually became the new seat of the Kan ruling house that may have originated at Late Preclassic El Mirador. Once established, the Kan rulers set about reconstituting their former regional dominance in a new setting. Tikal’s prosperity was increased by its links with Teotihuacan in Central Mexico. But these connections culminated in a regime change at Tikal in 378, either orchestrated by Teotihuacan or by a local exiled faction. In ei ther case the new king assumed his proper place in the established dynastic succes sion counted from the founder of the royal house. This takeover likely had benefits, for it probably integrated Tikal more fully into the dominant Early Classic economic and political network that included both Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu. As a result, with increased resources at its disposal, Tikal was able to directly or indirectly im pose its authority over other lowland polities such as Uaxactun, Río Azul, and Co pan, far to the southeast. In apparent response, Calakmul established alliances with
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
YAXHA, GUATEMALA The large site of Yaxha is located on the north
There is an architectural alignment similar to
shore of Lake Yaxha, about 3 0 km (19 mi.)
Group E at Uaxactun and the only twin pyra
southeast of Tikal. First reported by Teobert
mid group (see Fig. 8 .2 1 ) identified outside of
M aler after his visit in
Tikal. The sculptured monuments indicate a
1904,
Yaxha was
mapped during the 19 3 0s by the Carnegie In
long, if poorly known, political history spanning
stitution of Washington, and in the early 1970s
the
further mapping and test excavations were con
9 .1 8 .3 .0 .0 ).
Early
to
Late
Classic
(8 .1 6 .0 .0 .0
to
ducted in the site core under the direction of
Yaxha seems to have reached its apogee in
Nicholas Hellmuth. Architectural conservation
the Early Classic, when it grew into one of the
has
the
largest capitals of this era. But its Early Classic
Guatemalan government. David Stuart deci
monuments are poorly preserved and very little
been
carried
out
at
Yaxha
by
phered its emblem glyph, which reads "Yaxa',"
is known of Yaxha's history. It appears to have
providing an example of an ancient site name
been an ally of Tikal. If so, Yaxha's decline by
(as well as the name of the lake) being pre
the end of the Early Classic may have been the
served to the present day. The core of the site
handiwork of one of Tikal's enemies, Calakmul
consists of a series of plazas and acropolis
or one of its allies such as Caracol, or, most
groups, with access to several outlying groups
likely, N aranjo (whose monuments record a se
and the lake shore provided by three sacbeob.
ries of wars with Yaxha in the Late Classic).
a number of lowland polities, even displacing former Tikal allies such as Naranjo and Caracol, until it was in position to confront Tikal at the close of the Early Clas sic period. The success of both Tikal and Calakmul in establishing powerful state systems that dominated much of the Early Classic Maya lowlands was made possible by sev eral factors. Both had ready access to plentiful local resources. For example, local deposits of chert allowed Tikal to market this critical resource. Calakmul also con trolled local chert resources. Its location on the shores of a large shallow lake pro vided access to both aquatic resources and waterborne transportation. To the east and west of Tikal lie two large seasonal wetlands (once, perhaps, also shallow lakes), which seem to have been exploited for intensive agriculture. These same features p ro vided security from attack. The wetlands to the east and west of Tikal limited threats from those directions, and approaches from either the north or south were defended by a ditch and rampart system. A surrounding canal at Calakmul may have offered similar protection against attack. In response to the growing conditions of competi tion and threat, the smaller center of Becan north of Calakmul constructed one of the most formidable defensive works known from the Early Classic period.
375
376
T H E E X P A N S I O N OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E E A R L Y C L A S S I C
While most of the newly emerging Maya states benefited from the expansion of trade that flowed across the lowlands, Tikal and Calakmul were especially well po sitioned to dominate several river systems used by canoe-borne commerce. Both cities are located on the divide between the Caribbean and Gulf of M exico drainage systems, so they could control the critical overland portages between the headwaters of the rivers used for the east-west routes across the Peten. The desire to control ac cess to the Belize River may explain Tikal’s interest in sites such as Nakum, Yaxha, and Naranjo to the east. Tikal’s prosperity and its strategic location also gave it a prime opportunity for alliance with an external power, such as Teotihuacan. There after, Tikal’s expansion of power throughout the lowlands was met by a response from its chief rival, Calakmul. For example, Tikal’s apparent takeover of Río Azul to the northeast may have been a direct challenge to Calakmul’s access to the Rio Hondo route to the Caribbean, beginning a fierce competition between these two polities that would culminate in Rio Azul’s destruction, followed by open warfare against Tikal. While the Tikal-Calakmul conflict was likely based on commercial rivalry and competition to determine who would dominate the Maya lowlands, both kingdoms were also motivated by ideological claims and beliefs. The carved text on Tikal’s Temple VI proclaims its ancient heritage with achievements, some more mythical than real, which reach back into the Early Preclassic period. Its dynastic founding in ca. a d io o allowed Tikal’s rulers to lay claim to one of the oldest dynastic succes sions in the lowlands, a heritage perpetuated even after the regime change in 378. Calakmul, on the other hand, apparently could claim an even older dynastic history with the origins of the Kan dynasty in the Late Preclassic, perhaps first established at the great early city of El Mirador. This heritage, probably reinforced by resentment created by Tikal’s expansion and fueled by its links with the foreign power of Teoti huacan, likely gave further impetus to Calakmul’s campaign to surround and con quer Tikal.
The Apogee of Maya States in the Late Classic It was here where they multiplied . . . here they were, too, when the sun, the moon, and the stars appeared, when it dawned and the face o f the earth and the whole world was lighted. — Popol V u h
(Recinos 1950: 189)
and historical texts indicates that the seeds sowed by Tikal’s Early Classic expansion bore a bitter fruit indeed. In 562 the first in a se ries of military defeats reduced Tikal’s power, prestige, and even its independence for a century or more. Tikal’s nemesis was Calakmul. The powerful Kan polity to the north forged a series of alliances to encircle Tikal and then orchestrated its conquest. The historical accounts of Tikal’s downfall come from monuments at the member states of the Calakmul alliance. At Tikal the historical record all but vanishes, as most of its standing monuments were smashed and no new ones were commissioned for over a century. Writing at the beginning of research in 1957, the Tikal Project di rector, Edwin Shook, noted that Tikal’s smashed Early Classic stelae may have been the result of violence that was “responsible for the end of the Early Classic . . . and the hiatus in the known sequence of inscriptions.” It now appears that the victorious forces of the Calakmul alliance destroyed Tikal’s royal symbols. The archaeological record at Tikal also shows that population growth came to a standstill during this pe riod, while many households in the outlying areas were resettled closer to the core of the city, presumably for greater security. Tikal’s ancient dynasty continued (Table 7.1), probably under tribute obligations to the Calakmul alliance. Several royal tombs in the North Acropolis dating to this interval have been excavated, although none are as elaborate as those from before or after Tikal’s subjugation. The twenty-second through the twenty-fifth kings who ruled during this period may have been prohibited from erecting monuments, and much of the wealth formerly controlled by Tikal was likely diverted as tribute to the victorious allies. The suppression of Tikal’s prestige and prosperity continued for the next century, although, as we will see, there were attempts to reassert its power. This profound change in Tikal’s fortune not only upset the established lowland order but ushered in a whole new era in the political development of the Maya lowlands. E v id e n c e f r o m a r c h a e o l o g y
378
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
LATE CLASSIC MAYA POTTERY In the lowlands the Late Classic era is defined
istics. Generally speaking, there were two size
by the Tepeu pottery tradition, with clear-cut
ranges of slipped-ware jars: one small enough
changes from the preceding Tzakol tradition
for carrying, the other large enough for house
(including the rapid disappearance of Cen
hold storage. Hemispherical basins are com
tral Mexican-style cylindrical tripods). The Tepeu
mon, and low platters are found in some areas;
tradition is especially known for its fine poly
both have thickened rims. Bowls are usually of
chrome pottery, the finest examples produced in
two shapes: those with nearly flat bases and
palace workshops by elite artists, most often re
flaring sides, supported by either a ring or three
covered from tombs and burials. Painted motifs
legs; and hemispherical bowls with either a
include both naturalistic and geometric designs,
small flattened base or a ring base. The un
glyphic texts, and individual portraits. The poly
slipped, externally striated cooking pots contin
chrome vases and dishes (on tripod supports)
ued the traditions begun in earlier times. Among
exhibit sophisticated painted and resist tech
the thin, finely made, and elaborately decorated
niques in black, orange, red, white, and a vari
vessels that were widely traded, the most com
ety of other colors. Specialists divide the low
mon shape is cylindrical; some flare slightly,
land Tepeu sphere into two Late Classic periods.
and some are barrel shaped.
Tepeu 1 (ca. 5 5 0 - 7 0 0 ) is marked by black and
Late Classic pottery in northern Yucatan di
red on orange polychromes, associated with
verges from the Tepeu pottery to the south. Fig
round-sided bowls and large tripod plates. Te
urines regain their popularity in the Late Clas
peu 2 (ca. 7 0 0 - 8 0 0 ) is marked by more elab
sic, with a major center of development in
orate decorations on
and
the Tabasco and Campeche area. The finest
cream polychromes. Designs are painted on
figurines, which are usually found in graves,
plates and flaring-wall bowls. But the culmina
come from Isla de Ja ina (Plate 9b). These mea
brighter orange
tion of ceramic portrait artistry is found on Tepeu
sure about 1 0 - 2 5 cm high, made of a fine-
2 polychrome cylindrical vases (see Plates 8b
textured orange clay, often have a white wash,
and 9c). W hile the best-known examples come
and were painted in blue and other colors. They
from the lowlands, significant centers of the art
were both hand modeled and mold made.
were located in the northern M aya highlands
Mold-made specimens often contain pellets to
and in the southeastern region at Copan.
make a rattle, or incorporate a whistle and stops
The Late Classic ceramic tradition was also well
expressed
in delicately
modeled
and
to form an ocarina. The detailing is extremely fine; tattooed designs show clearly on faces no
painted incensarios. Tall cylindrical vases, ring-
larger than a thumbnail. Figurines, small flutes,
stand vessels, and tripod-supported dishes were
and other pottery objects, similar to Jaina mold-
decorated by resist and negative-painted deco
made figurines, are found over the lowlands, in
ration, two other typical Late Classic character
cluding the Peten, Puuc, and Gulf Coast regions.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Ascendancy of Calakmul (562-695) It may well be significant that at about the time of TikaFs defeat in 562 there is evi dence for similar destruction of monuments and buildings in the heart of Copan (Table 7.2). N o known texts describe an attack on Copan at this time, but it is pos sible that Calakmul, or one of its allies, also struck a blow at TikaPs long-standing ally to weaken its control over the southeastern lowlands. At Tikal there may have been an interregnum before a new ruler came to the throne (or was allowed to do so). Sometime after 562 a new ruler, nicknamed Ani mal Skull, became TikaPs twenty-second king in line from the founder (Table 7.1). But the new Tikal ruler was not the son of his defeated predecessor, Wak Chan K’awiil. Recorded on several pottery vessels, Animal Skull’s parentage statements re peatedly mention his mother, who was an ix ajaw (lady lord), but his untitled father is named only once. Thus, while the dynasty continued to count its successors from the founder Yax Ehb’ Xook, it appears the specific patriline of Tikal kings that be gan in 379 with Yax Nuun Ayiin I, the son of Spearthrower Owl, ended after some 200 years in power. Interestingly, the so-called Tikal Dynastic Vase (Chapter 7) dates from Animal Skull’s reign. Its text lists three Early Classic Tikal kings— the eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth in the line of succession— all of which reigned before Yax Nuun Ayiin I. This could well mean that Animal Skull based his legitimacy as king on a connection through his mother to the older royal line in power before the “ar rival of strangers” brought Yax Nuun Ayiin to the throne. There are no surviving stelae for TikaPs next three rulers, who reigned between ca. 628 and 682 (numbers 23 through 25 in the count from the founder). We know the name of one of Animal Skull’s successors, K’inich Muwaan Jol II, from texts at Dos Pilas (see p. 382). Although these rulers apparently could not erect dynastic monuments, during this interval they did sponsor limited construction in both the North Acropolis and the East Court. Str. 5D -34-ist was built over the tomb of Ani mal Skull, probably by his successor, the twenty-third ruler. Two tombs were in truded into Str. 5D-33-2nd, the great funerary shrine of Siyaj Chan K’awiil II. Clem ency Coggins identified one of these, Burial 23, as containing the remains of the twenty-fifth successor, Nuun Ujol Chaak. Linda Scheie pointed out that the painted ceramic dishes from the other, Burial 24, seem to name both Nuun Ujol Chaak’s fa ther, the twenty-fourth ruler, and his grandfather, apparently the twenty-third ruler. Soon after his great victory over Tikal, the Calakmul king Sky Witness disap pears from history (Table 7.3). His last-known mention is in 572, and he appears to have been succeeded by a little-known ruler nicknamed First Axewielder. The next four Kan kings reigned for over a half century, during which Calakmul reached its peak of power, judging by its alliances and military victories, recorded at sites throughout the lowlands.
379
380
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
N A R A N JO , GUATEMALA The ruins of N aranjo are located just west of the
looking the rest of the site and was apparently a
Belize border, about 5 0 km east of Tikal. The
center of Early Classic activity (Chapter 7).
site has been known since its discovery by
Naranjo's texts record a mythical founding
Teobert M aler in 1 9 0 5 . Its monuments and texts
of the kingdom by a god in the distant past. But
testify that Naranjo was the capital of a king
the earliest-known historical ruler is portrayed
dom that spanned the Early and Late Classic
on Stela 4 1 , celebrating the 9 .2 .0 .0 .0 (4 75)
eras, with both successes and failure in war. Its
K'atun ending. Although the name of the Stela
location between the Holmul and the tributaries
41 ruler is unknown, two other Early Classic
of the Belize and M opan Rivers indicates that
kings are recorded on pottery vessels. The ap
Naranjo controlled a critical link in the routes
proximate dates of these vessels imply that
between Tikal and the Caribbean— explaining
N a a tz Chan Ahk reigned around 4 0 0 and
its stormy history of involvement in the political
K'inich Tajal C haak about a century later. The
turmoil of the M aya lowlands. But Naranjo has
name of another possible ruler, Pik Chan Ahkul,
never been subjected to systematic archaeolog
is recorded on Altar 1 as the father of Aj W osal,
ical investigation, although several of its de
the dedicator of the monument. Aj Wosal came
pendencies in the Belize River valley to the east
to power in 5 4 6 when still a boy. Stela 2 5 notes
have been excavated. Unfortunately, Naranjo
that his accession was under the auspices of
has been devastated by looters. As a conse
Tuun K'ab Hix, king of Calakmul. This implies
quence, a project directed by Vilma Fialko has
that by this time N aranjo was a client kingdom
returned to Naranjo to document the site and
of Calakmul, the emerging dominant power of
save what remains of its architecture.
the Early Classic M a ya world. The text on Altar
The civic and ceremonial core of Naranjo
1 records that Aj W osal was the thirty-fifth ruler
covers about 1 km2. Situated on the eastern
in the line from the founding god of N aran jo —
edge of a bajo, the M ain Group consists of both
a lineage that must include a number of early
temple- and palace-type structures arranged
mythical figures. Aj Wosal ruled for at least
around several courtyards containing a number
sixty-nine years, presumably steering a safe
of carved monuments. Naranjo's Hieroglyphic
course for N aranjo under the protection of
Stairway is located near the center of the M ain
Calakmul. His last known monument, Stela 2 5 ,
Group. A smaller group of temples to the east
was dedicated in 6 1 5 to celebrate a reign of
holds over a dozen monuments in its bilevel
three and a half k'atuns. W ith his death, N a
courtyard. Connected to the M ain Group by a
ranjo soon became embroiled in the series of
causeway, Str. D-l sits atop a natural hill over
disastrous wars described in this chapter.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
381
• • •
The Calakmul ruler known as Scroll Serpent was inaugurated in 579. His reign is best known for a long-distance campaign in 611 against Palenque, probably tar geted because it was a Tikal ally. This attack was recorded at Pafenque, where it is described as the “axing of Lakamha.” The result was not only a Calakmul victory, but also seems to have ultimately led to the death of the Palenque ruler. The Palenque campaign was an impressive logistical achievement, given the great distance (nearly 300 km as the crow flies) to move and maintain the Calakmul forces and the need to cross several rivers (including the Usumacinta). Scroll Serpent undoubtedly called on his allies to assist in this effort, but nonetheless, the strike against Palenque demon strates that in the wake of Tikal’s defeat, Calakmul stood alone as the paramount power in the Maya lowlands. Calakmul maintained its alliance with Caracol even as it exerted its power to the southwest and elsewhere in the lowlands. The next Calakmul king, Yuknoom Chan, is known only from a single reference at Caracol, where in 619 he oversaw an unidentified event involving Caracol’s ruler, Kan II. The accession of Tajoom Uk’ab’ K’ak’ at Calakmul in 622 is also recorded at Caracol. There are signs of problems within the Calakmul alliance during Tajoom Uk’ab’ K’ak’s reign. The Naranjo polity had probably been allied to Calakmul since 546 when its young king, Aj Wosal, was inaugurated under the authority of Calakmul (Table 8.1). But Naranjo and Caracol were longtime enemies, and in 626 Calakmul’s ally, Caracol’s ruler Kan II, launched two attacks into Naranjo territory (Table 7.4). There was no immediate response from Calakmul, and soon thereafter (630) the death of Tajoom Uk’ab’ K’ak’ was recorded at Caracol. However, the new Calakmul king, Yuknoom Head, immediately settled the threat to the alliance by mounting the conquest of Naranjo in 631. The fate of the defeated and captured Naranjo ruler, who was tortured (and presumably sacrificed) at Calakmul, is related on the jumbled Naranjo Hieroglyphic Stairway. Yuknoom Head celebrated another victory in 636, although this time Calakmul’s victim cannot be identified. The apogee of Calakmul’s power was reached during the fifty-year reign of Yuk noom Ch’een II (Table 7.3), also known as “Yuknoom the Great” (6 3 6 -8 6 ). He ap parently adopted the name Yuknoom Ch’een, after the little-known Early Classic Calakmul ruler, when he was inaugurated in 636. Yuknoom the Great maintained Calakmul’s dominance by fashioning a string of military victories over Tikal and its allies. But more significantly in the long run, Calakmul did not completely subdue its greatest rival, or use its military successes to forge a single state that could unify the independent polities of the Maya lowlands. This may not have been Calakmul’s ob jective, but in any case it would have been difficult, given both the size of the terri tory and the number of independent polities that would need to be subjugated under the administration of a unified state. But the more immediate goal of completely sub duing Tikal must have seemed in sight, at least for a time, for Yuknoom the Great did manage to divide Tikal’s ruling house into two warring factions.
382
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Dynastic chronology of Naranjo (ruler names in bold type; alternative names or titles in parentheses) Ruler
Long Count dote
Date AD
P a tr o n g o d o f N a r a n j o R u le rs 1 - 3 4
(m ostly m y th ica l)
U n k n o w n r u le r
9 .2 .0 .0 .0
N a a tz C h an A h k
—
K 'in ic h T a ja l C h a a k Aj W o s a l
Events M y th ic a l fo u n d in g in d is ta n t p a s t
—
475
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g (S te la 4 1 )
? ?
9 .5 .1 2 .0 .4
546
9 .8 .0 .0 .0
593
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g (S te la 3 8 )
—
ca. 6 1 5
D e a th
U n k n o w n R u le r
—
626
D e fe a te d b y C a r a c o l u n d e r K a n II
U n k n o w n R u le r
—
631
D e fe a te d b y C a la k m u l u n d e r Y u k n o o m
(R uler 1)
c a . 8 0 ) ; fa th e r: Pik C h a n A n k u l; m o th e r: L a d y S to n e H a n d Sky;
A c c e s s io n u n d e r a e g is o f Tuun K 'a b ' H ix o f C a la k m u l (S te la 2 5 )
B orn c a . 5 3 4 ; d ie d a fte r Ó 1 5 (a g e
re ig n e d c a . 5 4 6 - c a . 6 1 5 (c a . 6 9 y e a rs ); title a s 3 5 t h ru ler c o u n te d fro m m y th ic a l fo u n d e r; d e d ic a te d A lta r 1 , S te la e 1 6 , 1 7 , 25, 27, 38
H e a d ( N a r a n jo ru le r to rtu re d a n d p re s u m a b ly s a c rific e d ) 9 .1 0 .1 0 .0 .0
642
P erio d e n d in g c e le b r a te d b y K a n II o f C a r a c o l ( N a r a n jo H .S .)
U n k n o w n R u le r
—
680
V ic to ry o v e r C a r a c o l
L a d y S ix S k y
—
682
L a d y S ix S ky, d a u g h te r o f B 'a la j C h a n
B o m ?; d ie d F e b . 1 0 / 1 1 , 7 4 1 ;
K 'a w iil, ru ler o f D o s P ila s, a r riv e d to
fa th e r: B 'a la j C h a n K 'a w iil;
re e s ta b lis h N a r a n jo d y n a s ty
m o th e r: L a d y B 'u lu '; son: K 'a k ' T iliw C h a n C h a a k ; re g e n t 6 8 2 - 9 3 (1 1 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d : S te la e 3 , 1 8 , 2 4 , 2 9 , 31
K 'a k ' T iliw C h a n C h a a k
(S m o k in g
9 .1 3 .1 .3 .1 9
693
S q u irre l)
A c ce s sio n a t a g e 5 a s y a j a w o f Y u k n o o m Y ic h 'a a k K 'a k ' o f C a la k m u l
Born J an . 3 , 6 8 8 ; d ie d c a . 7 2 8
(S te la 1)
(a g e c a . 4 0 ) ; fa th e r: ?; m o th er:
—
695
V ic to ry o v e r T ik a l (S te la 2 2 )
L a d y S ix Sky?; w ife : L ady U n e '
—
698
U c a n a l s a c k e d ; its k in g , Itz a m n a a j
—
702
W it h L a d y S ix S ky, c e le b r a te d n u m e ro u s
—
710
Y a x h a s a c k e d , its k in g c a p tu r e d a n d
—
712
O v e r s a w in a u g u ra tio n o f n e w ru lers a t
B 'a la m o f T u u b 'a l; son: K 'a k ' U k a la w C h a n C h a a k ; r e ig n e d
B a la m , c a p tu re d (S te la 3 0 )
M a y 2 8 , 6 9 3 - c a . 7 2 8 (c a . 3 5 y e a rs ); title a s 3 8 t h ru ler c o u n te d fro m
v ic to rie s a n d c a p tiv e s (S te la 2 2 a n d 2 4 )
m y th ic a l fo u n d e r; d e d ic a te d S te la e 1 , 2 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 6 ,
s a c rific e d (S te la 2 3 )
28, 30
Y ax M a y u y C h a n C h a a k
U c a n a l a n d a n o th e r site
—
ca. 7 2 8
D e a th
744
D e fe a te d b y T ik a l; c a p tu r e d a n d s a c rific e d
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
383
• • • TABLE 8 .1 { c o n ti n u e d )
Ruler K 'a k ' Y ip iiy C h a n C h a a k K 'a k ' U k a l a w C h a n C h a a k
Long Count dote
Events
9 .1 5 .1 5 .3 .1 6
746
—
748
D e fe a te d b y T ika l?
9 .1 6 .4 .1 0 .1 8
755
A ccessio n
F a th e r: K 'a k ' T iliw C h a n C h a a c ; m o th e r: L a d y U n e ' B a la m o f T u u b 'a l;
Dote AD
9 .1 7 .0 .0 .0
A c ce s sio n (S te la 2 0 )
775
D e fe a te d B 'ita l
780
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g (S te la e 6 , 1 3 ,
w ife : L a d y S h e ll S ta r o f Y a x h a ;
19, 3 3 , 36)
sons: B a t K 'a w iil, I t z a m n a a j K 'a w iil; r e ig n e d N o v . 8 , 7 5 5 - c a . 8 0 (c a . 2 5 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d S te la e 6 , 1 3 , 1 9 , 3 3 , 3 6
B a t K 'a w iil
?
?
I t z a m n a a j K 'a w iil
9 .1 7 .1 3 .4 .3
784
A cce s sio n
799
V ic to ry o v e r Y a x h a ; its ruler, K 'in ich
9 .1 9 .0 .0 .0
810
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g
9 .1 9 .4 .1 .1
814
A c ce s sio n (S te la 3 2 )
B orn M a r . 1 3 , 7 7 1 ; d ie d a ft e r 8 1 0
—
(a g e c a . 3 9 ) ; fa th e r: K 'a k ' U k a l a w C h a n C h a a k ; m o th e r: L a d y S h e ll
La ka m tu u n , c a p tu re d
S ta r o f Y a x h a ; r e ig n e d F e b . 4 , 7 8 4 - c a . 8 1 4 (c a . 3 0 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d S te la e 7 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 14, 3 5
W a x a k l a j u u n U b 'a a h K 'a w iil
S ou rces: C lo s s 1 9 8 4 , 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 8 9 ; H o u s to n
1 9 8 3 a ; M a r tin 1 9 9 6 b ; M a r tin & G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; P r o s k o u r ia k o ff 1 9 9 3 ;
S ch e ie & F reid el 1 9 9 0 .
C on fron tation in the Petexbatun Although under the thumb of Calakmul, the evidence suggests Tikal attempted to re gain its power by taking over another polity, just as it had done during its glory years. But since the relevant texts are eroded, the sequence of events remains unclear. A plausible reconstruction of these events would begin with TikaPs ruler K’inich Muwaan Jol II and his son, B’alaj Chan K’awiil (Table 8.2), who was apparently dis patched in 629 to found a new capital at Dos Pilas (Fig. 8.1), located in the Petex batun region, some 120 km southwest of Tikal (Fig. 1.1). Prior to this the Petexbatun region had been ruled from several small Early Classic capitals. After B’alaj Chan K’awiil established control at Dos Pilas, his new Petexbatun kingdom signaled its ori gin by using the Tikal emblem glyph as its own. Texts at Dos Pilas record subsequent events in the unfolding drama involving Tikal, Calakmul, and Dos Pilas. As founder of the new Petexbatun polity, B’alaj Chan K’awiil would have been only four years old when, according to later accounts, he arrived at Dos Pilas in 629. We can pre sume, therefore, that his father, K’inich Muwaan Jol II (Table 7.1), may have estab lished Dos Pilas as a new capital in the name of his son, destined to be its future ruler.
3 »4
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
TABLE 8 .2
Dynastic chronology of Late Classic Dos Pilas (ruler names in bold type; alternative names or titles in parentheses) Long Count date
Ruler B 'a la j C h a n K 'a w ü l
(Flint Sky)
__
Date AD
Events
629
A r r iv e d in D o s P ilas fro m T ik a l
B orn O c t . 1 5 , 6 2 5 ; d ie d c a . 6 9 5
(p re s u m a b ly u n d e r a e g is o f his fa th e r,
(a g e c a . 7 0 ) ; Father: K 'in ic h M u w a a n
k in g o f T ik a l)
Jol II (2 3 r d o r 2 4 t h k in g o f T ika l? );
—
648
a g a in s t T ik a l
Itz a n , L a d y B 'u lu '; re ig n e d c a . 6 4 8 - 9 5 ( 4 7 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d
D e fe a te d b y C a la k m u l u n d e r Y u k n o o m th e G r e a t; jo in e d C a la k m u l a llia n c e
b o rn O c t . 1 5 , 6 2 5 ; w ive s: L a d y o f
—
672
D e fe a te d b y T ik a l u n d e r ru le r N u u n U jo l C h a a k ; e x ile d fro m D o s P ilas
S te la 9 , H .S . 4 , Panels 6 , 7 -
677
C a la k m u l v ic to ry o v e r T ik a l; B 'a la j C h a n K 'a w iil re tu rn e d to p o w e r a t D o s Pilas
679
V ic to ry o v e r T ik a l b y D o s P ila s -
682
C e le b r a te d p e r io d e n d in g a t C a la k m u l
—
682
D a u g h te r L a d y S ix S k y a r riv e d in N a r a n jo
9 .1 2 .1 3 .1 7 .7
686
—
C a la k m u l a llia n c e 9 .1 2 .1 0 .0 .0
(d a n c e ritu a l w ith Y u k n o o m th e G r e a t)
W itn e s s e d a c c e s s io n o f Y u k n o o m Y ic h 'a a k K 'a k ' a t C a la k m u l
H z a m n a a j B a la m
ca. 6 9 5
A c ce s sio n
F a ther: B 'a la j C h a n K 'a w ü l; m other: “
L a d y o f Itz a n
H z a m n a a j K 'a w ü l
(S h ie ld G o d K)
9 .1 3 .6 .2 .0
698
A c ce s sio n
B orn J an . 2 5 , 6 7 3 ; d ie d O c t. 2 2 ,
—
705
V ic to ry o v e r T ik a l (S te la 1 )
7 2 6 (a g e 5 3 ) ; fa th e r: B 'a la j C h a n
—
717
V ic to ry o v e r u n k n o w n site
K 'a w iil; m o th e r: L a d y o f Itz a n ;
—
721
V ic to ry o v e r u n k n o w n site
9 .1 4 .1 5 .1 .1 9
726
re ig n e d M a r . 2 4 ,* 6 9 8 - O c t . 2 2 , 7 2 6 ( 2 8 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d :
D e a th (S te la 8 ); p r o b a b le b u ria l in to m b b e n e a th Str. L5-1
S te la e 1 , 1 1 - 1 6
R u le r 3 B orn ?; d ie d M a y 2 8 , 7 4 1 ; fa th e r: ?;
9 .1 4 .1 5 .5 .1 5
727
A c ce s sio n
—
735
V ic to ry o v e r S e ib a l; ru le r Y ic h 'a a k
m o th e r: L a d y G 1 K 'a w iil o f C a n c u e n ; r e ig n e d J an . 6 ,
B a la m ta k e n c a p tiv e 9 .1 5 .9 .1 6 .1 1
741
D e a th (A g u a t e c a S te la 1 )
K 'a w iil C h a n K 'in ic h
9 .1 5 .9 .1 7 .1 7
741
A c ce s sio n
Fath e r: Itz a m n a a j K 'a w iil? ; m other:
9 .1 5 .1 0 .0 .0
741
C e le b r a te d p e r io d e n d in g (A g u a te c a
7 2 7 -M a y 2 8, 741
( 1 4 y e a rs );
d e d ic a te d S te la e 2 , 5 , 8 , P anel 3 ; A g u a te c a S te la e 2 , 3
u n k n o w n ; r e ig n e d June 2 3 , 7 4 1 -7 6 1
S te la 1)
(c a . 2 0 y e a rs );
—
743
C a p tu r e d lo rd s fro m El C h o r r o
d e d ic a te d S te la 4 , H .S . 3 , Bench 1,
—
745
C a p tu r e d lords fro m Y a x c h ila n a n d
-
747
O v e r s a w S e ib a l v a s s a l lo rd , Y ic h 'a a k
—
761
A p p a r e n t d e fe a t a n d e x ile
A g u a te c a S te la e 1 , 5
M o tu l d e S a n José
B a la m (c a p tu re d in 7 3 5 )
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
385
• • •
TABLE 8 . 2 ( c o n ti n u e d )
Ruler
Long Count dote
Date AD
Events
9 .1 6 .1 9 .0 .1 4
770
A cce s sio n a t A g u a te c a (S tela 6 )
B orn : J a n . 2 2 , 7 4 8 ; d ie d : c a . 8 0 2
—
778
V ic to ry o v e r u n k n o w n site (S tela 1 9 )
(a g e c a . 5 4 ) ; fa th e r: U c h a 'a n K 'a n
—
802
O v e r s a w e v e n t a t La A m e lia
T a n T e ' K 'in ic h
B a la m ; m o th e r: u n k n o w n ; r e ig n e d Fe b . 8 , 7 7 0 - c a . 8 0 2 (c a . 3 2 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d S te la 4 , H .S . 3 , B en ch 1, A g u a te c a S te la e
6,7,
12, 13, 19
S ou rces: H o u s to n 1 9 9 3 ; H o u s to n Sc M a th e w s 1 9 8 5 ; J o h n s to n 1 9 8 5 ; M a r tin Sc G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; M a th e w s ÔC W illey 1 9 9 1 ; S ch e ie Sc F reid el 1 9 9 0 .
the right (the Duende Group, located farther to the east, is not shown).
386
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
DOS PILAS, GUATEMALA The Late Classic capital of the Petexbatun king
plexes arranged along an east-west axis that re
dom, situated In the heart of the Pasión zone
calls the Preclassic layouts of N akb e and El M i
of the M aya lowlands, was Investigated by a
rador. The M ain Group on the west contains a
large-scale project from Vanderbilt University
large open monument plaza bordered on all
led by Arthur Demarest, Héctor Escobedo, and
four sides by structures, at least two of which
Stephen Houston. The Pasión zone, defined by
were reached by hieroglyphic stairways. Most
the drainage of the Río Pasión, a tributary of the
of the known Dos Pilas carved monuments are in
Usumaclnta, contains some twenty-five sites, of
this complex. South of this is a series of smaller
which at least a dozen possessed emblem
and more restricted elevated plazas flanked
glyphs. These Include two important centers In
by Hieroglyphic Stairway 4 and multiroomed
vestigated by earlier projects from Harvard Uni
buildings. Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 adorns the
versity's Peabody Museum: Altar de Sacrificios
southeastern building in this group. Smaller
and the largest site in the area, Seibal. The king
plazas and platforms surround the M ain Group
dom ruled by Dos Pilas Is named after Lake Pe
and at least a portion of the Intervening area to
texbatun, a body of water that drains northward
the east where the Duende Group is located. El
to the Río Pasión. A peninsula jutting from the
Duende Is dominated by a monumental platform
western shore is the setting for the site of Punta
that crowns a natural hill, flanked by terraces
de Chimlno, heavily fortified by a series of
and smaller buildings. M ore carved stelae have
moatlike ditches that were cut across the base of
been found In this complex. Between the M ain
the peninsula in Late Classic times (Fig. 8 .1 8 ). A
Group and the eastern El Duende Group is the
steep escarpment rises between 6 0 - 8 0 m to the
Murciélagos Group, a royal palace complex
west of the lake basin. Along this escarpment,
constructed above an extensive cave system.
from north to south, are three sites: Tamarlndito,
Its entrance, flanked by two small masonry tem
El Excavado, and Aguateca (Fig. 8 .1 4 ). The site
ples, leads to the first of two courtyards sur
of Dos Pilas is situated some 10 km to the west
rounded by masonry palace buildings with per
of Tamarindito. Another Important site, Can-
ishable roofs. A smashed royal throne found in
cuen, is located to the south, at the upper limit
the Murciélagos Group testifies to the violent
of canoe travel on the Río Pasión.
conquest of Dos Pilas at the end of the Late Clas
The Petexbatun dynasty, founded originally
sic period. A series of concentric walls (con
from Tlkal, resided at Dos Pilas during most of
structed with a rubble base and upper wooden
its career, although its final refuge was at
palisade) surrounds both the M ain and Duende
Aguateca. The site of Dos Pilas covers about
Groups, built at the end of Dos Pllas's span of
1 km2 (Fig. 8.1), with three monumental com
occupation (Fig. 8 .1 3 ).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
387
• • •
The establishment of a new capital in the Petexbatun was seemingly a well-calculated move to extend Tikal’s power into an area out of reach of the Calakmul alliance. For a time Calakmul may have been distracted by its concerns elsewhere, and Tikal’s ploy seemed to succeed. But beginning in 648, some nineteen years after Dos Pilas’s founding, texts there record in rapid order an attack by Calakmul, the death of a Tikal ajaw, and a surprising acknowledgment by B’alaj Chan K’awiil that he was now a yajaw (vassal) of the Calakmul king, Yuknoom the Great. From these accounts it appears that after defeating Tikal and its new colony, Yuknoom the Great realized he had an opportunity to accomplish more from his military victory than simply the destruction of Dos Pilas and its king. Instead, by means unknown, B’alaj Chan K’awiil was induced to switch sides and join the Calakmul alliance. While these events remain somewhat clouded, they appear to represent a double triumph for Yuknoom the Great, who took advantage of his victory to split Tikal’s royal house. The old Tikal king K’inich Muwaan Jol II had apparently died in the meantime and was succeeded by Nuun Ujol Chaak (first clearly mentioned in 657), quite likely B’alaj Chan K’awiil’s younger brother. Thus, another consequence of Calakmul’s victory was that Yuknoom the Great had succeeded in turning brother against brother. In 672 Tikal took its revenge. Led by Nuun Ujol Chaak, Tikal attacked Dos Pi las and forced B’alaj Chan K’awiil into exile. For five years Tikal regained control over its former vassal state and its capital, Dos Pilas. Then in 677 Calakmul struck back and drove Tikal’s forces from Dos Pilas, allowing B’alaj Chan K’awiil to regain his throne. Two years later (679) B’alaj Chan K’awiil led Dos Pilas to a great victory over Tikal, likely with Calakmul’s aid. The account of the triumph in the Dos Pilas texts vividly describes the “pools of blood” and “piles of heads” in the aftermath of what must have been a major battle. After Tikal’s defeats in 677 and 679, most of what we know of Calakmul’s con tinued involvement in lowland affairs comes from Yuknoom the Great’s client states. With his kingdom now reasonably secure under Calakmul’s protection, B’alaj Chan K’awiil spent the remainder of his reign assuring his legacy, ordering that his achieve ments be recorded in the carved texts of Dos Pilas. Although B’alaj Chan K’awiil owed his power to Calakmul and its military might, like many Maya kings he also used marriage alliances to cement his position as ruler of the Petexbatun kingdom. His principal wife came from the nobility of Itzan, a center located on a tributary of the Río Pasión, about 25 km northwest of Dos Pilas. A son from this marriage, Itzamnaaj Balam, became his royal heir. A second marriage produced a famous daughter, Lady Six Sky, whom B’alaj Chan K’awiil sent to Naranjo to restore its dev astated royal dynasty (discussed next).
Fig. 8 .2 . Naranjo, Guatemala: (le ft ) photo and drawing of Stela 2 4 , showing Lady Six Sky standing on the crumpled body of her captive; {right} Stela 2 2 , showing the ruler K'ak' Tiliw Chan C haak seated on an elaborate masked throne and holding a two-headed ceremonial bar, with the captive Ucanal ruler kneeling at his feet (both
AD 7 0 2 ).
The N aranjo Wars Although Calakmul was in com m and over much of the M aya low lands by this tim e, its hegemony was not w ithout problem s, especially when further conflict broke out between two of C alakm ul’s allies. In 68o the old dispute between C aracol and N aranjo flared up once again. In that year N aranjo exacted revenge for its earlier de feats by attacking and defeating Caracol in a “star w ar” event, forcing its king, K’ak ’ Ujol K’inich II (6 5 8 -c a. 680) to flee his city. Although there is little textual record of
the aftermath, thereafter Caracol entered into a major hiatus in its fortunes that lasted for over a century (Table 7.4). Soon after its decisive victory over Caracol, Naranjo’s ruling house disappeared from history. It seems highly likely that Calakmul stepped in and in retaliation crushed Naranjo and its royal house. Although it might be expected that the victors would simply incorporate the helpless Naranjo polity into its realm, instead Calak mul apparently sponsored the restoration of the venerable Naranjo dynasty. In 682 Lady Six Sky, the daughter of its vassal, Dos Pilas ruler B’alaj Chan K’awiil, was cho sen to revive the fallen polity (Table 8.1). Her arrival was important enough to be recorded repeatedly on Naranjo’s later monuments, and for the next decade Lady Six Sky ruled her new kingdom. While apparently never formally inaugurated as ruler,
390
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
she carried out the proscribed calendrical rituals of a Maya king, duly recorded on stelae that portrayed her trampling war captives beneath her feet (Fig. 8.2). Later texts also record the birth in 688 of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak, destined to become Naranjo’s ruler in 693 at the tender age of five. Given his youth, however, it is virtually certain that Lady Six Sky acted as regent for several more years. A series of monuments record the successes of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s reign, each accom panied by a stela portraying Lady Six Sky. M ost of these monuments were placed in the Group C plaza on the eastern edge of Naranjo’s civic-ceremonial core— east be ing the direction symbolizing rebirth for the Maya. Although the texts never mention K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s parents, it is likely that Lady Six Sky was his mother, as first proposed by Tatiana Proskouriakoff. Lady Six Sky’s monuments continued to re fer to her royal pedigree from Dos Pilas, and K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s right to rule seems to have relied heavily on his connection to her. Only twenty days after K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s inauguration, Naranjo began a series of military campaigns. At least in part these wars were aimed at regaining control over its secondary centers and reasserting its authority over its territory. While presumably conducted under Lady Six Sky’s leadership, these actions were in stigated or approved of by Calakmul, for Naranjo Stela 1 names K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak as a yajaw, or vassal, of the Calakmul king Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’. During the first five years of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s reign, Naranjo carried out eight at tacks. At least one of these struck beyond its borders and achieved a victory against the Tikal polity in 695. In 698 Naranjo struck another polity, Ucanal, resulting in the capture of its ruler, Itzamnaaj Balam. This important captive is shown kneeling at the feet of an enthroned K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak on Naranjo Stela 22 (Fig. 8.2). In 706 Naranjo embarked on another series of campaigns, probably under the direct leadership of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak, who was eighteen years old by this time. His monuments record four victories over the next ten years, including the de feat of the major capital of Yaxha in 710 and the capture of its ruler (recorded on Stela 23). In 713 K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak dedicated the last of the twin monuments to himself and Lady Six Sky, commemorating the first k’atun anniversary of his in auguration. Lady Six Sky died in 741, but while the date of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak’s death is unknown, by 744 a new king ruled at Naranjo. His name was Yax Mayuy Chan Chaak, and he was destined to feel the wrath of a resurgent Tikal very soon af ter his inauguration.
The Resurgence of Tikal (682-768) Tikal’s fortunes were dramatically revitalized after the accession of the twenty-sixth ruler, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I, in 682 (Table 7.1). Christopher Jones pointed out that the inscription on one of the wooden lintels of Temple I, as well as the texts on the carved bones from Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s tomb, name his father, now known as Nuun
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
391
• • •
Ujol Chaak, the twenty-fifth king in the line of TikaPs dynastic founder. Coggins first proposed that Tikal’s twenty-sixth king set out to link his reign with those of Tikal’s Early Classic Kings. Throughout his reign, Jasaw Chan K’awiiPs efforts to renew Tikal’s prestige and power seem consciously associated with the first great period of Tikal’s history, before its defeat by the Calakmul alliance. This is a case of cultural revitalization, whereby a defeated society is rebuilt by efforts to recall and duplicate past glories. An example of these links to the successes of the Early Classic past can be seen in the apparent homage paid to Siyaj Chan K’awiil II (reigned 4 1 1 -5 6 ). Jasaw Chan K’awiil I had Str. 5D -33-ist constructed as the final funerary temple on the North Acropolis to cover the shrine and tomb of Siyaj Chan K’awiil II, as well as the tomb of his father, Nuun Ujol Chaak. But before his ancestor’s funerary temple (5D-332nd) was sealed forever, he had Siyaj Chan K’awiil’s great monument, Stela 31 (Fig. 7.17), carefully placed inside the rear room of the old temple, together with of ferings probably used in the termination rituals for both the temple and monument. The architecture for the new temple was innovative and served as a prototype for Ja saw Chan K’awiil’s own funerary shrine, Temple I, in its great height (18.8 m) and use of multiple terraces. Unfortunately, Str. 5D -33-ist was not especially well con structed, probably to ensure its rapid completion and dedication. The location and scale of Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s new temple, positioned in the very center of the south face of the North Acropolis, blocked the former entrances to the complex and terminated this traditional necropolis of Tikal’s rulers. Jasaw Chan K’awiil I also apparently directed the reburial of the shattered remains of Stela 26 (Fig. 7.8), dedicated by another of his predecessors, Chak Tok Ich’aak II, within a new bench placed inside another Early Classic North Acropolis building, Str. 5D-34ist, the funerary shrine of Yax Nuun Ayiin I (reigned 3 7 9 -c . 410). Overall, Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s efforts in the North Acropolis not only paid homage to his ancestors but paved the way for a new beginning for his reign and the future of Tikal. Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s program to revitalize Tikal also included the resumption of traditional ceremonies associated with k’atun endings. Tikal’s earlier rulers had constructed complexes known as twin pyramid groups dedicated to commemorate the completion of each k’atun (Fig. 8.21). For the first k’atun ending of Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s rule, Twin Pyramid Group 3D-1 was constructed in Group H, 1 km north of the Great Plaza. Group 3D-1 was razed by later construction, but its monuments have survived. Stela 30 (Fig. 8.3) retains its portrait of Jasaw Chan K’awiil I, rendered in the traditional profile style, wearing a necklace of large spherical jade beads and holding an elaborate staff in the crook of his arm. The companion Altar 14 has a gi ant 8 Ajaw glyph, naming the current k’atun and the Long Count date of 9.13.0.0.0 (692), nearly ten years after Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s accession to power (Fig. 8.3). These were the first carved monuments erected at Tikal since Stela 17 was dedicated by
a Fig. 8.3. Tikal, Guatemala, monuments from the razed Twin Pyramid Group 3D-1 at Tikal (ad 692): [left] Stela 30, showing the ruler Jasaw Chan K'awiil I holding an elaborate staff; {right} its companion Altar 14, with a central giant ajaw glyph in the style associated with Caracol (see Fig. 7.3 4).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
393
• • •
Wak Chan K’awiil 135 years before. In fact, Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s portrait on Stela 30 appears to be modeled after that of Wak Chan K’awiil on Stela 17 (Fig. 7.38).
D efea t o f C alakm u l (695) Having restored the destiny of Tikal’s dynasty by renewed construction and monu ments, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I moved next to strike Calakmul, Tikal’s great enemy that had dominated both Tikal and most of the Maya lowlands for over a century. It ap pears his first move was eastward against the Calakmul alliance, but this may have ended in a setback, as Naranjo’s ruler K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Chaak claimed the capture of a Tikal lord in early 695. But six months later, as recorded on the carved wooden lintels of Temple I, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I defeated the powerful state of Calakmul, “bringing down the flint and shield” of its ruler, Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’ (Table 7.3). The Tikal forces also captured a crucial battle trophy, a huge effigy of one of Calakmul’s patron deities. These images were apparently carried onto the battlefield as sacred protectors of their respective armies, and the capture of an en emy’s patron deity was a major trophy for the victor. A carved wooden lintel in Tikal’s Temple I portrays Jasaw Chan K’awiil I cele brating his triumph at Tikal after the battle. The lintel shows Jasaw Chan K’awiil I seated on a throne carried on a huge litter; looming over him is the captured Calak mul patron deity, a giant rampant jaguar (Fig. 8.4). The date of this celebration was chosen as another link between Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s destiny and that of Tikal’s glo rious past, for it fell on the thirteenth K’atun anniversary (256 years) of the death of the king known as Spearthrower Owl, the father of Tikal’s fifteenth ruler, Yax Nuun Ayiin I (Table 7.1). The captives from this battle with Calakmul were displayed at Tikal before their ritual sacrifice. The remains of a modeled stucco rendering of this event decorated the upper facade of Str. 5D -5 7 in the Central Acropolis, Tikal’s royal palace complex. It shows Jasaw Chan K’awiil I dressed in a Mexican-style war costume (again recalling the Early Classic past of Tikal) holding a seated Calakmul captive by the rope that bound his arms behind his back (Fig. 8.5). The accompanying text says the display took place thirteen days after the battle and describes the captive as “being adorned” for sacrifice. The text also names Calakmul’s defeated king, but it is not clear whether the portrayed captive represents Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’ himself or one of his prin cipal commanders. Tikal’s pivotal victory over Calakmul was commemorated by extensive new con struction in the East Plaza. Excavations directed by Christopher Jones indicate this location was chosen by Jasaw Chan K’awiil I as another tangible link to Tikal’s past glories, since the East Plaza was originally the setting for two Early Classic twin pyra mid complexes. Their estimated dates suggest they commemorated the 9.2.0.0.0 K’atun ending in 475 (reign of Kan Chitam) and the 9.3.0.0.0 K’atun ending in 495
A
B
C
D
E
F
Fig. 8.4. Tikal Temple I: drawing of the carved wooden lintel from inside the temple, showing the ruler Jasaw Chan K'awiil I seated on a throne carried by a large palanquin, guarded by a giant supernatu ral i aguar, celebrating his defeat of Calakmul in A D 6 9 5 .
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8.5. Tiled Str. 5D-57: drawing of a stucco panel showing the ruler Jasaw Chan K'awiil I and his seated, bound captive from Calakmul. The defeat of Calakmul, Tikal's most powerful adversary, sparked the revitalization of Tikal's fortunes during the reign of Jasaw Chan K'awiil I.
(reign of Chak Tok Ich’aak II ). Both complexes were completely buried under a new ball court, which, together with a shrine building to the south, may have been dedi cated by Jasaw Chan K’awiil I in 697, less than two years after the defeat of Calak mul. The substructure facade of the shrine (Str. 5D-43) was constructed in a modified Central Mexican style and decorated with Venus-Tlaloc warfare imagery. Jones sug gests this was a sacrificial shrine, given the strong connections between ball courts and human sacrifice. Str. 5D-43 stood below Str. 5D-57, with its depiction of Jasaw Chan K’awiil I and his bound Calakmul captive. This suggests that the new East Court shrine and ball court were built to hold the victory ceremonies that included the sacrifice of one or more Calakmul captives. Ten years after his triumph over Calakmul, Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s attempt to re gain control of the renegade Petexbatun polity ended in failure, as Tikal was defeated by Dos Pilas in 705 (see below). Yet the 695 victory over Calakmul may have allowed Tikal to expand its realm to the north. For the next k’atun ending of 9.14.0.0.0 (711), Jasaw Chan K’awiil I dedicated Twin Pyramid Group 5D-1, located to the west of the Great Plaza, adjacent to the Tozzer Causeway and near the base of Temple IV. In the remains of the enclosure are Stela 16, bearing its portrait of Jasaw Chan K’awiil I (Fig. 8.6) and Altar 5, whose text and sculptured scene refer to Jasaw Chan K’awiil I and a lord from the site of Maasal conducting a ritual reburial of the bones of an elite lady. Maasal had been allied with Calakmul, so Altar 5 may indicate that Tikal had wrested this city (identified with the site of Naachtun some 80 km north of Tikal) away from the Kan kingdom. During his reign, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I had Temple II constructed on the west side of Tikal’s Great Plaza, probably to honor his principal wife, Lady Kalajuun
395
Fig. 8.6. Tikal Stela 16 from Twin Pyramid Group 5D-1, portraying the ruler Jasaw Chan K'awiil I (9 .14.0 .0.0 , or ad 711).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
397
• • •
vaulted tomb of Jasaw Chan K'awül I (Burial 116) carved from the bedrock beneath (see Fig. 8.9).
Une’ M o’. His last building effort was probably his third twin pyramid group (4D-1), dedicated for the 9.15.0.0.0 K’atun ending in 731. His death apparently oc curred sometime in 734, and he was buried in a large vaulted tomb chamber (Burial 116; Fig. 8.7) constructed below the Great Plaza, opposite Temple II. Once the tomb was sealed, the great funerary Temple I was built above it (Fig. 8.8), overseen by his son and heir, who by then had been inaugurated as Tikal’s new king (see below). Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s tomb was sumptuously furnished with jadeite, shell, pot tery, and beautiful artistic works, testimony to Tikal’s renewed prosperity (Fig. 8.9). Large quantities of jade ornaments once covered his body, dominated by a huge neck lace of large spherical beads, just as he is represented in his carved portraits. The cen terpiece of his burial offerings was an exquisite jade mosaic vase, its lid adorned with
Fig. 8 .8 . Tikal Temple I, on the east side of the Great Plaza, facing west opposite Temple II, showing the stairway leading to the funerary temple on the summit and the eroded portrait of the seated ruler Jasaw Chan K'awiil I on the roofcomb above.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .9 . Tikal Temple I: the tomb of Jasaw Chan K'awiil I, as found by archaeologists who entered the chamber through the vaulted ceiling; the skeletal remains of the ruler, encrusted with ¡ade, shell, and other ornaments, lay on a stone bench, surrounded by pottery offering vessels.
the portrait head of Jasaw Chan K’awiil I (Plate ia). There was also a set of beauti fully engraved and carved bones (Plate 8a), one of which carried inscribed references to the emblems of Tikal’s allies: Copan, Palenque, and two other centers. Texts on other carved bones include Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s name and parentage statements. There are also references to further raids conducted during his reign; one bone being adorned with an incised portrait of a captive named Ox Ha Te Ixil, an ajaw of Split Earth, an otherwise unknown ruler of Calakmul. The most famous of the
3 9 9
400
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
carved-bone scenes are those showing canoes bearing the maize god (perhaps sym bolically represented by Jasaw Chan K’awiil I himself) into the watery underworld (Fig 13.8). Thus, after a reign of some fifty years, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I was succeeded by his son, Yik’in Chan K’awiil, who was inaugurated as the twenty-seventh member of the Tikal dynasty in 734, a date commemorated on Stela 21, at the base of Temple VI. He began his reign with the construction of Temple I to cover and seal his father’s tomb and provide the shrine to his ancestral memory. Temple I was probably planned by Jasaw Chan K’awiil I, w ho may have overseen the carving of the beautiful wooden lintels that would later adorn his funerary shrine on its summit. This structure and its tomb broke the funerary tradition of the North Acropolis, also foreseen by Jasaw Chan K’awiil I with his construction of Str. 5D -33-ist that terminated Tikal’s tradi tional royal necropolis.
B reaking o f the C alakm ul A lliance With his father’s destiny assured, Yik’in Chan K’awiil embarked on a career that would fully restore Tikal’s fortunes and prestige. During a reign of some thirty years he became one of Tikal’s greatest kings by completing his father’s effort to break the power of Calakmul and restore Tikal to its preeminent position in the Maya world. He accomplished this by victories on the battlefield and by the most ambitious build ing program in Tikal’s history. . Yik’in Chan K’awiil’s military campaigns were aimed at breaking the strangle hold of the Calakmul alliance. He began his campaign with an attack on the Kan kingdom itself, defeating Calakmul in 736, just two years after taking Tikal’s throne. Altar 9 portrays an important captive from Calakmul— either its king, Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil, or one of his lords. With Calakmul reeling, Yik’in Chan K’awiil struck at its key allies, Naranjo and Waka (or El Peru). These kingdoms held key positions to the east and west, blocking Tikal’s access to the trans-Peten communication and trade routes so vital to its prosperity. In 743 Yik’in Chan K’awiil moved west and de feated Waka. Less than a year later, in 744, he defeated Naranjo to the east. In the first victory, the giant image of a celestial serpent, likely Waka’s patron deity, was captured and paraded at Tikal, dramatically depicted on a carved wooden lintel in Temple IV (Fig. 8.10). The second victory resulted in the capture of Naranjo’s patron, possibly an image of its founding deity, also shown on a Temple IV lintel (Fig. 8.10). The defeat of Naranjo was more complete, since Tikal also captured its king, Yax Mayuy Chan Chaak (Table 8.1), who is portrayed as a bound and prostrate captive on Tikal Stela 5. Although not recorded in the texts, the unfortunate Naranjo ruler was probably sacrificed as the culmination of Tikal’s victory celebrations. With Calakmul and its alliance defeated, Yik’in Chan K’awiil set out to expand his father s construction efforts to transform Tikal into one of the most impressive
A
B
C
D
E
F
Fig. 8.1 0. Tikal Temple IV: (above) drawing of the carved wooden lintels from inside the temple, show ing the ruler Yik'in Chan K'awiil seated on his throne, borne by a palanquin and enveloped by a giant double-headed celestial serpent, symbol of the Maya universe; (right) Yik'in Chan K'awiil holding a K'awiil scepter, symbol of rulership, enthroned on a large palanquin adorned with Naranjo emblems and seated in front of a giant effigy of a patron deity (both palanquins were probably captured in Tikal's victory over Naranjo).
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
1
2 3
4
5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14
15
16
17
Fig. 8.1 0 (continued).
F
G
H
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
403
• • •
and powerful centers of the Maya world. This unprecedented building program must have been financed by tribute and labor gained from Tikal’s military successes. Yik’in Chan K’awiil marked the end of the most successful k’atun in Tikal’s history with Twin Pyramid Group 3D-2, at the northern terminus of the Maler Causeway in Group H. Its enclosure contains Stela 20 (Fig. 8.11) and Altar 8, dedicated to the k’atun ending 9.16.0.0.0 (751). Yik’in Chan K’awiil apparently ordered the con struction of several new palaces and the expansion of others in the central area of Tikal. But his greatest effort was in redesigning his royal capital by building the great causeways that interconnected Tikal’s major architectural precincts, each marked by major temples (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2). Although it may have been constructed after Yik’in Chan K’awiil’s death as his funerary shrine, the largest of Tikal’s buildings, Temple IV, stands on the western boundary of the civic and ceremonial core at the terminus of the Maudslay and Tozzer Causeways. In the East Plaza, at the intersection of the Maler and Méndez Causeways, the final version of Tikal’s marketplace was built next to Yik’in Chan K’awiil’s father’s ball court, celebrating the first defeat of Calakmul. Near the northern terminus of the Maler Causeway a great outcrop of limestone was carved to portray a captive from what may have been Yik’in Chan K’awiil’s final victory in 748. Simon Martin’s study identified the captive’s name as Wilan Chak Tok Wayib’, apparently from the Naranjo kingdom, who was sacrificed two days after be ing taken prisoner. The Méndez Causeway leads from the East Plaza to the Temple of the Inscrip tions (Temple VI), constructed to mark Tikal’s eastern perimeter. Its roofcomb con tains a giant hieroglyphic inscription, recording principal events in Tikal’s history. The earliest date corresponds either to a mythical founding date at 5.0.0.0.0 (1139 b c ) or, as Jones has suggested, to a long-remembered historical event of the Early Preclassic era. The next date, 6.14.16.9.16 (457 b c ) , almost certainly records a histori cal event, perhaps the city’s founding date since it corresponds to the time Tikal was emerging as a Preclassic lowland center. The third date, 7.10.0.0.0 (156 b c ) , harks back to the Late Preclassic era of Tikal’s earliest rulers, as indicated by the initial tombs in the North Acropolis. Several dates in the Early Classic follow, and the re maining text refers to Yik’in Chan K’awiil.
Rise and Fall of the Petexbatun Kingdom (682-802) In 682 the Dos Pilas ruler B’alaj Chan K’awiil traveled to Calakmul to join his overlord, Yuknoom the Great, in his celebration of the 9.12.10.0.0 period ending (Table 8.2). Within a few years Yuknoom the Great died, and the days of Calakmul’s hegemony were numbered. B’alaj Chan K’awiil returned to Calakmul in 686 to wit ness the inauguration of its new king, Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’ (Table 7.3), recorded on Dos Pilas Stela 13. The looted panels from the Dos Pilas hieroglyphic stairs men tion Yich’aak K’ak’ several times, including his birth in 649, and at least two later
Fig. 8.11. Tikal Stela 2 0 from Twin Pyramid Group 3D-2, portraying the ruler Yik'in Chan K'awiil standing in front of a jaguar throne, holding a staff armed with three celts (ax blades).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
405 • • •
AGUATECA, GUATEMALA The second Petexbatun capital, Agua teca, cov
tect the more open western portion of the site
ers about half the area of Dos Pilas but occupies
and access to the elite residential area, appar
one of the most spectacular settings of any low
ently in response to intensified warfare that
land M a y a site. It was constructed along the
plagued the Petexbatun region in the Late Clas
limestone escarpment that overlooks a shallow
sic period.
swampy basin to the east (Fig. 8 .1 2 ), once per
These defensive measures appear to have
haps part of a larger Lake Petexbatun, which is
been in vain. Excavations by Takeshi Inomata
now several kilometers to the northeast of the
and his colleagues have found dramatic evi
site. A chasm formed by a fault that runs some
dence for the sudden abandonment and de
1 0 0 m west of and parallel to the escarpment
struction of Aguateca is royal palace ca. ad 8 0 0 .
splits Aguateca into two areas (Fig. 8 .1 4 ). In the
This research has documented a
more open area west of the fault is a large plaza
structures that were abruptly abandoned and
series of
surrounded by platforms and buildings, two of
burned, the consequence of a successful attack
which (on the western and southern sides) are
on Aguateca by unknown enemies. Excavation
the largest at the site. This plaza is connected by
has revealed an array of abandoned materials
a natural limestone bridge over the fault to the
on the floors of these structures, reflecting a
eastern group, composed of several connecting
wide variety of activities that had taken place
plazas that rise to the north. The northernmost of
there immediately preceding the attack, includ
these is an enclosed compound of palace-type
ing artisan and scribal work and domestic tasks
buildings that was the royal residence. The es
(Figs 8 .1 5 - 1 7 ) . As a result, we have a far
carpment and parallel fault provide natural de
greater understanding of the range of activi
fensive barriers for this eastern complex, and an
ties that took place in M a ya palaces, including
extensive series of masonry-based palisades
craft manufacturing within the royal household
was constructed in the late eighth century to pro
(Chapter 12).
rituals he conducted with B’alaj Chan K’awiil that may have cemented the continued alliance with Calakmul. B’alaj Chan K’awiil was apparently succeeded by his son, Itzamnaaj Balam, for a brief period, although the dates for the father’s death and his son’s inauguration are not clear (Table 8.2). This was a time of profoundly changing fortunes in the Maya lowlands, set in motion by the victory of Tikal over Calakmul in 695. With the old Calakmul alliance weakened, the Petexbatun kingdom had to defend its own inter ests. It may be that Tikal had a hand in Itzamnaaj Balam’s fate— in any case, his reign must have been brief, for his brother Itzamnaaj K’awiil succeeded him in 698. Itzamnaaj K’awiil embarked on several campaigns to consolidate his kingdom and secure its place in the new political environment created by Tikal’s resurgence. A significant victory over Tikal in 705 may have ended for a time any threat from
4 0
•
6 •
THE
APOGEE
OF
MAYA
STATES
IN
THE
LATE
CLASSIC
•
that quarter. T his trium ph w as actu ally ach ieved by o n e o f Itzam naaj K ’a w iil’s c o m m anders, k n o w n as U ch a ’an K ’in B alam , w h o w o u ld even tu ally b eco m e D o s P ilas Ruler 3. Tribute from w ar in b oth w ea lth and la b or is reflected in th e rapid e x p a n sion o f D o s Pilas itself. Itzam naaj K ’aw iil apparen tly sp o n so red th e c o n str u c tio n o f the n ew El D u en d e C o m p lex an ch ored by a large tem p le built o n a h illto p a b o u t i km east o f D o s P ilas’s M ain G roup (Fig. 8 .1 ). Five stelae erected at El D u e n d e record several o f Itzam naaj K ’a w iil’s victories. A tom b ex cavated by th e V an d erb ilt P etexbatun Project beneath D o s Pilas Str. L5-1 is Itzam naaj K ’a w iil’s lik ely burial place. T he best evid en ce for this co m es from Stela 8 in fro n t o f Str. L 5 -1 , its te x t recording the principal events o f Itzam naaj K ’a w iil’s life, en d in g w ith a referen ce to his nocturnal burial four days after his death in 7 2 6. H is successor w as U ch a ’an K ’in B alam , the m ilitary co m m a n d er reco g n iz ed for his victory over T ikal in 7 0 5 . K n ow n as R uler 3 becau se his royal n am e rem ains u n clear, he cam e to p ow er in 7 2 7 , p ossib ly as a regent for Itzam naaj K ’a w iil’s royal heir, still a m inor at the tim e. T his prince, K ’aw iil C han K ’inich, is d ep icted in an im p o r tant b lood lettin g cerem on y on D o s Pilas Panel 19, a cco m p a n ied by R u ler 3, his q ueen, and as “guardian o f the p rin ce,” a lord from C alak m u l. It w as apparently during the reign o f R uler 3 that the strategically lo ca ted site o f A guateca w as estab lish ed as a secon d cap ital o f the P etexb atu n k in g d o m (Fig. 8 .1 2 ).
F ig . 8 . 1 2 . A g u a t e c a , G u a t e m a l a : v ie w e a s t w a r d fr o m
its s p e c t a c u l a r d e f e n s i v e s e t tin g o n t h e e s c a r p
m e n t o v e r l o o k i n g t h e P e t e x b a t u n w e t la n d s to t h e e a s t (s e e F ig . 8 . 1 4 ) .
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
407
• • •
ALTAR DE SACRIFICIOS, GUATEMALA From a position at the key ¡unction of the Pasión
tion at the site, including the first identification of
and Usumacinta Rivers the Classic rulers of Altar
some of the earliest settlement in the lowlands,
de Sacrificios must have enjoyed considerable
beginning before that at Tikal or most other cen
benefits from the commerce that flowed up and
tral lowland centers. The evidence for this was
down both river systems, connecting southward
provided by Xe pottery, probably associated
to the highlands and northwestward to the Gulf
with Mixe-Zoquean colonists from the west (see
Coast. But they also lived in a dangerous world
Chapter 3). The archaeological record indicates
and had to struggle to maintain their indepen
that later in the Preclassic Mayan-speaking peo
dence from their neighbors, including the pow
ples settled at Altar de Sacrificios. The site
erful polity that rose downriver at Yaxchilan and
reached its peak development in the Late Clas
then, even closer at hand, the aggressive Petex-
sic era, although its architectural remains are
batun state to the east.
not large or extensive. The dated monuments
Altar de Sacrificios was the subject of an archaeological
research
program
from
the
from Altar de Sacrificios span much of the Clas sic era, from 9 .1 0 .0 .0 .0 (455) to 1 0 .1 .0 .0 .0
Peabody Museum, Harvard University, led by
(849). Ceramic evidence indicates that the site
A. Ledyard Smith and Gordon W illey, from
was occupied during the Terminal Classic pe
1 9 5 8 through 1 9 6 3 . The Peabody Museum ex
riod by outsiders, about the same time as Seibal
cavations revealed a long sequénce of occupa
enjoyed a brief resurgence (Chapter 9).
Ruler 3 continued using both conquest and marriage alliances to expand the Petexbatun kingdom. In 735 he recorded his triumph over the largest city of the region, Seibal, located to the east on the banks of the Río Pasión. The captured Seibal ruler, Yich’aak Balam, is portrayed beneath the feet of the victorious Petexbatun ruler on Aguateca Stela 2. Ruler 3’s marriage to his new queen, a member of the ruling fam ily of Cancuen, sealed a crucial alliance with this important trade center located on the Río Pasión in the foothills of the highlands, some 55 km to the south. This royal marriage undoubtedly consolidated control of lucrative trade from the highlands for the Petexbatun polity. Ruler 3’s queen is commemorated on a hieroglyphic bench in side a palace in the northwest quadrant of the Dos Pilas Main Group. Excavation re vealed her well-furnished tomb beneath the bench. Ruler 3’s death in 741 is recorded on Aguateca Stela 1, placed in front of a large structure that may contain his tomb. K’awiil Chan K’inich came to the throne in 741. Evidence from both archaeol ogy and texts indicates that the Petexbatun polity reached its maximum extent dur ing his reign, controlling much of the territory between the Pasión and Chixoy Rivers (the major tributaries of the Usumacinta), or an estimated area of some 4,000 km2. A series of military victories in 743 and 745 secured his kingdom. These triumphs
4o8
the
apogee
OF MAYA
states
in
the
late
classic
• • •
were recorded, complete with carvings of bound captives, on Dos Pilas Hieroglyphic Stairway 3 in the southern portion of the Main Group (Str. L5-25). Texts at several secondary centers record K’awiil Chan K’inich performing the affairs of state within his kingdom. In 745 and 747 he presided over rituals conducted by his vassal at Seibal, Yich’aak Balam (the former king captured by Ruler 3 in 735). Texts at Cancuen verify that he continued an alliance with his mother’s homeland to the south. But at its height, the Petexbatun kingdom and its royal house were suddenly brought down. Inscriptions at the secondary center of Tamarindito refer to the de feat and exile of K’awiil Chan K’inich in 761. At Dos Pilas concentric palisades were constructed surrounding both the Main and El Duende Groups (Fig. 8.1). These de fenses were hastily erected over the very symbols of the power of the kingdom’s cap ital, including one of the hieroglyphic staircases recording its victories, using stones ripped from its royal palace and other buildings. At the central Murciélagos Group, the undefended royal palace was abandoned and its carved throne was smashed. Be hind their palisades the last defenders of Dos Pilas were able to hold out against their attackers for a time, but ultimately they were overrun and Dos Pilas was abandoned (Fig. 8.13).
Fig. 8.13. Dos Pilas, before and after its downfall: (be/ow) reconstruction of the Main Group from the northeast (note the ball court in the right foreground); (above) the Main Group after construc tion of defensive palisades, showing buildings that were partially demolished to provide stone for the palisade foundations.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
409
• • •
After the defeat and disappearance of K’awiil Chan K’inich, the Petexbatun king dom broke into a series of petty states, some ruled by lords who still claimed to be a k ’uhul mutul ajaw — a divine Tikal king. Petty kings recorded their reigns at several sites along the Río Pasión, including La Amelia, El Caribe, and Aguas Calientes. N ow independent of its former masters at Dos Pilas, the old capital of Seibal was re stored in 771 with the inauguration of Ajaw B’ot as its king. To the west, the ancient center of Altar de Sacrificios undoubtedly prospered as a result of the downfall of the Petexbatun kingdom. But the royal house of Dos Pilas was not finished, and its power was consolidated at Aguateca, the strategically placed and well-defended site con trolled by Dos Pilas before K’awiil Chan K’inich’s downfall (Fig. 8.14). The later monuments of Aguateca record the succession of a new king, Tan Te’ K’inich, in 770. His father was not the final king of Dos Pilas, but a man named Ucha’an Kan Balam. In any case, Tan Te’ K’inich was the last known ruler of the Petexbatun kingdom. For more than thirty years he maintained the vestiges of control over the polity and its subordinate centers. In 778 he recorded a military victory over an unknown enemy, and in 802 he oversaw a ritual conducted by the ruler of La Amelia. After this, Tan Te’ K’inich disappeared from history. Tan Te’ K’inich’s disappearance may well be explained by Aguateca’s sudden de struction. An extensive network of palisades that, combined with Aguateca’s escarp ment setting, provided an effective fortification against attack has been documented by archaeological research. These were well-planned and long-term defenses that in cluded palisades to protect smaller hilltop settlements, agricultural fields, and even access to water sources (Fig. 8.14). The inhabitants of Aguateca were obviously un der threat of attack, or even under siege, for a significant period of time. The Petex batun region had become a violent and dangerous environment, and, in response, the people of Aguateca invested a great deal of labor and resources to defend their terri tory and themselves. All to no avail, for the excavations directed by Takeshi Inomata of Aguateca’s best defended precinct, its royal palace compound, demonstrate that it was suddenly abandoned and burned— the result of an attack by an unknown enemy that breached the defenses and sacked the city. Fortunately for archaeology, Aguateca’s inhabitants left their belongings behind, so that the contents of storerooms, workshops, audience halls, and other areas remained sealed beneath the destruction that followed the at tack (Fig. 8.15). More than a thousand years later, careful archaeological excavation revealed the patterns of everyday life in a Maya palace from the array of abandoned pottery, grinding stones, stone tools, musical instruments, and adornments of shell and jade. The inventory of preserved materials included the paraphernalia worn by Maya kings: a royal headband adorned with the “jester god” and the remnants of fragile deity masks worn by kings during religious ceremonies— all left just as they were on the day Aguateca suddenly ceased being the capital of a Classic Maya king dom (Figs. 8.16 and 8.17).
Fig. 8.14. M ap of Aguateca, Guatemala, situated along an escarpment (Fig. 8.12) and a parallel chasm that separates the royal Palace Grpup from the Main Plaza to the west. Structures M 7-22 and M8-4 (Figs. 8 .1 5 -8 .1 7 ) and other burned elite residential structures are along the causeway south of the Palace Group (black lines indicate the remains of rubble walls and palisade fortifications).
Fig. 8 .1 5 . Aguateca, royal palace excavations: in situ deposit of materials on the floor of the storage room in Str. M 7 -2 2 (House of Masks); the eastern room was used to store a variety of items, including carved bones and shells, pyrite mirrors, jade ornaments, and two ceramic laminate masks (Fig. 8 .1 7 ) that were preserved after the building was burned.
Fig. 8 .1 6 . Aguateca, royal palace excavations: plan of in situ pyrite mosaic pieces and the jester god headband (Fig. 8 .1 7 ) on floor of Str. M 8 -4 ; the pieces of pyrite are from recycled mosaic mirrors, probably intended for reuse in new headdresses or other royal paraphernalia.
412
T H E AP O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Fig. 8 .1 7 . Aguateca, royal palace excavations: (above le ft ) laminate mask in situ on floor of the storage room in Str. M 7 -2 2 (Fig. 8 .1 5 ); (above rig h t ) ceramic flute found in the north room of Str. M 8 -4 ; (be/ow) the jester god headband [sak h u u n a l) recovered from the south room of the same building (Fig. 8 .1 6 ).
The capitals of other Petexbatun petty states held out a little longer. The last to fall was probably the stronghold of Punta de Chim ino (Fig. 8 .18). Situated on a pen insula jutting into Lake Petexbatun, its inhabitants were protected from attack across its narrow connection to the m ainland by several huge moats. Excavations by the Vanderbilt Petexbatun Project dated the construction of these massive defenses to the period after ca. 760. The Petexbatun Project also found evidence of at least one at tack against Punta de C him ino’s ram parts. Excavation in the bottom of the inner most and deepest m oat uncovered a large burned area littered w ith chert spearheads. M ore spearheads were found along the wall of the crest of the moat. It is n ot clear if
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .1 8 . Punta de Chimino, Guatem ala: reconstruction of the peninsular site in Lake Petexbatun, showing the two defensive moats that cut across the peninsula and the palisade fortifications inside the moats.
this attack succeeded or whether Punta de Chimino was able to hold out behind its formidable defenses for some time. But in the end, it seems clear that endemic war fare made life impossible for king and commoner alike, so that most of the Petexbatun region was eventually abandoned.
The End of the Calakmul Dynasty (695-909) With the victory of Tikal over the ill-fated Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’, only nine years after his accession, the royal house of Calakmul suffered an unprecedented reversal of fortunes. Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’s fate is unknown, but nothing more is heard from him after 695. Tomb 4, excavated at Calakmul in 1997 beneath Str. 2, may be his final resting place. A polychrome plate from this tomb is inscribed with Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’s name. The carved bones from the tomb of Calakmul’s nemesis at Tikal, Jasaw Chan K’awiil I, name a new Calakmul ruler, Split Earth, at this time. It is quite possible that following the downfall of Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’ in 695, Tikal installed Split Earth as a new ruler at Calakmul. The lack of any monuments and texts at Calakmul and its allied capitals testifying to his reign would be expected if Split Earth was Tikal’s vassal. In any case, a new king, Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil, was in power at Calakmul by 702, the year he dedicated a series of stelae (Table 7.3). During his reign (ca. 7 0 2 3 6) Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil was able to sponsor an impressive array of some twenty monuments, including the well-preserved Stela 51 (Fig. 8.19). He is also named at
Fig. 8 .1 9 . Calakm ul Stela 5 1 , best preserved of the site's monuments, with its portrait of Yuknoom Took' K'aw iil, originally from the western terrace of Str. I; reassembled after being sawed into small blocks by looters.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E LATE C L A S S I C
415
• • •
Dos Pilas in 702 and at Waka, indicating these segments of the old Calakmul alliance were still intact. But the number of such references to Calakmul, especially those ac knowledging subordination to the Kan rulers, falls off dramatically after the defeat of 695. It is clear, therefore, that Calakmul’s prestige and power in the Maya low lands plummeted in the wake of Tikal’s victory. The career of Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil probably ended in another defeat at the hands of Tikal and its great king, Yik’in Chan K’awiil (ca. 736). Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil’s successor may be identified at distant Quirigua, where a ruler of Calakmul, possibly named Wamaw K’awiil, is recorded just before Quirigua’s successful upris ing against Copan. Several of Calakmul’s later kings continued to erect monuments over the next century, including those known as Ruler Y (five stelae), Ruler Z (two stelae), and B’olon K’awiil (two stelae). The ruler Chan Pet is named at Seibal as one of four Maya kings who witnessed the k’atun ending ceremonies there in 849. The latest known Calakmul ruler, Aj Took’, is named on Stela 6 1, a small stone that prob ably commemorated the k’atun ending in 909. By this time the extensive power of Calakmul and its rulers was only a memory, and the succession of Kan kings, per haps the longest-lived dynasty in the Maya lowlands, disappeared soon thereafter.
Recovery and Decline at Caracol (798-859) The details of the later history of Calakmul’s ally, Caracol, are also incomplete (Table 7.4). The long-term archaeological investigations at the site indicate that the interruption in the historical record (6 8 0 -7 9 8 ) may correspond to a period of mon ument destruction and a slowdown of construction activity. This decline undoubt edly was due to Tikal’s resurgence and the downfall of Calakmul and its alliance. But Caracol’s fortunes were revived during the reign of K’inich Joy K’awiil, who resumed both royal monument dedications and construction activities. In 798 he dedicated a new ball court in the B Group and celebrated the calendrical rites of 800 with a new monument (Stela 11). K’inich Joy K’awiil also renewed Caracol’s past military suc cesses. His Altar 23 (800) portrays the rulers of Ucanal and B’ital as defeated and bound captives. His successor, K’inich Toob’il Yopaat, was apparently inaugurated in 804. In 810 he celebrated the k’atun ending with the dedication of Stela 18. A decade later he commissioned two altars to celebrate an alliance with Caracol’s former foe, Ucanal. K’inich Toob’il Yopaat also sponsored further construction in the Caana Complex, Caracol’s center of royal power. The last known Caracol rulers, Kan III and Ruler XIII, reigned over the final de cline of their kingdom. By this time the kings of Caracol, like those of other failing Maya polities, had been reduced to sharing center stage with other elite lords. The reliance on subordinates to maintain order is illustrated by Stela 17, dedicated in 849, which depicts Kan III and another lord seated together as apparent equals (Fig. 8.20).
A
C
Fig. 8 .2 0 . Caracol Stela 1 7, depicting the ruler Kan III and w hat is ap p a r ently an allied lord seated together as equals, a reflection of the new polit ical strategies employed to hold the kingdom together (ad 8 4 9 ).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
417
• • •
The last known royal monument at Caracol, Stela 10, is dated to the period ending of 859. The name of the ruler in the crudely carved text cannot be read; he is known only as Ruler XIII. Caracol apparently continued to be heavily occupied until the end of the Terminal Classic era (Chapter 9), but by the time its inhabitants finally dwin dled away, the vestiges of royal authority had long vanished, as in other polity capi tals across the lowlands.
The End of the Tikal Dynasty (768-869) Tikal’s great Late Classic king, Yik’in Chan K’awiil, died around ad 766 (Table 7.1). His tomb has not been securely identified. William Coe proposed he was interred in Burial 196, located within a relatively small structure on the south side of the Great Plaza. Although this is certainly a royal tomb, many scholars believe Yik’in Chan K’awiil lies buried in an undiscovered tomb beneath the mammoth Temple IV. Bur ial 196 might then be that of his little-known successor, the twenty-eighth king in the line of the Founder. Apparently the son of Yik’in Chan K’awiil, his reign was prob ably only about two years, thus accounting for a lack of monuments and other evi dence of his rule. Nonetheless, Burial 196 is notable for its contents, including a jade mosaic vase and several beautifully painted polychrome vessels (Plates ia and 8b). The next Tikal king, another son of Yik’in Chan K’awiil, is better known. The namesake of the important Early Classic king, Yax Nuun Ayiin II was the twentyninth in the long and illustrious line begun by Tikal’s dynastic founder. Yax Nuun Ayiin II probably attempted to carry on his father’s programs, but his successes were modest at best. There are no surviving accounts of military triumphs and few new constructions. Although he appears to have made additions to Temple VI, it appears that whatever resources Yax Nuun Ayiin II could muster were invested in twin pyra mid groups, both almost double the size of earlier examples. The first, Twin Pyramid Group 4E-4 (Fig. 8.21) was dedicated in 9.17.0.0.0 (771) and contains Stela 22 and Altar 10 (Fig. 8.22). Stela 22, bearing a portrait of Yax Nuun Ayiin II, records his ac cession date in 768. One k’atun later (790), Twin Pyramid Group 4E-3, with its Stela 19 and Altar 6, was built next to Group 4E-4. By this time, however, Tikal’s prosperity and power were in decline. The date of Yax Nuun Ayiin II’s death is unknown. Tikal’s thirtieth successor may have been Nuun Ujol K’inich, a little-known ruler named on a carved wooden lintel from Temple III as the father of Dark Sun, named on the smashed Stela 24 at the base of Temple III. Dark Sun is apparently the corpulent king portrayed on another Temple III lintel (Fig. 8.23). In 849 the ruler of Seibal named a Tikal king, Jewel K’awiil, as a visitor to his capital. The last known Tikal ruler made a final attempt to revive the glorious past. After taking the name of his late Classic predecessor, Jasaw Chan K’awiil II dedicated his only known monument in front of the Necropolis of Tikal’s Early Classic kings. Stela 11 dates to 10.2.0.0.0 (869) and is the latest monument
Fig. 8 .2 1 . Tikal Twin Pyramid Group 4E-4: restoration showing the eastern and western four-stairwayed platforms, the southern nine-doorwayed building (at lower right), and the northern enclosure holding Stela 2 2 and Altar 10 (see Fig. 8 .2 2 ).
Fig. 8 .2 2 . Tikal Stela 2 2 and Altar 10, inside the northern enclosure of Twin Pyramid Group 4E-4 (Fig. 4 .1 8 ); the carved portrait of the ruler Yax Nuun Ayiin II is visible on Stela 2 2 ( 9 .1 7 .0 .0 .0 , or
AD 7 7 1 ).
Fig. 8 .2 3 . Tikal Temple III: drawing of the carved wooden lintel from inside the temple, showing the por trait of a corpulent ruler dressed in a jaguar pelt, probably Dark Sun (ca.
AD 8 1 0 ).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
42Í • • •
from Tikal itself. There is one later monument from TikaPs vicinity, Jimbal Stela i (see Fig. 1.12), which records the date of 10.3.0.0.0 (889). By this time the once great Tikal realm had broken up into smaller polities ruled by petty kings claiming legiti macy from links to TikaPs ancient ruling house (discussed further in Chapter 9). More distant allies and subordinates, such as Nakum, were free to assert their inde pendence and briefly enjoyed the apex of their prosperity and power.
Expansion of the Usumacinta Polities To the southwest of the central lowland arena of warfare, several important king doms developed into vigorous and competing powers during the Late Classic. The polity capitals of this region are arranged along the great Usumacinta River and its tributaries, one of the most important trade and communication routes between the Maya highlands and lowlands (Fig. 1.1). The Usumacinta originates in the western highlands, where it is known as the Rio Negro or Chixoy, and forms a great gorge through the ridges of the northern highlands as it makes its way toward the lowlands. There, joined by the Pasión, it becomes the Usumacinta for the rest of its northwest erly course to the Gulf of Mexico. Two of the most powerful Late Classic states along the Usumacinta were Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan. Both have been investigated by archaeological and epigraphic research, although archaeological documentation is more complete at Piedras Negras. The origins of both capitals undoubtedly lie in the Preclassic, and there are retrospective accounts at both Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan of Early Classic kings and wars (Tables 8.3 and 8.4). But most of what is known about these capitals and their kingdoms dates to the Late Classic. Significantly, research in the region be tween Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan has revealed clear-cut differences in subordinate sites that indicate that a well-defined boundary was maintained between these two kingdoms.
B irth a n d R ebirth o f the Piedras N egras D y n a sty Piedras Negras is the largest of the Usumacinta cities and was a dominant polity in this region for most of the Late Classic period. Its ancient Maya name seems to have been Yokib’ (entrance), possibly referring to a large sinkhole nearby (perhaps once believed to be an entrance to the underworld), or to the strategic location of the king dom along trade routes leading to the Tabasco floodplain. Excavations indicate oc cupation and construction from the Late Preclassic onward. The reigns of four Early Classic rulers are known from retrospective Late Classic accounts (Table 8.3). One of these Late Classic monuments, Altar 1, traces the origins of dynastic rule at Piedras Negras deep into the mythical past. The original royal palace for the earthly kings of Yokib’ may have been beneath the West Group Plaza. Excavations there found
422
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
TABLE 8 .3
Dynastic chronology of Piedras Negras (ruler names in bold type; alternative names or titles in parentheses) Long Count date
Rufer
8 .1 3 .0 .0 .0
Dato AD 297
-
Events U n k n o w n e v e n t (fo u n d in g ? ) (A lta r 1 )
R u le r A
—
ca. 4 6 0
W a r w ith Y a x c h ila n ; c a p tu r e d b y
R u le r B
—
ca. 4 7 8
W a r w ith Y a x c h ila n ?
M o o n Skull?
T u rtle T o o th
510
R e c e iv e d 6 c a p tiv e lo rd s, o v e rs e e n b y a n o c h k 'in k a lo o m te ' (h ig h k in g ) o f a n
"
R u le r C
9 .4 .0 .0 .0
u n k n o w n site (P a n el 2 ) 514
A s y a j a w o f th e o c h k 'in k a lo o m te ', re c e iv e d 4 c a p tiv e s , in c lu d in g K n o t e y e J a g u a r o f Y a x c h ila n (Lintel 1 2 )
K 'ln ic h Y o 'n a l A hle 1 (R uler B orn
?;
1)
d ie d F e b . 3 , 6 3 9 ; w ife :
L a d y B ird H e a d d re s s ; re ig n e d
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g ? (S te la 3 0 )
9 .5 .0 .0 .0
534
9 .5 .5 .0 .0
539
H o tu n e n d in g (S te la 2 9 )
9 .8 .1 0 .6 .1 6
603
A c c e s s io n (S te la 2 5 )
—
628
W a r s w ith P a le n q u e a n d S a k T z 'i'
639
D e a th
9 .1 0 .6 .2 .1
N o v . 1 4, 6 0 3 -F e b . 3 , 6 3 9 ( 3 5 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d S te la e 2 5 , 2 6 ,3 1
R u le r 2
9 .1 0 .6 .5 .9
639
A c c e s s io n (S te la 3 3 )
B orn M a y 2 2 , 6 2 6 ; d ie d
9 .1 0 .1 5 .7 .6
648
C a p tiv e fro m u n k n o w n site (P a n el 1 5 )
N o v . 1 5 , 6 8 6 (a g e 6 0 ) ; fa th e r:
658
K 'in ic h Y o 'n a l A h k 1; m o th er:
P an el 2 : k 'a tu n a n n iv e r s a r y o f K 'in ic h Y o 'n a l A hk's d e a th ; r e c a llin g Turtle
L a d y Bird H e a d d re s s ; w ife : L a d y
Tooth's re c e iv in g o f 6 c a p tiv e s
W h it e B ird; R e ig n e d A p r. 1 2 , 6 3 9 -
—
662
V ic to ry o v e r S a n ta E le n a (S te la 3 5 )
N o v . 1 5 , 6 8 6 ( 4 7 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d
9 .1 1 .1 6 .7 .1 4
668
V ic to r y o v e r u n k n o w n site (P a n el 1 5 )
P anels 2 , 4 , 7 , S te la e 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 5
—
ca. 6 7 7
R e c e iv e d trib u te fro m H ix W i t z (P a n el 7 )
3 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 3 9 , T h ro n e 2
—
686
M a r r i a g e o f fu tu re R uler 3 to L a d y
686
D e a th A c c e s s io n (S te la 6 )
K 'a tu n A h a w 9 .1 2 .1 4 .1 0 .1 3
K 'in ic h Y o 'n a l A h k II
(R uler 3 )
9 .1 2 .1 4 .1 3 .1
687
B orn D e c . 2 9 , 6 6 4 ; d ie d m id -7 2 9
9 .1 3 .1 5 .0 .0
706
D e d ic a te d P an e l 1 5 (Str. J-4)
(a g e 6 5 ) ; fa th e r: R uler 2 ; m o th er:
—
ca. 7 2 5
W a r s w ith T o n in a a n d P a le n q u e
L a d y W h i t e B ird; w ife : La d y
—
726
V ic to ry o v e r Y a x c h ila n (S te la 8 )
ca. 7 2 9
D e a th ; b u ria l b e n e a th Str. J-5 (B u ria l 5 )
9 .1 4 .1 8 .3 .1 3
729
A c ce s sio n (S te la 11
—
746
S c a tte rin g ritu a l a t m other's to m b
749
C e le b r a te d first k 'a tu n o f re ig n w ith
K 'a tu n A j a w o f N a m a a n ; re ig n e d J an . 2 , 6 8 7 - m i < ± 7 2 9 (c a . 4 2 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d A lta r 1, P an el 1 5 , S te la e 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8
R u le r 4 B o rn N o v . 1 8 , 7 0 1 ; d ie d N o v . 2 9 , 7 5 7 ( a g e 5 7 ) ; fa th e r: K 'in ic h Y o 'n a l A h k II; m o th e r:
?;
(S te la 4 0 )
r e ig n e d N o v . 9 ,
7 2 9 - N o v . 2 9 , 7 5 7 (c a . 2 8 y e a rs );
v is it b y Y o p a a t B a la m II o f Y a x c h ila n
d e d ic a te d A lta r 2 , S te la e 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ,2 2 , 4 0
)
(P anel 3 ) 9 .1 6 .6 .1 1 .1 7
757
D e a th ; b u ria l in fro n t o f Str. O - l 3 (B u ria l 1 3 )
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
423
• • •
TABLE 8 . 3 { c o n tin u e d )
Ruler
Long Count Date
Date AD
Evento
Y o 'n a l A h k III B o m ?; d ie d c a .
(R uler 5 )
9 .1 6 .6 .1 7 .1
758
A c ce s sio n (S te la 1 4 )
7 6 7 ; fa th e r:
—
759
R uler 4 ; m o th e r:
?;
—
763
O v e r s a w a cc e s s io n o f La M a r s a ja l
—
ca. 7 6 7
D e a th
H a ' K 'in X o o k
9 .1 6 .1 6 .0 .4
767
A c ce s sio n (S tela 2 3 )
B orn ?; d ie d M a r . 2 4 , 7 8 9 ; fa th e r:
9 .1 7 .0 .0 .0
771
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g (S tela 1 3 )
R u ler 4 ; m o th e r: ?; r e ig n e d
9 .1 7 .9 .5 .1 1
780
A b d ic a tio n ? (T h ro n e 1)
r e ig n e d M a r . 1 0 ,
7 5 8 - c a . 7 6 7 (c a . 9 y e a rs );
D e fe a te d b y Y a x c h ila n a n d Bird J a g u a r IV
d e d ic a te d S te la e 1 4 , 1 6
(S tela 1 6 )
Feb. 1 4 , 7 6 7 - M a r . 2 4 , 7 8 9 ( 2 2 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d S te la e 1 3 , 18, 2 3
R u le r 7
(fo rm e rly R uler 6 )
9 .1 7 .1 0 .9 .4
781
A cce s sio n
B orn A p r . 7 , 7 5 0 ; d ie d 8 0 8 ?
—
782
Fire ritual a t to m b o f Ruler 4 (P anel 3 )
(a g e c a . 5 8 ) ; fa th e r: R u le r 4 ? ;
—
785
D e d ic a te d T h ro n e 1
m o th e r: L a d y B ird ; r e ig n e d M a y 3 1 ,
—
787
V ic to ry o v e r S a n ta E le n a
7 8 1 - 8 0 8 (c a . 2 7 y e a rs );
—
792
V ic to ry o v e r P o m o n á (" s ta r-w a r" event)
d e d ic a t e d A lt a r 4 , P a n e l 3 ,
—
794
V ic to ry o v e r P o m o n á (" s ta r-w a r" event)
S te la e 1 2 , 1 5 , T h ro n e 1
w ith P arro t C h a a k o f La M a r (S te la 1 2 ) ca. 8 0 8
D e fe a te d a n d c a p tu re d b y Y ax c h ila n u n d e r B ird J a g u a r IV
S ou rces: H o u s to n
1 9 8 3 b , 2 0 0 4 b ; M a r tin
8c
G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; P r o s k o u r ia k o ff i 9 6 0 ,
1 9 9 3 ; S ch eie 1 9 9 1 a ; S ch eie
8c
M a th e w s 1 9 9 1 .
evidence of extensive masonry platforms dating to the Early Classic, arranged around large courtyards. Further remains of Early Classic buildings were revealed be neath the adjacent Acropolis, the site of the Late Classic royal palace complex. By the end of the Early Classic, between about 550 and 600, all of the Early Clas sic structures in the West Group and Acropolis were demolished, and some show ev idence of ritual destruction (offerings of pottery, figurines, and jade artifacts were found over the burned structures). This ritualized destruction occurred about the time the reign of K’inich Yo’nal Ahk I (6 0 3 -6 3 9 ) began. Based on the archaeologi cal data and a retrospective inscription on a Late Classic monument (Panel 12), ar chaeologists from the most recent research at Piedras Negras, Stephen Houston and Charles Golden, have proposed that K’inich Yo’nal Ahk I refounded the dynasty in the wake of a defeat that ended the earlier line of rulers. As part of his effort, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk I promoted the destruction of the buildings, and quite probably the mon uments, that were the major symbols of authority for the discredited earlier kings. With the termination of the Early Classic buildings in the West Group, K’inich Yo’ nal Ahk I abandoned this location and began anew with the renovation of older structures and the construction of new buildings and monuments in the more ancient
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
PIEDRAS NEGRAS, GUATEMALA region,
(1 ,800-d ay period) endings was celebrated by
Piedras Negras is located on the north bank of
the dedication of a sculptured monument, every
The largest site of the Usumacinta
the Usumacinta River, some 4 0 km (25 mi.)
one of which has survived. This unbroken series
downriver from Yaxchilan. Piedras Negras en
of monuments was the foundation for the break
joyed a long history of independent rule over its
through made by Tatiana Proskouriakoff in pro
surrounding polity and has long been known for
posing that M a ya texts dealt with historical
its excellent sculptured monuments, which in the
events, rather than exclusively with astronomi
opinion of many scholars reached its pinnacle
cal, religious, and mythical subjects as previ
in Panel 3 from Temple 0 - 1 3 (Fig. 8 .2 5 ).
ously believed. She noted that the sequence of
The monuments of Piedras Negras inspired
dated stelae formed at least six groups, each
Sylvanus Morley to urge archaeologists at the
beginning with a monument depicting a male
University of Pennsylvania Museum to investi
figure seated in an elevated niche. This motif
gate the site. As a result, J. Alden Mason and
was associated with a date and an event glyph
Linton Satterthwaite led a University of Pennsyl
that could be read as "accession to power."
vania-sponsored
at
Thus, Proskouriakoff concluded, the text paral
Piedras Negras, mapping and excavating the
leled the scene on these initial monuments,
archaeological
project
site from 1931 to 1 9 3 9 . This research uncov
recording the inauguration of the new ruler to
ered a royal tomb and new information about
ensure the dynastic succession (Fig. 8 .2 4 ). The
M aya architecture, including the idéntification
later monuments in each group usually com
of several
memorated each five-year period of the ruler's
structures built without masonry
vaults. An archaeological research project from
reign. Proskouriakoff identified other "event"
Brigham Young University and the Universidad
glyphs in the Piedras Negras inscriptions, in
del Valle de Guatemala, directed by Stephen
cluding those for birth and death. The span of
Houston and Héctor Escobedo, renewed exca
any one of the monument groups did not exceed
vations at the site in the 1990s and conducted
a normal human lifetime, so that the Late Classic
settlement research in the residential and rural
sequence of Piedras Negras rulers worked out
areas surrounding the main group of ruins along
by Proskouriakoff represents reigns of 3 5 , 4 7 ,
the Usumacinta.
4 2 , 2 8 , 5 , and 17 years. Although her original
It was the beautifully sculptured inscriptions
series of Rulers 1 through 6 has since been
and monuments of Piedras Negras, detailing the
slightly modified (a new Ruler 6 has been pro
political history of its rulers, which provided the
posed, and the series is now preceded by Rulers
key pieces of evidence revealing that M aya
A, B, C, and possibly D), her dynastic history
texts dealt with political history. From AD 6 0 8 to
continues to be the foundation for understand
8 1 0 , each of the twenty-two consecutive Hotun
ing the dynasty of Piedras Negras.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
4*5 • • •
South Group. Thereafter the kings of Piedras Negras embarked on a program of con struction that produced the assemblage of Late Classic architecture defining the epi center of the site today. We do not know K’inich Yo’nal Ahk’s origins or how he came to power, but the carved monuments from his reign became prototypes for those erected by his six successors. This is most apparent from K’inich Yo’nal Ahk’s inaugural Stela 25 (Fig. 8.24), depicting the new ruler seated on his throne in an elevated niche, a mo tif used to mark the accession of his successors, a clue that helped Tatiana Proskouriakoff first demonstrate the historical content of Maya texts (Chapter 3). The niche probably represents a wooden scaffold or litter for carrying the king in his in augural procession. The association of wooden scaffolds with the inauguration of Maya kings begins by the Late Preclassic in the Maya lowlands (see Plate 5a and the box on San Bartolo in Chapter 6). During a reign of some thirty-six years K’inich Yo’nal Ahk I led military cam paigns against several kingdoms competing for control over the commerce that flowed along the Usumacinta River. In 628 he defeated Palenque, taking captive one of its lords named Ch’ok Balam. He also was victorious over the smaller center of Sak Tz’i (white dog), which eventually may have been incorporated into the Piedras Negras kingdom. The accession of Ruler 2 took place in 639, the year of his father’s death. Ruler 2 celebrated a long and active reign with a series of monuments that included ac counts of a war in 662 with a site now identified with Santa Elena. His early stelae were placed in front of Str. R-5 in the South Group. Later in his reign he returned to the West Group and had two stelae erected in front of Str. K-5. Ruler 2 appears to be the protagonist for the enigmatic Panel 2, which recalls the reception in a d 510 of six captured lords by the Early Classic ruler nicknamed Turtle Tooth, overseen by an ochk’in kaloomte’, a royal overlord from an unknown site, possibly Tikal. More information about Ruler 2 and the military successes during his reign is provided by the somewhat eroded text on Panel 15, excavated in front of Str. J-4 in 2000. Ruler 2 died late in a d 686 and was succeeded by his son, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II (Ruler 3), in 687. His inauguration is commemorated on Stela 6 (Fig. 8.24), and Panel 15 was probably dedicated by K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II in 706. The fact that it, along with all eight of his stelae, were placed in front of Str. J-4 in the West Group Acropolis, indicates Ruler 3 abandoned the South Group used by his father and grandfather for their monuments. His reign provides evidence of the importance of marriage alliances for the Piedras Negras kingdom, as in other lowland Maya states. Before his inauguration, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II married a woman named Lady K’atun Ajaw from an unidentified site named Namaan. Lady K’atun Ajaw was given promi nent attention by K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II, for she was portrayed with him on three of his stelae— testimony to the importance of Namaan to the Piedras Negras polity. In
426
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
fact, both Lady K’atun Ajaw and her three-year-old daughter, Lady Huntan Ahk, are featured in a rare royal family portrait on Stela 3. But despite the alliance with Namaan, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II had to defend his kingdom against its nearby rivals. In the process, Piedras Negras suffered some set backs, including the temporary loss of La Mar, one of its most important secondary centers. In another engagement, a sajal of K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II was captured by Palenque, probably in 725. A year later, however, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II claimed the capture of a sajal from Yaxchilan. K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II lived a full life, celebrating his three k’atun anniversary in 724, although he must have died about five years later in 729. His tomb has been identified with Burial 5, excavated in the 1930s by the University of Pennsylvania project from beneath the court in front of Str. J-5. The vaulted chamber of Burial 5 contained the bones of an adult male and two adolescents, apparently sacrificed re tainers. The adult male was accompanied by an array of offerings, and his front teeth were inlaid with pyrite and jade. Among the offerings and adornments were a hematite mosaic mirror and four bloodletters (stingray spines) inscribed with K’inich Yo’nal Ahk’s name. First recognized by Proskouriakoff, the glyphs on a set of four carved shells also refer to his marriage to Lady K’atun Ajaw. His son and successor. Ruler 4, took the throne in 729, as depicted on Stela 11 (Fig. 8.24). The unique scene carved on his Stela 40 shows Ruler 4 conducting a scat tering ritual above the tomb of a woman, probably his mother. This could reflect the importance of a matrilineal link for his claim to the throne. Nonetheless, while his immediate predecessors represent father-to-son succession, this pattern changed af ter Ruler 4. The following three rulers were apparently all brothers, sons of Ruler 4. We know something of the political hierarchy within the Piedras Negras king dom from mentions of subordinates in royal texts, as well as several smaller monu ments from secondary centers. We have already noted two of these subordinate sites, La Mar and Sak Tz’i (apparently controlled, in part, by conquest), along with N a maan, secured by a royal marriage alliance. During Ruler 4 ’s reign, one of his prin cipal subordinates, Aj Chak Wayib’ K’utiim, sajal of another secondary site, El Cayo, was portrayed on a beautifully carved altar. Later texts reveal that Piedras Negras kings presided over the installation of their subordinate lords (sajalob ’) at secondary centers, such as La Mar. In other cases, a high-ranking ajaw had the authority to in stall another subordinate, as when the ruler of Sak Tz’i presided over the installation of the sajal of El Cayo. This indicates that an organizational hierarchy of ajawab3and sajalob’ administered subdivisions of the Piedras Negras kingdom under the ultimate authority of the king. The first k’atun of Ruler 4 ’s reign fell in 749 and was later recalled during the reign of Ruler 7 on one of the most famous of Classic Maya sculptures, Panel 3 (Fig. 8.25). This depicts Ruler 4 presiding over a palace scene from his throne, ad-
Fig. 8.24. Stelae from Piedras Negras, Guatemala, that depict rulers seated in niches representing inauguration scaffolds, commemorating royal accession: (upper left) Stela 25, K'inich Yo'nal Ahk I (Ruler 1), AD 603; (lower left) Stela 6, K'inich Yo'nal Ahk II (Ruler 3), AD 687; (above left) Stela 1 1, Ruler 4, AD 729; (above right) Stela 14, K'inich Yo'nal Ahk III (Ruler 5), AD 758 (note the portrait of the maternal figure below the niche).
428
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
dressing an assemblage of his subordinate sajalob’ and guests, named in the accom panying text. One of these visitors is identified as Yopaat Balam II, ruler of Yaxchilan, who may have reigned between 742 and 752 (see Table 8.4). The Panel 3 text in cludes a reference to an ancestor of Yopaat Balam II whose inauguration at Yaxchilan was overseen by Piedras Negras. This suggests that Piedras Negras supported Yopaat Balam II, as either the ruler of Yaxchilan or a candidate competing against other would-be rulers. This was clearly a Piedras Negras view of history; a very different reality soon prevailed at Yaxchilan (discussed below), since no texts referring to Yopaat Balam II survive at that site. Thus, if Yopaat Balam II did rule Yaxchilan dur ing this interval, all references to his reign were expunged after the fact. The text of Panel 3 ends with an account of Ruler 4 ’s death and his burial three days later on November 29, 757. M ost of Ruler 4 ’s stelae were set in front of Str. J-3 in the West Group, indicating he might have been buried there. However, Panel 3 was set in Str. O-13, located in the East Group, and its text closes with a ref erence to an och* k ’ak’ ritual (“fire enters,” likely referring to ceremonial burning conducted by Ruler 7 in Ruler 4 ’s tomb). In 1997 archaeologists Héctor Escobedo and Tomás Barrientos excavated in front of Str. O -13, revealing a royal interment. Designated Burial 13, it was composed of bones from an adult male and two juve niles, just like Burial 5 excavated over sixty years before. But some of the bones were absent, and those present had been burned. These were clear signs of a fire ritual con ducted years after the original burial, just like that described on Panel 3. Burial 13’s location and the evidence of later disturbance indicate that it was almost certainly the last resting place of Ruler 4. The son of Ruler 4, Yo’nal Ahk III, was inaugurated in 758. Witnessed by his mother, this event was commemorated by Stela 14, the best-preserved niche m otif monument (Fig. 8.24). Stela 14, together with Yo’nal Ahk Ill’s Stela 16, were set in front of Str. O-13. Stela 16 records the accession of a principal sa jal at the secondary center of La Mar. N ot much is known about the short reign of Yo’nal Ahk III, including the date of his death, sometime in 767. Stela 23 records the 767 inauguration of his successor, identified as H a’ K’in X ook, the brother of Yo’nal Ahk III. Although relatively little is known of his reign as well, it appears that his tenure ended under unusual circumstances. The text on Throne 1 (dedicated by his brother and successor, Ruler 7) records that H a’ K’in X ook “abandoned the rulership,” which Stephen Houston proposed was a reference to his abdication of the throne in favor of Ruler 7. There was an interregnum of over a year before the last identified king of Piedras Negras, Ruler 7, came to the throne in 781. This may reflect problems in the royal accession. Although Ruler 7’s royal pedigree is not certain, it is likely he was a younger brother of Rulers 5 and 6. In any case, Ruler 7 maintained the focus on Str. O-13 begun by his immediate predecessors. In 782 he had the previously mentioned
Fig. 8.2 5. Wall Panel 3, Piedras Negras, Guatemala, dedicated by Ruler 7 to commemorate the desig nation of the royal heir by Ruler 4 (shown seated on his throne) in AD 757; one of the three visiting lords on the left is apparently Yopaat Balam of Yaxchilan; original (above) and restoration drawing by M. Louise Baker (be/ow).
430
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Panel 3 set inside Str. O-13, recalling the reign and burial of Ruler 4, his presumed father. Ruler 7’s two monuments, Stelae 12 and 15, were atypically set on the sum mit of this same structure. In 785 he commissioned Throne 1, with its splendidly carved back panel and a text that apparently makes reference to the abdication of Ruler 6. Throne 1 was placed in Str. J-6, his newly constructed palace and reception area in the Acropolis. Ruler 7 appears to have led Piedras Negras on an aggressive course— one that would, in the end, prove fatal to his kingdom. He recorded a series of victories, be ginning with the defeat of Santa Elena in 787. This was followed by two “star war” triumphs (in 792 and 794) over a major rival, Pomoná, located downriver from Piedras Negras. Ruler 7 was assisted in both of these victories by his La Mar ajaw, known as Parrot Chaak. The beautifully carved Stela 12 portrays Ruler 7, accompa-
Fig. 8.26. Throne 1 from Piedras Negros Str. J-6, very similar to that depicted on Wall Panel 3 (Fig. 8.25); found smashed to pieces probably as result of an attack on Piedras Negras by Yaxchilan (ca. ad 808). 7
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
431
• • •
nied by Parrot Chaak and a loyal sa jal, sitting in judgment over an array of bound captives from Pomoná placed beneath them. A little more than a decade later, Ruler 7 experienced the same fate as his Pomoná captives. Dating to 808, the latest-known monument at Yaxchilan, Lintel 10, ends by identifying Ruler 7 as the b ’aak (captive) of K’inich Tatb’u Skull III, king of Yaxchilan. The archaeological evidence also indicates that Ruler 7’s reign at Piedras Negras ended in violence and destruction. When the University of Pennsyl vania archaeologists excavated Str. J-6 in the 1930s, they found Ruler 7 ’s great Throne 1 shattered. Its fragments were scattered on the palace floor, and the portrait faces on the throne’s back had been entirely destroyed. After its discovery it was re paired and restored (Fig. 8.26). The more recent excavations in the 1990s found other signs of burning and destruction, especially in the area of the royal palace. Al though there is evidence of later occupation at Piedras Negras, monument dedica tions, construction, and other royal activity did not continue into the ninth century. It seems likely that Yaxchilan’s victory and its capture of Ruler 7 effectively ended dy nastic rule and destroyed Piedras Negras as a polity capital. Commerce on the Usumacinta remained important, and it is likely that for an unknown span after 808, elite lords at former dependencies such as La Mar and El Cayo continued to admin ister a rapidly declining population in the former Piedras Negras kingdom, with Sak Tz’i mentioned on a text as late as ad 864.
H isto ry a n d Propaganda a t Yaxchilan M ost of what we know about the Classic-period kingdom of Yaxchilan comes from the historical accounts commissioned by its later kings. Except for one notable Early Classic text, very little is known about Yaxchilan before the Late Classic era when it became a powerful city (Fig. 8.27). In fact, prior to the reign of Itzamnaaj Balam II ( a d 6 8 1 -7 4 2 ), Yaxchilan was apparently a relatively small capital, although by the fifth century it was already struggling with Piedras Negras for regional domination. The royal histories of Tikal, Copan, and Piedras Negras have proved to be consistent with the results of archaeological research, but at Yaxchilan there is evidence to sug gest some retrospective texts were used to manipulate and even rewrite dynastic his tory to suit the ambitions of at least one of its kings, Bird Jaguar IV. The later accounts trace the origins of Yaxchilan’s dynasty to a ruler named Yopaat Balam I, credited with founding the dynasty in 320 (Table 8.4). The retro spective king lists record a series of wars between Yaxchilan and its neighbors during the Early Classic. Chief among these foes was Piedras Negras, with which Yaxchilan likely fought for control of the Usumacinta trade route. The first record of a royal captive belongs to the sixth ruler, K’inich Tatb’u Skull I. The seventh ruler, Moon Skull, is credited with a victory over Piedras Negras (ca. 460). His successor, Bird Jaguar II, captured a vassal of the Piedras Negras king (ca. 478). His son, the ninth
432 .
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Fig. 8.27. Map of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico: the plazas and buildings of the site core are con structed on the terraces along the southern bank of the Usumacinta River.
Yaxchilan ruler, known as Knot-eye Jaguar I, had several victories, even capturing a lord named Aj Balam from Tikal. But Knot-eye Jaguar’s career ended in defeat by Piedras Negras (ca. 521), where he is portrayed as a captive on that site’s Lintel 12. His brother, K’inich Tatb’u Skull II, led Yaxchilan to several victories, culminating in the capture of a Calakmul lord in 537. K’inich Tatb’u Skull II commissioned four lintels with a beautifully carved text to record these and his predecessor’s military successes. After this the historical record is almost blank for nearly a century (5 3 7 -6 2 9 ). Only one of the four kings who reigned during this era is known, Knot-eye Jaguar II. The next identified king, Bird Jaguar III (629-c a . 669), was given the title of fifteenth ruler in the dynastic line. The events of Bird Jaguar Ill’s rule come from the hiero glyphic stairway. Stelae 3 and 6, and Throne 2, all commissioned by his grandson, Bird Jaguar IV. These monuments were carved to create a legacy for Bird Jaguar III where none apparently existed. From this it is suspected that Yaxchilan actually
TABUE 8 . 4
Dynastie chronology of Yaxchilan Ruler
Long Count date
Y o p a a t B a la m 1 (Founder)
8 .1 6 .2 .9 .1 ?
I t z a m n a a j B a la m 1
Date AD
Events
359?
Accession as "the first seated lord"
—
378?
Death of 2nd ruler
B ird J a g u a r 1
8 . 1 7 . 1 .1 7 .1 6 ?
378?
Accession of 3rd ruler
Y a x D e e r - A n tle r S k u ll
8 . 1 7 . 1 3 . 3 .8 ?
389?
Accession of 4th ruler
R u le r 5
?
?
K 'in ic h T a tb 'u S k u ll 1
?
?
M o o n S k u ll
9 .0 .1 9 .2 .4
454
D edicated the "Four Bat" Palace
ca. 4 6 0
Captured Ruler A of Piedras Negras?
—
B ird J a g u a r II
9 . 1 .1 2 .7 .8 ? —
K n o t- e y e J a g u a r 1
C aptured Bird Jaguar of Bonam pak
467?
Accession of 8th ruler
ca. 4 7 8
Captured a lord from Piedras N e gras
9 .3 .1 3 .1 2 .1 9
508
Captured Aj Balam from Tikal
9 .4 .0 .0 .0
514
C elebrated k'atun ending (Stela 2 7 )
c a. 5 2 1 ?
Taken captive by Piedras N e gras
—
Ruler C
K 'in ic h T a tb 'u S k u ll II
9 .4 .1 1 .8 .1 6
526
Accession of 1 Oth ruler
Father: Bird Jaguar II; mother: Lady
9 .5 .2 .1 0 .6
537
Captured a lord from Calakm ul
—
564
Captured a lord from Lacan ha
9 . 9 .1 6 .1 0 .1 3
629
Accession as 15th ruler
646?
Captured lord from Hix W itz
Chuen; reigned Feb. 1 1 , 5 2 6 - c a . 5 3 7 (ca. 11 years); ded icated Lintels 11, 22, 34, 35, 37, 47, 48, 49 During the period o f 5 3 7 - 6 2 9 , only one of four Yaxchilan rulers has been identified:
K n o t- e y e J a g u a r II
B ird J a g u a r III W ife : Lady Pakal; reigned Sept. 15,
—
6 2 9 - c a . 6 6 9 (ca. 4 9 years); title: 15th ruler counted from Founder
I t z a m n a a j B a la m II
9 . 1 2 . 8 .1 4 .1
680
Captured A j N ik
Born: ?; died June 1 5 , 7 4 2 ; father:
9 .1 2 .9 .8 .1
681
Accession
Bird Jaguar III; mother: Lady Pakal;
9 .1 2 .1 7 .1 2 .0
689
Captured A j Sak Ichiy Pat
wives: Lady K 'a b 'a l Xook, Lady
9 .1 4 .1 .1 7 .1 4
713
Captured A j K'an Usja
—
726
Yaxchilan sajal taken captive by
Sak B 'iyaan, Lady Ik' Skull of
Piedras N egras Ruler 3 , Yo'nal Ahk II
C alakm ul; reigned O ct. 2 0 , 6 8 1 -June 1 5 , 7 4 2 (6 0 years);
9 .1 5 .0 .1 2 .0
732
Captured lord from H ix W itz
ded icated Altars 7 , 1 2 , 2 2 , H.S . 3 ,
9 .1 5 .1 0 .1 7 .1 4
742
Death
—
749
W itnessed k'atun celebration of
Lintels 4 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 6 , 5 6 , Stelae 1 3 , 14, 15, 1 7 , 18, 19, 2 0 , 2 3 During the Interregnum o f 7 4 2 - 7 5 2 ,
Piedras N e gras Ruler 4
one Yaxchilan ruler is identified a t Piedras N egras:
Y o p a a t B a la m II
B ird J a g u a r IV
9 .1 5 .9 .1 7 .1 6
741
Staff cerem ony with father
Bom: A ug. 2 3 , 7 0 9 ; d ied 7 6 8
9 .1 6 .0 .1 3 .1 7
752
Captured sajal o f W a k 'a b '
(age c a. 5 9 ); father: Itzam naaj
9 .1 6 .0 .1 4 .5
752
Birth of royal heir
Balam II; mother: Lady Ik' Skull of
9 .1 6 .1 .0 .0
752
Accession; received 3 captives
C alakm ul; wives: Lady G re a t Skull,
(Stela 11) ( c o n tin u e d )
434
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
TA BU 8 .4 (co n tin u e d )
Ruler L a d y W a k Tuun a n d L a d y W a k
Dato AD
Events
9 .1 6 .4 .1 .1
755
C a p tu r e d J e w e le d S kull o f S a n a b '
9 .1 6 .6 .0 .0
757
C e le b r a te d 5 tun a n n iv e r s a r y o f re ig n
Long Count dato
H u k 'a y
J a la m C h a n A ¡ a w o f M o tu l d e S a n José, L a d y M u t B a la m o f
w ith son a n d h e ir, C h e l Te' C h a n
H ix W i t z ; r e ig n e d A p r. 2 9 , 7 5 2 - 6 8
K 'in ic h (Itz a m n a a j B a la m III)
( 1 6 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d : A lta rs 3 , 4 , 759
9 , H .S . 1 , 3 , 4 , Lintels 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ,
C a p u r e d a k 'in a l a j a w (o f P ie d ra s N e g r a s ? ), ass isted b y T ilo o m , s a ja l o f
1 6 ,2 1 ,2 7 , 2 8, 2 9, 3 0 ,3 1 ,3 3 , 3 8,
La P a s a d ita
3 9 , 4 0 , 5 9 , S te la e 1 , 3 / 3 3 , 6 , 9 , 768
D e a th
769?
A c c e s s io n
1 0 , 1 1 , 3 5 , T e m p le 8 T a b let
—
H z a m n a o i B a la m III B orn: F e b . 1 4 , 7 5 2 ; d ie d c a . 8 0 0
— _
783
R e c e iv e d 3 c a p tiv e s o f A j C h a k M a a x
( a g e c a . 4 8 ) ; fa th e r: Bird J a g u a r IV;
—
787
W a r a g a in s t S a k T z 'i ' a llie d w ith
—
790
O v e r s a w a c c e s s io n o f n e w B o n a m p a k
798
T akes c a p tiv e s
800
Takes c a p tiv e s
Y a ja w C h a n M u w a a n o f B o n a m p a k
m o th e r: L a d y G r e a t Skull; w ife : L ady C h 'a b A ja w ; r e ig n e d c a . 7 6 9 - 8 0 0
ru ler
(c a . 3 0 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d A lta r 1 0 , H .S . 5 , Lintels 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 5 1 , 5 2 ,
9 .1 8 .7 .6 .0
5 3 , 5 4 , 5 7 , 5 8 , S te la e 5 , 7 , 2 0 ,
9 .1 8 .9 .1 0 .1 0
2 1 ,2 2 , 2 4 , 2 9
—
ca. 8 0 0
D e a th (a tta c k o n Y a x c h ila n ? )
K 'in ic h T a tb 'u S k u ll III
_ —
ca. 8 0 0
A c ce s sio n
808
C a p tu r e d P ie d ra s N e g r a s R u ler 7
Fath e r: It z a m n a a j B a la m III; m other: L a d y C h 'a b A j a w r e ig n e d c a . 8 0 0 - ? ; d e d ic a te d Lintel 1 0
808
D e d ic a te d T e m p le 3 , las t ro y a l a t Y a x c h ila n b u ild in g
S ou rces: M a th e w s 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 9 7 ; M a r tin & G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; N a h m 1 9 9 7 ; P r o s k o u r ia k o ff 1 9 6 3 , 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 9 3 ; S c h e ie & F r e id el 1 9 9 0 ; T ate 1 9 9 0 .
suffered a setback during Bird Jaguar Ill’s reign, giving rise to the need for Bird Jaguar IV to create a suitable history to restore the prestige of his grandfather. Yaxchilan reached the peak of its power during the reign of Bird Jaguar Ill’s son, Itzan>naaj Balam II, and his son, Bird Jaguar IV. As at other Maya sites, their success was due to the combination of longevity and aggression against neighboring polities to secure the resources and prestige that followed military success. Itzamnaaj Balam II completed an extraordinary reign of some sixty-one years, during which he commissioned buildings embellished with nine carved lintels, along with eleven m on uments and one hieroglyphic stairway. These record a long series of captives taken in battle. Proskouriakoff’s estimate of ca. 647 for his birth would mean Itzamnaaj Balam II was over ninety years old at his death in 742. Near the end of his reign, when he must have been in his eighties, Temple 44 was dedicated as a “war memo rial” to Itzamnaaj Balam’s prowess as a warrior and as a taker of captives, although by this time his subordinates probably shouldered the burden of military command. Interestingly, almost all of Itzamnaaj Balam’s buildings and monuments date to the final k’atun of his reign. Except for the taking of minor captives, there is nothing in the historical record that explains how, some forty years into his reign, Itzamnaaj
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
435
• • •
YAXCHILAN, CHIAPAS, MEXICO Yaxchilan, the large and late-blooming center of
portion of the site. Yaxchilan possesses impres
the Usumacinta region, is located about 8 0 km
sive architectural remains, with a great plaza
(50 mi.) downriver from Altar de Sacrificios.
bordered by palaces and temples extending
Yaxchilan is well situated, occupying the south
along a terrace above the river (Fig. 8 .2 7 ).
ern bank of the Usumacinta at the top of a
Above this, a series of important buildings sur
nearly closed loop on the Mexican side of the
mount the higher terraces and hills to the south,
river. It is thus defended from landward a p
overlooking both the river and the endless green
proaches by a natural moat on all sides, except
expanse of the lowland forest beyond. The ex
for a narrow waist of land to the south. From this
teriors of many of these buildings are elabo
secure base the Classic kings of Yaxchilan ruled
rately decorated, but ever since Maudslay's first
a powerful and independent polity throughout
forays, it is the beautifully carved stone lintels
the Classic era, although to do so they had to
above their doorways that have made Yaxchilan
enlist the support of elite administrators.
justifiably famous. In fact, these sculptured lin
Yaxchilan became known to the outside world
tels, together with the carved stelae set in front
by the explorations of Désiré Charnay, who
of important buildings, provide the major rec
called the site Lorillard City, and soon afterward
ord in text and image for the dynastic history of
by the surveys and recordings made by Alfred
Yaxchilan. This history was first worked out
Maudslay and Teobert M aler. Maudslay re
by Proskouriakoff and has been expanded in re
ferred to the site as Menché, but M aler later
cent years with studies by Peter Mathews and
named it Yaxchilan. In more recent years Yax
other epigraphers and art historians. The most
chilan has been investigated by archaeologists
important sources for the early dynastic history
from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
are the inscriptions of Hieroglyphic Stairway 1
Historia of Mexico. This work has succeeded in
and a lintel discovered in 19 83 by archaeolo
consolidating and preserving at least the central
gist Roberto Garcia Moll.
Balam II suddenly gained the resources to support his building program. In fact, Piedras Negras records a victory and capture of a Yaxchilan sajal in 726. Yaxchilan’s most valuable resource was the Usumacinta and the goods transported over its course. A shift in the balance of power between the polities that controlled this crit ical trade route could have provided Yaxchilan a boost from increased commercial revenues. Thus, an event like the apparent dynastic shift at Piedras Negras in 729 (discussed above) may have allowed Yaxchilan to assert greater control over the flow of Usumacinta trade and thereby gain the resources to embark on Itzamnaaj Balam’s construction and monument projects. According to his own accounts, Itzamnaaj Balam’s career as a warrior began early, for there are repeated references to his capture of a neighboring lord in 680.
436
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
This event, just before Itzamnaaj Balam II took the throne in 68 1, was probably un dertaken to supply the customary human sacrifice to sanctify his rites of accession. Years later his inauguration and other crucial events in his life were recalled in the fa mous lintels above each of the three doorways of Temple 23, named as the yotoot (palace) of Itzamnaaj Balam’s principal wife, La4y K’ab’al Xook. This building, ded icated during the forty-fifth year of Itzamnaaj Balam’s reign in 726, is located along the southern side of the plaza that parallels and overlooks the Usumacinta. The three carved lintels from this building are shown in Figure 8.28. Lintel 25 above the cen tral doorway portrays Lady K’ab’al Xook performing a conjuring ritual for her hus band’s inauguration in 681, materializing the “flint and shield” of Aj K’ak’ Chaak, a patron deity of Yaxchilan, from the jaws of a great serpent. Lintel 24 over the east doorway shows Itzamnaaj Balam II holding a burning torch over his kneeling wife, Lady K’ab’al Xook, who is engaged in a ritual bloodletting by passing a thorned cord through her tongue. Lintel 2 6 over the west doorway depicts Lady K’ab’al X ook pre senting a jaguar mask to Itzamnaaj Balam II, dressed as a warrior and holding a large knife, years later in 724. After an exceptional reign of sixty years, Itzamnaaj Balam II died in mid-742. This is followed by a ten-year hiatus (7 4 2 -5 2 ) in Yaxchilan’s official king list, before a new ruler. Bird Jaguar IV, took the throne. Interestingly, the new king was not the son of either Lady K’ab’al Xook, Itzamnaaj Balam’s principal wife, or his secondary wife, also recorded in Itzamnaaj Balam’s texts, Lady Sak B’iyaan. In fact, Bird Jaguar IV’s mother is not mentioned by Itzamnaaj Balam II. On Stela 10 Bird Jaguar IV names his mother as Lady Ik’ Skull, a royal woman from Calakmul, along with his father, Itzamnaaj Balam II. These facts suggest that following Itzamnaaj Balam’s death there was a problem in the royal succession. While not mentioned in Yaxchilan’s royal history, there may have been other claimants to the throne, perhaps even a king who did not survive the 7 4 2 -5 2 interregnum. The latter possibility is supported, ironically, by the royal texts of Yaxchilan’s foremost foe, Piedras Negras (Table 8.3). As already mentioned, that site’s Panel 3 (Fig, 8.25) records a Yaxchilan king, Yopaat Balam II, who was a guest of Piedras Negras Ruler 4 in 749, during Yaxchilan’s hiatus period. This suggests a royal heir, perhaps the son of Lady K’ab’al Xook, named Yopaat Balam II became king upon Itzamnaaj Balam’s death and was backed by Piedras Negras.
Fig. 8.28. [next three pages). Drawings of the carved lintels from Yaxchilan Temple 23 (ad 726): [first] Lintel 24, showing the ruler Itzamnaaj Balam II and his wife, Lady K'ab'al Xook, conducting a bloodletting ritual; (second) Lintel 25, showing Lady K'ab'al Xook before a conjured image of the dy nastic founder, Yopaat Balam, who appears from the jaws of a two-headed serpent; [third] Lintel 26, showing Itzamnaaj Balam II preparing for battle, assisted by Lady K'ab'al Xook.
440
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
But no record of Yopaat Balam II survives at Yaxchilan. After the ten-year silence of the interregnum, the official history begins again with sculptures and texts that advance the case for Bird Jaguar IV (Table 8.4). If Yopaat Balam II ever sat on the throne, he was usurped by Bird Jaguar IV, who then systematically erased any record of his reign. Many of Bird Jaguar’s actions thereafter, duly recorded in the texts and portrayals he commissioned, seem clearly aimed to proclaim and reinforce his polit ical legitimacy as king. Warfare was an important means for this, and Bird Jaguar’s accounts indicate he spent the decade after his father’s death leading numerous raids from Yaxchilan, taking a series of captives, all recorded on his later monuments. Throughout his reign he used warfare to expand the power and prestige of his realm. Military success not only reinforced Bird Jaguar’s authority but also promoted the careers of his loyal subordinate lords. Royal marriage was another means to reinforce legitimacy. Bird Jaguar IV mar ried an important Yaxchilan woman, Lady Great Skull, and thereby must have gained vital local support from her elite kinsmen. This marriage produced a son, born shortly before he took the throne in 752, who would ultimately become the next ruler of Yaxchilan. During a reign of only sixteen years, Bird Jaguar IV also took at least three additional royal wives to cement alliances with other lowland king doms. Two of his wives were from Motul de San José and one was from H ix W itz— a defeated enemy of both his grandfather and father. Bird Jaguar IV seemed to be de termined to outdo his long-lived father, not only in war and marriage alliances but in construction projects and the dedication of new monuments. Much of Yaxchilan was rebuilt during Bird Jaguar’s reign, and he commissioned more monuments than his father. But in an unprecedented way, Bird Jaguar’s efforts betray an agenda to rewrite history to boost the legitimacy of his rule. In this sense, far more than any other Maya king. Bird Jaguar IV is recognized as a master of political propaganda. Bird Jaguar IV advertised his legitimacy to rule Yaxchilan in both text and image on Stela 11 (Fig. 8.29). The text records his accession to the throne in 752, and the carved scene on one side of the monument shows Bird Jaguar IV standing over three captives he has taken for sacrifice. Above him are shown his parents, Itzamnaaj Balam II and Lady Ik’ Skull. The other side of Stela 11 depicts Bird Jaguar IV ac companying his father in performing an important dance ritual in 741, a year before his father’s death. Itzamnaaj Balam II had commemorated the same rituals earlier in his reign by dedicating both Stela 16 and Temple 41 on Yaxchilan’s highest hilltop. Bird Jaguar IV placed his Stela 11 in front of a twin building, Temple 40, on the same hilltop, thus emphasizing the continuity of rule from father to son. This theme of continuity and legitimacy from father to son can be seen in Bird Jaguar’s construction of Temple 21, placed next to his father’s Temple 23. Bird Jaguar’s Lintels 15, 16, and 17 inside Temple 21 directly emulate the scenes his fa ther ordered to be carved on Temple 23’s lintels (Fig. 8.28). Stela 35, found in Temple 21, was dedicated to Bird Jaguar’s mother, Lady Ik’ Skull. As if to make up for her
Fig. 8 .2 9 . Yaxchilan Stela 11 : the ruler Bird Jaguar IV, wearing an elaborate deity mask, stands over three of his captives, probably be fore their sacrifice to sanctify his ac cession in
AD 7 5 2 ;
the figures in the
upper register have been identified as his parents, Itzam naaj Balam II and Lady Ik' Skull of Calakmul.
442.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
absence in his father’s sculptures and texts, Bird Jaguar’s mother is depicted on Stela 35 performing the same tongue bloodletting ritual as Itzamnaaj Balam’s queen, Lady K’ab’al Xook, depicted on Lintel 25 in Temple 23. Bird Jaguar’s efforts to preserve and rewrite the history of his predecessors reveal additional means he used to increase his prestige and reinforce his own legitimacy. He had the four lintels carved 200 years previously during K’inich Tatb’u Skull II’s reign reset into one of his buildings, Temple 12, thus preserving Yaxchilan’s first king list. It appears he also ordered the repair of an even earlier monument, Knot-eye Jaguar I’s Stela 27. To resurrect the lost legacy of his grandfather, Bird Jaguar III, he commissioned the carving of Stelae 3 and 6, along with Throne 2. At least one of these, Stela 6, was recarved from an earlier monument (perhaps dedicated during the interregnum by Yopaat Balam II). To cap this effort, Bird Jaguar IV had Hieroglyphic Stairway 1 built so that his reign would appear as the culmination of 300 years of Yaxchilan’s dynastic history. Much of the central area of Yaxchilan was rebuilt and expanded during Bird Jaguar’s reign. Temple 21 is one of at least six buildings flanking the plaza parallel ing the Usumacinta, all commissioned by Bird Jaguar IV. One of the most important of these buildings is Temple 33, for it proclaimed Bird Jaguar’s legitimacy by con necting him to both his father and grandfather. When archaeologists cleared its steps in 1974, they revealed a series of carved ballgame scenes. These depict Bird Jaguar IV, his father, Itzamnaaj Balam II, and his grandfather, Bird Jaguar III, playing the game with large spheres fashioned from their captive’s bodies. One of Bird Jaguar IV’s helpless victims is an enemy lord named Jeweled Skull, the prize from his first im portant victory in 755. Above these carved steps, Temple 3 3’s Lintel 1 shows Bird Jaguar IV at his inauguration dressed in the full regalia of a Maya king, displaying the K’awiil scepter, accompanied by his first wife, Lady Great Skull (Fig. 8.30). A tomb found beneath Temple 3 3’s frontal platform may be that of Bird Jaguar IV, or even Itzamnaaj Balam II. The other two lintels in this building (Fig. 8.30) emphasize the other major con cerns of Bird Jaguar’s reign: ensuring the succession of his son and securing the loyal support of the sajalob’ who administered the secondary centers of his kingdom. Lin tel 2 shows the Bird Jaguar IV accompanied by his son and heir, Chel Te’ Chan K’inich, who assisted his father in a royal ritual. Lintel 3 shows Bird Jaguar IV hold ing the K’awiil scepter in another ritual, this time assisted by a sajal, who also was privileged to display a similar scepter. In both cases, the figure of the king is larger and dominates these scenes, but the depiction of the king of Yaxchilan with his royal heir and a loyal subordinate was obviously intended to increase the prestige of these individuals. Bird Jaguar’s objectives are clear, to leave no doubt as to w ho the next ruler will be and to flatter his sajal and thereby solidify his allegiance to the king. One of Bird Jaguar’s subordinate lords was named Tiloom, who was installed at the strategic center of La Pasadita, north of Yaxchilan. From its hilltop location,
A
B
C
D
Fig. 8.3 0. Drawings of the carved lintels from Yaxchilan Temple 33
E
(a
d
F
G
756): [above] Lintel 1, acces
sion of the ruler Bird Jaguar IV, holding his K'awiil scepter, with his wife, Lady Great Skull, carrying a bundle; (page 44 4) Lintel 2, Bird Jaguar IV and his son and heir Chel Te' Chan (at left), both holding cross-shaped scepters decorated with birds; (page 44 5 ) Lintel 3, Bird Jaguar IV with his sajal, both holding K'awiil scepters. [continued)
444 •
•
THE
APOGEE
o f
MAYA
s t a t e s
i n
t h e
l a t e
c l a s s i c
•
Fig. 8.30. (continued)
La Pasadita controlled the boundary between Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras and monitored movement along the major land route between these two kingdoms, so that Tiloom was given the major responsibility of defending Yaxchilan against at tack. In return for his loyal service, Bird Jaguar IV granted Tiloom the privilege of having lintels at La Pasadita carved by one of his own royal artisans (whose name ap pears on the carvings). These record a conflict in 759 during which Tiloom assisted Bird Jaguar IV in capturing a k'inil ajaw (sun lord), probably from Piedras Negras, and in conducting a scattering ritual in 766. The final scene depicts Tiloom paying homage to the royal heir, Chel Te* Chan K’inich, seated on a royal throne. The La Pasadita lintels demonstrate the relationship between these twin con cerns, for loyal service to the king included a commitment to support Bird Jaguar’s choice for his successor. These concerns with royal succession probably originated in the lessons learned from the hiatus that followed the death of Bird Jaguar’s father.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
A
B
C
D
E
G
H
Fig. 8.30. (continued)
The later buildings of Bird Jaguar’s reign repeat references in text and image to his royal heir and his loyal subordinates first seen in Temple 33. These include Temple 1, located on a terrace at the base of a hill on the southeast side of the great plaza, and Temple 42, on a hilltop to the west of the same plaza. Temple 1 was the setting for Lintel 8, a famous scene depicting Bird Jaguar IV in the act of capturing Jeweled Skull (Fig. 8.31). But in this sculpture he flatters another of his important subordi nates by allowing his sajal, Kan Tok, to be shown taking another captive alongside his own.
A
B
F
C
E
D
G
Fig. 8.31. Drawing of Yaxchilan Lintel 8 from Temple 1 : the ruler Bird Jaguar IV captures the enemy Jeweled Skull, whose name glyph appears on his thigh; to the left, Bird Jaguar's sajal, Kan Tok, takes another captive (AD 755).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
447
• • •
As if to ensure the issue of his son’s succession, Bird Jaguar IV used the same means to secure the loyalty of his first wife’s kin. On the last known sculpture of his reign, Lintel 9 of Temple 2 (adjacent to Temple 1), Bird Jaguar IV conducted the same ritual commemorated on his accession monument, Stela 11. But this time, on the twenty-seventh anniversary of the celebration conducted with his father in 741, Bird Jaguar IV shared the event with his wife’s brother, Great Skull, who as the uncle of Chel Te’ Chan K’inich, was expected to secure the accession of the royal heir after Bird Jaguar’s death. The lintels in Temples 54 and 55 portray Bird Jaguar IV, Lady Great Skull, and their son, Chel Te’ Chan K’inich. In one of these, Lintel 52 of Temple 55, Bird Jaguar IV and his son appear together, both holding the symbol of royal office, the K’awiil scepter. Bird Jaguar’s efforts appear to have been successful. For after his death, his son, now royally named Itzamnaaj Balam III, took the throne. His uncle, Great Skull, re mained loyal and was rewarded by carved portraits on several of the young king’s lin tels. The record of Itzamnaaj Balam Ill’s reign is marked by a continuing emphasis on ritual events and war captives. Warfare in particular remained essential to secure the boundaries and dependencies of the Yaxchilan kingdom. The alliance with one of these dependencies, Bonampak (Fig. 8.32), was re inforced by a marriage between a woman from the Yaxchilan royal house and the Bonampak ruler, Yajaw Chan Muwaan. Itzamnaaj Balam III and Chan Muwaan waged war together against Sak Tz’i in 787. But Itzamnaaj Balam III no longer commanded the resources available to his father and grandfather. Although he ruled for some thirty years, Itzamnaaj Balam III sponsored far fewer monuments and buildings than his father. Three carved lintels, four stelae, and Hieroglyphic Stairway 5 are all associated with his major building, Temple 20. The carved text of Hiero glyphic Stairway 5 tallies some fifteen captives taken during his reign. N o reference to his death survives, but it must date to about 800. There is evidence of an attack on Yaxchilan about this time that may have resulted in Itzamnaaj Balam Ill’s death. In any case, evidence from a concentration of projectile points around Str. 44 suggests it may have been the location of a pivotal stand against unknown invaders. The fact that many of Itzamnaaj Balam Ill’s monuments are broken may also point to a suc cessful attack at the end of his reign. The son of Itzamnaaj Balam III was the last known ruler of Yaxchilan. K’inich Tatb’u Skull III seems to have come to the throne shortly after 800, and the record of his reign is limited to the cramped text carved on a single lintel from Temple 3, ded icated in 808. Temple 3, a small vestige of the buildings dedicated by Tatb’u Skull’s predecessors, is testimony to the rapidly diminished power and resources com manded by Yaxchilan at this time. But in keeping with its heritage, Lintel 3’s text lists Tatb’u Skull’s captives, ending with the name of Piedras Negras Ruler 7. Although
Fig. 8.3 2. M ap of Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico, showing the location of Str. 1, its three rooms decorated by the famous murals (see Plates 1 0 -1 5 ).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
449
• • •
BONAMPAK, CHIAPAS, MEXICO The small center of Bonampak is located on the
were set in the plaza, and Stelae 2 and 3 were
east side of the valley of the Lacanha, about
set flanking the Acropolis stairs. Three of these
2 0 km south of Yaxchilan. The site and its fa
(Stelae 1 -3 ) pertain to Chan Muwan, yajaw of
mous murals were reported to the outside world
Itzamnaaj Balam III, king of Yaxchilan, and pro
in 1 9 4 6 by Giles Healey. A subsequent recon
tagonist of the famous murals in Str. 1, a three-
naissance was conducted by the Carnegie Insti
roomed building on the first terrace of the
tution of Washington to record the murals and
Acropolis. The exterior of Str. 1 was decorated
other features of the site. The murals were pho
with stucco figures and reliefs, now largely gone
tographed and recorded by color paintings pre
(Fig. 8 .3 3 ). Lintels carved with texts and scenes
pared by Antonio Tejeda and Agustín Villagra.
of captive taking, in a style similar to those of
Subsequent work conducted by IN A H cleared
Yaxchilan, are set in each of the three door
the site and attempted to conserve the building
ways. According to the readings by Mathews,
and the murals within. In the 1990s, new imag
the earliest date is on Lintel 3, 9 .1 5 .9 .3 .1 4
ing technology was applied to document the
(740), and names Chan Muwan's father, Knot-
murals in a project led by M a ry M iller from Yale
eye Jaguar. Chan Muwan came to power at
University, resulting in far better definition of the
Bonampak in 9 .1 7 .5 .8 .9 (776). Lintel 2 dates
murals and glyphic texts, including the discov
to later in his reign, 9 .1 7 .1 6 .3 .8 (787), and
ery of previously undetected minute glyphs.
portrays
O n the basis of the known dated inscriptions,
his
Yaxchilan
overlord,
Itzamnaaj
Balam III.
there are only hints of Early Classic elite activity
The walls of all three rooms are covered with
at Bonampak, which was undoubtedly heavily
murals rendered in a vivid and highly skilled
influenced by nearby Yaxchilan. Peter Mathews
manner (Plates 1 0 -1 5 ) . They record the ac
identified several early rulers of Bonampak that
cession of Chan Muwan under the authority of
are named in the inscriptions of Yaxchilan. This
Itzamnaaj Balam III, and the heir designation of
relationship continued into the Late Classic. A
Chan Muwan's young son and related events
sacbe leads from Bonampak to the northeast,
that took place over a two-year period ( 7 9 0 -
and although its destination is unknown, it may
7 9 2 ). Although there has been some disagree
lead to Yaxchilan. Knot-eye Jaguar, the father of
ment among scholars as to the mural sequence,
the Bonampak ruler who commissioned the mu
the depicted events seem to flow from Room 1
rals, has been identified by Peter Mathews on a
through Rooms 2 and 3. Low benches occupy
wall panel at the site of Lacanha, located on the
most of the floor space in each room, and the
western side of the river. The architectural core of the site is composed
murals were probably intended to be viewed from the vantage of these features.
of an acropolis, built over a natural ridge, that
The narrative begins in Room 1 with a par
overlooks a large plaza flanked by smaller plat
tially preserved and deciphered Long Count
forms and buildings (Fig. 8 .3 2 ). Stelae 1 and 4
date and hieroglyphic text. The best reading for
450
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
BONAMPAK, CHIAPAS, MEXICO ( con tin u ed) (790),
(south wall, upper register). He is accompanied
probably referring to the initial event depicted in
by another warrior who may be Itzamnaaj
the upper register, the presentation of the royal
Balam ,from Yaxchilan, both wearing jaguar tu
the date appears to be 9 .1 8 .0 .3 .4
heir to the assembled court, including fourteen
nics and elaborate headdresses, protected by
lords dressed in long white mantles. The first
an entourage of elite warriors.
scene is within a palace, although its location
The aftermath is presented on the north wall.
cannot be determined (Plates 10 and 11). Two
Here the full-frontal figure holding his jaguar
seated figures, probably Chan Muwan and his
pelted spear, again probably Chan M uw an, ac
wife, the mother of the heir, watch from a large
companied by his warrior allies and entourage,
throne or dais (west wall). A second date in the
along with two women at the far right, stands on
text probably refers to an event 3 3 6 days later.
the summit of a platform to preside over the cap
Three lords are shown preparing for this cere
tives taken in the battle. The chief captive sits at
mony, one of whom, the frontally portrayed
Chan Muwan's feet, while the rest of the unfor
figure wearing the largest feathered headdress,
tunate prisoners are displayed on the six steps
is also probably Chan Muwan (north wall, up
of the platform, where they are tortured and
per register). The culminating ceremonial pro
bled from their fingernails, held and guarded by
cession is displayed on the lower register of
more victorious warriors. These are the captives
the room, complete with elaborately costumed
that will be sacrificed; one sprawled figure may
members of the court and nine musicians play
already be dead, and the severed head of an
ing gourd rattles, a wooden drum, and turtle
other has already been placed on the steps.
shells. The same three lords are shown dancing in the center of the procession (south wall).
The murals in Room 3 have suffered the most damage. Nonetheless, it is clear that they depict
Room 2 is filled with one of the true master
a great ceremony that probably culminated in
pieces of M aya art, a vivid and dynamic battle
the sequence of events being commemorated
scene that covers the walls and vaults of all but
(Plates 14 and 15). The ceremony seems to be
the north side of the room (Plates 12 and 13).
divided into two parts. The first is a display of
The confusion and horror of hand-to-hand com
elaborately costumed royalty on a stepped pyra
bat is brilliantly depicted, although the scene is
mid with a procession of dancers and musicians
damaged. Spears are thrust and thrown (one
below. The second is a more private setting in
penetrates the forehead of a warrior), prisoners
side a palace, including the ruler Chan Muw an
are taken by their hair, and pairs of victors com
standing with his noble entourage and the royal
bine to overwhelm single enemy warriors. At the
family seated on a dais like that seen in Room 1.
focus of the scene stands the war leader, Chan
In this last scene the royal family performs a
Muwan, standing full front and grasping a cap
bloodletting ritual to complete and seal the ritual
tive by the hair while holding a thrusting spear
cycle.
decorated by a jaguar pelt in his other hand
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
451
• • •
Fig. 8.33. Bonampak Str. 1 : elevation drawing of the building facade.
Yaxchilan seems to have ended the reign of the ruling house of its oldest foe, its own dynasty fell soon after.
Expansion of the Western Polities The western region of the Maya lowlands (Fig. i . i ) was the setting for interaction with non-Maya groups occupying the Gulf Coast and highland regions of Chiapas throughout the pre-Columbian era. It is likely that evidence of contacts between Olmec and Maya populations during the Preclassic are to be found here, for the nowdestroyed Olmec-style relief at Xoc is located within the area of later Classic Maya occupation. Much of the western lowlands was probably colonized by expanding Maya groups, but the timing and pattern of this process has yet to be determined. Relatively little work has been done in this region, apart from the investigations at several of the better known Classic Maya centers (Palenque, Tonina, Comalcalco), so that the delineation of the origins and development of Maya civilization in this area is by no means complete. Palenque and Tonina became the capitals of important rival states in the Late Classic. With continuing archaeological investigations, we are beginning to learn about the origins of these polity capitals during the Early Classic. Palenque was a dominant Classic Maya city of the western lowlands during much of the Late Clas sic. In the end, however, Tonina gained the upper hand over the region.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO Located in the southwestern lowlands, the fa
Today, as in the past, the visitor is captivated
mous Classic M aya site of Palenque is dramati
by the beauty of Palenque's temples and pal
cally situated at the foot of the northernmost hills
aces, placed like finely wrought jewels in a vivid
of the Chiapas highlands (Fig. 8 .3 4 ), overlook
tropical-green setting (Fig. 8 .3 4 ). Entering from
ing the vast forest-covered Gulf Coast plain.
the west, two of the site's most impressive struc
Palenque has been known since the eighteenth
tures invite exploration: the Temple of the Inscrip
century, when a succession of explorers, includ
tions, with its unusual five doorways, and the
ing Antonio del Rio, reported the site. In the
multiroom Palace, with its unique four-story tower
nineteenth century, Palenque became the most
(Plate 8c). To the north of the Palace and its plat
studied of all M aya sites, thanks to men such as
form stairway is a plaza with a small ball court
W illiam Dupaix, Frédéric Waldeck, John Lloyd
on its east side. The north side of the plaza is
Stephens, Désiré Charnay, and others. Alfred
bounded by a series of small temples. O n e of
Maudslay's
re
these is the Temple of the Count, named after
superb photographic
record
mains a valuable resource, especially for pho
Count Frédéric W aldeck, who reportedly lived
tographs of Palenque's famous stucco relief pan
there for several years while studying the ruins
els, since these fragile panels have suffered
of Palenque in the early nineteenth century. Palenque's distinctive architectural style is imme
damage in the intervening years. Investigations at Palenque continued in the
diately apparent. Multiple doorways, sloping up
early twentieth century, and the Mexican gov
per facades, and low, open-work roofeombs—
ernment began a program of conservation
all decorated with stucco relief panels— give
and restoration of the site before W orld W a r II
Palenque's architecture a delicate and serene ap
that has continued to the present day under a
pearance. W hen compared to the vertical thrust
succession of archaeologists. Pioneering épi-
of the lofty and dominating temples at Tikal,
graphie studies led by Floyd Lounsbury, David
Palenque's structures are in harmony with the
Kelley, Linda Scheie, Merle Greene Robertson,
green hills that rise like a backdrop behind them.
and Peter Mathews focused on the texts from
Instead of using stelae or altars, many of
Palenque, reconstructing from their decipher
Palenque's rulers were portrayed on carved stone
ments aspects of M aya cosmology and the
panels or modeled in plaster and placed on the
center's dynastic history. Beginning in the 19 90s
walls of buildings. Most of these are now frag
renewed archaeological investigations have ex
mentary (Fig. 8 .3 6 ), but both stone and stucco
cavated and consolidated a number of struc
work was once brightly painted, and many inte
tures, revealing several new royal tombs and
rior walls show traces of these modeled and
important inscriptions, while further mapping
painted decorations. Fortunately, some portraits
has found that the site is much larger and more
and most of the hieroglyphic texts carved on
densely
realized
stone panels remain largely intact, and these (or
(Fig. 8 .3 5 ). Excavations of the terraces of the
occupied
than
previously
skillful casts) can be seen inside several of the
Temple of the Sun have found a series of spec
site's most prominent buildings.
tacular ceramic incensarios (Plate 8a).
The first known
building
associated with
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO (confinued) K'inich Janaab' Pakal I, Palenques greatest
of Pakal, covered with jade beads, a disinte
ruler, is the Temple Olvidado, located in the
grated jade mosaic mask, and other offerings.
western portion of the site. In many ways this
The most stunning object in the tomb was
structure served as a prototype for Palenqueé
the
distinctive architectural
(Fig. 8 .4 0 ), depicting Pakal's apotheosis, emerg
style.
During
Pakal's
magnificently
carved
sarcophagus
lid
reign portions of the famous Palace still visible
ing like the sun at sunrise from the jaws of the
today were built, as was the Temple of the
underworld, reclining on the mask of the par
Count, north of the Palace complex. But the cul
tially skeletal sun god, marking the transition
mination of Pakal's construction efforts was the
from death to life. The implication of this associ
Temple of the Inscriptions, rising some 2 5 m on
ation is clear, for like the sun, Pakal mastered the
a rectangular, terraced platform, erected as his
forces of death and was reborn as a deity, just
mortuary shrine, with his tomb located beneath
as the sun is reborn each day at sunrise. The
(Fig. 8 .4 0 ). The tomb lay undetected during
pathway of their ascent is marked by the world
more than a century of explorations that failed
tree, shown sprouting from behind Pakal. In its
to detect the obvious clues to its existence. It was
jeweled branches rests the doubled-headed ser
discovered in the mid-twentieth century during
pent bar, the cosmic symbol of M a ya rulership,
the archaeological investigations of Alberto Ruz
and on its crown sits the celestial bird. The en
Lhuillier, when he noted that the inner walls of
tire scene is framed by a sky band containing
the temple did not end at their junction with the
the symbols of the most important celestial
floor, but continued below it. This, together with
deities, including the sun, the moon, and Venus.
the lifting holes in one large floor slab, led him
The figures and hieroglyphs on the sides of
to roise the slab, revealing a corbel-vaulted
the
stairway filled with rubble that took some three
(Fig. 8 .3 9 ), and the text on the edge of the lid
sarcophagus
record
Pakal's
ancestors
years to clear. In 1 9 5 2 the end of the staircase
records the kings of Palenque and their death
was reached deep beneath the temple floor.
dates. From these and other inscriptions at
Outside the huge stone door to the burial cham
Palenque we know Pakal's birth in 6 0 3 , his
ber was a stone box containing the bones of
accession in 6 1 5 when he was merely twelve
four men and one woman as sacrifices. After
years old, and his death in 6 8 3 . This indicates
opening the door, the archaeologists found a
Pakal ruled for some sixty-seven years and lived
large chamber, about 10 X 4 m in size, with a
to be over eighty. A lengthy text carved on three
7 m high vaulted ceiling (Fig. 8 .3 8 ). The tomb
panels on the walls of the funerary shrine above
walls are decorated by nine stucco figures, rep
the tomb records Palenque's dynastic history up
resenting the nine lords of the underworld,
to the time of the inauguration of Pakal's first
sealed beneath lime concretions. A mammoth
born son, K'inich Kan Balam II. The new king is
limestone sarcophagus, its sides carved with
shown on the outer piers of the temple, modeled
portraits and hieroglyphs (Fig. 8 .3 9 ), filled most
in stucco relief, in the act of being presented as
of the chamber. Inside lay the skeletal remains
heir to the throne while held in the arms of his
453
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO ( con tin u ed) ancestors. K'inich Kan Balam II can be iden
(Fig. 8 .4 2 ). This shrine within the temple is
tified by the extra toe on his feet (a deformity
named in the texts as the p/b naah (the "under
shown in his adult portraits later on). But he is
world-.house” within the "sacred mountain").
also depicted as divine, in this case as the living
The doorjamb texts give the specific designation
incarnation of K'awiil, the patron of rulers, since
for each, apparently named after the central
one of his legs ends in a serpent head and he
motif that decorates the extraordinary carved
has a smoking ax in his forehead, both charac
panel on the back wall of each pib naah. The
teristics of the god.
popular names of the temples come from the
The shrines from K'inich Kan Balam Il's reign
principal attributes of these motifs (Fig. 8 .4 3 ).
are the three structures known as the Temples of
Additional panels were set on the front wall on
the Sun, Cross, and Foliated Cross, located on
both sides of the doorway, and the doorjambs
a plaza east of the Temple of the Inscriptions.
were inscribed with further texts.
The Temple of the Sun (Fig. 8.41 ) sits on a low,
The motif on the Temple of the Sun panel, the
terraced platform on the west side of the plaza.
western building, associated with the setting sun
Opposite this is the Temple of the Foliated Cross,
and death, commemorates w arfare, captive
its front room now collapsed. On the north side
sacrifice, and the underworld's jaguar patron.
of the plaza is the Temple of the Cross, sup
Here the central element is a shield adorned with
ported by the highest platform of the group, in
the jaguar sun, supported by crossed spears
keeping with the celestial associations of this di
resting on a throne decorated with heads of
rection. In all, the arrangement and orientation
jaguars and serpents, supported in turn by two
of this group recall the two earliest and most
gods in the pose of captives. The central motif of
important templates in M aya architecture: the
the Temple of the Cross, the northern building
Preclassic triadic arrangement at N akbe and
associated with the celestial realm, is the Tree of
El Mirador and the celestial associations of
Life at the center of the world that supports the
the highest northern building seen in the North
heavens, rising from the mask of the great earth
Acropolis at Tikal and the initial temple at
monster (Fig. 8 .4 3 ). The twin branches of the
Cerros.
tree (thus its superficial resemblance to a cross)
Each building is architecturally similar, with
supports the double-headed serpent bar, one of
the facade above the doors and the roof-
the primary symbols of kingship, and the Celes
comb once decorated with stucco modeling
tial Bird is perched on top. The motif in the
(Fig. 8.41 ). The preserved facade of the Temple
Temple of the Foliated Cross, in keeping with its
of the Cross depicts witz masks, indicating that
location on the east, the life-giving direction of
these temples were conceived as sacred moun
the rising sun, commemorates the earthly realm.
tains. Three doorways lead to a front room and
It depicts the m aize plant, sustainer of life, from
a central rear chamber flanked by two small
which sprout human heads (in the creation myth
side rooms. The outer doorways are framed by
of the Popol Vuh, human beings were fashioned
hieroglyphic texts and stucco panels. The cen
by the gods from m aize dough), rising from the
tral rear room contains a roofed shrine chamber
mask of the waterlily monster.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
455
• • •
PALENQUE, CHIAPAS, MEXICO ( continued) Each of the compositions flanking these cen
plex is the aptly named Palace (Plate 8c). These
tral motifs inside the pib naah are similar, de
buildings, situated on a large 10-m-high plat
picting K'inich Kan Balam II receiving the sym
form (1 0 0
bols of his kingship, flanked by another figure
served as the residences for most, if not all of
X
8 0 m in extent), undoubtedly
interpreted as either his deceased father or a
Palenque's historically identified rulers. The main
younger K'inich Kan Balam II (Fig. 8 .4 3 ). These
entrance was by w ay of a wide stairway on the
figures are flanked in turn by extensive hiero
northern side of the platform. The exteriors of
glyphic texts. These tell us that the child Kan
most buildings are decorated by carved stone
Balam was designated as royal heir (the scene
and stucco reliefs. Even the ceilings are elabo
portrayed on the end piers of the Temple of the
rated, each major building marked by a differ
Inscriptions) by a ritual held in 641 that ended
ent style of vaulting. The buildings comprise a
on the summer solstice when he "became the
series of galleries and rooms arranged around
sun." K'inich Kan Balam Il's inauguration as
several interior courts. In the southwest court are
ruler is recorded as taking place in 6 8 4 , 132
a steam bath and latrines, as well as the famous
days after Pakal's death. The left columns of texts
four-story tower. The interiors of the rooms, too,
on all three tablets record aspects of the M aya
were decorated with modeled stucco masks.
creation myth, including the birth of the first
The earliest visible buildings in the Palace most
gods and the patron deities of Palenque's kings
likely originated with the reign of Pakal, al
(the Palenque Triad). The right columns of panel
though earlier structures lie buried beneath the
texts record the ceremonies used to dedicate
platform. Subsequent rulers rebuilt and ex
these beautiful temples over a period of four
panded the Palace complex. The northern part
days during July 6 9 0 . The final inscriptions refer
(Houses A, D, and AD) is associated with
to rites K'inich Kan Balam II conducted in 6 9 2 ,
Palenque's later rulers, notably K'inich Kan
the eighth anniversary of his inauguration as
Balam II and his younger brother and successor,
Palenque's ruler.
Kan Joy Chitam II.
Palenque's largest and central building com
The royal histories of both capitals come from a rich legacy of Late Classic texts, illuminated by architecture and carved portraits in both stone and modeled stucco. In fact, the historical records of Palenque were a primary source for a breakthrough in decipherment in the 1970s (Chapter 3). As a result, we now know that much of this record deals with creation mythology and dynastic succession in unprecedented detail. Thus, Palenque provides us with a unique perspective on Maya cosmology and how myth and history were manipulated for political purposes by Maya rulers. Archaeological research is beginning to be combined with this historical information at both Palenque and Tonina to produce a more complete reconstruction of the po litical careers of these two important capitals.
456
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
O rigins o f the Palenque D y n a sty Anciently known as Lakamha’ (great water), Palenque was capital of the kingdom of B’aakal (bone). The buildings of its central area (Fig. 8.34) have been well docu mented, but a new map compiled by Edwin Barnhart (Fig. 8.35) reveals the extent of Palenque’s urban settlement, more densely clustered than most Classic Maya capitals. Palenque’s texts allow us to reconstruct a sequence of rulers that is unusually com plete. However, unlike Tikal, Copan, and several other sites, the historical records of Palenque’s early rulers are only beginning to be tested by archaeological research. The Late Classic Palenque texts provide a great deal of information about the su pernatural foundations for Maya royal authority. The rulers of B’aakal held power by the same means as those of Tikal and other Maya polities. They arrayed them selves in the same trappings of authority, performed the same rituals to ensure the continuance of the world order, attacked their neighbors, and took and sacrificed captives. These activities allowed them to control the labor and resources, and to accumulate the prestige and wealth, that set them apart from the rest of society in life and, in their elaborate tombs, even in death. But while the later rulers of Palenque acknowledged a founding king, they only rarely recorded the numbered sequence
Fig. 8 .3 4 . Aerial view of Palenque, Chiapas, M exico, at the foot of the northern highlands: the multidoorwayed Temple of the Inscriptions is at the right (see Fig. 8 .3 7 ); the Palace, with its restored tower, is in the left foreground; and beyond are the Temples of the Cross, the Foliated Cross, and the Sun.
Fig. 8 .3 5 . M a p of central Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, showing a density of construction greater than that found in most Classic M a ya cities.
458
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .3 6 . Late Classic stucco panels from House D of the Palenque Palace (nineteenth-century photo graph by Alfred P. Maudslay).
of their dynasty. The royal succession includes the reign of at least one woman who ruled like a Maya king. Several of Palenque’s kings were long-lived and highly successful rulers, most notably K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I (reigned 6 1 5 -8 3 ). But its his tory was also interrupted by catastrophic defeat and breaks in the royal succession. Retrospective inscriptions record the reigns of the earliest rulers of Palenque (Table 8.5). Beginning with K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I, Palenque’s texts begin to trace the origins of the Palenque dynasty back to the birth of the gods and their offspring,
D y n a s tie c h r o n o lo g y o f P a le n q u e (ru le r n a m e s in b o ld ty p e ; a lte rn a tiv e n a m e s o r title s in p a re n th e se s)
K 'u k ' B a l a tn 1
8 .1 9 .1 5 .3 .4
431
A ccessio n
8 .1 9 .1 9 .1 1 .1 7
435
A ccessio n
9 .2 .1 2 .6 .1 8
487
A cce s sio n
490
D e d ic a tio n e v e n t
B o rn M a r . 3 0 , 3 9 7 ; d ie d 4 3 5 ? (a g e 3 8 ) ; r e ig n e d M a r . 1 0 , 4 3 1 - 3 5 ( 4 y e a rs )
C asper B orn A u g . 8 , 4 2 2 ; d ie d 4 8 7 ( a g e 6 5 ) ; re ig n e d A u g . 9 , 4 3 5 - 8 7 ( 5 2 y e a rs )
B 'u t z ' A j S ale Chile B orn N o v . 1 4 , 4 5 9 ; d ie d 5 0 1 (a g e 4 2 ) ; r e ig n e d J u ly 2 8 , 4 8 7 - 5 0 1 ( 1 4 y e a rs )
A hkal M o' N a a b ' 1
9 .3 .6 .7 .1 7
501
A cce s sio n
B orn J u ly 4 Ó 5 ; d ie d N o v . 2 9 , 5 2 4
9 .4 .1 0 .4 .1 7
524
D e a th
K an Jo y C hham 1
9 .4 .1 4 .0 .4
529
A ccessio n
B o m M a y 3 , 4 9 0 ; d ie d F e b . 6 , 5 6 5
9 .6 .1 1 .0 .1 6
565
D e a th
A h k a l M o ' N a a b ' II
9 .6 .1 1 .5 .1
565
A ccessio n
B orn S e p t. 3 , 5 2 3 ; d ie d J uly 2 1 ,
9 .6 .1 6 .1 0 .7
570
D e a th
K a n B a la m 1
9 .6 .1 8 .5 .1 2
572
A c cessio n
B o m S e p t. 1 8 , 5 2 4 ; d ie d F e b . 1 , 5 8 3
9 .7 .9 .5 .5
583
D e a th
L a d y Y ohl I k 'n a l
9 .7 .1 0 .3 .8
583
A cce s sio n
B o m ?; d ie d N o v . 4 , 6 0 4 ; re ig n e d
9 .8 .1 1 .6 .1 2
604
D e a th
9 .8 .1 1 .9 .0
605
A cce s sio n
611
P a le n q u e s a c k e d b y C a la k m u l
9 .8 .1 9 .4 .6
612
D e a th
M u w aan M at
9 .8 .1 9 .7 .1 8
612
A cce s sio n
R e ig n e d O c t . 1 9 , 6 1 2 —J u ly 2 6 ,
9 .9 .0 .0 .0
613
F a ile d to c e le b ra te K 'a tu n e n d in g
A c ce s sio n (O v a l P a la c e T ablet)
(a g e 5 9 ) ; r e ig n e d J u n e 3 , 5 0 1 - 2 4 ( 2 3 y e a rs )
(a g e 7 4 ) ; r e ig n e d F e b . 2 3 , 5 2 9 F e b . 6 , 5 6 5 ( 3 6 y e a rs )
5 7 0 ( a g e 4 6 ) ; r e ig n e d M a y 2 , 5 6 5 J uly 2 1 , 5 7 0 (5 y e a rs )
(a g e 5 8 ) ; r e ig n e d A p r . 6 , 5 7 2 - F e b . 1, 5 8 3 ( 1 0 y e a rs )
D e c . 2 1 , 5 8 3 - N o v . 4 , 6 0 4 ( 2 0 y e a rs )
Aj N e ' O hl M at B o rn ?; d ie d A u g . 8 , 6 1 2 ; r e ig n e d
—
(T. o f In scrip tio n s, East Panel)
J a n . 1 , 6 0 5 - A u g . 8 , 6 1 2 ( 7 y e a rs )
6 1 5 (3 y e a rs )
K 'in ic h J a n a a b ' P a k a l 1
9 .9 .2 .4 .8
615
B o m M a r . 2 3 , 6 0 3 ; d ie d A u g . 2 8 ,
9 .9 .6 .1 0 .1 9
619
P a la c e e v e n t (H o u s e C )
6 8 3 (a g e 8 0 ) ; fa th e r: K 'a n M o ' H ix ;
9 .9 .1 3 .0 .1 7
626
M a r r ie d L a d y T z 'a k b 'u A ja w
ca. 6 2 8
P a le n q u e d e fe a te d b y P ie d ra s
m o th e r: L a d y S a k K 'u k '; w ife : L a d y
—
N e g r a s u n d e r K 'in ic h Y o 'n a l A h k 1
T z 'a k b 'u A j a w ; r e ig n e d Ju ly 2 6 , 6 1 5 - A u g . 2 8 , 6 8 3 ( 6 8 y e a rs );
9 .1 0 .7 .1 3 .5
640
D e a th o f L a d y S a k K 'u k '
d e d ic a t e d O l v i d a d o , O v a l P a la c e
9 .1 0 .8 .9 .3
641
K 'in ic h K a n B a la m II m a d e
9 .1 0 .1 0 .1 .6
642
ro y a l h e ir
T a b le t, H . S ., P a la c e H o u s e B, C , E, p o s s ib ly A a n d D
D e a th o f fa th e r (K 'a n M o ' H ix ) ( continued )
TABLE 8 .5
(c o n t i n u e d ) Events
Long Count dote
Ruler
9 .1 1 .2 .1 .1 1
654
9 .1 1 .6 .1 6 .1 1
659
D e d ic a te d P a la c e H o u s e E; P a le n q u e s a c k e d b y C a la k m u l R e c e iv e d 6 c a p tiv e s (P a la c e East C o u rt)
9 .1 1 .6 .1 6 .1 7
659
R u ler o f S a n ta E le n a , N u u n U jo l C h a a k , a r riv e d a t P a la n q u e
9 .1 2 .0 .6 .8
672
D e a th o f L a d y T z 'a k b 'u A j a w
9 .1 2 .1 1 .5 .1 8
683
D e a th ; b u r ie d in to m b b e n e a th th e
9 .1 2 .1 1 .1 2 .1 0
684
A c ce s sio n
—
687
V ic to ry o v e r T o n in a (T e m p le 1 7
690
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g w ith
T e m p le o f th e In sc rip tio n s
K 'in ic h K a n B a la m II B orn M a y 2 0 , 6 3 5 ; d ie d Feb . 1 6 ,
P anel)
7 0 2 ( a g e 6 6 ) ; fa th e r: K 'in ic h J a n a a b ' P ak a l 1; m o th e r: L a d y T z 'a k b 'u A ja w ;
9 .1 3 .0 .0 .0
re ig n e d J a n . 7 , 6 8 4 - F e b . 1 6 ,
d e d ic a tio n o f C ro s s G r o u p ;
7 0 2 ( 1 8 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d : T em ple
in s ta lle d M u w a a n Jol a t M o r a l R e fo rm a
o f th e In sc rip tio n s , T em ples o f the
D e a th
9 .1 3 .1 0 .1 .5
702
K a n J o y C h ita m II
9 .1 3 .1 0 .6 .8
702
A c ce s sio n
B orn N o v . 2 , 6 4 4 ; d ie d c a . 7 2 1 ;
9 .1 3 .1 9 .1 3 .3
711
C a p tu r e d b y T o n in a u n d e r ru ler
—
720
D e d ic a te d P a la c e H o u s e A D
ca. 7 21
D e a th
A c ce s sio n
S u n , C ro s s , a n d F o lia te d C ro ss, T e m p le 1 7 , T e m p le o f the C ro s s S te la
fa th e r: K 'in ic h J a n a a b ' P ak a l 1; m o th e r: L a d y T z 'a k b 'u A ja w ; re ig n e d
K 'in ic h B 'a a k n a l C h a a k
M a y 3 0 , 7 0 2 - c a . 7 2 1 , (c a . 1 9 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d : P a la c e T a b let, D u m b a rto n O a k s P a n e l, P a la c e H o u s e
K 'in ic h A h k a l M o '
N a a b ' III
9 .1 4 .1 0 .4 .2
721
B orn S e p t. 1 3 , 6 7 8 ; d ie d c a . 7 4 0 ?
9 .1 4 .1 1 .1 2 .1 4
723
In s ta lle d C h a k S u u tz ' a s s a ja l
(a g e c a . 6 2 ? ) ; fa th e r: T iw o h l C h a n M a t ;
9 .1 4 .1 1 .1 7 .6
723
3 c a p tiv e s ta k e n b y C h a k S u u tz '
m o th e r: L a d y K in u w ; r e ig n e d D e c . 3 0 ,
9 .1 4 .1 3 .1 1 .2
725
W a r a g a in s t P ie d ra s N e g r a s le d
d e d ic a te d Tem ples 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 1 ,
9 .1 4 .1 7 .1 2 .1 8
729
S ta r w a r le d b y C h a k S u u tz '
O r a t o r a n d S c rib e Panels
9 .1 5 .5 .0 .0
736
D e d ic a te d p a n e l in T e m p le 2 1
7 2 1 - c a . 7 4 0 ? (c a . 1 9 y e a rs );
b y C h a k S u u tz '
—
ca. 7 4 0
D e a th ; b u r ia l in o n e o f th e T e m p le 1 8 tom bs?
K 'in ic h J a n a a b ' P a k a l II
—
742 ca. 7 5 0
In s ta lle d u n k n o w n lo rd in o ffic e L a d y C h a k N i k Y e' X o o k m a rr ie d a C o p a n lo rd (b e c a m e m o th e r o f Y a x P as a j C h a n Y o a a t, 1 6 th ru le r o f C o p a n )
—
K 'in ic h K 'u k ' B a la m II
9 .1 6 .1 3 .0 .7
Fath e r: K 'in ic h A h k a l M o ' N a a b ' III;
ca. 7 6 4 ?
P a le n q u e d e fe a t e d b y T o n in a
764
A c ce s sio n
783
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n a n n iv e r s a r y o f
m o th e r: L a d y M e n N ik ; re ig n e d
re ig n (T a b let o f 9 6 G ly p h s )
M a r . 4 , 7 6 4 - 8 3 > ? ( 1 9 > y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d T a b le t o f th e 9 6 G ly p h s , C r e a t io n T a b le t
J a n a a b ' P a k a l III
9 .1 8 .9 .4 .4
799
A c ce s sio n
S ou rces: G ru b e 1 9 9 6 ; M a th e w s & S ch eie 1 9 7 4 ; M a r tin & G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; S ch e ie i 9 9 i a , b , 1 9 9 4 ; S c h e ie &c F reid el 1 9 9 0 .
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
one of whom, partially readable as Muwaan Mat, was the progenitor of the patron gods of Palenque (dubbed the “Palenque Triad”). In so doing, the texts left by K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and his successors not only record a sequence of kings, but provide a unique insight into the ancient Maya supernatural world. From these accounts we can see how an elaborate ideology based on the descent of kings from the gods of cre ation was used to justify and reinforce royal power (see Chapter 13). K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and several of his successors went to great lengths to link their lives and reigns to parallel events in the mythical past, during a time when the universe was created and ruled by the gods. In essence, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and his heirs claimed to represent a living replication of the mythological events sur rounding the creation of the world. In this Maya creation myth the patron gods of Palenque had inherited their powers from the deity Muwaan Mat. The Late Classic king lists begin with a ruler likely to have been the true historical founder, K’uk’ Balam I (Quetzal Jaguar), who was born in 397 and inaugurated in 431. After K’uk’ Balam I reigned only four years, his successor, nicknamed Casper because his name remains undeciphered, was inaugurated in 435 when he was thirteen years old. Casper ruled for fifty-two years, the second longest recorded reign at Palenque. Some support for Casper’s historical existence comes from his carved portrait on an unprovenienced stone bowl that appears to date from the Early Classic period. Little is known about the next five rulers apart from the dates of their births, ac cessions, and deaths, recorded in Palenque’s retrospective king lists (Table 8.5). The final member of this group, Kan Balam I, died in 583 and was succeeded by a woman ruler, Lady Yohl Ik’nal, perhaps because there was no male heir. Lady Yohl Ik’nal, who may have been a sister or daughter of Kan Balam I, reigned for some twenty years (5 8 3 -6 0 4 ). During that time, judging from her titles and depictions in the ret rospective records, she reigned as a full-fledged Maya king until her death in 604. Her successor, Aj N e’ Ohl Mat, may have been her son. In any case, if the pre vious line had been descended through the male line, that patrilineal succession was ended with the inauguration of Aj N e’ Ohl Mat (the name of his father is not recorded). During his reign the B’aakal kingdom suffered a military disaster when Calakmul sacked Palenque in 611. Aj N e’ Ohl Mat survived, but died a little more than a year later. The successor inaugurated in 612 was named Muwaan Mat, the same as the mythical progenitor of the Palenque Triad. In the wake of defeat, Palenque’s fortunes were at a low ebb, and the usual k’atun ending ceremonies could not be conducted after the inauguration (613). As bad as things were, by virtue of the supernatural Muwaan M at’s association with Palenque’s patron deities, the ruler Muwaan Mat may have symbolized a rebirth of Palenque’s ruling house for later rulers who wrote the history of these times. The original reconstruction of the royal succession equated the ruler Muwaan Mat with Lady Sak K’uk’, the mother of K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I. Lady Sak K’uk’
462.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • • married a man named Kan M o’ Hix, whom we can only presume was from an elite, but nonroyal, family. Three years after the accession of Muwaan Mat, their son, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I, at age twelve was old enough to assume the throne. Accord ing to Palenque’s texts, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I ruled for sixty-seven years, until his death in 683. But it is presumed that for the first few years of his reign his parents acted as regents. Both lived into old age: Lady Sak K’uk’ died in 640 and Kan M o Hix in 642. The texts in the Temple of the Inscriptions (Fig. 8.37) proclaim the di vinity of Pakal’s son, K’inich Kan Balam II, by his appearance as a manifestation of one of the gods in the scenes recording his heir designation ceremony. In these refer ences, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and his heirs not only demonstrated their divine right to rule, but also equated the revival of Palenque’s fortunes under their stewardship with the new world order created by the birth of Palenque patron gods.
A pogee an d D efea t a t Palenque During K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s reign (6 1 5 -8 3 ), Palenque began to emerge as a ma jor power, expanding its authority over the surrounding region. The growth of Palenque’s power and prestige was stimulated by a change in military fortunes and the political stability engendered by K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s long reign. Growth and prosperity are linked to military success and political longevity at other Maya capi tals, such as at Tikal under Jasaw Chan K’awiil I, although K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s victories were certainly more modest in scale and importance. Early in K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s reign Palenque suffered another defeat with the capture of one of its lords by Piedras Negras (ca. 628). There are few references to the early part of his reign, and there were more setbacks before Palenque’s fortunes were eventually turned around. The major recorded event of K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s early years was his marriage to Lady Tz’akb’u Ajaw in 626. Their two sons, K’inich Kan Balam II and Kan Joy Chitam II, would go on to rule Palenque after their father. The first inscription from the reign of K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I dates to 647 when he sponsored the building of the Olvidado Temple. Thereafter he began to rebuild the royal palace (Plate 8c). In 654 he dedicated House E, the setting for his throne and the Oval Palace Tablet that commemorated his accession almost forty years before. Then K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I sponsored new buildings around the East Court of the palace (Houses A, B, C). Texts on House C chronicle Palenque’s conflicts, beginning with another “axing of Lakamha’” by Calakmul in 654, a defeat and sacking that included the “throwing down” of Palenque’s patron deities. But the account records Palenque’s recovery, with K’inich Janaab’ Pakal’s taking of six captives in 659, depicted on the House C facade. An other set of captured lords is displayed across the East Court on large carved panels flanking the stairway of House A.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .3 7 . Palenque: drawing of the Temple of the Inscriptions, showing the vaulted staircase that leads from the temple floor, deep beneath the platform, to the vaulted tomb chamber below (see Figs. 8 .3 8 - 8 . 4 0 ) .
After a long and successful reign, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I died in 683, a decade af ter the death of his queen (672). But before his death, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I had made elaborate preparations for his burial w ith the construction of the Temple of the In scriptions, outfitted w ith a vaulted stairway that led to his tom b chamber (Fig. 8.37). His forty-eight-year-old son, K’inich Kan Balam II, succeeded him 132 days later and oversaw the sealing of his father’s tom b (Figs. 8.38, 8.39, and 8.40). K’inich Kan Balam II also com pleted the hieroglyphic tablets inside the Temple of the Inscriptions that record his accession. During a reign of just over eighteen years, K’inich Kan Balam II advanced Palenque’s power and realm. Some two years after his accession he attacked Tonina, the city destined to be Palenque’s greatest foe in the years to come.
4 6 3
Fig. 8 .3 8 . Interior of the tomb beneath the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, at the time of its discov ery: (a b o v e left) entry, with stone door removed; (above rig h t ) stucco figures on the wall of the tomb; (b e lo w le ft ) the carved sarcophagus lid, as seen looking toward the entrance; (b e lo w rig h t ) the interior,
as seen from the entrance.
Fig. 8 .3 9 . Tomb beneath the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque: (above) the sarcophagus lid removed, revealing the remains of the ruler K'inich Janaab' Pakal I, with ¡ade and other adornments; (be/ow) de tail of the sculptured relief on the side of the sarcophagus.
Fig. 8 .4 0 . Tomb beneath the Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque: rubbing of the sculp tured sarcophagus lid, depicting K'inich Janaab' Pakal I within the open jaws of the un derworld; rising above him is the axis mundi, the cross-shaped tree of life that supports the heavens, represented by the two-headed celestial serpent and bird.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .4 1 . Palenque: the Temple of the Sun, the most intact of the three shrines dedicated by the ruler K'inich Kan Balam II in ad 6 9 2 , before its consolidation.
T onina’s Ruler 2 may have fallen in this engagement (687). It is likely that the bound aries of Palenque’s kingdom reached their greatest extent about this time. The resources of his kingdom were used by K’inich Kan Balam II to sponsor a vigorous building program , including further additions to Palenque’s royal palace. But his m ost famous monum ents are the Temples of the Sun, Cross, and Foliated Cross (Figs. 8.41, 8.42 and 8.43); all three temples are symbolically linked to Palenque’s patron deities. In both the texts and images displayed in these temples,
4 6 7
468
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .4 2 . Temple of the Cross, Palenque: drawing of the interior shrine, the pib naah, or "underworld house" (see also Fig. 8 .4 3 ); the carved figures on the exterior represent G o d L (at right) and the ruler K'inich Kan Balam II (at left); the central motif on the carved tablet within the shrine, in this case the cross-shaped tree of life, provides the inspiration for the building's popular name.
K’inich Kan Balam II presented the justifications that reinforced his royal legitimacy. These texts record the events of the Maya creation and show how these events were replicated by Palenque’s dynastic succession from the old order to the new. The in scriptions also record the ceremonies perform ed by K’inich Kan Balam II, including his inauguration as ruler and his dedication of the temples themselves. Under K’inich Kan Balam II the power of Palenque was expanded by both mili tary victories and diplomacy. N ot only did he defeat his greatest rival, Tonina, but in
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .4 3 . Temple of the Cross, Palenque: the carved tablet within the plb naah, depicting the cross shaped tree of life and the two-headed serpent surmounted by the celestial bird (compare Fig. 8 .4 2 ), flanked by K'inich Kan Balam II at his accession (at right) and as a young heir apparent (at left).
690 he installed M uw aan Jol as ruler of M oral Reforma, a form er dependency of Calakm ul. By this means Palenque expanded its power and influence to the north into the rich alluvial plain of Tabasco, at the expense of Calakm ul, home of the for mer overlords of this area. K’inich Kan Balam II died in 702, and his younger brother, Kan Joy Chitam II, then fifty-seven years old, became the new ruler fifty-three days later. During his reign, Kan Joy C hitam II also sponsored the construction of H ouse a d in the royal palace. This long gallery along the northern side of the palace complex enclosed both its East and West Courts. Its central room was the setting for a new royal throne, backed by the Palace Tablet that portrays Kan Joy C hitam ’s accession (Fig. 8.44). In this scene the king is show n receiving the royal crow n and w ar emblems from his p ar ents, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and Lady T z’ak b ’u Ajaw. The beautifully carved text records the m ajor events of Kan Joy C hitam ’s life, ending w ith the dedication of
469
470
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .4 4 . Palenque: the Palace Tablet with its beautifully carved glyphs and figures representing Kan Joy Chitam II receiving a shell platelet helmet from his father, K'inich Janaab' Pakal I (left), and flint and shield emblems from his mother (right).
House a d in 720. Yet this text fails to m ention that alm ost a decade previously, in 7 1 1, Kan Joy Chitam II had been defeated and captured by Tonina. But as the H ouse a d dedication indicates, Kan Joy Chitam II m anaged to survive his defeat and cap ture and continued to rule for another decade.
R ecovery an d D ecline a t Palenque After the death of Kan Joy Chitam II, a new king was inaugurated at Palenque in 721. But the new Palenque ruler, K’inich Ahkal M o ’ N aa b ’ III, was not directly descended from Kan Joy Chitam II. K’inich Ahkal M o ’ N aa b ’s father, Tiw ohl Chan M at, was apparently a third son of K’inich Janaab’ Pakal I and Lady T z’ak b ’u Ajaw. This con nection and an alliance with im portant elite lords (conspicuously m entioned during K’inich Ahkal M o’ N aab’s reign) were undoubtedly the basis for his successful claim to the throne.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
471
• • •
TO NINA, CHIAPAS, MEXICO At an elevation of 8 0 0 - 9 0 0 m, about 5 0 km
Tonina is known best for its monuments, which
south of Palenque in the Ocosingo Valley, the im
are perhaps stylistically the least typical of all
portant site of Tonina is located in a transitional
Classic M aya sculpture. The sixteen known mon
lowland-highland
environmental
setting.
The
uments are all small when compared to the aver
central portion of the site is situated in a well-
age 2 . 5 - 3 m height of those from other M aya
defended position, arranged along an ascend
centers; most of the Tonina stelae are less than
ing ridge (Fig. 8 .4 5 ). The site was investigated
about 2 m tall. They also differ, importantly, in
during the 197 0s by the French Archaeological
being carved fully in the round, like statuary
Mission in Mexico, directed by Pierre Becquelin
(Fig. 8 .4 6 ). The dated monuments span most of
and Claude Baudez. The dynastic sequence has
the Classic period, from 9 .3 .0 .0 .Oto 1 0 .4 .0 .0 .0
been worked out from the known inscriptions by
(ad 4 9 5 - 9 0 9 ) , although the earliest securely
Peter Mathews. M ore recent work has consider
dated inscription (Monument 106) dates to 5 9 3 .
ably expanded our knowledge of the site and
Monument 101 has the latest Long Count date of
preserved its architecture and monuments.
any M aya stela, 1 0 .4 .0 .0 .0 (9 0 9 ).
The most important of these sajalob’ was K’inich Ahkal M o’ Naab’s military commander, Chak Suutz\ His residence was likely in Group 4, west of the site core. Here excavation uncovered a carved panel, known as the Tablet of the Slaves, de picting the accession of K’inich Ahkal M o’ Naab III, commissioned by Chak Suutz’. As military commander, Chak Suutz’ led several successful campaigns that helped re store Palenque’s power and prestige following the disastrous defeat by Tonina. Recent excavations have dated several temples in the southern part of the site to the reign of K’inich Ahkal M o’ N aab’ III. The passages on the doorjambs of Temple 18 record his birth and accession, relating these to supernatural events. Fallen stucco texts from this building refer to the death and burial of his father, Tiwohl Chan Mat. Three tombs have been excavated beneath Temple 18. One had been anciently ran sacked, while two were intact. One of these is almost certainly the burial of Tiwohl Chan Mat. Temple 18A, adjacent to Temple 18, was constructed over an earlier deeply buried crypt, excavated in 1957 by Alberto Ruz. This appears to have been the tomb of an Early Classic ruler, but while containing artifacts indicative of a royal interment, its occupant remains unknown. Temple 19 nearby contains some of the finest sculptures ever found at Palenque. A low platform covered by carved panels de picts K’inich Ahkal M o’ N aab’ Ill’s accession as a reenactment of the accession of GI, one of Palenque’s patron gods. K’inich Ahkal M o’ N aab’ Ill’s death date is unknown (ca. 740), as is the acces sion date of his successor, K’inich Janaab’ Pakal II. Apart from a portrait of his head on a carved panel fragment, little is known of his reign. The end of his reign is also
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
u n k n o w n , but m ay have been related to an oth er d efeat at th e h an d s o f T on in a (ca. 7 6 4 ). Shortly before (ca. 7 5 0 ), an elite w o m a n from P alen q u e, L ady C h ak N ik Ye’ X o o k , m arried a C op an lord and later b ecam e the m o th er o f the six te e n th C o p a n ruler, Yax Pasaj C han Yopaat. T he accession o f the n ex t P alenque ruler, K ’inich K ’u k ’ B alam II, in 7 6 4 is recorded on the extraordinary T ablet o f the 9 6 G lyp h s, fou n d in the c o lla p se debris in front o f Palace H o u se E. Its in cised te x t, beau tifu lly rep licatin g th e calligrap h y o f painted glyphs, records a seq u en ce o f even ts b egin n in g w ith K ’inich J a n aab ’ P akal Fs 6 5 4 d ed ication o f H o u se E, the sak n u k n a a h . T h is is fo llo w e d by a reco u n tin g o f the inaugurations o f Kan Joy C hitam II, K ’inich A hkal M o ’ N a a b ’ III, an d the ta b le t’s sp on sor, K ’inich K ’u k ’ B alam II. But by th is tim e th e p o w er o f P alenque seem s to have w aned considerably. A record o f the last k n o w n P alenque ruler c o m e s from an incised p ottery vessel. T his tex t relates that Jan aab ’ Pakal III w as in au gu rated in 7 9 9 . After this date the h istorical record at L ak am h a’ falls silent.
L ate Classic A pogee a t Tonina From its location in the O c o sin g o V alley so u th o f P alen q u e, T onina (Fig. 8 .4 5 ) u sed w arfare to forge a p ow erfu l Late C lassic state. A lth o u g h T o n in a ’s later te x ts refer to Early C lassic d ynastic origin s, all but a few o f its in scrip tion s date to the Late C la s sic era. M on u m en t 10 6 portrays R uler 1, w h o se reign d ates to the early six th c e n tury. T he nam es o f at least tw o su b seq u en t rulers have been id en tified , b u t w ith th e
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
first k in g o f the Late C lassic, K ’inich H ix C hapat (5 9 5 ? “ 6 6 5 ), T on in a’s h istorical record b ecom es m ore c o m p lete (Table 8 .6 ). A glim p se in to the a d m in istration o f his realm co m es from M o n u m en t 1 5 4 , w h ich records the in stallation o f tw o su b or din ate lords by K ’inich H ix C hapat in 6 3 3 . T h e b etter-d ocu m en ted reign o f R uler 2 begins w ith his a ccessio n in 6 6 8 . H is M o n u m en t 12 (6 7 2 ) es tab lish ed the full rou n d style typ ical o f T on in a’s stelae (Fig. 8 .4 6 ). W h ile R uler 2 is sh o w n in a scattering ritual on M o n u m en t 1 1 3 , the record o f his reign, like that o f m o st T onina rulers, is n o ta b le for its d ep ictio n o f w ar cap tives. R uler 2 celebrated the p eriod en d in g o f 6 8 2 w ith a pre sen ta tio n o f three cap tives on M o n u m en t 8. An u ndated fragm ent (M o n u m en t 99) sh o w s a rare portrait o f a w o m a n cap tive. But th en , accord in g to a te x t from P alen q u e’s Tem ple 17, R uler 2 ’s reign m ay have en d ed w ith defeat and capture in 6 8 7 by K ’inich Kan B alam II. K ’in ich B ’aak n al C haak to o k the th ron e in 6 8 8 an d d uring a reign o f som e tw en ty-seven years restored T on in a’s prestige and p ow er by m ilitary v icto ries over its arch rival, P alenque. In 6 9 9 K ’inich B ’aaknal C haak dedicated T on in a’s Sunken Ball C ou rt to co m m em o ra te three v ic to ries over P alen q u e, its ball cou rt m arkers form ed
Fig. 8 .4 6 . Tonina: Monument 12,
by th e carved to rso s o f six captured vassals o f
dated to 9 .1 2 .0 .0 .0
P alenque ruler K ’inich Kan B alam II. T he date
its portrait of Ruler 2 carved in the
(AD 6 7 2 ),
with
o f K ’inich B’aak n al C h a a k ’s death is u n k n ow n
round like most other monuments
but m u st be before 7 0 8 , the year his successor,
from this site.
R uler 4 , cam e to th e th ron e. Even th ou gh R uler 4 w a s still a child in 7 1 1 , in that year T onina defeated P alenque and captured P alenque’s n e x t k in g, K an Joy C h itam II. T h is even t is d ep icted in lo w relief on M o n u m en t 1 2 2 , a clear e x c e p tio n to T on in a’s p revailing full round sculptural style (Fig. 8 .4 7 ). It sh o w s a reclin in g figure, identified by three glyp h s in cised on his right thigh that read, “ K an C h itam A jaw o f P a len q u e.” T h e date carved alo n g the right edge o f the ston e p rob ab ly records the battle th at resulted in his capture by T onina. M ary M iller and Linda Scheie p ro p o sed that M o n u m e n t 1 2 2 is in the style o f P alenque rather than T on in a and th erefore m ay represent tribute p aid to T o n in a — in the form o f a m aster
4 7 3
TABLE 8 .6
Dynastic chronology of Tonina (ruler names in bold type; alternative names or titles in parentheses) Long Count date
Ruler H zam naaj
—
? (R uler 1)
Date AD ca. 5 1 4
J a g u a r B ird P e c c a r y
-
568?'
C hale B 'o lo n C h a a k
—
ca. 5 8 9 ?
K 'in ic h H ix C h a p a t
Events
A c c e s s io n (M o n . 1 7 7 )
595?
A c ce s sio n
633
In s ta lle d s u b o rd in a te lords
9 .1 1 .1 2 .9 .0 ?
665?
D e a th
9 .1 1 .1 6 .0 .1
668
A c ce s sio n
9 .1 2 .0 .0 .0
672
C e le b r a te d p e r io d e n d in g
9 .1 2 .1 0 .0 .0
682
P res en ted 3 c a p tiv e s (M o n . 8 )
9 .8 .1 .9 .1 ? —
(M o n . 1 5 4 )
R u le r 2
(M o n . 1 2 )
—
K 'in ic h B 'a a k n a l C h a a k
(R uler 3 )
9 .1 1 .0 .3 .1 3
B orn D e c . 2 3 , 6 5 2 ; d ie d c a . 7 1 5
687
D e fe a te d b y P ale n q u e ?
688
A c ce s sio n
699
C e le b r a te d v ic to rie s o v e r P a le n q u e
(a g e c a . 6 3 ) ; re ig n e d June 1 6 ,
a n d c a p tu re o f 6 vas sa ls o f K 'in ic h
6 8 8 - c a . 7 1 5 (c a . 2 7 y e a rs );
K a n B a la m II (S u n k en B all C o u rt)
d e d ic a te d a t le a s t 1 9 m onum ents
R u le r 4
___
9 .1 3 .1 9 .1 3 .3
708
A c ce s sio n
711
D e fe a te d P a le n q u e a n d c a p tu re d its ruler, K a n Jo y C h ita m II (M o n . 1 2 2 )
K 'in ic h I c h 'a a k C h a p a t
(R uler 5 )
—
ca. 7 2 0
—
723
D e a th
723
A c ce s sio n
9 .1 4 .1 2 .2 .7
B orn M a r . 2 0 , 6 9 6 ; d ie d c a . 7 3 9
730
C a p tiv e fro m C a la k m u l (M o n . 1 5 3 )
R e d e d ic a te d to m b o f K 'in ic h
( a g e c a . 4 3 ) ; fa th e r: K 'in ic h
B 'a a k n a l C h a a k w ith " e n te re d w ith
B 'a a k n a l C h a a k ? ; m o th e r: L a d y
fire " ritu a l (M o n . 1 6 1 )
W i n i k T im a n K 'a w iil; re ig n e d N o v . 1 5 , 7 2 3 - c a . 7 3 9 (c a . 1 6 y e a rs ); d e d ic a te d a t le a s t 8 m o n u m en ts
K 'in ic h T u u n C h a p a t
(R uler 6 )
9 .1 6 .1 0 .1 6 .1 3
762
D e a th ?
R u le r 7
?
?
?
R u le r 8
9 .1 6 .5 .4 .9
756
Birth
—
789
V ic to ry o v e r P o m o y; c a p tu re d
—
799
R e d e d ic a te d to m b o f R u ler 1 w ith
—
806
U n kn o w n even t (M o n . 9 5 )
U c h a 'a n A j C h ih
" e n te re d w ith fire " ritu a l
Uh C h ap at
(R uler 9 )
—
837
U nknow n event
R u le r 1 0
-
904
U n k n o w n e v e n t (M o n . 1 5 8 )
??
-
909
U n k n o w n e v e n t (M o n . 1 0 1 )
S ou rces: A y a la 1 9 9 5 ; B e cq u elin & B a u d ez 1 9 7 9 ; M a r tin 6c G ru b e 2 0 0 0 ; S ch eie 6c M a th e w s 1 9 9 1 ; Y a d eu n 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
475
• • •
Fig. 8.47. Tonina Monument 122: drawing of the carved figure of a bound captive, Palenque ruler Kan Joy Chitam II, identified by the name glyph and Palenque emblem-glyph main sign on his thigh, with ref erence to the capture event ("star over Palenque") at the right (AD 711).
stone sculptor from Palenque sent to carve the monument commemorating the defeat of Palenque’s king. With the tribute and expanded territory from this victory, Tonina became the dominant power in the lower Usumacinta region. The next two period endings (716 and 721) were celebrated by Ruler 4. One of his captives is identified as being from distant Calakmul. Ruler 4 ’s successor, K’inich Ich’aak Chapat, was inaugurated in 723 and marked a series of events between 72 6 and 729. In 730 he paid homage to his illustrious predecessor, K’inich B’aaknal Chaak, by rededicating his tomb with an “entered with fire” ritual. Ruler 6, K’inich Tuun Chapat, celebrated the 736 period ending, but we know little else about him or his successor, Ruler 7. A series of events between 789 and 806 mark the reign of
476
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Ruler 8, the last of Tonina’s successful warrior kings. In 789 he defeated Pomoy, cap turing a lord named Ucha’an Aj Chih. In 799 Ruler 8 rededicated the Early Classic tomb of Ruler I with another “entered with fire” ritual. A single event in 837 is as sociated with his successor, Uh Chapat (Ruler 9). There is a stucco facade depicting captives that may belong to this reign. Although Tonina was clearly in decline by this time, its kings managed to hold on to their thrones longer than in other polities. Ruler 10 can be identified with Monument 158 (904). Although his name has not survived, a Tonina king recorded the 10.4.0.0.0 (909) K’atun ending on Monument 101, the latest known Long Count date and one of the last royal monuments at any Maya site.
Expansion of the Southeastern Polities The southeastern region (Fig. 1.1) maintained its importance to the Maya world based on its valuable resources, especially jade and obsidian, and its trade connec tions to the non-Maya regions of Central America. For most of the Classic era this diverse region was under the control of the vast Copan kingdom, but in the Late Classic the status quo was shattered by rebellion and the establishment of the break away polity of Quirigua in the Motagua Valley.
G ro w th and P rosperity a t C opan Chapter 7 discussed the origins of the Copan dynasty and the succession of its Early Classic rulers. We pick up the account of Copan’s Late Classic dynasty with M oon Jaguar, tenth ruler in the line of the founder (Table 7.2). His reign of about twentyfive years (5 5 3 -7 8 ) is known from two monuments, Stela 9 and Stela 17. A vaulted tomb in the Acropolis East Court, excavated in the early nineteenth century by Juan Galindo, may have been Ruler 10’s burial place. K’ak’ Chan Yopaat (“Butz Chan”), the eleventh successor, had the third-longest reign of any known Copan king, some forty-six years from 578 to his death in 626. The still-visible East and West Courts in the Acropolis were probably laid out during his reign. K’ak’ Chan Yopaat also ap pears to have expanded the Copan polity. The text on one of his two known monu ments, Stela P (Fig. 8 4 8 ), records the emblem of the smaller site of Los Higos, lo cated in the La Venta Valley to the east of Copan, indicating that Copan also controlled this neighboring region during this era. The success of the Copan polity was energetically followed up by K’ak’ Chan Yopaat’s successor, Smoke Imix, twelfth in the line of kings. Smoke Imix reigned longer than any other Copan ruler, from 628 to 695 (sixty-seven years). During this long and stable period in Copan’s political history, the kingdom reached its maximum extent in area, power, and prestige. His dominion still included Quirigua and, from that base, much of the lower Motagua Valley with its fertile agricultural
PLATE 1 Jade objects from tombs excavated at Tikal, Guatemala
( a ) Late Classic jade mosaic vessels from Burial 116 ,
( b ) Early Classic life-sized mosaic mask of jade,
the tomb of Jasaw Chan K'awiil, bearing his portrait
shell, and other materials, from Tikal Burial 160.
on the lid (left); vessel from Burial 1 96 , possibly the tomb of his successor, Yik'in Chan K'awiil, or the unknown twenty-eighth ruler of Tikal, with its portrait lid (right).
(c) Reclining jade jaguar from Tikal Burial 196 .
PLATE 2 Jade objects from Copan and Catherwood view of Uxmal
é$ i
( a ) Copan, Honduras: jade figurine nested in a Spondylus shell, as excavated from a stairway cache of Ante Structure beneath the East Court of the Acropolis (reign of the eighth ruler, W il Ohl K'inich, ca.
AD 5 4 0 ).
(c) Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico: lithograph by Frederick Catherwood of the Palace of the Governors.
( b ) Copan, Honduras: matched carved jade plaques from the termination cache of Ante Structure (ca.
AD 6 0 0 ).
PLATE 3 Postclassic Maya book and Late Preclassic stucco mask
(a )
Pages from the Dresden Codex, the finest example of
a surviving M a ya folding book, or codex (see Chapter 3).
( b ) Cival, Guatem ala: well-preserved painted stucco mask on a Late Preclassic structure (see also Figs. ó .2 0 , 6 .2 7 , and 6 . 2 9 - 6 . 3 1 ) .
PLATE 4 Late Preclassic murals at San Bartolo, Guatemala
( a ) Photograph showing detail of the portrait of an attendant offering tamales to the m aize god.
( b ) Reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst of scene depicting the m aize god emerging from the underworld with attendants.
PLATE 5 Late Preclassic mural and Early Classic stucco mask
( a ) San Bartolo, Guatem ala: reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst of scene depicting the inauguration of a Late Preclassic M a y a ruler, mounted on a scaffold (compare to Fig. 8 .2 4 ).
; - ; ,vV¿r fj
K
(b )
'V
À
•
C opan, Honduras: Early Classic painted stucco mask of the sun god, K'inich
A jaw , on the west facade of Yehnal Structure, an apparent funerary shrine built over the Hunal Tomb (Figs. 7 .2 5 - 7 . 2 7 ) deep beneath the center of the Copan Acropolis.
PLATE 6 Founding era architecture and vessel from Copan
( a ) Copan, Honduras: composite image of the Early Classic painted stucco facade of M argarita Structure, the successor of Yehnal Structure, emblazoned with the full figure name of the dynastic founder, K'inich Yax K'uk' M o'.
( b ) Copan: vessel from Central Mexico recovered from the offering chamber of the M argarita Tomb; its painted scene possibly depicts Hunal Structure (Fig, 7 .2 3 ), likely the royal palace of Copan's dynastic founder.
PLATE 7 Early Classic architecture and vessels from Copan
( a ) C opan, Honduras: full-scale replica of the Early Classic Rosalila Structure, dedicated to the dynastic founder, successor of both the Yehnal and M argarita Structures shown in Plates 5 b and 6 a and interred intact beneath Str. 10L-16.
PLATE 8 Objects from tombs excavated at Tikal and view of Palenque
( a ) Tikal, Guatemala: carved bone from Burial 116, depicting the twenty-sixth ruler, Jasaw Chan K'awiil, painted red with cinnabar.
(c) Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico: view of the royal palace from the Temple of the Inscriptions, with the rich alluvial plain of Tabasco in the distance.
PLATE 9 Late Classic ceramics
( b ) Jaina region, Campeche, Mexico: ceramic figurine of an elite lady, her headdress and clothing
(a)
decorated by prestigious M a ya blue pigment. Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico: painted effigy
ceramic censer, one of a series of these elaborate ritual objects excavated from the terraces of the Temple of the Sun.
(c)
N eb aj, Guatem ala: painting of a pottery vessel scene depicting a ruler seated on his throne receiving basket
loads of tribute, duly checked against a tally in a folded book by a seated royal courtier on the right.
PLATE 1 0 Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 1)
Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico: Str. 1, Room 1 murals (Late Classic): inside a palace, rituals and musicians accom pany the celebration of the designation of the royal heir, witnessed by the ruler Yajaw Chan M uw aan and his court (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 11 Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 1 continued)
Str. 1, Room 1 murals: continuation of scene inside a palace, rituals and musicians accompany the celebration of the designation of the royal heir, witnessed by the ruler Yajaw Chan M uw aan and his court (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 12 Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 2)
OQ
L a te
Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico: Str. 1, Room 2 murals (Late Classic): a swirling battle scene culminates with Yajaw Chan M uw aan taking a captive at the center of the scene, (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 1 3 Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 2 continued)
Str. 1, Room 2 murals: continuation of the scene with the presentation to Bonampak ruler Yajaw Chan M uw aan of the tortured prisoners on the steps of the royal palace (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 1 4 Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 3)
Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico: Str. 1, Room 3 murals (Late Classic): a lavish victory celebration follows in front of the palace with rituals and twirling dancers, and inside the palace the royal family seated on a dais offers blood to the gods (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 15 Late Classic murals from Bonampak (Room 3 continued)
Str. 1, Room 3 murals: continuation of the celebration scene, witnessed here by Bonampak ruler Yajaw Chan M uw aan and his royal court (reconstruction painting by Heather Hurst with Leonard Ashby).
PLATE 16 Terminal Classic architecture and mural
( a ) The G reat Palace at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico: a multiterraced Terminal Classic structure with a central stairway.
( b ) Painting of a Terminal Classic period mural in the Temple of the Chac M ool beneath the Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, M exico, showing a tranquil coastal fishing village scene.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
Fig. 8 .4 8 . Copan Stela P, with its portrait of the eleventh ruler, K'ak' Chan Yopaat: this stela, dated at 9 .9 .1 0 .0 .0 (ad 6 2 3 ), stands in the Acropolis West Court; in the background is the western side of Str. 101*16.
resou rces an d strategic h o ld over the “jade r o u te ” that fo llo w e d this river from the m in eral sou rces upstream to Lake Izabal and the C aribbean. D avid Stuart has identified the nam e glyphs and seated portrait o f Sm oke Im ix on Q uirigua M o n u m en t 12 (A ltar L), w h ich co m m em o ra tes a visit by Sm oke Im ix to Q uirigua in 6 5 3 . A year earlier, Sm ok e Im ix celebrated the 9 .1 1 .0 .0 .0 (6 5 2 ) K ’atun en d in g at C op an w ith five m o n u m en ts at the eastern and w estern entrances to the C op an Valley. Stelae 1 2 , 1 3 , and 23 w ere erected on eastern ap p roach es, w h ile Stelae 10 and 19 w ere sim ilarly placed on the w estern ap p roach es. H e also con stru cted a series o f n ew b u ild in gs, in clu d in g C h orch a Structure, a gallery tem p le that rose behind P apagayo, th e Early C lassic shrine built by R uler 2. A pparen tly it w as a lso S m oke Im ix w h o or dered the term in ation o f C o p a n ’s m o st sp len d id Early C lassic tem p le, R osalila Struc ture, w h ic h w a s carefu lly buried in tact beneath a n e w and larger m em orial to the dy n astic fou n d er, K ’inich Yax K ’u k ’ M o ’.
478
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
Upon Smoke Imix’s death in 695, Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil (“Eighteen Im ages of K’awiil,” nicknamed “18 Rabbit”) took the throne as the thirteenth ruler in the line of the founder. Unlike his predecessor, Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil con centrated on constructions and monuments in the site center. His first effort was overseeing the burial of Smoke Imix in a tomb placed inside Chorcha Structure. William Fash’s excavations beneath Str. 10L-26 have documented both Chorcha and Smoke Imix’s elaborate tomb. Once the tomb was sealed, Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awiil carried out the ritual termination of Ruler 2’s adjacent Papagayo Structure built some 250 years before. Stela 63, commemorating the 9.0.0.0.0 period ending celebrated by Ruler 2 with his father, K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’, was buried inside Papagayo, and both were encased within a new and larger temple reached by the initial version of Copan’s famed Hieroglyphic Stairway. Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil’s first monu ment, Stela J, also cites the 9.0.0.0.0 event, as if to replace the buried Stela 63. Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil continued the construction of the Copan Acropo lis, begun by his predecessors. His most notable edifice was Str. 10L-22, which still dominates the north side of the East Court, built as his royal palace and sanctuary (Fig. 8.49). Structure 10L-22 was the last in a series of “sacred mountains” at this lo cation, identified by their witz corner masks. One of the major architectural changes introduced about this time at Copan was the use of carved stone for building deco ration, replacing the previous tradition of modeled plaster. Although originally cov ered with plaster and paint, the underlying stone sculpture provided a much more durable foundation for architectural decoration. The Great Plaza north of the Acropolis was completely refurbished during Wax aklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil’s reign, serving as the setting for his portrait monuments, the greatest assemblage of such monuments at Copan (Fig. 8.50). These include, in chronological order, Stelae C, F, 4, H, A, B, and D. All carved in a florid deep relief, these monuments represent the culmination of the Copan sculptural tradition. As Joyce Marcus originally pointed out, one of these, Stela A (Fig. 8.50), proclaims that the Copan kingdom ranked with three others, Tikal, Palenque, and Calakmul, as one of the four greatest polities of the Maya world at the 9.15.0.0.0 K’atun ending (731). . The final project of Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil’s reign was the building of the last of a series of ball courts constructed and used by his predecessors, beginning with K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’. Located northwest of Str. 10L-26, the new ball court occu pied the transition between the public space of the Great Plaza to the south and the sacred temples and palaces of Copan’s rulers in the Acropolis to the south (Fig. 8.51). The date of its dedication is recorded on the eastern structure, 9.15.6.8.13 (738), only 1 13 days before Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil’s demise at the hands of Quirigua’s ruler K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat (9.15.6.14.6).
Fig. 8 .4 9 . Copan Acropolis East Court: (above) Str. 10L-22, dedicated by the sixteenth ruler, W axaklajuun U b'aah K 'awiil, in AD 7 1 5 on the first k'atun anniversary of his inauguration, probably to serve as his royal palace and sanctuary; (be/ow) the Jaguar Stairway on the west side of the court, built over the Sub-Jaguar Tomb (Fig. 7 .2 9 ).
Fig. 8 .5 0 . Stelae of Copan ruler W axaklajuun U b'aah K'awiil in the G reat Plaza: (left) Stela H, 9 .1 4 .1 9 .5 .0 (AD 7 3 0 ); {right} Stela A, 9 .1 5 .0 .3 .0 ( a d 7 3 1 ), with text that places Copan with three other great cities, Tikal, Palenque, and Calakmul, at the four corners of the Late Classic M a y a world.
Fig. 8 .5 1 . The ball court at Copan dedicated by the ruler W axaklajuun U b'aah K'awiil in AD 7 3 8 , only a few months before his demise; this is the latest of a series of ball courts revealed by excavation; be yond is the G reat Plaza and Str. 10L-4, with its four radial stairways.
482
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
A Tale o f T w o Cities Some thirty-five years into his reign, Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil oversaw the ac cession of his new ajaw, K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, at Quirigua, C opans major de pendency controlling the important Motagua tr^de route. On his later monuments, K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat recorded that Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil oversaw his in auguration in 724 (9.14.13.14.17). Quirigua was an important part of the Copan kingdom since it was founded by a subordinate of K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o ’ in 426 (Chapter 7), and it was the seat of a partially known succession of rulers subject to Copan’s authority (Table 8.7) Shortly after becoming ruler of Quirigua, K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat claimed the title of k’uhul ajaw on his earliest known monument, the modest Altar M. This date appears to refer to an unknown event in 734, which may signal a bid for indepen dence from Copan. If so, the ambitions of Quirigua’s ruler, probably motivated by a desire to control the trade that flowed through his precincts, appear to have led to conflict with Copan. Matters came to a head in 738, a date repeatedly given promi nence on Quirigua’s monuments (Figs. 8.52 and 8.53), when K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat captured and sacrificed Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil. As a result, in one stroke Copan’s hegemony over the southeastern region was broken. How Quirigua, with a population and resources only about a tenth the size of Copan’s, brought about this sudden reversal of fortunes has long been a mystery. But a brief reference on Quirigua Stela I deciphered by Matthew Looper provides a vital clue. The account states that in 736, two years before Copan’s defeat, K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat hosted the ruler of Calakmul, Wamaw K’awiil. This contact strongly suggests that Calakmul played a role in Copan’s defeat, perhaps by supporting Quirigua in its rebellion, or even providing the armed forces needed to overpower Copan. Possible motives for such support are not hard to discern, since striking a blow against Copan, one of Tikal’s oldest allies, would have been perceived as a de feat for Calakmul’s long-term foe as well. In addition, it may have given Calakmul crucial access to the bountiful Motagua Valley and its trade route. Unlike many texts in the central lowlands, there are only a few references to war fare in the carved records of both Copan and Quirigua. Copan’s defeat is cited re peatedly on Quirigua’s monuments, usually as an “ax event,” referring to the be heading of Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil. Its only mention at Copan is in the historical chronicle on the Hieroglyphic Stairway, which records the death of Wa xaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil by “flint and shield,” an apparent reference to warfare. The effects of this loss at Copan were undoubtedly profound. After 738 no new mon uments were erected for eighteen years. The first decade of this span corresponds to the reign of K’ak’ Joplaj Chan K’awiil (Table 7.2), who may have been under K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat’s jurisdiction. The Quirigua inscriptions name K’ak’ Tiliw Chan
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
TABLE 8 . 7
Dynastic chronology of Quirigua (ruler names in bold type; alternative names or titles in parentheses) Ruler T ok C a s p e r
Long Count date —
Doto AD 426
Events F o u n d e d Q u ir ig u a a s v assal o f K 'in ic h Y ax K 'u k ' M o ', C o p a n d y n a s tic fo u n d e r (Z o o m o rp h P; 7 9 5 )
T u tu u m Y ohl K 'i n k h
9 .1 .0 .0 .0
455
R u le r 3
9 .2 .5 .0 .0
480
R etro s p ec tiv ely c ite d o n S te la C ( 7 7 5 ) D e d ic a te d S te la U as vas sa l o f o n o c h k 'in k a lo o m te ' (K 'a ltu u n H ix o f C opan?)
R u le r 4
9 .2 .1 8 .0 .?
493
D e d ic a te d M o n . 2 6
R u le r 5
9 .1 1 .0 .0 .0
652
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g a s vassal
K 'a k ' T iliw C h a n Y o p a a t
9 .1 4 .1 3 .4 .1 7
724
A cce s sio n as vas sa l o f W a x a k la ju u n
—
736
A llia n c e w ith W a m a w K 'a w iil o f
A n a p p a r e n t h iatu s is in d ic a te d b y m assive flo o d d e p o s its th a t c o v e r m uch o f Q u ir ig u a .
o f S m o k e Im ix o f C o p a n (A lta r L)
Born ?; d ie d July 2 7 , 7 8 5 ; r e ig n e d D ec. 2 9 , 7 2 4 -J u ly 2 7 , 7 8 5
U b 'a a h K 'a w iil o f C o p a n
( 6 0 y e a rs ); title: 1 4 th ru le r c o u n te d fro m F o u n d e r; d e d ic a te d A lta r M ;
C a la k m u l? 9 .1 5 .6 .1 4 .6
738
V ic to ry o v e r C o p a n w ith c a p tu re
S te la e A , C , D , E, F, H , J, S;
a n d s a c rific e o f its k in g ,
Z o o m o r p h B; Pit. 1A -1
W a x a k la ju u n U b 'a a h K 'a w iil
( G r e a t P la z a ), Str. 1 B-2?
9 .1 6 .1 1 .1 3 .1
762
In stalle d S u n ra is e r J a g u a r a s a ja w o f Xhuy
S k y X ul R e ig n e d O c t . 1 1 , 7 8 5 - c a . 8 0 0 ; c a . 1 5 y e a r s d e d ic a t e d A lta rs O ' , P ';
9 .1 7 .1 4 .1 3 .2
785
D e a th ; b u ria l 1 0 d a y s la te r (M o n . 7 )
9 .1 7 .1 4 .1 6 .1 8
785
A c ce s sio n (M o n . 7 )
786
C a p tu r e o f p a tro n g o d (o f Xhuy?)
9 .1 8 .5 .0 .0
795
—
Z o o m o rp h s G , O , P
Ja d e Sky R e ig n e d c a . 8 0 0 - c a . 8 1 0 ; d e d ic a te d S te la e 1, K , Strs. I B - 1 , I B - 5
S c a tte rin g ritu a l a t fu n e ra ry te m p le o f K 'a k ' T iliw C h a n Y o p a a t
—
ca. 8 0 0
D e a th
—
ca. 8 0 0
A c cessio n
810
C e le b r a te d k 'a tu n e n d in g w ith Y ax
9 .1 9 .0 .0 .0
P asaj C h a n Y o p a a t o f C o p a n (Str. IB -1 )
S ou rces: K elley 1 9 6 1 b ; L o o p e r 1 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 3 ; M a r tin & G ru b e z o o o ; P r o sk o u r ia k o ff 1 9 9 3 ; R iese 1 9 8 6 ; Sharer 1 9 7 8 b , 1988, 1004.
Yopaat the fourteenth ruler in the line of the founder, which could represent his claim to be the successor of Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil, the thirteenth ruler at Copan. At the very least, the loss of control over the trade flowing along the Motagua route, and the most direct route north linking Copan to the central lowlands, must have caused a severe economic and political setback. As in other cases where a polity lost its ruler to capture and sacrifice, it was also a loss of prestige and morale. From Copan’s per spective, the gods had obviously withdrawn their blessings from their king and their destiny.
483
484
•
•
THE
APOGEE
OF
MAYA
STATES
IN
THE
LATE
CLASSIC
•
Fig. 8 .5 2 . The G reat Plaza at Q uirigua, Guatem ala, looking south toward the Acropolis, with several of the ruler K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat's great monuments visible between the trees: Stela D at the far right and, in the middle distance, Zoomorph G between Stela E (right) and Stela F (left).
M o st im portantly, there is evid en ce for internal p o litica l ch a n g es at C o p a n fo l lo w in g the disastrou s defeat. It is p o ssib le that royal au th ority w a s m a in ta in ed d u r ing this critical p eriod by the sharing o f p ow er a m o n g the h igh est-ran k in g elite lords o f the C op an realm . A case in p o in t is the on ly b u ild in g iden tified w ith th e reign o f K ’ak ’ Joplaj C han K ’aw iil, Str. 1 0 L -2 2 A (Fig. 8 .5 4 ). T h e m at m o tifs o n th is
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
structure, w h ic h stan d s im m ed iately w est o f W axaklajuun U b ’aah K ’a w iil’s great p alace, Str. 1 0 L -2 2 , in d icate it m ay have been a p o p o l n a a h , or co u n cil h ou se. If so , it w a s here th at the elite lords o f C op an m et to p articipate in th e d ecision -m ak in g p rocess under the w ea k en ed au th ority o f K ’ak ’ Joplaj C han K ’aw iil. T h e victory over C o p a n allo w ed Q uirigu a to gain its eco n o m ic and p olitical in d ep en d en ce. N o t on ly did K ’ak ’ T iliw C han Y opaat com m an d his o w n destiny, he n o w c o n tro lled the resources o f the fertile M o ta g u a V alley and the m ajor trade route th at ran p ast his d o o rstep . T h is a llo w ed him to sp on sor a m ajor rebuild in g effort that tran sform ed Q u irigu a in a vivid d em on stration o f his n ew ly w o n w ealth and pres tige. A lth o u g h K ’a k ’ T iliw C han Y opaat sp on sored the co n stru ctio n o f several n ew
Fig. 8 .5 3 . Quirigua Stela E, the largest stela in the M a y a area, bearing the portrait of the ruler K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat (9 .1 7 .0 .0 .0 , or ad 7 7 1 ).
485
4 8 6
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8.54. Copan, Honduras: the front of Str. 10L-22A, a popol naah, or "house of the mat" (note the mat motifs above the doorways), dated to the reign of the fourteenth ruler, K'ak' Joplaj Chan K'awiil, immediately west of Str. 10L-22 (Fig. 8.49).
buildings, including Str. 1B-2 in the modest Quirigua Acropolis, most of his efforts went into creating an impressive public space that would be an appropriate setting for the monuments to proclaim his achievements. The new plaza laid out north of the Acropolis palace complex was the most expansive such public space ever designed at a Maya site (Fig. 8.52). While there is archaeological evidence that the southern por tion was used as a marketplace, most of this plaza was used to display an array of monuments adorned with K’ak’ Tiliw’s portraits, including several of the largest carved stone stelae ever erected by the Maya. The largest of all, Stela E (771) towers over 7 m above the plaza and weighs an estimated 30 tons (Fig. 8.53). The huge size and the beautiful carving on these monuments, once visible from the Motagua River that flowed along the west side of the Great Plaza, testified that K’ak’ Tiliw now
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
487
• • •
controlled all the resources he needed to create a capital suitable for a powerful and independent Maya king.
R evita liza tio n a n d D ecline a t C opan During this time it is likely that the new leadership at Copan quietly set about to re store the economic foundations of the kingdom. Since the loss of Quirigua weakened or even severed Copan’s trade and tribute from the north, economic networks were expanded to the south and east, into Central America. The Late Classic archaeolog ical record in these latter areas, including sites in El Salvador to the south and the Ulua and other regions in Honduras to the east, shows pronounced increases in trade and influences from Copan. Recovery increased after the death of K’ak’ Joplaj Chan K’awiil (749), with the inauguration of his son, K’ak’ Yipyaj Chan K’awiil, later that same year (Table 7.2). Although no new monuments were dedicated for the first few years of his reign, the excavation of Str. 10L-26 indicates that the fifteenth Copan ruler was able to fully re store the kingdom’s ancient prestige by completing the greatest of all of Copan’s mon uments. When K’ak’ Yipyaj Chan K’awiil dedicated the final version of Str. 10L-26 and its Hieroglyphic Stairway in 756, Copan emerged from the stigma of defeat. The significance of this temple and its inscription is based on its sacred location, built above the deeply buried M otmot Marker commemorating the great 9.0.0.0.0 calendrical celebration, dedicated by the dynastic founder, K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’, and his son. The Hieroglyphic Stairway was carved with the longest known Maya inscription (Fig. 7.24), some 2,200 glyphs, embellished at regular intervals with statues of Co pan’s greatest kings, culminating with K’ak’ Yipyaj Chan K’awiil’s portrait on Stela M at its base. As William Fash has shown, in presenting Copan’s glorious history in text and image, the Hieroglyphic Stairway canceled the humiliation of defeat and re stored the prestige of Copan and its ancient ruling dynasty. The message of this magnificent monument is clear; the cosmic order has been reestablished by the res toration of Copan to its former place of importance in the Maya world. Five years later K’ak’ Yipyaj dedicated Stela N , a tour de force of elaborate threedimensional sculpture. During his reign there may have been an alliance with one of the most important Late Classic Maya cities, Palenque. We do know that there was a marriage between an unknown Copan lord and Lady Chak Nik Ye’ Xook, an elite woman from this western kingdom. This union produced a son who would be come Copan’s sixteenth king. The date of K’ak’ Yipyaj’s death is unknown, but the location of his Stela N in front of Str. 10L-11 may mark the location of his unexca vated tomb. Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat was inaugurated as Copan’s sixteenth king in 763. While Copan’s texts record his mother’s name, there is no mention of his father, indicating that the new king was not a direct heir of K’ak’ Yipyaj Chan K’awiil. What is clear
488
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L A T E C L A S S I C
• • •
is that Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat inherited both the prestige and problems of his pred ecessors. Early in his reign he was able to construct two major buildings that still dominate the Acropolis, Strs. io L-i i and 10L-16, along with the much smaller Str. 10L-21 A. One of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s most important undertakings, Str 10L-11, began with the construction of a reviewing stand on the north side of the West Court, apparently the setting for captive sacrifice rituals, dedicated in 769. Mary Miller has shown how the watery motifs (shells and caimans) of this staircase, and the three markers set in the plaza below, identify the West Court with the watery under world, the location of the ball court where the Hero Twins played the death gods (Chapter 13). Above the West Court, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat dedicated his “sacred mountain” four years later in 773. Str. 10L-11 was a two-story building, with doorways facing in all four directions, which probably served as both his residence and place of pri vate rituals. Str. 10L-16, his principal temple, faced west onto the same court. It stands as the final shrine dedicated to the ancestral founder, K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o ’, whose first residence and tomb have been identified buried deep beneath Str. 10L-16. Its sculptured decoration is replete with Tlaloc and war imagery signifying links to the past glories of Teotihuacan in distant Central M exico. In front of this building Yax Pasaj placed his most important monument, Altar Q (Fig. 7.21), dedicated in 9.17.5.0.0 (775), commemorating the founding of Copan’s dynasty by K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’ in 426. Adorned with portraits of the founder and his successors, Altar Q was probably used by Yax Pasaj as his throne to oversee the rituals held in the West Court. Excavations under this monument in 1988 revealed that its dedication was sanctified by the sacrifice of fifteen jaguars, each probably symbolizing the wayy or ancestral spirit, of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s royal predecessors. But problems are also apparent from these same buildings, for none were con structed or decorated with the skill and durability of Copan’s earlier architecture. The power gained by Copan’s nobles in the wake of its defeat in 738 increased dur ing Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s reign, as he attempted to hold his kingdom together by rewarding his officials with more authority and wealth. The titles and powers pos sessed by these elite lords, including state officials and councilors of the popol naah, were proclaimed on the carved benches of their palatial residences. Several of these carved benches dating to the reign of Yax Pasaj have been excavated in their residen tial compounds around the capital, from which these lords presided like lesser ver sions of the high king himself. One of the most powerful of these men, judging from the size and elaborateness of his residential compound, was the royal scribe who lived in Group 9N -8 in the Sepulturas Group northeast of the Main Group. The house of the royal scribe was the group’s largest and highest building. A monumental bench found in its central room was carved to represent the cosmos in ornate style, using full-figure glyphs to
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
489
• • •
record the scribe’s name, Mak Chanil, that of his father, K’uk’ K’awiil, who proba bly held the same office before him, and the name of his king, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat. Mak Chanil’s house was decorated with carved portraits of him holding the tools of his trade, the scribe’s brush and shell paint container. Mak Chanil’s compound in cluded houses for his family, workshops, storerooms (including one for ballgame equipment), and servants’ quarters. In one area of the compound there were quarters for a group of non-Maya people, probably from the Ulua Valley, who seem to have produced pottery or other goods under his patronage. Another important official during the reign of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat apparently lived in the North Group overlooking the Copan Valley. The northern location of this complex, which is composed of two large rectangular compounds, suggests associa tions with the supernatural and the heavens. Excavations show that the southern compound (Group 8L-12) appears to have been the residence of an elite family, served by attendants who lived in smaller surrounding structures. As in other Late Classic elite compounds, architectural decorations include individual portraits, pre sumably identifying the occupant’s status and position within the Copan hierarchy. In contrast, the higher northern compound (Group 8L-10) is devoid of such ancillary structures, and the fallen facade sculpture does not refer to individuals but rather to themes of ritual, sacrifice, and the heavens. One important exception is the name of Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil, and a date two days after the capture and sacrifice of Copan’s thirteenth king in 738. These clues suggest that the elite residents of Group 8L-12 were priests in charge of an adjacent ceremonial complex, Group 8L-10, ded icated to the veneration of the deceased Copan ruler, perhaps a shrine to his ritual apotheosis as a divine being two days after he was sacrificed. The final building of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s reign is Str. 10L-18, dedicated in 801 and located at the southern end of the Acropolis East Court (Fig. 8.55). It faces north, toward Str. 10L-22, Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil’s sacred mountain, and Strs. 10L-21A and 21 (destroyed by the Copan River). The carved doorjambs of 10L-18 show Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat and a companion, probably one of his broth ers, as warriors, holding spears and shields, adorned with trophy heads and ropes for binding captives. Explicit warfare motifs are rare at Copan, and this example testifies to increasing conflicts that probably plagued the last years of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s rule. The second k’atun of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s reign (790) was not commemorated on a stela or altar but on a small carved stone incense burner. His final public monu ment was Altar G i, dedicated in 800, the last of three small but ornate altars set in the Great Plaza among the great stelae of his predecessor, Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil. The next k’atun ending in 810 is not marked at Copan but rather on Str. 1B-1 at Quirigua, where Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat’s name was recorded with Quirigua’s ruler. Jade Sky. Although we do not know his death date, Yax Pasaj was depicted as an aged
Fig. 8.55. Remains of Copan Str. 10L-18 at the southern entrance to the East Court: (left) sculptured doorjamb with warrior figure identified as the sixteenth ruler, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat; (below) doorway and carved interior bench (beneath lies the an ciently pillaged tomb believed to be that of Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
Fig. 8.56. Copan Altar L, marking the end of the royal dynasty: the carved south side, the only finished portion of the monument, showing (at right) the sixteenth ruler, Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat, opposite (at left) Ukit Took', his successor (9 .1 9 .1 1 .1 4 .5 , or AD 822).
and possibly deceased king on a carved column from Str. 10L-18 dedicated in 820. Given the death associations of this monument, the anciently looted tomb inside Str. 10L-18 may have once been the place of Yax Pasaj’s burial. The last dated monument at Copan, Altar L, was placed on the north platform overlooking the ball court and testifies to the end of centralized rule at Copan. Altar L is a rather pathetic imitation of Altar Q, showing Yax Pasaj seated opposite of Ukit Took’, the man who would be king by attempting to succeed him as Copan’s seven teenth ruler (Fig. 8.56). The failure of Ukit Took’ to do so, and the end of Copan’s dynasty, is apparent from the unfinished condition of Altar L. Some of its glyph blocks were never carved, and two sides of the stone remain blank. Like the motiva tion for completing Altar L, the power and resources that sustained the kings of Co pan had disappeared with the end of the ninth Bak’tun. The archaeological evidence suggests that Copan and its valley were depopulated within about a century there after. Sometime later there was a relatively brief reoccupation by Postclassic peoples with distinctive patterns of settlement, economic organization, and material culture, including pottery, before Copan and the surrounding valley were finally abandoned.
491
492.
TH E
A P O G E E
OF
MAYA
STATES
IN
T H E
LATE
C L A S S IC
• • •
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY Throughout the M aya lowlands there are hun
Ha, or "place of stone water." Archaeological
dreds of smaller Classic-period sites without sur
investigations directed by David Pendergast,
viving historical texts. M any of these were sec
and sponsored by the Royal Ontario Museum,
ondary centers that were subordinate to far
took place at Altun Ha from 1 9 6 4 to 1 9 7 0 . This
more powerful neighboring royal capitals, or in
research revealed that this center had been oc
some cases they remained independent of out
cupied since the Early Preclassic (ca. 1 0 0 0
side control. In the eastern lowlands there are a
but that the currently visible construction results
B C ),
number of such sites that reached their apogee
largely from expansion dating from the Classic
in the Classic period. Some of these have been
era. Population likely peaked at about 3 ,0 0 0
brought to light by archaeological investigation,
during that time.
including two important sites in Belize.
The core of the site is clustered around two
Altun Ha is located in northern Belize, near
plazas, one to the north and one to the south.
the Caribbean coast, adjacent to the town of
The excavation of Str. B-4 (Fig. 8 .5 7 ), on the
Rockstone Pond, from which it was named Altun
east side of Plaza B, revealed a richly furnished
Fig. 8 .5 7 . Altun H a, Belize: Str. B-4, where excavation uncovered the jade carving of K'inich A ja w the sun deity (see Fig. 8 .5 8 ).
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY ( c o n f ir m e d ) tomb, probably that of one of Altun Ha's rulers.
lowlands. But the evidence from Altun Ha indi
Among
cates that this center participated
its contents was the largest M aya
jadeite sculpture yet found (Fig. 8 .5 8 ), a repre
in,
and
reaped the benefits from, a trade network con
sentation of K'inich Ajaw, the sun deity (God
necting the Caribbean coast with the core of the
G), weighing 4 .4 2 kg (9 .7 lb.). Another tomb
central lowlands, probably dominated by Tikal.
discovered in Str. A -l
contained some 3 0 0
Lubaantun is a small Late Classic center lo
jadeite objects and the decomposed residue of
cated in the dense rain forest of southern Belize,
a codex, or M a ya book. All this is evidence of
well within the southern lowlands. The site is sit
considerable wealth and power held by the
uated close to the Rio Grande, a small river that
rulers of Altun Ha, an unexpected finding in
provided access to the Caribbean only 3 0 km
what was previously thought to be a minor and
(19 mi.) to the southeast. The ruins, discovered
unimportant center on the eastern edge of the
in 19 03 by Thomas Gann, were sporadically in-
Fig. 8.58. Altun Ha, Belize: the carved head of K'inich Ajaw from Str. B-4, the largest known Maya jade carving, weighing 4 .4 2 kg (9.7 lb.).
493
494
THE APOGEE o f
MAYA s t a t e s
in t h e
la te
classic
• • •
CITIES WITHOUT HISTORY ( con tin u ed) vestigated by Gann and others, including R. E.
gion. This research also suggests that the site
Merwin (1 9 1 5 ). In 1 9 2 6 and 1 9 2 7 T. A. Joyce
was founded to administer the production of
led a British Museum expedition to excavate the
the principal export item of the region, cacao.
site. In 19 2 8 the British Museum excavations
Lubaantun consists of essentially a single Acrop
were abandoned to give priority to surveying
olis, constructed on a low ridge between two
the newly discovered site of Pusilha, about
streams. There is a ball court to the south and
3 2 km to the southwest. Pusilha generated more
two high, terraced platforms near its center. To
interest at the time since, unlike Lubaantun, it
the north is another ball court, directly west of a
contained sculptured stelae with hieroglyphic
large plaza. The plainness and monumentality
inscriptions.
of many of the masonry terraces, especially in
The investigation of Lubaantun was resumed
the use of large stone blocks, recalls the latest
in 1 9 7 0 by a project directed by Norman Ham
architectural style of Quirigua to the south.
mond. This research produced a new map of
W h ile Lubaantun is without two hallmarks of
the site and its settlement and verified earlier
Classic lowland M a y a centers, vaulted build
conclusions that Lubaantun had been occupied
ings and sculptured monuments, the presence of
relatively briefly, from about AD 7 0 0 to 8 7 0 .
stelae at nearby Nim Li Punit may indicate it was
Thus, Lubaantun seems to have been the result of
the capital of the local region.
a Late Classic colonization of the Rio G rande re
The L a st D a ys o f Q uirigua For a century after defeating Copan and gaining independence in 738, the rulers of Quirigua (Table 8.7) reigned supreme over the lower Motagua Valley and its adja cent areas, controlling the critical jade route between the highlands and the Carib bean to the east. The architect of the victory over Copan, K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat, died in 784 after a reign of sixty years marked by the refounding of Quirigua as an independent and prosperous polity. He was succeeded seventy-eight days later by his presumed son, Sky Xul, who ruled for more than a decade. Perhaps unwilling to match his predecessor’s giant stelae, Sky Xul commemorated his reign with three mammoth boulder sculptures, or zoomorphs. His Jaguar Throne Stone (Zoomorph G) was the first, placed in the midst of his predecessor’s Great Plaza stelae. Its text records the death, burial, and rebirth of K’ak’ Tiliw Chan Yopaat. Zoomorph O fol lowed in 790 and Zoomorph P in 795, both set with companion altars in the Ball Court Plaza. All are sculptural masterworks, especially Zoomorph P (Fig. 7.30), which, in its complex text, recalls the founding of Quirigua under the auspices of K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’.
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L ATE C L A S S I C
495
• • •
The last known Quirigua ruler, Jade Sky, took the throne about 800. Two rela tively modest monuments mark his reign. Although he sponsored a major recon struction of the Acropolis, he preserved Str. 1B-2, a small but elaborately decorated building that has been identified as K’ak’ Tiliw’s original palace. The last known date from Quirigua (810) was carved on the facade of Str. 1B-1, one of Jade Sky’s new Acropolis buildings. The texts from this building include the rather mysterious ref erence to Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat, Copan’s sixteenth ruler, who apparently celebrated the 810 K’atun ending along with Jade Sky, possibly indicating a return to peaceful relations between the two kingdoms. A few years later Jade Sky’s palace, the largest building at Quirigua (Str. 1B-5), was completed. But by this time most Classic-period Maya capitals were in their final days, and no further historical texts were commissioned at Quirigua. Excavations re veal that shortly after it was abandoned the Quirigua Acropolis was reoccupied. The pottery left by these later intruders indicates they came from the eastern lowlands and Caribbean coast to the north. The newcomers probably reoccupied Quirigua as a key site for controlling Motagua River commerce. They sponsored some final con structions in the Acropolis, but the era of kings and dynastic monuments had passed and soon thereafter Quirigua was completely abandoned.
Summary: Development of States in the Late Classic Lowlands During the Late Classic era there was an explosive population growth in the Maya lowlands. This is reflected in the political development of Maya states, especially in the rapid increase in the size, complexity, and number of polities throughout the low lands. In earlier times a sequence of single great cities enjoyed a measure of su premacy, dominating the lowland stage by a combination of economic and political power, reinforced by the prestige of being the center of the Maya world. Thus Nakbe probably dominated the Middle Preclassic stage for a time, to be succeeded by El M i rador in the Late Preclassic, followed for a time in the Early Classic by Tikal. But at the same time the political environment for all Maya states became increasingly com petitive. As the number and size of polities increased throughout the lowlands, and most polity capitals commanded ever-larger populations, the competition for land, water, food, and other resources accelerated. As a result, the intensity of conflict be tween polities increased dramatically. Older and established powers were challenged by an expanding host of lesser centers jockeying for advantage. Some smaller polities were allied to more powerful kingdoms, others attempted to remain unaligned, or were defeated and added to the realms of larger capitals, while still others gained their independence when the opportunity arose. Tikal attempted to dominate the lowlands by establishing allied ruling houses in other polities, but in the sixth century it was challenged by Calakmul, a rival with equivalent power and resources. Calakmul embarked on a successful strategy to en-
496
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T A T E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
• • •
circle Tikal with its own network of allied states. Its trade links attenuated, and cut off from its more distant allies such as Copan and Palenque, Tikal was vulnerable when the Calakmul alliance struck. With a series of military victories between 562 and 679, Calakmul and its allies dominated Tikal for over a century. But these de feats did not destroy the determination of Tikal’s leaders to restore their former pres tige and power. Calakmul succeeded in dominating the Maya lowlands for a time, reaching its apogee of power under the long and successful reign of Yuknoom the Great (6 3 6 -8 6 ). But as appears to be the Maya custom, Calakmul’s power relied on controlling its client states, for it was unwilling to significantly expand its political hegemony beyond its own territory. Like Tikal before it, Calakmul’s strategy entailed the founding of new client ruling houses in subjugated polities. This appears to have happened at Naranjo, and similar efforts may have occurred in other capitals as well. But Calakmul apparently did not attempt to politically and militarily subjugate its al lies or to create a larger unified state under its authority. This may have reflected practical realities such as the difficulties of communication over the vastness of the Maya lowlands, as well as a political ideology that called for Maya polities and their ruling houses to be perpetuated even in the wake of conquest and domination. In any case, the failure of Calakmul to strengthen its political control and to ex tinguish the resolve of its defeated rival led ultimately to Tikal’s resurgence. Its strength gathered under the leadership of its king Jasaw Chan K’awiil I (6 8 2 -7 3 4 ), Tikal struck back and defeated Calakmul in 695, changing the course of lowland his tory in one epic battle. This victory over Calakmul did much to restore Tikal’s pres tige and power. Fifty years later Jasaw Chan K’awiil’s successor, Yik’in Chan K’awiil (7 3 4 -6 6 ), capped his father’s success with triumphs over Calakmul’s major allies, Naranjo and Waka (El Perú). With these victories Tikal regained its control over the ancient east-west trade routes across the lowlands, ushering in a period of renewed expansion and prosperity. But, even after its humbling defeats, the Calakmul dynasty continued to rule the ancient Kan kingdom north of Tikal. While economic competition undoubtedly fueled the rivalry and eventual conflict between Calakmul and Tikal, there were likely deep-rooted factors that con tributed to the animosity between these two polities. One of these may have derived from differences in political structure. Only male figures were portrayed on Tikal’s monuments (Lady of Tikal is the only possible exception), while Calakmul gave equal billing to a number of queens with twin monuments: one to portray the king, the other his royal wife. The rulers of Calakmul’s ally, Waka, also portrayed them selves in the company of their queens. When it was necessary to reestablish the Naranjo royal house after its destruction (apparently by Calakmul), a royal woman was dispatched from Dos Pilas (Calakmul’s ally) to Naranjo where Lady Six Sky acted as Naranjo’s new ruler until a new prince came of age to be inaugurated as king. These cases indicate that Calakmul (and its allies) gave greater prominence to
T H E A P O G E E OF MAYA S T AT E S I N T H E L AT E C L A S S I C
497
• • •
the female line, and the joint rule of king and queen, in the support of royal legiti macy. This stands in contrast to the practice at Tikal, and its allies such as Copan, where royal monuments almost exclusively portray male rulers. The basis of royal legitimacy as practiced by the Calakmul royal house probably represents very traditional Maya concepts. The heritage of CalakmuPs royal house may lie in the deep Preclassic past and could well derive from a connection between its Kan dynasty and the Late Preclassic rulers of El Mirador. This heritage seems to stand in contrast to practices derived from a change within the Tikal ruling house created by the 378 “arrival of strangers” and the placement of a new king on Tikal’s throne in 379. Thus, perceived notions of different origins and political traditions, as well as more pragmatic military and economic rivalries, may have fueled the pro tracted conflict between these two states. In the end, however, Tikal’s triumph was short lived, and neither kingdom saw its political system survive. The later kings of Tikal, Calakmul, and the other polities of the Maya lowlands were beset with a host of challenges to their authority. Some of these challenges were of their own making. Continued increases in population and environmental exploitation brought the lowland ecological balance to a critical point of vulnerability at the very time competing Maya kings were going to war to expand their control over land, labor, trade, and wealth. Royal competition to increase power and prestige is also seen in the architecture and monuments sponsored by Maya rulers. This zeal of Maya kings to increase the magnificence of their capitals as they promoted their own personal achievements only increased competition for the rapidly diminishing lowland resources. As a result of all of these forces, the lowland landscape was destined to undergo profound and even catastrophic changes during the subsequent Terminal Classic period.
- * . * r*.
.
'
‘ w
,*V
7 U u*
» ..
■
.«- I' »c ‘ • .{ 4.
¿k . .. I ’ T t ; . : i*>i: » ' ^ r '.'
L ttih à w
»V*;. ’ . v
-*«•
1! t v ; »
1{ ,
fv
£ ¿ *» ¿ > 0 . ■iff ' fcT*.¿V.
rx iD
.
1 ~t O -
Mkl (*« & '
'M
- • >r / . ■-. ,
• »#
• *
> ' i i -> ; i • * y it * J |Y 1 :n*?v »• • i ' • ,.K
f
v. i . i d ,
i
*?!
i* :/
-
*
4> p y „ in r is A g fa Y
^
11 r ; i
•.
•*■
1 *:;r r > \ d i *•* W = -
Y j
Í
v j
7 r jt^ j
* > u * r : *.*■■. .y a p ’
., ■
±
¿‘ . '
►i *
T ^ i T Ck
-i* 1f „
,■•»
-V
■ ;■ i t i . v i U *: i .w'.Z ‘.v l -^ J- ^
.t í
t& m *
' J
rr: •* -,:U * J.Î J r - - "•
m * )t
)f ln .
.“
i •V - í
•’ 4 '" " js * ' I ' i U v
•*a -t f '
* r
i
i c r ; o » *;: ^
« • .’
A>
V
,•
.•>-» * '
:
’» ^
*»*/>•
I
■.
IVA* •
> » . t ’j% t ;ulJ
«' c'~--
lifV,*
7 *■ •
M ü .-f
’l- * W
/ • ;./*
« -ntv*. ili-i'vrV •
a
• . ' q* K* . "
'. '
'P
Y
""i?
Transformations in the Terminal Classic There were no more lucky days for us; we had no sound judgment. At the end of our loss of vision, and o f our shame, everything shall he revealed. — B o o k o f C h ila m B alam o f C h u m a y e l
(Roys 1967: 83)
As w e h a v e s e e n , there have been several cycles of growth and decline over the course of Maya civilization. The first cycle was brought to a close by a widespread decline after the initial growth of Late Preclassic civilization. The second cycle of even greater growth was concluded by profound changes that define the Terminal Classic period, beginning about a d 800. The duration of the Terminal Classic varies from region to region. The most dramatic changes occurred in the heartland of the central and southern lowlands, resulting in the demise of almost all the Classic-period states be tween ca. a d 800 and 900. At the same time, there were changes in many areas out side of the Classic heartland, even as some regions continued to prosper. Polities in the northern lowlands expanded to their zenith, then declined, all within a relatively brief span between ca. a d 800 and 1100. These changes were clearly related and will be examined in this chapter, beginning with the central and southern lowlands.
Decline in the Classic Heartland M ost of the states ruled by divine kings that had reached their apogee in the Classic period (Chapter 8) experienced a drastic decline during the Terminal Classic. Yet it is important to stress that most of the problems and changes responsible for this de cline began in the Late Classic, if not before. This is especially true of increased com petition within Maya society, including rivalries and power struggles revealed by signs of expanding power held by nonroyal elites within polities and increased war fare between polities. In fact, these pressures had already taken their toll on some polities by 800. The most dramatic instance of this was the destruction of Dos Pilas by endemic warfare in the Petexbatun region. Yet in most other lowland areas the full impact of these changes unfolded during the ninth century. As a result, by 900 in the central and southern lowlands only vestiges remained of the traditional polities, great and small. The dynasties of divine kings that had dominated the Classic heartland since their rise to power in the Late Preclassic period had all but vanished. The most obvious changes were the disappearance of the hallmarks of central ized political organization, especially those reflecting the institution of divine king-
500
T R A N S F O R M A T I O N S IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
•••• ship. The most visible markers of this political system were carved stone monuments that portrayed divine kings and recorded their achievements with hieroglyphic texts and Long Count dates. By 900 the dedication of dynastic monuments had ceased at most polity capitals. The last known stela with a Long Count date is Tonina M onu ment 101 at 10.4.0.0.0 (909). By the same time, monumental constructions— temples, palaces, ball courts, and causeways (plus canals and reservoirs for cities that relied on these facilities)— ceased at most sites, as did associated features such as elaborate royal tombs and the carved stone and modeled stucco work used to adorn buildings. The manufacture and distribution of many prestige and ritual goods, es pecially polychrome pottery and items of carved jade, w ood, bone, and shell— used in life and often interred in elite tombs after death— all but disappeared. Signs of environmental problems and population decline accompany these changes. There is evidence of deforestation, soil erosion, changes in rainfall patterns, and drought. The archaeological record also reveals a drop in evidence of domestic activity associated with both palaces and commoner houses, implying a drastic pop ulation decrease. These changes are most pronounced in the very areas once domi nated by the greatest and most populous states of the Classic period. After what ap pears to be a peak in the Late Classic, occupation at both the capitals and in the hinterlands of kingdoms such as Calakmul, Tikal, Palenque, and Copan decreased steadily during the Terminal Classic. In some cases, after palaces were abandoned by their royal residents, they were reoccupied for a time by small groups of commoners or outsiders. But by the end of the Terminal Classic, most signs of human occupation drop drastically or completely vanish from the archaeological record at most sites in the Maya heartland. The causes and consequences of these changes must be inferred from archaeo logical evidence, together with data provided by allied disciplines. While the hiero glyphic texts left by royal dynasties have greatly enriched our understanding of the political history of the Classic period, these records offer no accounts describing the changes of the Terminal Classic. But the dynastic monuments of the Late and Termi nal Classic eras do reflect important political changes during this time. An overall de crease in the numbers of monuments, and a general decline in the quality of their workmanship, indicates diminished economic support for divine kings and their works— paralleling the downward trends seen in the construction projects spon sored by these same rulers. The decline of divine kingship can also be detected from changes in the carved motifs and texts on royal monuments. From the first Maya stelae in the Late Preclassic, the central scenes on most were carved portraits of divine kings with all the trappings of supernatural and secular power, often accompanied by downtrodden captives and occasionally by portrayals of royal wives and heirs. But by the Terminal Classic, rulers often shared center stage: portraits of sajalob’ and other subordinate lords appear with increasing frequency on monuments, holding prestigious titles,
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
5O I
••••
TERMINAL CLASSIC MAYA POTTERY Domestic pottery shows little change during this
for export, as part of an expanding Terminal
era, but both the frequency and quality of poly
Classic commercial economy. The stereotyped
chrome ceramics decreased, presumably due to
scenes on Fine Orange pottery are often mili
the decreasing demand for their use by elites
taristic, and these wares were traded over much
and in rituals and feasting, as well as decline in
of the M aya area.
support of the specialized, elite-sponsored work
In Yucatan, Terminal Classic pottery continued
shops where they were produced. N ew modes
the separate trends of the Late Classic. Poly
of mass production and more efficient distribu
chrome pottery is generally absent, although
tion are reflected in new types of pottery that ap
there are exceptions. Slateware continued to de
peared throughout the M a ya area, seen in hard,
velop, characterized by a waxy gray to brown
thin-walled, fine-pasted, and technologically ad
ish slip, occasionally covered with a pale, gray
vanced types. The most distinctive Terminal Clas
ish paint. The characteristically fine, smooth
sic pottery is Plumbate ware, the only vitrified
finish, the careful forming, and the technical ex
(glazed) pottery in pre-Columbian America, pro
cellence of this ware derive from a skilled and
duced along the Pacific coast in southwestern
well-organized group of craftsmen. Further evi
Guatem ala. Plumbate was often elaborately
dence of improved production methods is found
decorated by pottery molds or by a combination
in the use of the k'abal among modern M aya
of modeling and carving. Plumbate ceramics,
potters. The k'abal is a wooden disk that rests on
which underwent several hundred years of de
a smooth board and is spun between the soles
velopment, were widely traded even beyond the
of the potter's feet, in a procedure much like the
M a ya area beginning in the Terminal Classic.
wheel-throwing used by O ld W orld potters. Al
Another marker of this era, Fine Orange ware,
though the true potter's wheel was never used by
was produced from a fine-grained clay in the
the M aya, vessels made on a k'abal have the
western edge of the lowlands in Tabasco. Stan
even and elaborate contours similar to wheel-
dardization in both shape and mold-made dec
made pottery.
orations is evidence of commercial production
taking captives, and assisting in rituals (Figs. 8.30 and 8.31). These changes reflect a trend toward the decentralization of power within many polities, often the end result of earlier power-sharing arrangements used by divine kings to hold onto their exalted positions. But it is clear that these attempts to buy the allegiance of subordinates ul timately failed. During the Terminal Classic a number of leaders of former secondary centers were able to carry on the functions formerly reserved to divine kings by ded icating their own stelae, even as royal power at older polity capitals declined or ceased altogether. At least some polities broke up into smaller petty states for a brief time before the end came for their would-be kings as well.
502
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
Patterns o f Change The contexts, causes, and consequences of these Terminal Classic changes were di verse across the lowland heartland. In the Petexbatun the acceleration of violence produced by endemic warfare was the leading cause for the breakdown of central ized authority and depopulation of the region, fn contrast, at Copan violence and warfare played much less of a role in the changes of the Terminal Classic, yet the end result was the same. Failures to ameliorate increasing environmental problems, es pecially deforestation and soil erosion, contributed to a loss of confidence in Copan’s rulers. As we saw in Chapter 8, the weakening of centralized dynastic power at Co pan was apparently triggered by two specific events— the loss of Copan’s thirteenth ruler and the breakaway of the Quirigua polity in a d 738. But the most immediate cause for the decline in royal authority stemmed from the responses to these losses, especially the power-sharing arrangements instituted by Copan’s kings in an attempt to recover from these setbacks. As subordinate lords exercised greater autonomy, rulers offered more incentives to maintain their allegiance, furthering the decentral ization of power within the Copan polity that culminated in the failure of Ukit Took’ to succeed Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat as king (Table 7.2). Archaeology has revealed the breakdown of centralized authority, with evidence of burning and looting within the former royal precincts of the capital, signaling the end of the 400-year dynasty of K’inich Yax K’uk’ M o’. The Copan polity probably broke into a series of autonomous units, each administered by the former subordi nates of the king, the heads of the major elite houses within the Copan Valley. Ar chaeology also shows that political changes and degradation of the environment did not result in an immediate abandonment of the Copan Valley. Many of the elite and nonelite residential compounds throughout the valley continued to be occupied for several generations after the fall of the last ruler at Copan, even as the numbers of in habitants rapidly dwindled. The pressures exerted on Copan’s final kings were much the same as the wider problems faced by the rulers at other Maya centers. Certainly increasingly destruc tive warfare, combined with overpopulation, environmental degradation, and cli matic changes, severely disrupted Maya society in many areas of the lowlands. But at Copan, warfare and violence erupted in the Terminal Classic as a consequence of the breakdown in centralized authority, not a cause. Policies specifically aimed at recov ering prestige and power by a wounded dynasty, when combined with the problems of localized overpopulation and diminished food production caused by erosion, played an important role in the destabilization of the political system and the final demise of centralized authority. In general terms, the pattern seen at Copan was repeated at many polity capitals in the Terminal Classic period. The process began with a weakening and décentrai-
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
ization of royal political power caused by a variety of factors. This then led to the de mise of centralized authority, followed by gradual depopulation under weakened elite authority, until much of the Maya lowlands was all but abandoned. Thus, the so-called Classic collapse should be viewed as a process that extended over a century or more, rather than as a sudden catastrophe. And the specific causes that triggered this process varied from one region to another.
The C ollapse Issue For a number of years the seemingly dramatic end of Classic Maya civilization has been a major research topic and has even received attention in the popular media. But while the changes in the Terminal Classic period are frequently seen as produc ing the collapse or end of Maya civilization, this view is mistaken. Although there were widespread changes, and most of the densely settled heartland polities were ul timately abandoned, Maya civilization did not collapse or disappear, as is sometimes assumed or implied, especially in popular accounts. The region around the Peten lakes in the central lowlands continued to be occupied, as did many areas to the east in Belize. In the northern lowlands, a number of Maya cities reached their greatest size and prosperity during the Terminal Classic, even as the great Classic cities in the heartland to the south waned. But these northern cities also reflect changes, and ul timately went into decline as well, extending the Terminal Classic period in Yucatan by at least two hundred years (to ca. a d i i o o ) . While Classic Maya states failed in a process that spanned a century or more, Maya civilization did not end, for it continued until the Spanish Conquest. At the same time Maya civilization was transformed as a result of the changes during the Terminal Classic period. This transformation resulted from key changes in the eco nomic, political, and religious institutions within Maya society, centered on the end of divine kings and the system of states they ruled. The timing of these institutional changes varies from one region to another. In much of the central Maya lowlands the most rapid period of decline dates to ca. a d 8 0 0 -9 0 0 . In contrast, the ninth century in the northern lowlands was a period of unprecedented growth, followed by epi sodes of decline that extended over the next one or two centuries. The so-called col lapse of Maya civilization was actually a process of transformation that saw the end of Classic states and the rise of new states that dominated the Postclassic period. Ex planations for the downfall of Classic Maya states must account for this transition over a span of between one hundred and three hundred years in the Terminal Clas sic period.
The Downfall of Classic Maya States From the time of the initial explorations of the Maya lowlands, the discovery of the overgrown ruins of large and obviously abandoned cities gave rise to the idea of
504
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
•••• a “lost civilization,” suddenly overwhelmed by a mysterious calamity. Later, the cessation of monuments with Long Count dates was taken as evidence of a sudden and dramatic demise of the great cities of the Classic lowlands. In the early twentieth century, the cataloging of stelae by Sylvanus Morley produced a barometer for the rise and fall of what was originally called the “Old Empire” (corresponding to what later became the Classic period). The earliest Long Count dates in the Maya lowlands were in the eighth Bak’tun. Morley was able to point to Uaxactun Stela 9 ( a d 32.8) as a marker for the beginning of the so-called Old Empire (later moved back to a d 292 with the discovery of Tikal Stela 29). The number of monuments with Long Count dates increased thereafter, allowing us to chart the expansion of the Old Em pire, which was viewed by Morley and other scholars as the zenith of Maya civiliza tion. As Morley noted, more lowland sites recorded the 9.18.0.0.0 K’atun ending ( a d 790) than at any other time, but thereafter the number of Long Count dates dropped rapidly, until the last recorded date at 10.3.0.0.0 ( a d 889) signaled the end of the Old Empire (later shifted to 909 with discovery of Tonina Stela 101). It is now realized that the end of monuments with Long Count dates is only one symptom of a widespread process of change over several centuries that reflects the decline of power held by Maya divine kings. While charting the growth and decline of Long Count dates provides one index of the history of Maya divine kings, it can not be used in isolation. And certainly the end of Long Count dates does not reflect the demise of Maya civilization anymore than the first appearance of Long Count dates reflects its beginning. We can now trace that beginning back into the Preclassic period, and El Mirador rose and fell apparently without ever carving a Long Count date. Examining the full range of available archaeological evidence is essential to un derstanding the end of Classic Maya states, since it is obvious that no single source of information reveals the full gamut of changes that took place in the Terminal Clas sic period. It is also clear that no single event or process was responsible for all the changes of the Terminal Classic period. A combination of causes brought about the changes, and, since some areas went into decline before others, this was not a simultaneous process. In addition, the causes did not combine or operate everywhere in the same way. Some of the causes of changes seen at Copan can also be detected in other parts of the lowlands, but the ways by which the process of change developed over time was unique to each city and polity. The same can be said for the process of change in the Petexbatun, or anywhere else in the lowlands. But, at the same time, none of these changes operated in isolation. Although the actual sequence of events may have var ied from place to place, the fortunes of the Classic Maya polities were linked in a va riety of ways, economically, politically, socially, and ideologically, so that the prob lems that plagued one polity affected others as well. Because of this interdependence, even local or regional problems likely created difficulties over a far broader area.
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN T HE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
The evidence of decline reveals a spatial pattern, indicating that the Terminal Classic changes were first felt in the southwestern lowlands and were more profound there, and in the interior heartland of the lowlands, than they were to the north (Yu catan), east (Belize), and to the south in the highlands. The Classic states in these ar eas ultimately failed as well, and in some cases populations also decreased. But de spite undergoing changes, levels of population were far less affected outside of the heartland than in the southwestern and central lowlands. By contrast, there was very little if any population decline in the Maya highlands. In Belize, some areas were de populated, while many other regions, especially along the coast, saw little decline, or actually increased. In Yucatan there was severe depopulation in some areas, but over all occupation continued and rebounded by the end of the Terminal Classic. Even though it is clear that the southwestern and central lowlands were far more pro foundly impacted by large-scale depopulation than other regions, there were excep tions (as in the Peten lakes region). But at all the great capitals of the Classic heart land, from Tikal and the other Peten cities to Palenque in the west and Copan in the southeast, the archaeological record reflects a rapid population decrease. After about a century of declining occupation, these cities and their hinterlands were abandoned to the rain forest. The development of subsequent Postclassic Maya society was centered in regions outside the old lowland heartland, in the northern half of the Yucatan Peninsula, in the southern highlands of Guatemala, and on the Pacific coastal plain, although there was a significant Postclassic revival in the central Peten lakes region and continued prosperity in many parts of Belize as well. Interest in the Terminal Classic period is almost always focused on the search for the causes of the demise of the Classic states and the depopulation of vast lowland areas. The related and just as important issue of why some sites and regions escaped these changes has been addressed far less often. Fortunately, archaeological research is now correcting this disparity. The remainder of this chapter will discuss the vari ous theories for the demise of Classic Maya states, followed by a summary of the rise and fall of the northern polities and a brief treatment of the Terminal Classic in the highlands and on the Pacific coast.
Explanations for the End of Classic Maya States Attempts to determine the causes of the demise of the Classic Maya states began with the rediscovery of ruins in the lowland tropical forests during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, this was long before scholars realized that many of these ruined cities were once seats of power for divine kings who ruled over an array of competing lowland polities. The dramatic contrast between the empty and silent jungle-covered ruins and what was obviously once a populous and highly developed civilization led to the conclusion that these ruined cities had succumbed to a sudden
506
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSI C
•••• catastrophe. To the European mind, a great civilization set in the depths of what ap peared to be an inhospitable forest was a contradiction in terms. It seemed only log ical, therefore, to assume that the Maya failed because of the hardships of their en vironment. That they succeeded so brilliantly for a time was viewed then, as it still is in many popular venues today, as something of a “mystery.” In early inquiries, there fore, the question about the “failure” of Maya 'civilization was often not as com pelling as the question of its origins. That question could be answered, of course, by recourse to the theory of migrations from a host of known civilizations in the Old World. This “explained” both the mystery of a complex civilization appearing in the inhospitable jungle and its inevitable disappearance owing to the supposed difficul ties and poverty of its setting. In later years, as archaeological evidence demonstrated that Maya civilization was an indigenous N ew World development, attention focused more on the reasons for the abandonment of the lowland cities. Over the past century many theories have been proposed. The popularity of individual explanations has waxed and waned, but several general trends can be discerned. First, there has been a shift away from theo ries that proposed a single cause toward theories that advance a combination of many causes. Second, there has been a shift from theories of sudden and dramatic catas trophes toward ones based on a more subtle, longer-acting process of decline. Finally, the study of the demise of Classic states has been broadened to include not only the central and southern lowlands but the entire Maya area, especially the later changes and decline in the northern lowlands. These trends demonstrate that a better understanding of the demise of the Clas sic Maya political order has resulted from an increase in knowledge about ancient Maya society and its complex ecological, socioeconomic, political, and religious sys tems. Recent research has challenged and overthrown older concepts about ancient Maya economic, social, and political organization. Maya archaeology (like the ar chaeology of many complex societies) was long dominated by investigations of the largest sites and, within those sites, of the most elaborate or impressive buildings. The resulting information dealt mostly with the ruling elite, the ancient occupants of palaces, temples, and tombs, but very little was known about the majority of Maya society. More balanced research has produced a more comprehensive view of all as pects of ancient Maya society and its adaptations to a changing but diverse lowland environment. As older concepts of the ancient Maya are modified or replaced by new information, our understanding of the changes during the Terminal Classic period have also changed. Many theories have been advanced to explain the demise of the Classic Maya states. Some can be eliminated because of their absurdity, like those proposing inter vention by aliens from outer space or “mental disabilities” caused by shaping the skulls of infants. Although all contemporary theories call for a combination of fac-
TRANSFORMATIONS
IN THE T E R M I N A L CLASSIC
507
••••
tors, a brief summary of the more plausible examples can be divided into theories that emphasize catastrophic events, problems within Maya society, foreign interven tion, and environmental changes.
T heories E m ph asizin g C atastroph ic E vents As mentioned, most scholars no longer accept theories based on catastrophic events, but some such theories continue to dominate popular accounts. Most of the earliest theories attributed the end of Classic Maya civilization to natural events, beginning with the Maya’s inability to cope with the supposed inhospitable lowland environ ment. Several more specific examples of natural catastrophes have been advanced as causes for the demise of the Classic Maya. The hypothesis that volcanism played a role in the decline of Preclassic society in the southern Maya area has already been mentioned (Chapter 3). Though most of the Maya lowlands area is not geologically active, earthquakes do occur. Evidence of unrepaired structural damage at the site of Xunantunich in the central lowlands, an area of low tectonic activity, led to a pro posal that one or more catastrophic earthquakes contributed to the downfall and abandonment of lowland sites. But only the southern fringes of the lowlands are vulnerable to serious tectonic activity. Excavations at Quirigua leave no doubt that major earthquakes did indeed plague the inhabitants of the southeastern Maya lowlands. Quirigua was built di rectly on the M o tagua Fault, which last ruptured in 1976 and caused a disastrous earthquake in Guatemala. Evidence of ancient damaged and collapsed construction at Quirigua, and secondary buttressing of masonry buildings, testifies to ancient tec tonic activity. But although earthquakes may have affected specific areas, including Quirigua, Copan, and perhaps even Xunantunich, their inhabitants recovered and rebuilt, as often happens after natural disasters. There is simply no evidence that tec tonic catastrophes devastated the entire Maya lowlands. Caribbean hurricanes are another natural force proposed as a culprit for the Classic Maya downfall. A major storm of this kind could easily destroy agricultural production over a wide area, much as Hurricane Mitch devastated Honduras and Guatemala in 1998. As with earthquakes, however, it is difficult to accept that the relatively localized destructive effects of hurricanes could trigger the failure of all Classic Maya states. Furthermore, the destruction of a forest in a hurricane’s path could even prove beneficial by clearing new lands for agricultural exploitation. Epidemic diseases can have much more widespread effects and could have caused profound depopulation of the Maya lowlands. The disastrous effects of epidemic dis ease among the N ew World populations were made tragically clear by what occurred when malaria, smallpox, and other Old World diseases were introduced at the time of the Spanish Conquest. The historically documented plagues that ravaged medieval Europe provide another example, especially as an illustration of the social and eco-
5 Culbert 1991c; Culbert et al. 1990; Fahsen 1988; Fry 2003;
Harrison 1999, 2001a; Haviland 2003; C. Jones 1991; Laporte 2003a,b; Laporte ôc Fialko 1990; Loten 2003; Mathews 1985; Martin 2003; Martin ÖC Grube 2000; A. Miller 1986a; Moholy-Nagy 1999, 2003b; Proskouriakoff 1993; Scheie 1986; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Valdés 6c Fahsen 1995; Willey 6c Mathews 1985. Neighboring Centers in the Central Lowlands
Culbert 1991c; Graham 1986; Martin ôc Grube 2001; Ricketson ôc Ricketson 1937; Scheie ôc Freidel 1990; A. Smith 1937; Valdés 1986, 1988; Von Euw 1984; Willey ôc Mathews 1985. Strangers in the Lowlands
R. E. Adams 1999; Braswell 2003a; Coggins 1975, 1976, 1980; Fialko 1988; Harrison 1999; Houston ÔC Stuart 1996; Iglesias Ponce de Leon 2003; C. Jones ôc Sharer 1986; Laporte 1988, 2003a; Laporte ôc Fialko 1990, 1995; Marcus 1976b, 1992a, 1999; Martin 2001a, 2003; Martin ôc Grube 2000; Mathews 1985; Proskouriakoff 1993; Puleston 1979; Scheie ÔC Freidel 1990; Sharer 2003a; D. Stuart 2000; Valdés 1986. Expansion into the Southeastern Area
C. Jones ÔCSharer 1986; Proskouriakoff 1993; Schortman ÔCUrban 2004; Sharer 1988, 2002, 2003a,b; Urban ÖC Schortman 1988, 2004. Archaeology, History, and Copan's Dynastic Founding
Buikstra et al. 2004; W. Fash 2001; W. Fash et al. 2004; W. Fash ôc Stuart 1991; Marcus 1976b, 1992a; Martin ôc Grube 2000; Scheie 1986, 1987; Scheie ÔC Freidel 1990; Scheie ôc Grube 1992; Scheie, Grube ôc Fahsen 1994; Sedat ÔC Lopez 2004; Sedat ÔC Sharer 1994; Sharer 2002, 2003a,b, 2004a; Sharer, Traxler et al. 1999; D. Stuart 2000, 2004a; D. Stuart ÔC Scheie 1986; Taube 2004b; Traxler 2001, 2003, 2.004. The Founder of Quiligua
Ashmore 1980b; C. Jones ÔCSharer 1986; Looper 1999? 2.003; Looper ÔCScheie 1994; Marcus 1992a; Martin ôc Grube 2000; Sharer 1988, 2002, 2004b. The Rise of the Calakmul Dynasty
Carrasco V. 1996, 1999a,b; Folan 2002; Folan et al. 1995; Folan et al. 2001; Marcus 1976b,
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
1987; Martin 1997, 2000b; Martin ÔCGrube 2000; Pincemin et al. 1998; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; D. Stuart 6c Houston 1994. The Calakmul-Caracol Alliance
Chase, Grube ÔC Chase 1991; Grube 1994a; Houston 1987; Martin 6c Grube 2000; D. Stuart 6c Houston 1994. Prosperity and Problems at Tilcal (458-562)
Gilbert 1991c; Gilbert et al. 1990; Harrison 1999; Haviland 1992; Houston 6c Stuart 1996; C. Jones 1991; Martin 1999, 2003; Martin ÔCGrube 2000; Valdés, Fahsen ÔCMuñoz C. 1997. The Defeat of Tilcal (562)
A. Chase 1991; A. Chase ôc D. Chase 1987, 1989; Coggins 1975; Gilbert 1991c; Gilbert et al. 1990; Harrison 1999; Houston 1987; C. Jones 1977, 1991; Martin 2003; Martin 6C Grube 2000; Proskouriakoff 1950; Scheie 6C Freidel 1990; Shook et al. 1958; Willey 1974. Boxes E a rly C la ssic M a y a P o tte r y :
See “Pottery and Archaeology” (Chapter 2). Carr ÖCHazard 1961; W. Coe 1968,1990; Coe ÔCHaviland 1982; Coe 6c Larios 1988; Coggins 1975, I 99o; Gilbert 1991c; Culbert et al. 1990; Fahsen 1988; Fialko 2004a; Harrison 1999, 2001b; Haviland 1970, 1985a, 1989; C. Jones 1991; C. Jones 6c Satterthwaite 1982; La porte 1988, 2003a,b; Laporte ÔCFialko 1990; Maler 1911; Martin 1999, 2001c, 2003; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 1985; A. Miller 1986a; Orrego C. 6c Larios V. 1983; Sabi off 2003; Scheie 1986; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Shook et al. 1958; Trik 1963; Valdés 2001. U a x a ctu n : I. Graham 1986; Ricketson ÔC Ricketson 1937; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; A. Smith 1937, 1950; R. Smith 1937, 1955; Valdés 1986, 1988, 2001; von Euw 1984; Wauchope 1934. R ío A z u l : R. E. Adams 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989,1990, 1995, 1999, 2000; R. E. Adams 6c Robichaux 1992. C o p a n : Abrams 1987; Agurcia F. 2004; Andrews 6c Fash 1992; E. Andrews V et al. 2003; Ash more 1991; Baudez 1983; Bell, Canuto ôc Sharer 2004; Canuto 2004; Cheek 1986; B. Fash et al. 1992; W. Fash 1985, i983a,b, 1986, 2001; Fash, Fash 6c Davis-Salazar 2004; W. Fash 6c Sharer 1991; W. Fash et al. 1992; Gordon 1896; Hall ÔCViel 2004; Hohmann; 6c Vogrin 1982; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; S. Morley 1920; Rue, Fréter 6c Ballinger 1989; Sanders 1986, 1990; Scheie ÔCMathews 1998; Sedat 1996; Sedat ÔCSharer 1997; Sharer 2002, 2003a,b, 2004a; Sharer, Fash et al. 1999; Sharer, Traxler et al. 1999; Sharer, Miller 6c Traxler 1992; Stromsvik 1942, 1952; D. Stuart 1992, 2004a; Traxler 1996, 2001, 2003; Trik 1939; Webster 1988, 1989; Webster et al. 1998; Willey ôc Leventhal 1979; Willey, Leventhal ÔCFash 1978. Q u ir ig u a : Ashmore 1979, i98oa,b, 1984a,b, 1986, 1988, 1990, 2004; Ashmore ÔCSharer 1978; Becker 1972; Hewett 1911, 1912, 1916; C. Jones 1983a,b; C. Jones ôc Sharer 1986; Looper 1999, 2003; Martin ÔCGrube 2000, 2002; S. Morley 1935; Schortman 1986, 1993; Sharer 1978b, 1988, 1990, 1991, 2002, 2004b. C a la k m u l: Boucher Le Landais ÔCPalomo 1999; Carrasco V. 1996, 1999a,b, 2000; Carrasco V. et al. 1999; Folan 1985, 1988, 2002; Folan, Kintz ôc Fletcher 1983; Folan, Marcus ÔCMiller 1995; Folan et al. 1995; Folan, Gunn Ôc del Rosario Domínguez C. 2001; Folan, May Hau et al. 2001; Folan ôc May Hau 1984; García-Morena ôc Granados 2000; Marcus 1976b, 1987; Martin 1996a, 2000b, 2001c; Martin ÔCGrube 2000, 2002; Pincemin et al. 1998; Rodríguez C. 2000; Ruppert ôc Denison 1943. C ara co l: Anderson 1958; Beetz 1980; Beetz ôc Satterthwaite 1981; A. Chase 1991; A. Chase ôc D. Chase 1987, 1996a,b, 1998a, 2000, 2001a,b, 2004; Chase, Chase ôc Haviland 2002; D. Chase ÔC A. Chase 1994, 1998, 2000; Grube 1994a; Houston 1987; Martin 2001c; Martin ôc Grube 2000, 2002; Satterthwaite 1950, 1954; Willcox 1954. B ec a n : R. E. Adams 1975; J- Andrews 1976; E. Andrews V ôc A. Andrews 1979; Bail 1974b» 1:977b; Benevides 1995; Hohmann 1998; Rovner ôc Lewenstein 1997; P. Thomas 1980; Webster 1976. T ik a l:
797
798
BI BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
Nakum : Fialko 1997; Hellmuth 1976; Hermes 2002; Hermes, Olko 8c Zralka 2002, n.d.; Quin
tana 8c Wüster 2002; Tozzer 1913. Yaxha: Fialko 1997; Hellmuth 1971a,b, 1972; Hermes 2004; Maler 1908a.
C h a p te r 8: The A p o g e e o f M a y a S ta te s in th e Late C lassic Culbert 1991b; Laporte 8c Fialko 1999; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Proskouriakoff 1 9 9 3 » D. Rice 8c Culbert 1990; Sabloff 1986, 1994; Sabloff Sc Henderson 1993; B. Turner 1990. Ascendancy of Calakmul (562-695)
Carrasco V. 1996, 2000; A. Chase 1991; A. Chase 8c D. Chase 1987, 1989; Coggins 1975J Culbert 1991c; Culbert, Kosakowsky et al. 1990; Folan 2002; Harrison 1999; Houston 1987; C. Jones 1977, 1991; Marcus 1976b, 1987; Martin 1996a, 2000b, 2003; Martin 8c Grube 1995, 2000; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990. Confrontation in the Petexbatun: Demarest 1989, 1997b; Demarest 8c Houston 1990; Escobedo 1997; Houston 1993; Houston 8c Mathews 1985; Johnston 1985; Martin 2003; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 8c Willey 1991; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990. The Naranjo Wars: Closs 1985; Grube 1994a; Houston 1983a, 1987; Martin 1996b; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Proskouriakoff 1993; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990; A. Stone, Reents 8c Coffman 1985. The Resurgence of Tikal (682-768)
Coggins 1975; Culbert 1991c; I. Graham 1975, 1980; Harrison 1999; Haviland 1992; Houston 8c Mathews 1985; C. Jones 1977, 1991, 2003; Marcus 1976b; Martin 1996b, 2003; Martin & Grube 2000, 2002; A. Miller 1986a; M. Miller 1985; Proskouriakoff 1961b, 1993; Sabloff 2003; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990; Scheie 8c Mathews 1998; D. Stuart 1998; Trik 1963. Defeat o f Calakmul: Carrasco V. 1999a,b; Carrasco V. et al. 1999; García-Morena 8c Granados 2000; Harrison 1999; Martin 2003; Martin & Grube 2000b, 2002; Scheie & Freidel 1990. Breaking o f the Calakmul Alliance: Closs 1989; Harrison 1999; C. Jones 1977, 1991; Martin 1996b, 2003; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990. Rise and Fad of the Petexbatun Kingdom (682-802)
Demarest 1997a,b, 2004; Demarest et al. 1997, 2003; Dunning, Beach 8c Rue 1997; Escobedo 1997; Houston 1993; Houston 8c Mathews 1985; Inomata 1997; Inomata 8c Triadan 2003; Johnston 1985; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 8c Willey 1991; O’Mansky Sc Dunning 2004; Scheie Sc Freidel 1990; Valdés 1997. The End of the Calakmul Dynasty (695-909)
Carrasco V. 1996; Folan 2002; Looper 1999; Martin 1996b, 2000b; Martin Sc Grube 2000, 2002. Recovery and Decline at Caracol (798-859)
Beetz Sc Satterthwaite 1981; A. Chase Sc D. Chase 1987, 1989, i996a,b; A. Chase, Grube Sc D. Chase 1991; D. Chase Sc A. Chase 1994; Grube 1994a; Houston 1987; Marcus 1976b; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Sabloff Sc Andrews 1986; Scheie Sc Freidel 1990; A. Stone et al. 1985. The End of the Tikal Dynasty (768-869)
Harrison 1999; Hermes 2002; Hermes, Olko 8c Zralka n.d.; Marcus 1976b; Martin 2003; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990. Expansion of the Usumacinta Polities Birth and Rebirth o f the Piedras Negras Dynasty: W. Coe 1959; Fitzsimmons et al. 2003; Golden
2003; Grube 1998; Houston et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Martin 8c Grube 2000,2002; Mathews Sc Willey 1991; Proskouriakoff i9 6 0 ,1961a, 1993; Scheie 8c Grube 1994; Scheie Sc Mathews 1991; Sharer 8c Golden 2004. History and Propaganda at Yaxchilan: García M. 1996; Golden 2003; Grube 1998; Martin Sc Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews Sc Willey 1991; Nahm 1997; Noble Bardslay 1994; Proskouri akoff 1963, 1964, 1993; Scheie Sc Mathews 1991, 1998; D. Stuart 1998b; Tate 1991, 1992.
BI BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
Expansion of the Western Polities Origins o f the Palenque Dynasty : Armijo 2003; H. Berlin 1959, 1963, 1965,1970; Grube 1996;
Lounsbury 1974,1 976 ,198 5; Martin 2003; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 6c Robertson. 1985; Scheie 1991a; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c M. Miller 1986. Apogee and Defeat at Palenque: Bassie Sweet 1991; Grube 1996; Houston 1996; Lounsbury 1974; Martin öc Grube 2000, 2002; M. Robertson 1983-91; Ruz L. 1973; Scheie 1991a, 1994; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Scheie 6c M. Miller 1986; D. Stuart 2002. Recovery and Decline at Palenque: Bassie Sweet 1991; Martin ÔCGrube 2000, 2002; Ringle 1996; Sabloff 6c Andrews 1986; Scheie 1991a,b; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; D. Stuart 2002, 2004b. Late Classic Apogee at Tonina: Ayala 1995; Becquelin ÔC Baudez 1979, 1982a, 1982b; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Scheie 1991a; Scheie 6c Mathews 1991; Scheie ôc M. Miller 1986; D. Stu art 1997, 2002; Yadeun 1992, 1993. Expansion of the Southeastern Polities
Boone 6c Willey 1988; Robinson 1987; Schortman 6c Urban 1991; Urban 6c Schortman 1986. Growth and Prosperity at Copan : Andrews et al. 2003; Baudez 1986; W. Fash 1988, 2001; W. Fash ôc B. Fash 1990; W. Fash 6c Sharer 1991; W. Fash 6c Stuart 1991; Marcus 1976b; Martin ÔC Grube 2000, 2002; Riese 1984b, 1988;.Scheie 1986, 1988; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; D. Stuart 1989; D. Stuart 6c Scheie 1986; D. Stuart et al. 1989; Webster, Fréter ôc Gonlin 2000. A Tale o f Two Cities : Ashmore 1984a; W. Fash 1986; W. Fash ôc B. Fash 1990; W. Fash 6c Stuart 1991; D. Kelley 1962b; Looper 2003; Marcus 1976a; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Proskouriakoff 1973, 1993; Riese 1984b, 1988; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Sharer 1978b, 1988, 1990, 1991, 2004b. Revitalization and Decline at Copan : Ashmore 1992; W. Fash 1985,1988; W. Fash ôc B. Fash 1990; W. Fash ÖC Sharer 1991; W. Fash 6c Stuart 1991; Manahan 2002; Martin ÔC Grube 2000, 2002; Robinson 1987; Sabloff ÔC Andrews 1986; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Grube 1987; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Schortman 1986; Sheets 1983; Webster 1989. The Last Days o f Quirigua : Ashmore 1984b, forthcoming; Looper 2003; Schortman 1986, 1993; Sharer 1978b, 1985b, 1990, 2004b. Summary; Development of States in the Late Classic Lowlands
Culbert 1991a; Culbert 6c Rice 1990; Marcus 1976b, 1992a; D. Rice 6c Culbert 1990; Sabloff 1986, 1994; Sabloff 6c Henderson 1993; Scheie ÔC Mathews 1991; B. Turner 1990; Willey 1982a, 1987, 1991. Boxes Late Classic Maya Pottery: See “Pottery and Archaeology” (Chapter 2). Naranjo: Ball 6c Taschek 2001; Closs 1984,1985, 1989; Fialko 2004b; I. Graham 1978, 1980;
Graham ÔC Von Euw 1975; Maler 1908a; Martin 2001c; Martin ÖC Grube 2000, 2002; Proskouriakoff 1993. Dos Pilas: Demarest 1997b; Demarest et al. 1997, 2003; Foias ôc Bishop 1997; Houston 1993, 2004a; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 6c Willey 1991; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990. Aguateca: Demarest 1997b; Demarest et al. 1997; Foias ôc Bishop 1997; Houston 1993; Inomata 1997; Inomata 6c Stiver 1998; Inomata 6c Triadan 2000, 2003; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Mathews 6c Willey 1991; Scheie ÔC Freidel 1990; Triadan 2000; Valdés 2001. Altar de Sacrificios: R. E. Adams 1971; J. Graham 1972; Houston 1986; Maler 1908b; Mathews 6c Willey 1991; Saul 1972; Smith 1972; Willey 1972, 1973; Willey ÖC Smith 1969. Piedras Negras: Bricker 2002; W. Coe 1959; Escobedo 2004; Escobedo 6c Houston 2004; Fitzsim mons 1998; Fitzsimmons et al. 2003; Golden 2003; Houston 1983b, 2004b; Houston et al. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003; Maler 1901; Martin ôc Grube 2000, 2002; Mason 1931, 1932; Proskouriakoff i960, 1961a; Satterthwaite 1937a,b, 1943, i?44a,b, 1944/1954, 1952; Scheie 1991a; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990. Yaxchilan: Bricker 2002; Carrasco V. 1991; Garcia M. 1996, 2004; Golden 2003; I. Graham 1979, 1982; I. Graham 6c Von Euw 1977; Maler 1903; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002;
799
8o o
BI BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
Mathews 1988; McAnany 8c Plank 2001; Proskouriakoff 1963, 1964; Robin 2001a; Scheie 1991a; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990; Tate 1985, 1991, 199i >Yadeun 1992.» *9 9 3 * Bonampak: Fuentes 8c Stainesi998; Lounsbury 1982; Magaloni 2004; M. Miller 1986, 2001a,b; Miller et al. 1999; Ruppert et al. 1955; Scheie 1991a; Scheie & Freidel 1990. Palenque: Acosta 1977; H. Berlin 1963; Blom 8c LaFarge 1926-27; Cuevas G. 2004; González 1993; Josserand 1991; D. Kelley 1985; Liendo S. 2001; López B. 2000, 2004; Lounsbury 1974, 1976, 1985; Martin & Grube 2000; Mathews 8c Scheie 1974; Morales 1998; R. Rands 8c B. Rands 1959; B. Rands & R. Rands 1961; M. Robertson 1983-1991» 2004; Ruz L. 1973; Scheie 1981, 1990, 1991a,b; Scheie 8c Mathews 1998; D. Stuart 2004b. Tonina: Becquelin 8c Baudez 1975, 1979, 1982a,b; Becquelin 8c Taladoire 1991; Martin 8c Grube 2000, 2002; Mateos G. 1997; Mathews 1983; Yadeun 1991, 1 9 9 3 Cities Without History: Altun Ha: Pendergast 1965, 1969, 1971, 1979» 1982a, 1990a, 1998; Lubaantun: Gann 1904-5; Hammond 1975; Joyce, Clark 8c Thompson 1927; Leventhal 1990.
C h a p te r 9 : T ra n sfo rm atio n s in th e T erm inal Classic Andrews et ai. 2003; Culbert 1973; Demarest, Rice 8c Rice 2004; Marcus 1998; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986. Decline in the Classic Heartland
Culbert 1973,199ia ; Culbert ÔC Rice 1990; Diehl & Berio 1989; W. Fash 1985, 1988, 2001; W. Fash 8c Stuart 1991; Freidel 1986b; Hammond et al. 1998; Harrison 1999; Houston et al. 2001; R. Joyce 1986, 1988; J. Lowe 1985; Marcus 1983a, 1989b; Pendergast 1986; Rice 1988; D. Rice 8c P. Rice 1984, 1990; Rue 1989; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff 8c Henderson 1993; Scheie 8c Grube 1987; Sharer 1985b; D. Stuart 1993; Webster 2002; Willey 1982a, 1987. Patterns o f Change: Andrews 8c Fash 1992; E. Andrews V et al. 2003; Chase, Grube 8c Chase 1991; Demarest 1997a, 2004; Demarest et al. 1997; Dunning, Beach 8c Rue 1997; W. Fash 2001, 2002; W. Fash 8c Sharer 1991; W. Fash 8c Stuart 1991; LeCount 1999; Sabloff 1977, 1994; Sabloff 8c Rathje i975a,b; Scheie 8c Freidel 1990; Webster 2002; Webster, Fréter 8c Gonlin 2000; Wright 1997. The Collapse Issue: Culbert 1973, 1988; Demarest, Rice 8c Rice 2004; Erasmus 1968; Houston et'al. 2001; Marcus 1983a; D. Rice 8c P. Rice 1984, 1990; Sabloff 1992a, 1994; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986; Sabloff 8c Willey 1967; Sharer 1982, 1985b; Webster 2002; Willey 1987; Yoffee 8c Cowgill 1988. The Downfall of Classic Maya Stales
Andrews et al. 2003; Culbert 1973, 1988; J. Lowe 1985; S. Morley 1946; Sabloff 1992a; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986; Sharer 1982, 1985b; Webster 2002. Explanations for the End of Classic Maya Slates
Culbert 1973, 1988; Demarest 2004; Demarest, Rice 8c Rice 2004; Erasmus 1968; Marcus 1983a; Sabloff 1973a, i99*a, 1994; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986; Sharer 1982, 1985b; Webster 2002. Catastrophic Events: Abrams 8c Rue 1988; R. E. Adams 1973a; Cook 1921; Cooke 1931; Culbert 1973; Gill & Keating 2002; Harrison 1977; Mackie 1961; Meggers 1954; Messenger 2002. Problems Within Maya Society: Demarest 1997a, 2004; Demarest 8c Houston 1990; Demarest et al. 1997; Folan et al. 2000; Hamblin 8c Pitcher 1980; Haviland 1967; J. Lowe 1985; Paine, Fréter 8c Webster 1996; Palka 1997, 2001; Puleston 1979; Rathje 1971, 1973; Sanders 1973; Satterthwaite 1937a, 1958; Saul 1973; Sharer 1982, 1985b; Shimkin 1973; J. Thompson 1966; B. Turner 8c Harrison 1978; Wright 1997; Wright 8c White 1996. Foreign Intervention: R. E. Adams 1973b; Cowgill 1964; Erasmus 1968; Sabloff 1973b, 1994; Sabloff 8c Rathje 1975a,b; Sabloff 8c Willey 1967; Shimkin 1973; J. Thompson 1970; Webb 1973; Willey 1974. Environmental Changes: Adams 1991; Curtis, Hodell 8c Brenner 1996; Dahlin 1983, 2003; Deevey et al. 1979; Folan, Kintz 8c Fletcher 1983; Folan et al. 2000; Gill 2000; Gunn, Matheny & Folan 2002; Haug et al. 2003; Hodell, Curtis 8c Brenner 1995; Hodell et al. 2001; Ley den 2002; Lucero 2002; Paine 8c Fréter 1996; D. Rice 1996: Yaeger 8c Hodell forthcoming.
B I BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
A Scenario for the Downfall of Classic Maya Stales
Gilbert 1973, 1988; Gilbert 6c Rice 1990; Demarest 1997a,b; Demarest, Rice 6c Rice 2004; Demarest et al. 1997; Erasmus 1968; W. Fash 2001; Gill 2000; Golden 2003; Hodell et al. 2001; LeCount 1999» LeCount et al. 2002; J. Lowe 1985; Lucero 2002; Marcus 1992a; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Rice 1996; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff 6c Andrews 1986; Sharer 1982; Webster 2002; Yaeger 2003. Survival and Revival of Classic Enclaves
Ball 1974a, 1977a; A. Chase 1990; A. Chase ôc D. Chase 1987, 1998a,b; Coggins 1990; Demarest, Rice 6c Rice 2004; Marcus 1976b; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; A. Miller 1977a; Pendergast 1986, 1990b; D. Rice 1986; Ringle, Gallareta N. 6c Bey 1998; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Sabloff 1973b, 1994, Sabloff ÔC Andrews 1986; Tourtellot ÖC Gonzalez 2004; Willey 1975, 1978, 1982b, 1990. Transformation in the Terminal Classic
Demarest 2004; Demarest, Rice 6c Rice 2004; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff 6c Andrews 1986; Sharer 1982; Willey 1982a. The Fate o f Divine Kings: D. Chase ÔC A. Chase 1992; Demarest et al. 1997; W. Fash 2001; Freidel ôc Sabloff 1984; Martin 6c Grube 2000, 2002; Palka 1997; Puleston 1979; Sabloff ÔC Rathje 1975a,b; Scheie ÔC Friedel 1990; Sharer 1982, 1985a. A N ew Lowland Economic System : A. Andrews 1983, 1990b; Braswell 2002; Coggins ÔC Shane 1984; Drennan 1984; Dunning 1992; Freidel 6C Sabloff 1984; Kepecs, Feinman 6c Boucher 1994; Masson 2002; McKillop 1984, 1996; McKillop 6c Healy 1989; Sabloff 1977; Sabloff 6c Rathje 1975a,b. The N ew Power Brokers: A. Andrews 1990b; Andrews 6c Gallareta N. 1986; Andrews 6c Robles C. 1985; E. Andrews V 1979a,b; Ball 1974a, 1977a, 1986; Blanton 6c Feinman 1984; Diehl 6c Berio 1989; Edmunson 1982, 1986; Lombardo de Ruiz 1998; McVicker 1985; Sabloff 1977, 1994; Scholes 6c Roys 1948;}. Thompson 19^6,1970; Vargas 2001. The Transitional Regional Traditions
R. E. Adams 1977b; G. Andrews 1975, 1994,1996; Garza T. 6c Kurjack 1980; Harrison 1981, 1985; Potter 1977; Ruppert ÔCDenison 1943; B. Turner 1983. The Rise of the Northern Lowland Polities
A. Andrews 1978, i98oa,b, 1990b; Andrews 6c Robles C. 1985; Anon 1988, 1989; Ball 1986; A. Chase 6c Rice 1985; Demarest, Rice 6c Rice 2004; Erasmus 1968; Kowlaski 1985; Pollock 1980; D. Rice 1986; Rivera D. 1991, 1999; Sabloff 1992, 1994; Sabloff 6c Andrews 1986; Sabloff 6c Rathje 1975a; Sharer 1982; Velázquez V. 6c García B. 2002; Vlcek et al. 1978; Willey 1982a. Polities in Northwestern Yucatan
E. Andrews IV 1975; E. Andrews V 1981; E. Andrews IV Ôc E. Andrews V 1980; G. Andrews 1969; Ball ÔC Andrews 1975; Benevides 1996, 1997; Dahlin 2000; Dahlin et al. 1998; Forsyth 1983; Gill 2000; Grube 1994b; Hodell et al. 2001; Kurjack 1974; Matheny 1976, 1987; Matheny et al. 1985; Robles C. ÔC Andrews 2003, 2004; G. Stuart et al. 1979. The Puuc Region: G. Andrews 1975, I 99 4î Barrera R. 1980, 1995; Barrera R. ôc Hutchin 1990; Benevides 2000, 2001; Carmean 1998; Carmean, Dunning ôc Kowalski 2004; Dunning 1992; Dunning 6CKowalski 1994; Gallareta N. et al. 1999; García C. 1991; Harrison 1985; Killion et al. 1989; Kowalski 1987, 1994; Kowalski ÔC Dunning 1999; Kubler 1962; Marquina 1951; McAnany 1990; Pollock 1980; Potter 1977; Rivera D. 1991, 1999; Ruppert ôc Denison 1943; Sabloff 1992b, 1994; Sabloff ôc Tourtellot 1992; Stanton 6c Gallareta N. 2001; Tourtellot, Sabloff ôc Carmean 1989; Tourtellot, Sabloff ôc Smyth 1990. Salt Production and Trade: A. Andrews 1980a, 1983; A. Andrews Ôc Mock 2002; E. Andrews V 1981; E. Andrews IV ôc E. Andrews V 1980; Dahlin ôc Ardren 2002; Kepecs 1998; McKillop 2002; A. Miller 1977b; Sabloff ôc Rathje 1975a,b; J. Smith 2001.
801
8 o 2
BI BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
Polities in Northeastern Yucatan
E. Andrews V 1990; Andrews ôc Robles C. 1985; Benevides C. 1977, 1981; Bey, Hanson ÔC Ringle 1997; Bey et al. 1998; Folan, Kintz Ôc Fletcher 1983; Freidel, Suhler ÔC Krochock 1990; Hodell et al. 2001; Kepecs 1998; Ringle, Gallareta N. ôc Bey 1998; Robles C. 1990; J. Smith 2001; Stanton ôc Gallareta N. 2001; Suhler, Ardren & Johnstone 1998; Suhler ôc Freidel 1998; Suh ler et al. 2004; J. Thompson, Pollock ôc Chariot 1932.; Vargas de la Peña ôc Castillo B. 2001; Villa Rojas 1934; Yaeger ôc Hodell forthcoming. The Rise of Glichen Hza
A. Andrews 1990b; A. Andrews ôc Gallareta N. 1986; A. Andrews ôc Robles C. 1985, 1986; E. Andrews V Ôc Sabloff 1986; A. Andrews et al. 1989; Bail 1974a, 1986; Blanton ÔCFeinman 1984; Cobos P. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002; Cobos P. ÔCWinemiller 2001; Diehl ÔCBerlo 1989; Folan, Kintz ôc Fletcher 1983; Fowler 1989; J. W. Fox 1980, 1987; Freidel ÔCSchele 1989; Kelemen 1943; Kepecs, Feinman ÔCBoucher 1994; Krochock 1989; Kubler 1961; Lincoln 1986; Litvak-King 1972; McVicker 1985; Miller 1977a; Moreno 1959; Pasztory 1978; Pendergast 1986, 1990b; D. Rice 1986; Sabloff 1973b; Sabloff ÔCWilley 1967; Schele ôc Freidel 1991; Schele ôc Mathews 1998; P. Schmidt 2000; A. Smith 1955; Stanton ôc Gallareta N. 2001; J. Thompson 1966, 1970; Toscano 1944; E. Wagner 1995; Wren, Schmidt ÔC Krochock 1989. The Hza Economy
A. Andrews ôc Gallareta N. 1986; A. Andrews ÔCMock 2002; Andrews et al. 2003; Drennan 1984; Dunning 1992; Gallareta N. 1998; Kepecs, Feinman ôc Boucher 1994; McKillop 2002. The Hza Siale
A. Andrews ôc Robles C. 1986; E. Andrews V i979a,b; E. Andrews V ôc Sabloff 1986; Bail 1974a, 1977a, 1986; Cobos ôc Winemiller 2001; Cohodas 1978; Dunning 1992; Dunning ôc Kowalski 1994; Freidel, Suhler Ôc Krochock 1990; D. Kelley 1985; Kowalski 2003; Krochock 1989, 1991; Krochock ôc Freidel 1994; Kurjack ôc Robertson 1994; Marcus 1993; A. Miller 1977a; Ringle 1990; Ringle ôc Bey 2001; Ringle, Gallareta N. ôc Bey 1998; Roys 1943; Sabloff 1977, 1992b; Schele ÔC Freidel 1990; Scholes ôc Roys 1948; Stanton ÔC Gallareta N. 2001; D. Stuart 1993; J. Thompson 1966, 1970; Tozzer 1941; Wren, Schmidlt ôc Krochock 1989; Wren ÔC Schmidt 1991. The CuHof K'ulc'ulkan
Dunning ÔC Kowalski 1994; Krochock ôc Freidel 1994; Milbrath 1999; Ringle, Gallareta N. Bey 1998; Tozzer 1941; Willey 1991.
ÔC
Changes in the Southern Maya Area
Borhegyi 1965a,b; Bove 2002; Chinchilla 1996; Diehl ÖC Berio 1989; Fowler 1989; Kosakowski, Estrada Belli ÔC Pettit 2000; H. Neff 2002; L. Parsons 1967-69; Pasztory 1978; Poponoe de Hatch 1989a;]. Thompson 1948. Boxes Terminal Classic Maya Pottery : See “Pottery and Archaeology” (Chapter 2). Xunantunicb: Ashmore 1998; Ashmore, Yaeger ÖC Robin 2004; I. Graham 1978; LeCount 1999;
LeCount et al. 2002; Leventhal ÔC Ashmore 2004; Leventhal et al. forthcoming; Maler 1908a; Satterthwaite 1950; Yaeger 2000, 2003. Seibal: J. Graham 1973; Maler 1908b; Mathews ôc Willey 1991; Sabloff 1973b; Sabloff ôc Willey 1967; A. Smith 1977; Tourtellot 1970; Willey 1975, 1978, 1982b, 1990. Uxmal: Barrera Rubio ôc Hutchin 1990; Huchim ôc Toscano 1999; Kowalski 1987, 1994, *003; Kowalski ôc Dunning 1999; S. Morley 1910, 1970; Pollock 1980; Ringle ôc Bey 2001; Schele ÔCMathews 1998. S a y il : Carmean 1991, 1998; Carmean ôc Sabloff 1996; Carmean, Dunning ÔCKowalski 2004; Dunning 1992; Killion et al. 1989; Pollock 1980; Sabloff 1992b, 1994; Sabloff ôc Tourtellot 1992; Smyth ôc Dore 1994; Tourtellot et al. 1990.
BI BLI OGRAPHI C SUMMARIES
Kabah: Kowalski 1985, 2003; Pollock 1980. Dzibilchaltun : E. Andrews IV 1975; E. Andrews V 1981; E. Andrews IV ôc E. Andrews V 1980;
Ball
ÔC
Andrews 1975; Kurjack 1974, 1999; Rovner
ÖC
Lewenstein 1997; G. Stuart et al. 1979.
Coba : A. Andrews öc Robles C. 1985; Benevides C. 1977, 1981; Folan et al. 1983; Leyden,
Brenner ôc Dahlin 1998; J. Thompson et al. 1932; Villa R. 1934. Cbichett Itza : J. Bolles 1977; Cobos P. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002; Cobos öc Winemiller 2001;
Coggins 1992; Coggins ôc Shane 1984; García C. 2000, 2001; Kristan-Graham 2001; Krochock 1989, 1991, 2002; Lincoln 1986; Lothrop 1952; A. Miller 1977a; A. Morris 1931; E. Morris, Chariot ôc Morris 1931; Pollock 1937; Proskouriakoff 1974; Ringle & Bey 2001; Ruppert 1931, 1935, 1943, I 952-; Schele & Mathews 1998; Sievert 1992; J. Smith 2001; A. Stone 1999; Tozzer 1957; E. Wagner 1995; Wren, Schmidt ôc Krochock 1989. M etalwork: Bray 1977, 1997; Coggins ôc Shane 1984; Hosier 1994; Hosier 6c Macfarlane 1996; Lothrop 1952; Maddin 1988; Pendergast 1962, 1982b; Stromsvik 1942.
C h a p te r 10: R efo rm u latio n a n d Revival in th e P ostclassic Andrews et al. 2003; E. Andrews V ôc Sabloff 1986; Ball 1994; Bey et al. 1998; Chase 8c Rice 1985; Cobos 1997, 1998, Edmonson 1982, 1986; Fowler 1989; D. Kelley 1985; Milbrath 6c Peraza L. 2003; Pollock 1962; Ringle, Gallareta N. öc Bey 1998; Robles C. 1987, 1990; Robles C. ÔC Andrews 1986; Roys 1933; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff ôc Andrews 1986; P. Schmidt 2000; R. Smith 1971; J. Thompson 1970; Tozzer 1941; Vargas 2001; Willey ôc Phillips 1958. The Downfall of Chichen Hza
A. Andrews 1990a; Andrews et al. 2003; Bail ÔC Ladd 1992; Cobos 1997, 2002; Cobos ô c Winemiller 2001; Coggins 1992; Paxton 2001; Ringle, Gallaret N. ôc Bey 1998; Sabloff 1994; P. Schmidt 1999, 2000. The Rise of Moyopan
A. Andrews 1990a, 1993; E. Andrews V ÔC Sabloff 1986; Aveni 2001; Aveni, Milbrath ÔC Peraza 2004; D. Bolles 1990; Bullard 1970; Edmonson 1982, 1988; Masson 2000; Milbrath 1999; Milbrath ôc Peraza L. 2003; Miram 1994; Peraza L. 1999; Pollock 1962; Proskouriakoff 1954, 1962a, 1962b; Pugh 2001; Ringle ôc Bey 2001; Ringle, Gallareta N. ôc Bey 1998; Roys 1943 (1972), 1962, 1965, 1967; Schele ôc Mathews 1998; Tozzer 1941. The Moyopan State
A. Andrews 1993; Chowning 1956; Freidel ÔCSabloff 1984; Milbrath ôc Peraza L. 2003; A. Miller 1986b; Proskouriakoff 1962a; Restall 1998; Ringle 1990; Ringle ôc Bey 2001; Ringle, Gallareta N. ÖC Bey 1998; Roys 1943 (1972.), 1962; Sabloff ÔC Rathje 1975a; Shook ô c Irving 1955; Tozzer 1941; Winters 1955Fall of Mayapan and the Rise of Petty States
E. Andrews V ÔC Sabloff 1986; Barrera V. ÔC Morley 1949; Bullard 1970; Edmonson 1982, 1986; Freidel ÔC Sabloff 1984; Marcus 1993; Milbrath ÔC Peraza L. 2003; Pendergast 1986, 1990b; Pollock 1962; D. Rice 1986; P. Rice 1986; D. Rice ÖC P. Rice 1984, 1990; Roys 1943 (l 97^h 1962, 1965, 1967; Shook 1954; Tozzer 1941; B. Turner 1990; Willey 1986. The Eost Coast of Yucatan
A. Andrews 1993; A. Andrews ÔC Robles C. 1986; D. Chase 1985, 1990; Edmonson 1986; Freidel ÔC Sabloff 1984; Guderjan ÔC Garber 1995; Masson 1999, 2000; A. Miller 1977b, 1982; Pendergast 1986, 1998; Ramírez R. ÖC Azcárate S. 2002; Sabloff 1977, 1994» 2.002; Sabloff ÖC Rathje 1975a,b. Revival of Fortunes in the Central Lowlands
Bullard 1970; Carmack 1981; A. Chase 1979, 1990; Hermes 2004; Hermes ôc Noriega 1997; Johnston, Breckenridge ÔCHanson 2001; G. Jones 1998; G. Jones et al. 1981; Pugh 2003; Pugh ÖCRice 1996; D. Rice ôc P. Rice 1981, 1984, 1990, 2004; P. Rice ôc D. Rice 1999, 2004; Rice et al. 1998; Roys 1943, 1965; Villagutierre S. 1983; Wurster 2000.
803
8 o 4
b
i b
l
i o
g
r
a
p
h
i c
s
u
m
m
a
r
i e
s
The Southern Maya Area in the Postclassic
Arnauld 1997; Borhegyi 1965a,b; Bove 2002; K. Brown 1980; Braswell 1998, 2001, 2002b; Burkitt 1930b; Carmack 1968, 1973, 1981; Dillon 1978; Edmonson 1971; Estrada Belli 1999» 2002; Estrada Belli et al. 1996; Fowler 1989» J* F°x x978> 1981» 1987» Gruhn 6CBryan 1976; Guillemin 1965, 1967; Hill 1996, 1998; Hill 8c Monaghan 1987; Ichon 1975, i 9 7 7 *>; Ichon et al. 1980; Kosakowsky, Estrada Belli 8c Pettit 2000; Lehmann 1968; Lothrop 1933; Miles 1957; Nance, Whittington 8c Borg 2003; Richardson 1940; Sachse 2001; Sanders 8c Murdy 1982; Sharer 8c Sedat 1987; Shook 1965; Shook ¿C Proskouriakoff 1956; A. Smith 8c Kidder 1951; D. Tedlock 1985; Wallace 8c Carmack 1977; Wauchope 1948, 1975; Weeks 1983; Woodbury 8c Trik 1953. Summary: Reformulation and Revival in the Posfdassic
A. Andrews 1993; A. Andrews, E. Andrews 8c Robles C. 2003; E. Andrews V 8c Sabloff 1986; A. Chase 8c Rice 1985; Milbrath 8c Peraza L. 2003; D. Rice 8c P. Rice 2004; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff 8c Andrews 1986; Scheie 8c Mathews 1998. Overview: Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization
Braswell 2003; Demarest et al. 2004; Flannery 8c Marcus 2000; J. Henderson & Sabloff 1993; Marcus 1983a, 1995, 2003c; Pasztory 1978; Sabloff, 1992a, 1994, 1004; Sanders 8c Price 1968; Sharer 8c Grove 1989; Willey 1980, 1987, 1991. Boxes Postclassic Maya Pottery : See “Pottery and Archaeology” (Chapter 2). Mayapan : Bullard 1952; D. Chase 1990; Chowning 1956; M. Jones 1952; Milbrath 8c Peraza L.
2003; Peraza L. 1999; Pollock 1954, 1962; Proskouriakoff 1954, 1955, 1962a,b; Pugh 2001, 2003; Ringle 8c Bey 2001; Roys 1962; Shook 1952, 1954; Shook 8c Irving 1955; A. Smith 1962; P. Smith 1955; R. Smith 1954, 1971;]. Thompson 1954; Tozzer 1941; Winters 1955. Tulum: Barrera Rubio 1985; Lothrop 1924; Miller 1977b, 1982; Sanders i960; Sullivan 1989. Santa Rita Corozal: D. Chase 1981, 1985, 1986, 1990, 1991; Gann 1900, 1918. The Mythical City ofTollan : D. Carrasco 1982; Kubler 1961; Scheie 8c Mathews 1998; D. Stuart
2000.
C h a p te r 11 : The A ncient M a y a E conom y Costin 8c Wright 1998; Freidel 1981b; Gillespie 8c Joyce 1997; Helms 1993; King 8c Potter 1994; King 8c Shaw 2003; Masson 8c Freidel 2002; Potter 8c King 1995; Sabloff 1986; Scarborough, Valez 8c Dunning 2003; Schortman 8c Urban 1987. The Political Economy
A. Andrews 1983; Aoyama 1999; Bittman 8c Sullivan 1978; Blanton 8c Feinman 1984; Blanton et al. 1996; Chapman 1957; D. Chase, A. Chase 8c Haviland 1990; Claessen 8c van de Velde 1991; DeMarrais, Castillo 8c Earle 1996; Earle 1997; Feinman 8c Nicholas 2004; Foias 2002, 2004; Freidel 1981b; Freidel, Reese-Taylor 8c Mora-Marin 2002; Kepecs, Feinman 8c Boucher 1994; Kovacevich et al. 2001; Lucero 1999; Masson 8c Freidel 2002; McKillop 1996, 2002; Rathje 1971, 1977, 2002; Scarborough 1998; Scarborough 8c Valdez 2003; Scarborough, Valdez 8c Dunning 2003; Tourtellot et al. 2003; Tozzer 1941. The Social Economy
Aizpuruia 8c McAnany 1999; Braswell 2002; Ehrenreich, Crumley 8c Levey 1995; Fedick 1996; Foias 2004; Freidel 1981b; Fry 2003; R. Joyce 1993; King 2000; King 8c Potter 1994; McAnany 1989, 1993; Potter 8c King 1995; Pyburn 1998; Sabloff 8c Rathje 1975b; Scarbor ough, Valdez 8c Dunning 2003; Schwartz 8c Falconer 1994; Sheets 1972, 1976, 2002; Tozzer 1941; Willey 1991. Mobilization of Labor
Abrams 1994; Carmean 1991; Carrelli 2004; Erasmus 1968; McAnany 2004b; Neff 2002; Trigger 1992; Webster 1989.
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
Ancient Maya Subsistence Brenner, Hodell 6c Curtis 2002; Cowgill 1975; Dunning et al. 1998; Fedick 1996; Flannery 1982; Gann 1918; Harrison 1990, 2001a; H. Henderson 2003; Lentz 1999; Netting 1977; D. Rice 1978; Sanders 1973; White 1999; White et al. 2001. Hunting and Gathering : Barrera V. 1980; Carnegie Institution of Washington 1935, 1940; Gann 1918; Griscom 1932; Lange 1971; Lundell 1937, 1938; McKillop 1984; Michaels 6c Voorhies Í999; Pohl 1983; Puleston ÔC Puleston 1971; D. Rice 1978; Roys 1931; K. Schmidt 6c Andrews 1936; L. Shaw 1999; L. Stuart 1964; Urban 1978; P. Wagner 1964; Wing ÖCScudder 1991. Animal Husbandry : Carr 1996; J. Thompson 1974; Tozzer 1941; B. Turner ÖC Harrison 1978. Agriculture: Boserup 1965; Bronson 1966; Cameiro 1967, 1988; Netting 1977; Puleston 1968; D. Rice 1978; Sanders 1977; L. Shaw 1999; B. Turner 6c Harrison 1978, 1983; van der Merwe et al. 2000. Extensive Systems: Netting 1977; Puleston 1978; Sheets 6c McKee 1989; B. Turner 1974, 1978b; Wiseman 1978. Intensive Systems: Dunning et al. 1998; Eaton 1975; Fedick 1995,1996; Flannery 1982; R. Hansen 1998b; R. Hansen et al. 2002; Harrison 1985, 1990; Johnston 2003; Kirke 1980; Kunen 2001; Netting 1977; Puleston 1978; Rice 1978; Sanders 1973, 1977; B. Turner 1974, 1978b; White, Healy 6c Schwarcz 1993; Wiseman 1978. Arboriculture: Gómez-Pompa, Flores 6C Fernández 1990; McKillop 1994; Puleston 1968, 1971, 1978. Household Gardens: Bronson 1966; D. Chase 6c A. Chase 1998; R. Hansen et al. 2002; Puleston 1 9 7 1 , 1974 Hydraulic Modifications: Armillas 1971; Culbert et al. 1990; Darch 1983; Denevan 1970;
R. Hansen 1998b; Harrison 1977,1978; Harrison 6c Fry 2000; Healy 1983; Jacob 1995; J. Jones 1994; Matheny 1976; Matheny et al. 1985; McAnany 1990; Olsen et al. 1975; Pohl 1990; Pope ÔC Dahlin 1989; Poponoe de Hatch 1997; Puleston 1977, 1978; Scarborough 1983, 1996, 1998; Siemens 6c Puleston 1972; B. Turner ÔC Harrison 1983; Valdés ÔC Wright 2004. Terracing: Beach 6c Dunning 1995; D. Chase 6c A. Chase 1998; Dunning ÔC Beach 1994; Dunning, Beach 6c Rue 1997; Fedick 1994; Kunen 2001; Neff 2002; Puleston 1978; B. Turner 1983. Reconstructing the Patterns of Subsistence Brenner, Hodell ÔC Curtis 2002; Bronson 1966; Cowgill 1975; Dunning et al. 1998; Emery 2002, 2004; Fedick 1996; Flannery 1982; Gerry 6c Krueger 1997; Hammond 1978; R. Hansen et al. 2002; D. Harris 1972, 1978; Harrison 1990; H. Henderson 2003; J. Jones 1994; Lentz 1991,1996, 1999; Netting 1977; Piperno ÔC Flannery 2001; Pohl et al. 1996; Powis et al. 1999; D. Rice 1978; Sanders 1973; Sheets 1983, 2002; Sheets ÔC McKee 1989; Sheets et al. 1990; Siemens ÔC Puleston 1972; Taschek ÔC Ball 2003; Triadan 2000; B. Turner 1974, 1978a; B. Turner 6c Harrison 1978, 1983; Vlcek et al. 1978; White 1999; White, Healy ÔC Schwarcz 1993; White et al. 2001; Wilkin 1971. Production of Goods Aldenderfer 1991; A. Andrews 1983, 1990b; Braswell 2002; Brumfiel ÔC Earle 1987; Costin ôc Wright 1998; Ehrenreich, Crumley ÔC Levey 1995; Foias ÔC Bishop 1997; Hester ÔC Shafer 1984; Hosier ÖC MacFarlane 1996; Inomata 1997; Inomata ôc Triadan 2000; R. Joyce 1993; King ÔC Potter 1994; Kovacevich et al. 2001; López V., McAnany ÔC Berry 2001; McAnany 1989, 2004b; MacKinnon ÔC Kepecs 1989; MacKinnon ÔC May 1990; McKillop 2002; Moholy-Nagy 1997; Reents-Budet 1994; Reents-Budet et al. 2000; P. Rice 1984; Rice et al. 1985; Shafer ôc Hester 1983, 1991; Sheets 2002. Distribution of Goods Aoyama 1999, Aoyama, Toshiro ÔC Glascock 1999; Ball 1993; Brumfiel 6c Earle 1987; Cortés 1928; Díaz del Castillo 1963; Drennan 1984; Duran 1965; Feldman 1978; Fry 2003; Fuentes y Guzmán 1932-34; Gillespie ôc Joyce 1997; Guderjan 1993; Guderjan ÔC Garber 1995; Guderjan et al. 1989; Hirth 1984; Hosier ôc MacFarlane 1996; Kovacevich et al. 2001; Las Casas
805
8 o 6
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
1909; McAnany 1989; McKillop 2002; McKillop Shafer Sc Hester 1991; Sheets 2002; West 2002.
Sc
Healy 1989» McVicker SC Palka 2001;
The Importance of Trade Aoyama, Toshiro 8c Glascock 1999; Blom 1932; Chapman 1957; Culbert 1977b; Demarest 1989» Dillon 1975; Drennan 1984; Durán 1965; Earle Sc Ericson 1977; E. Graham 1987; Grove 1981a; Helms 1993; Hirth 1984; C. Jones 1991; Kovacevich et al. 2001; Lee Sc Navarrete 1978; McBryde 1947; Rathje 1971; Rathje et al. 1978; Sabloff Sc Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975; Sabloff 1986; Sahagún 1946; Schortman 1986; Sehortman & Urban 1987; Sharer 1977, 1984; Sharer Sc Sedat 1987; J. Thompson 1970; Tourtellot Sc Sabloff 1972; Tozzer 1941; Voorhies 1982, 1989. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Long-Distance Trade Late Preclassic Trade: A. Andrews 1980a,b; E. Andrews V 1981; Bishop 1984; Clarke Sc Lee 1984; Demarest Sc Sharer 1986; Freidel 1978, 1979; Garber 1983; T. Jackson Sc Love 1991; G. Lowe 1977; L. Parsons 1967-69; Poponoe de Hatch 1989b; Rathje 1971; Sharer 1974, 1978a, 1984, 1989a; Sharer Sc Sedat 1987; Sheets 1971, 1979a; Voorhies 1982, 1989. Classic Trade: A. Andrews 1980a; A. Andrews Sc Mock 2002; E. Andrews V 1977; Arnauld 1990; Ball 1977a; Bove 1991; Culbert 1991b; Freidel 1978; Guderjan 1993, 1995; Guderjan Sc Gar ber 1995; Hammond 1972; C. Jones 1977, 1991; R. Joyce 1986; Kidder et al. 1946; King Sc Potter 1994; McKillop 1995, 1996, 2002; Moholy-Nagy 1975, 1976, 1999; L. Parsons 196769; Pasztory 1978; Rathje 1977; Rathje et al. 1978; Sabloff 1994; Sanders Sc Michels 1977; Sidrys 1976; Stross et al. 1983; Tourtellot Sc Sabloff 1972; Webb 1973; West 2002; Willey 1974. Postclassic Trade: A. Andrews 1978, 1980a,b; A. Andrews et al. 1989; A. Andrews Sc Mock 2002; E. Andrews V Sc Sabloff 1986; Chapman 1957; Freidel Sc Sabloff 1984; Fuentes y Guzmán 1932-34; Hosier Sc MacFarlane 1996; G. Jones 1977; Las Casas 1957; Masson 2002; Sabloff 1994; Sabloff Sc Rathje i975a,b; Scholes Sc Roys 1948; J. Thompson 1970; West 2002. Boxes The Swidden Hypothesis : Brainerd 1954; Carter 1969; Cook 1921; U. Cowgill 1962; Dumond
1961; Lundell 1933; Meggers 1954; S. Morley Sc Brainerd 1956; Reina 1967; Ricketson & Ricketson 1937; Sanders 1973; Stadelman 1940; J. Thompson 1931, 1966; Tozzer 1941; B. Turner 1978a. Colha: Hester 1979; Hester Sc Shafer 1984; Iceland 1997; King 2000; King Sc Potter 1994; Potter Sc King 1995; Shafer Sc Hester 1983, 1991; Shaw 1999.
Chapter 12: The Organization of Maya Society RECONSTRUCTING THE SOCIAL LANDSCAPE Ashmore 1981a; Canuto Sc Yaeger 2000; Chang 1972; de Montmollin 1989, 1995; Farriss 1984; W. Fash Sc Sharer 1991; Flannery 1976; J. Henderson Sc Sabloff 1993; Houston 1988; Lee Sc Hayden 1988; McAnany 1995; Riese 1988; Sabloff 1994; Scheie Sc Freidel 1990; Sharer 1985b, 1991, 1993; Tiesler Bios, Cobos Sc Greene 2002; Ucko, Tringham Sc Dimbleby 1972; Willey 1956, 1982a, 1987. Maya Society in the Pre-Columbian Era Ashmore 1981a; Canuto Sc Yaeger 2000; A. Chase Sc D. Chase 1996b; Chase, Chase Sc Haviland 2002; D. Chase 1986; de Montmollin 1989, 1995; Farriss 1984; W. Fash 1983a, 1986; Fowler 1984; Haviland 1968; Krejci Sc Culbert 1995; McAnany 1995, 2004; Rathje 1970; Rice Sc Culbert 199°» Buz L. 1965; Sharer 1993; J- Thompson 1954, 1966; Tozzer 1941. Marriage and the Family Bricker 2002; Haviland 1967, 1968, 1977; Marcus 1983a; Molloy Sc Rathje 1974; Roys 1943, 1965; Scholes Sc Roys 1948; Sharer 1993; Tourtellot 1988b; Tozzer 1907, 1941; Wilk 8c Ash more 1988.
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
Ancient Maya Households E. Andrews IV 1965; E. Andrews IV 6c Andrews V 1980; Ashmore 1981b, 1986; Ball 1993; Borhegyi 1965b; Brown 6c Sheets 2000; Bullard i960; de Montmollin 1989, 1995; W. Fash 1983a; Fedick 1995, 1996; J. W. Fox 1978; Haviland 1968, 1985a, 1989; Hendon 1999, 2000; Inomata 6c Stiver 1998; Inomata 6c Triadan 2000; R. Joyce 1993; Lucero 1999; Manzanilla 6c Barba 1990; McAnany 1993, 1995; McAnany ÔC Plank 2001; Puleston 1983; Pybum 1990, 1998; D. Rice 1976, 1986; Robin 2001b; Sanders i960; Scarborough 1991; Sheets 2002; Sheets et al. 1990; Sweely 1998; Tourtellot 1988a,b; Tozzer 1941; B. Turner ÔC Harrison 1983; Triadan 6c Inomata 2004; Webster 6c Gonlin 1988; Wilk 1988; Wilk 6c Ashmore 1988; Willey 6c Bullard 1965. Settlement in the Maya Lowlands Ashmore 1981a,b, 1986, 2004; Becker 1972, 1973; Bullard i960; Canuto 2004; Dahlin 6c Litzinger 1986; W. Fash 1983a, 1985; Fedick 1995, I 996i A. Ford 1990, 1991; Haviland 1970, 1988; Manzanilla 6c Barba 1990; McAnany 1990, 1995; Monaghan 1996; Puleston 1971; D. Rice 1988; Sabloff 1996; Sabloff 6c Ashmore 2001; Sheets 1983; Sheets et al. 1990; Tourtellot 1983, 1988a; E. Turner, Turner 6c Adams 1981; D. Wallace 1977; Webster 6c Gonlin 1988; Wilk 1988; Wilk 6c Ashmore 1988; Willey 6c Bullard 1965; Yaeger 2000. Chronological Control: Ashmore i98ia,b; Culbert ÔC Rice 1990; Lucero 1999; Sharer 1993; Willey 6c Bullard 1965. Population Reconstructions: Ashmore 1984b, 1990; A. Chase 6c D. Chase 1998b; D. Chase 1990; Culbert 1988, 1998; Culbert 6c Rice 1990; Culbert et al. 1990; A. Ford 1986; McAnany 1990; D. Rice 6c Culbert 1990; D. Rice ÔC P. Rice 1990; B. Turner 1990; Wenster ÔC Freier 1990b; Webster, Sanders 6c van Rossum 1992. Social Stratification Canuto 6c Yaeger 2000; Carmack 1977; A. Chase ÔC D. Chase 1996a,b; A. Chase, D. Chase 6c Haviland 2002; D. Chase 6c A. Chase 1992; Demarest 1996; Hammond 1991b; Haviland 1968, 1985a,b; Helms 1998; G. Jones 6c Kautz 1981; Lohse ÔC Valdez 2004; Marcus 1983a, 1992b; Price 6c Feinman 1995; Rathje 1970; Roys 1943, 1965; Schwartz 6c Falconer 1994; Sharer 1991, 1993; Tozzer 1941; Webster 6c Gonlin 1988; Webster et al. 1998; Wilk 6CAsh more 1988; Yoffee 1991. Residential and Descent Groups Bricker 2002; Canuto 2004; Carmack 1977; W. Fash 1985; Gillespie 2000; Haviland 1968, 1977» 1985b; Hewitt 1999; G. Jones 1998; Marcus 1976b, 1983a; Mathews 6c Scheie 1974; McAnany 1995; Proskouriakoff 1961b; Ringle 6c Bey 2001; Robin 2001a; Roys 1943, 1965; Scholes 8c Roys 1948; Sharer 1993; Tozzer 1941; Watanabe 1992. Residential Groups and the House Model Carsten ÔC Hugh-Jones 1995; Gillespie 2000; Helms 1998; R. Joyce 6c Gillespie 2000; Ringle 6c Bey 2001; Sharer 6c Golden 2004; Taschek 6c Ball 2003. RECONSTRUCTING THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE Benson 1987; Bey 6c Ringle 1989; D. Chase, A. Chase 6c Haviland 1990; Culbert i99ia,b; De marest 1996, 2004; W. Fash 1985, 1988; W. Fash ÔC B. Fash 1990; Freidel 1981b; Freidel 6c Scheie 1988a, 1989; Hammond 1991b; Justeson ÖC Mathews 1983; Lacadena G. 6c Ciudad R. 1998; LaPorte ÔC Fialko 1990; Lucero 1999; Marcus 1976b, 1983a, 1993,1001; Martin 8c Grube 2000; McAnany 2002; Sabloff 1986, 1992a, 2004; Scheie 6c Mathews 1991; Sharer 1988, 1991; Sharer 6c Golden 2004; Wren 8c Schmidt 1991. Divine Kings and the Hierarchy of Power (Within and Among Polities) Bains 1995; Ball 6c Taschek 2001; Bell 2002; Bendix 1978; Brown 6c Stanton 2003; Clarke 6c Hansen 2001; Cohen 1984; Demarest 1992, 2004; W. Fash 2002; Freidel, Reese-Taylor 6c Mora-Marin 2002; Freidel ÔC Scheie 1988a,b; Gillespie 1989; Golden 2003; Helms 1998; Hewitt 1999; Houston 6c Stuart 1996; S. Jackson 6c Stuart 2001; Kaplan 2002; Laporte 1998,
807
8 o 8
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
2001; 1995; 1986; 2000;
S U M M A R I E S
Lucero 2003; Marcus 2001; Martin 2000b, 2004; Martin ÔC Grube 2000; McAnany Nahm 1994; Scheie ÔC Freidel 1990; Scheie ÔC Mathews I 9 9 1» 199 &i Scheie ÖC M. Miller Sharer 2002; Sharer ÖC Golden 2004; D. Stuart 1996, 2004b; Taube 1998, 2004b ; Trejo Webster 2000.
Maya Polities Chase ÔC Chase 1998; Culbert 1991; Demarest 1992, i 996; Freidel 1981b; Grube 2000a; R. Hansen 2001; Marcus 1993, 1998; Martin ÖC Grube 2000; Sabloff 1986; Sabloff ÔC Henderson 1993; Sharer 1992; Sharer ôc Golden 2004; Yaeger 2000. Location and Power: R. E. Adams 1980; R. E. Adams, Brown ÔC Culbert 1981; A. Andrews 1983, 1990b; Arnauld 1990; Ashmore 1986, 1992; Ashmore ÔC Sabloff 2002; Aveni ÔC Hartung 1986; Barthel 1968; Blanton ôc Feinman 1984; Coggins 1980, 1990; Garber 1983; E. Graham 1987; Hammond 1974; Hester ÖC Shafer 1984; Hirth 1984; C. Jones 1991; Kovacevich et al. 2001; Lee ôc Navarrete 1978; Leventhal 1983; Marcus 1976b, 1983a; McAnany 1995, 2002; A. Miller 1977b, 1982; Sanders 1977; Sanders ôc Murdy 1982; Schele 1981; Schortman 1986; Sharer 1978b, 2003a,b. Size and Power: R. E. Adams ôc Jones 1981; A. Andrews ôc Robles C. 1985; Benevides 1977, 1981; Chase ôc Chase 1998; Dahlin 1984; Marcus 1976b, 1993; Martin 2000a,b; Martin ôc Grube 2000; Sabloff 1990; Sharer 1978b; Shaw 2004; Trejo 2000. Number and Size o f Polities: R. E. Adams ÔC Jones 1981; Anaya Hernandez 2001; Ball ÔC Taschek 1991; A. Chase Ôc D. Chase 1996b, 1998b; Cobos ôc Winemiller 2001; Culbert 1991b,c; Cul bert ÔC Rice 1990; Folan et al. 1995, 2001; Freidel 1983; Golden 2003; Grube 2000a; Ham mond 1974, 1991b; M. Hansen 2000; Johnston 1985; C. Jones 1991; Marcus 1973, 1976b, 1993; Mathews 1987, 1991; Paine, Fréter ôc Webster 1996; Roys 1957; Sabloff 1986, 1994; Sharer 1991; Taschek ôc Ball 1999, 2003; Trejo 2000; Webster 2000. Cycles of Growth and Decline Demarest 1992; Sharer ÔC Golden 2004; Marcus 1992b, 1993, 1998; P. Rice 2004; Sharer 1991. State Organizational Models R. E. Adams 1995; R. E. Adams ôc Jones 1981; A. Chase ôc D. Chase 1996b, c, 1998b; D. Chase, A. Chase ÖC Haviland 2002; Culbert 1988, 1991a,b; Demarest 1992, 1996, 1997a; Demarest ÔC Houston 1989; de Montmollin 1989, 1995; Flannery 1999; J. W. Fox et al. 1996; Freid 1967; Freidel 1981b; Grube 2000a; Hayden 1993; Iannone 2002; Marcus 1992a, 1993, 1998, 2003b, 2004; Martin ÔC Grube 1995, 2000; McAnany 1995; P. Rice 2004; Sabloff 1986; Sanders 1981; Scarborough 1998; Service 1975; Sharer 1991; Sharer ÔC Golden 2004. The Basis of Political Power Baines 1995; Bendix 1978; Demarest 1992, 2004; Freidel 1986a; Freidel, Reese-Taylor ÔC MoraMarin 2002; Freidel ÔC Scheie i988a,b; Gillespie 1989, 1999; Golden 2003; Helms 1998; Houston et al. 2003; Houston ôc Stuart 1996; Kertzer 1988; Lucero 2002; Martin 2000a; Martin ÔC Grube 2000; McAnany 1995; 2002; Nahm 1994; Scarborough 1998; Scheie ÔC Mathews 1991, 1998; Sharer ÔC Golden 2004; Taube 1998; Webster 2000. Boxes Cerén: Brown ÔC Sheets 2000; Kievit 1994; Lentz 1996; Sheets 1979a, 1983, 2002; Sheets et al. 1990; Sweely 1998; Woodward 2000. Maya Society in Postclassic Yucatan: D. Chase 1986; Cline 1972-75; Edmonson 1971, 1982, 1986; Farriss 1984; Marcus 1993; Roys 1943, 1965; Sanders 1981; Scholes ÔC Roys 1948; Tozzer 1941. Maya Society in the Postclassic Highlands: Braswell 2001; Carmack 1973; J- W. Fox 1981, 1987; Hill 1996, 1998; Hill ÔC Monaghan 1987; Recinos 1950; B. Tedlock 1982; Wallace ÔC Car mack 1977.
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
Chapter 13: Maya Ideology and Religion L. Brown 1004; Farriss 1984; Ivic de Monterroso 2004; G. Jones 1998; Roys 1943 (1972); Scheie 6c Freidel 1990. Moya World View Demarest 6c Conrad 1992; Dunning et al. 1999; W. Fash 2002; Grove 1999; Houston 2000; McAnany 1995; Paxton 2001; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Taube 1985, 1989a, 2004a. Origins of Mayo Ideology Brotherston 1979; Freidel 1990; Freidel, Reese-Taylor 6c Mora-Marin 2002; Freidel 6c Scheie 1988a,b; Hammond 1999; Houston 6c Stuart 1989; Klein et al. 2002; Marcus 1989a; A. Miller 1986a; Ortiz C. ÔC del Carmen R. 1999; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; J. Thompson 1970; Tozzer 1907, 1941; Watanabe 1983. Transformations by Outsiders Chamberlain 1948; Edmonson i960; Farriss 1984; Fash 6c Fash 2000; Fowler 1984; Herrera 1726-30; D. Kelley 1984; McVicker 1985; Redfield 6c Villa R. 1934; Reed 1964; Ringle, Gallareta N. 6c Bey 1998; Roys 1943, 1965; Scholes 6c Roys 1938, 1948; D. Stuart 2000; Sullivan 1989; Taube 2000, 2004b; B. Tedlock 1982;]. Thompson 1952, 1970; Tozzer 1941. Cosmology Aveni 2001; Bassie Sweet 1991; Coggins 1975; Dunning et al. 1999; Fialko 1988; Freidel 1977; Pugh 2001; Roys 1943, 1965; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Scholes 6c Roys 1938; A. Stone 1995; Taube 1989a, 2004a; B. Tedlock 1992; J. Thompson 1970; Tozzer 1941; Vogt 1964a; Watanabe 1983. The Creation Myth: Bassie Sweet 2002; H. Berlin 1963; Colas 6c Voss 2001; Edmonson 1971; D. Kelley 1985; Lounsbury 1976, 1985; Recinos 1950; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; D. Stuart 2004b; Taube 1985, 1989a, 2001; D. Tedlock 1985. The Maya Universe: Ashmore 1986, 1991; Aveni 2001; Aveni 6c Hartung 1986; Bassie Sweet 1991; Bricker 1983; Coggins 1976, 1980, 1990; Colas 6c Voss 2001; Harrison 1985; M. Miller 1985, 1988; Scheie 1981; Scheie ÔC Freidel 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; A. Stone 1995; Taube 1989a, 1998; Vogt 1964a. Afterlife and Ancestors: Ashmore 1989; Barnhart 2002; Bricker 6c Bill 1994; Carrasco V. 1999b; D. Chase 6c A. Chase 1996; M. Coe 1988; Cuevas G. 2004; Fash 1985; Freidel 6c Scheie 1989; Houston ö c Taube 2000; Krejci ÖC Culbert 1995; López B. 2000; McAnany 1995; McAnany, Storey 6c Lockard 1999; Scheie 6c Freidel 1990, 1991; Sharer, Traxler, et al. 1999; A. Stone 1995; D. Stuart 1998a,b 2004b; Taube 2004a,b; J. Thompson 1970; Tozzer 1941; Vogt 1969; Watanabe 1983. Maya Deities Bassie Sweet 2002; M. Coe 1973, I 975a» 2.004; Coggins 1979; Edmonson 1986; Gillespie 6c Joyce 1998; Houston öc Stuart 1996; D. Kelley 1976; Milbrath 1999; Ringle 1988; Scheie 6c Math ews 1998; Schellhas 1904; Seler 1902-23; A. Stone 1985a,b; D. Stuart 2004b; Taube 1985, 1987, 1989a, 1992, 2001; J. Thompson 1934, 1939b, 1970; Vail 2000; Zimmermann 1956. Rituals and Ceremonies Agurcia F. 2004; L. Brown 2004, forthcoming; Carrasco V. 1999a; D. Chase 1991; Fahsen 1987; Hammond 1999; Herrera 1726-30; López B. 2004; B. Love 1987; Lucero 2003; Marcus 1999; Pohl 1983; McAnany 1995, 2004a; McNeil et al. 2001; Scheie 1985, 1990; Scheie 6c Mathews 1998; Scheie Ô C M. Miller 1986; A. Stone 1985b, 1995; D. Stuart 1988a, 1996, 1998a,b, 2003; Taube 1998; J. Thompson 1970; Tozzer 1941; Vogt 1961. Divination and Altered Consciousness: Borhegyi 1961; Fürst 1976; Fürst ÔC Coe 1977; Haviland ÔC Haviland 1995; B. Love 1992; Robicsek 1978; J. Thompson 1946, 1958, 1970; Tozzer 1941.
809
8 l O
B I B L I O G R A P H I C
S U M M A R I E S
Human Sacrifice: R. E. Adams 1971; Benson & Boone 1984; Colas & Voss 2001; Fahsen 1987;
J. Fowler 1984; J. W. Fox 1996; Graulich 2003; Kowalski & Fash 1991; Orrego C. ÔC Larios V. 1983; Proskouriakoff 1974; Scheie 1984; Scheie & Freidel 1990, 1991; D. Stuart 2003; Taube 2000; Tiesler Bios 2002; Wilcox & Scarborough 1991. The Thirteen K ’atun Endings and Other Calendrical Ceremonies: Bill, Hernández & Bricker 2000; D. Chase 1985; Coggins 1979, 1990; Fash, Fash ÔC Davis-Salazar 2004; Milbrath 1999; Puleston 1979; Sharer 2003a, 2004a; D. Stuart 1996; Taube 1988; Tozzer 1941. The Ideological Foundations of Maya Civilization Demarest & Conrad 1992; Houston 2000; López B. 2004; McAnany 1995; Ringle, Gallareta N. & Bey 1998; Scheie & Freidel 1990; Scheie & Mathews 1998; Scheie & M. Miller 1986; D. Stuart 2004b; Taube 2000.
Epilogue: The Conquest of the Maya First Contacts and the Period of Conquest, 1502-1697 Diaz del Castillo 1963; Farriss 1984; G. Jones 1977, 1989; Sahagún 1946. The Subjugation of the Southern Maya by Pedro de Alvarado, 1524-27 Alvarado 1924; Edmonsen 1971; Fuentes y Guzmán 1932-34; Las Casas 1909, 1957; Recinos 1950; Recinos & Goetz 1953; Tedlock 1985; Ximenez 1929-31. The Subjugation of Yucatan by the Montejos, 1527-46 Ancona 1889; Blom 1936; Carrillo y Ancona 1937; Chamberlain 1948; Farriss 1984; G. Jones 1983, 1989» 1998; Lizana 1893; Means 1917; Roys 1952; Scholes et al. 1936. The Independent Hza and the Subjugation of the Itza, 1525-1697 A. Chase 1979, 1990; G. Jones 1998; Jones, Kautz & Graham 1986; Pugh 2003; Rice & Rice 1981, 1984, 1990; Roys 1943, J9^5; Villagutierre 1933, 1983; Wüster 2000.
BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography provides a representative sample of the vast literature dealing with ancient Maya studies. The bibliographic guides published by John Weeks (1997, 2002) provide peri odic updated listings of new publications on the Maya. Reports of recent research in both Maya archaeology and epigraphy can be found at several Web sites, including famsi.com (Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies) and mesoweb.com. The following abbreviations are used for frequently cited publications and institutions: A
Archaeology
AA
American Anthropologist
A Ant
American Antiquity
AM
Ancient Mesoamerica
ArqM
Arqueología Mexicana
BAE
Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution
BAR
British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford
BAVA
Beiträge Zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, Mainz
CA
Current Anthropology
CARUTS
Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio
CCM
Cerámica de Cultura Maya
CEMCA
Centre D’Etudes Mexicaines et Centramericaines, Mexico City
CIW
Carnegie Institution of Washington
CMHI
Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Peabody Museum, Harvard University
CN
Copán Notes, Copán Mosaics Project/Copan Acropolis Archaeological Project and IHAH, Copán, Honduras
CNRSIE
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut d’Ethnologie, Paris
DO
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, DC
ECAUY
Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán
ECM
Estudios de Cultura Maya
FMAS
Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Series, Chicago
HMAI
Handbook o f Middle American Indians, R. Wauchope, general ed., 15 vols. (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1964-75) H GG
Historia General de Guatemala , J. Lujan Muñoz, general ed. Vol. 1: Epoca Precolombina , ed. M. Hatch (Asociación de Amigos del País, Fundación para la Cultura y el
ICA
International Congress of Americanists
Desarrollo, Guatemala) ICM
Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de
Campeche. IDAEH
Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala
IHAH
Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia
IJAL
International Journal o f American Linguistics
8 l 2
b
i b
l
i o
g
r
a
p
h
y
IMS
Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany
INAH
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City
JAA
Journal o f Anthropological Archaeology
JAR
Journal o f Archaeological Research
JAS
Journal o f Archaeological Science
JFA
Journal o f Field Archaeology
JWP
Journal o f World Prehistory
LAA
Latin American Antiquity
MARI
Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans
MCMCA
Microfilm Collection of Manuscripts on Cultural Anthropology, University of Chicago Library Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology, University of Pittsburgh
MLAA NGRE
National Geographic Research and Exploration
NMA
Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology
NWAF
New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
PARI
Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco
PMAE
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
PNAS
Proceedings o f the National Academy o f Sciences
RRAMW
Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, Center for Maya Research, Washington, DC
SA
Scientific American
SAR
School of American Research, Advanced Seminar Series, Santa Fe, NM
SEEM
Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid
SHMAI
Supplement to Handbook o f Middle American Indians, vol. 1, ed. J. A. Sabloff
SIAG
Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala. Museo Nacional de Ar
SWJA
Southwestern Journal o f Anthropology
UCARF
University of California Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981) queología y Etnología, Guatemala
UPM
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia
WA
World Archaeology
Abrams, E. M. 1987. Economic Specialization and Construction Personnel in Classic Period Copan, Honduras. AAnt 52:485-99. -------- . 1994. H ow the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. Austin: Univer sity of Texas Press. -------- . 19 9 5 - A Model of Fluctuating Labor Value and the Establishment of State Power: An Applica tion to the Prehispanic Maya. LAA 6:196-213. Abrams, E. M., and D. Rue. 1988. The Causes and Consequences of Deforestation among the Prehis toric Maya. Human Ecology 16:377-95. Acosta, J. R. 1977. Excavations at Palenque, 1967-1973* In Hammond 1977b, 265-85. Adams, R. E. W. 1970. Suggested Classic-Period Occupational Specialization in the Southern Maya Lowlands. PMAE Papers 61 .*489-502.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1971. The Ceramics o f Altar de Sacrificios. PMAE Papers 63 (1). ---------. 1972. Maya Highland Prehistory: New Data and Implications. UCARF Contribution 16:1-21. ---------. 1973a. The Collapse of Maya Civilization: A Review of Previous Theories. In Culbert 1973, 21-34. ---------. 1973b. Maya Collapse: Transformation and Termination in the Ceramic Sequence at Altar de Sacrificios. In Culbert 1973,133-63. ---------, comp. 1975. Preliminary Reports on Archaeological Investigations in the Rio Bee Area, Campeche, Mexico. MARI Publication 31:103-46. ---------, ed. 1977a. The Origins o f Maya Civilization. SAR. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ---------. 1977b. Rio Bee Archaeology and the Rise of Maya Civilization. In Adams 1977, 77-99. ---------. 1980. Swamps, Canals, and the Locations of Ancient Maya Cities. Antiquity 54:206-14. ---------, ed. 1984. Río Azul Reports , no. 1: The1983Season. CARUTS. ---------, ed. 1986. Río Azul Reports, no. 2: The1984 Season. CARUTS. ---------, ed. 1987. Río Azul Reports , no. 3: The1985Season. CARUTS. ---------, ed. 1989. Río Azul Reports, no. 4 The1986 Season. CARUTS. ---------. 1990. Archaeological Research at the Lowland Maya Site of Río Azul. LA A 1:23-41. ---------. 1991. Nucléation of Population and Water Storage among the Ancient Maya. Science 251:632. ---------. 1995. Early Classic Maya Civilization: A View from Rio Azul. In Grube 1995, 35-48. ---------. 1999. Rio Azul: An Ancient Maya City. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------, ed. 2000. Río Azul Reports, no. 5: The 1987 Season. CARUTS. Adams, R. E. W., and R. C. Aldrich. 1980. A Réévaluation of the Bonampak Murals: A Preliminary Statement on the Paintings and Texts. In Robertson 1980, 45-59. Adams, R. E. W., V. L. Broman, W. R. Coe, W. A. Haviland, R. E. Reina, L. Satterthwaite, E. M. Shook, and A. S. Trik. 1961. Tikal Reports Nos. j - 1 0 . UPM Monograph 20. Adams, R. E. W., W. E. Brown, and T. P. Culbert, 1981. Radar Mapping, Archaeology, and Ancient Maya Land Use. Science 213:1457-63. Adams, R. E. W., and R. C. Jones. 1981. Spatial Patterns and Regional Growth among Maya Cities. AA nt 46:301-22. Adams, R. E. W., and H. R. Robichaux. 1992. The Early Classic Painted Tombs of Rio Azul. NGRE 8:428-45. Adams, R. E. W., and W. D. Smith. 1977. Apocalyptic Visions: The Maya Collapse and Mediaeval Europe. A 30:292-301. ---------. 1981. Feudal Models for Classic Maya Civilization. In Ashmore 1981b, 335-49. Adams, R. E. W., and A. S. Trik. 1961. Temple I (Str. 5D-1): Post-constructional Activities. Tikal Report, no. 7. UPM Monograph 20:113-47. Adams, R. M. 1958. On the Environmental Limitations of Maya Cultural Development. SWJA 14:189-98. Agurcia F., R. 1996. Rosalila, el corazón de la acrópolis, el templo del rey-sol. Yaxkin 14 (2): 5-18. ---------. 2004. Rosalila, Temple of the Sun King. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004,101-11. Agurcia F., R., and J. A. Valdés. 1994. Secrets o f Two Maya Cities: Copan and Tikal. San José: La Nación, San José, Costa Rica. Aimers, J. J., T. G. Powis, and J. J. Awe. 2000. Preclassic Round Structures of the Upper Belize River Valley. LAA 11:71-86. Aizpurúia, I., and P. A. McAnany. 1999. Adornment and Identity: Shell Ornaments from Formative K’axob. AM 10:117-27. Aldenderfer, M. S. 1991. Functional Evidence for Lapidary and Carpentry Craft Specialties in the Late Classic of the Central Peten Lakes Region. AM 2:205-14. Alvarado, P. de. 1924. An Account o f the Conquest o f Guatemala in 1524. Trans. S. J. Mackie. New York: Cortés Society. Alvarez, C. 1980. Diccionario etnolingüistico del idioma Maya Yucateco colonial. Vol. 1, Mundo físico. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Amram, D. W. 1942. The Lacandon, Last of the Maya. El México Antiguo 6:15-26.
813
8 i 4
b
i b
l
i o
g
r
a
p
h
y
Anaya Hernandez, A. 2001. Site Interaction and Political Geography in the Upper Usumacinta Region during the Late Classic: A GIS Approach. BAR International Series 994. Oxford: BAR. Ancona, E. 1889. Historia de Yucatán. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Barcelona: Raviratta. Anders, F., ed. 1967. Codex Tro-Cortesianus (Codex Madrid), Museo de América, Madrid. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. -------- , ed. 1968. Codex Peresianus (Codex Paris), Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. -------- , ed. 1975. Codex Dresdensis, Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt. Anderson, A. H. 1958. More Discoveries at Caracol, British Honduras. 33rd ICA Actas 2:211-18. Anderson, D. 1978. Monuments. In Sharer 1978a, 155-80. Andrade, M. J. 1955. A Grammar of Modem Yucatec. MCMCA, no. 41. -------- . 1971. Yucatec Maya Texts. MCMCA, no. 108. Andrews, A. P. 1978. Puertos costeros del Postclásico Temprano en el norte de Yucatán. ECM 11:75-93. -------- . 1980a. The Salt Trade of the Ancient Maya. A 33 (4): 24-33. -------- . 1980b. Salt-Making, Merchants and Markets: The Role of a Critical Resource in the Develop ment of Maya Civilization. PhD diss., University of Arizona. -------- . 1983. Maya Salt Production and Trade. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. -------- . 1990a. The Fall of Chichen Itza: A Preliminary Hypothesis. LAA 1:258-67. -------- . 1990b. The Role of Trading Ports in Maya Civilization. In Clancy and Harrison 1990,159-67. -------- . 1993. Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Journal o f World Prehistory 7 :3 5 -6 9 . -------- . 1998. El comercio marítimo de los mayas del postclásico. ArqM 6 (33): 16-23. Andrews, A P., E. W. Andrews, and F. Robles C. 2003. The Northern Maya Collapse and Its Aftermath. AM 14:151-56. Andrews, A. P., F. Asaro, H. V. Michel, F. H. Stross, and P. Cervera R. 1989. The Obsidian Trade at Isla Cerritos, Yucatan, Mexico. JFA 16:3 5 5- 63. Andrews, A. P., and T. Gallareta N. 1986. The Isla Cerritos Archaeological Project, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 8 (3): 44-48. Andrews, A. R, and S. B. Mock. 2002. New Perspectives on the Prehispanic Maya Salt Trade. In Mas son and Freidel 2002, 307-64. Andrews, A. P., and F. Robles C. 1985. Chichen Itza and Coba: An Itza-Maya Standoff in Early Postclassic Yucatan. In Chase and Rice 1985, 62-72. -------- , eds. 1986. Excavaciones arqueológicas en El Meco, Quintana Roo, 1977. INAH. Andrews, E. W., IV. 1940. Chronology and Astronomy in the Maya Area. In The Maya and Their Neighbors , ed. C. L. Hay et al., 150-61. New York: Appleton Century. -------- . 1951. The Maya Supplementary Series. 29th ICA Selected Papers i : 123-41. -------- . 1965. Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowlands: An Introduction. In HM AI 2:288-330. -------- • 1975’ Progress Report on the i9 6 0 —1964 Field Seasons NGS— Tulane University Dzibilchaltun Program. MARI Publication 31:23-67. Andrews, E. W., IV, and E. W. Andrews V. 1980. Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. MARI Publication 48. Andrews, E. W., V. 1977. The Southeastern Periphery of Mesoamerica: A View from Eastern El Sal vador. In Hammond 1977b, 113-34. -------- . 1979a. Some Comments on Puuc Architecture of the Northern Yucatan Peninsula. In The Puuc: N ew Perspectives, ed. L. Mills, 1979, 1-17. Pella, Iowa: Central College Press. -------- . 1979b. Early Central Mexican Architectural Traits at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan. 42nd ICA Actas 8:237-49. -------- . 1981. Dzibilchaltun. SHMAI 1:313-41. -------- , ed. 1986. Research and Reflections in Archaeology and History: Essays in H onor o f Doris Stone. MARI Publication 57. -------- . 1990. The Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya. In Clancy and Harrison 1990,1-19.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews, E. W., V, and A. P. Andrews. 1979. NGS-Tulane University Program of Archaeological Re search in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1970 Projects: 7-22. Andrews, E. W., V, and B. W. Fash. 1992. Continuity and Change in a Royal Maya Residential Com plex at Copan. AM 3: 63-88. Andrews, E. W., V, and N. Hammond. 1990. Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize. AAnt 55:570-84. Andrews, E. W., V, J. L. Johnson, W. F. Doonan, G. E. Everson, K. E. Sampeck, and H. E. Starratt. 2003. A Multipurpose Structure in the Late Classic Palace at Copan. In Christie 2003, 69-97. Andrews, E. W., V, W. M. Ringle, P. J. Barnes, A. Barrera R., and T. Gallareta N. 1984. Körnchen, an Early Maya Community in Northwest Yucatan. In Investigaciones recientes en el área maya , 1 :7 3 92. Mexico City: XVII Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Andrews, E. W., V, and J. A. Sabloff. 1986. Classic to Postclassic: A Summary Discussion. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 433-56. Andrews, G. F. 1969. Edzna, Campeche, Mexico: Settlement Patterns and Monumental Architecture. Eugene: University of Oregon. ---------. 1975. Maya Cities: Placemaking and Urbanization. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1994. Architectural Survey of the Rio Bee, Chenes, and Puuc Regions: Progress and Problems. In Prem 1994, 93-120. ---------. 1996. Arquitectura Rio Bec y Chenes. ArqM 3 (18): 16-25. Andrews, G. F., D. Hardesty, C. Kerr, F. E. Miller, and R. Mogul. 1967. Comalcalco, Tabasco, Mexico: An Architectonic Survey. Eugene: University of Oregon. Andrews, J. M. 1976. Reconnaissance and Archaeological Excavations in the Rio Bee Area of the Maya Lowlands. National Geographic Society Research Reports, 1968 Projects: 19-27. Anon. 1988. Oxkintok 1. Madrid: Misión Arqueológica de España en México. ---------. 1989. Oxkintok 2. Madrid: Misión Arqueológica de España en México. Aoyama, K. 1995. Microwear Analysis in the Southeast Maya Lowlands: Two Case Studies at Copan, Honduras. LAA 6:129-44. ---------. 1999. Ancient Maya State, Urbanism , Exchange, and Craft Specialization: Chipped Stone Evi dence from the Copan Valley and La Entrada Region, Honduras. MLAA no. 12. Aoyama, K., T. Tashiro, and M. D. Glascock. 1999. A Pre-Columbian Obsidian Source in San Luis, Honduras: Implications for the Relationship between Late Classic Maya Political Boundaries and the Boundaries of Obsidian Exchange Networks. AM 10:237-49. Ardren, T., ed., 2002. Ancient Maya Women. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Armijo T., R. 2003. Comalcalco: La Antigua ciudad maya de ladrillos. ArqM 61:30-37. Armillas, P. 1971. Gardens on Swamps. Science 174:653-61. Araauld, M. C. 1986. Archéologie de PAlta Verapaz, Guatemala: Habitat et société. CEMCA. ---------. 1990. El comercio clásico de obsidiana: Rutas entre tierras altas y tierras bajas en el area maya. LAA 1:347-67. ---------. 1997. Relaciones interregionales en el área Maya durante el Postclásico en base de datos arqui tectónicos. In LaPorte and Escobedo 1997, 117-31. ---------. 1999. Desarrollo Cultural en el Altiplano Norte. In H G G , vol. 1: 227-40. Arnold, D. E., and B. F. Bohor. 1975. Attapulgite and Maya Blue. A 28:23-29. Arroyo, B. 1995. Early Ceramics from El Salvador: The El Carmen Site. In Barnett and Hoopes 1995, 199-208. Ascher, M., and R. Ascher. 1969. Code of Ancient Peruvian Knotted Cords (Quipus). Nature 222:52953---------. 1981. Code o f the Quipu. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ashmore, W., ed. 1979. Quirigua Reports I. Papers 1-5. UPM. ---------. 1980a. The Classic Maya Settlement at Quirigua. Expedition 23 (1): 20-27. ---------. 1980b. Discovering Early Classic Quirigua. Expedition 23 (1): 35-44. ---------. 1981a. Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In Ash more 1981b, 37-70.
815
8l 6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- , ed. 1981b. Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. SAR. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- . 1984a. Quirigua Archaeology and History Revisited. JFA 11:365—86. -------- . 1984b. Classic Maya Wells at Quirigua, Guatemala: Household Facilities in a Water-rich Set ting. AAnt 49:147-53. -------- . 1986. Peten Cosmology in the Maya Southeast: An Analysis of Architecture and Settlement Pat terns at Classic Quirigua. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 35-49. -------- . 1988. Household and Community at Classic Quirigua. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988,153-69. -------- . 1990. Ode to a Dragline: Demographic Reconstructions at Classic Quirigua. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 63-82. -------- . 1991. Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality among the Ancient Maya. LA A 2:199-226. -------- . 1992. Deciphering Maya Architectural Plans. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 173-84. -------- . 1998. Monumentos políticos: Sitio, asentamiento y paisaje alrededor de Xunantunich, Belice. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998,161-83. -------- . 2004. Ancient Maya Landscapes. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 97-111. Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp, eds. 1999. The Archaeologies o f Landscape. London: Blackwell. Ashmore, W., and J. A. Sabloff. 2002. Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. LAA 13:201-16. Ashmore, W., E. M. Schortman, and R. J. Sharer. 1983. The Quirigua Project: 1979 Season. In Quirigua Reports II, ed. E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban. UPM. Ashmore, W., and R. J. Sharer. 1978. Excavations at Quirigua, Guatemala: The Ascent of an Elite Maya Center. A 31 (6): 10-19. Ashmore, W., and G. R. Willey. 1981. An Historical Introduction to the Study of Lowland Maya Settle ment Patterns. In Ashmore 1981b, 3-18. Ashmore, W., J. Yaeger, and C. Robin. 2004. Commoner Sense: Late and Terminal Classic Social Strate gies in the Xunantunich Area. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 302-23. Aulie, H. W., and E. W. Aulie. 1978. Diccionario Ch’ol-Español, E spañ ol-Ch'ol. Serie de Vocabularios y Diccionarios Indígenas Mariano Silva y Aceves, no. 21. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Aveni, A. F. 1975a. Possible Astronomical Orientations in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Aveni 1975b, 16390. -------- , ed. 1975 b. Archaeoastronomy in Precolumbian America. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1979. Venus and the Maya. American Scientist 67:274-85. -------- , ed. 1982. Archaeoastronomy in the N ew World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 2001. Skywatchers: A Revised and Updated Version o f Skywatchers o f Ancient Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 2003. Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Americas. JAS 11:149-91. Aveni, A. F., A. S. Dowd, and B. Vining. 2003. Maya Calendar Reform? Evidence from Orientation of Specialized Architectural Assemblages. LAA 14:159-78. Aveni, A. F., S. L. Gibbs, and H. Hartung. 1975. The Caracol Tower at Chichen Itza: An Ancient Astro nomical Observatory? Science 188:977-85. Aveni, A. F., and H. Hartung. 1986. Maya City Planning and the Calendar. Transactions o f the Ameri can Philosophical Society 76 (7). Philadelphia. Aveni, A. F., S. Milbrath, and C. Peraza L. 2004. Chichen Itza’s Legacy in the Astronomically Oriented Architecture of Mayapan. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 45:123-43. Awe, J. J., and P. F. Healy. 1994. Flakes to Blades? Middle Formative Development of Obsidian Arti facts in the Upper Belize River Valley. LAA 5:193-205. Ayala, M. 1995. The History of Tonina According to its Inscriptions. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin. Bains, J. 1995. Kingship, Definition of Culture and Legitimation. In Ancient Egyptian Kingship , ed. D. O’Connor and D. Silverman, 3-47. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Ball, J. W. 1974a. A Coordinate Approach to Northern Maya Prehistory: A.D. 700-1200. AA nt 39:85-93.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1974b. A Teotihuacan-Style Cache from the Maya Lowlands. A 27 (1): 2-9. ---------. 1977a. An Hypothetical Outline of Coastal Maya Prehistory: 300 B.C.-A.D. 1200. In Ham mond 1977b, 167-96. ---------. 1977b. The Archaeological Ceramics o f Becan, Campeche, Mexico. MARI Publication 43. ---------. 1978. Archaeological Pottery of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. MARI Publication 46:76-146. ---------. 1979. Southern Campeche and the Mexican Plateau: Early Classic Contact Situation. 42nd ICA Actas 8:271-80. ---------. 1983. Teotihuacan, the Maya, and Ceramic Interchange: A Contextual Perspective. In A. G. Miller 1983, 126-46. ---------. 1986. Campeche, the Itza, and the Postclassic: A Study in Ethnohistorical Archaeology. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 379-408. ---------. 1993. Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. In Sabloff and Henderson 1993, 243-72. ---------. 1994. Northern Maya Archaeology: Some Observations on an Emerging Paradigm. In Prem 1994, 389- 96.
Ball, J. W., and E. W. Andrews V. 1975. The Polychrome Pottery of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico: Typology and Archaeological Context. MARI Publication 31:227-47. Ball, J. W., and J. M. Ladd. 1992. Ceramics. In Coggins 1992,191-233. Ball, J. W., and J. T. Taschek. 1991. Late Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization and Central Place Analysis. AM 2:149-65. ---------. 2001. The Buenavists-Cahal Pech Royal Court: Multi-Palace Court Mobility and Usage in a Petty Lowland Maya Kingdom. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:165-200. ---------. 2003. Reconsidering the Belize Valley Preclassic: A Case for Multiethnic Interactions in the De velopment of a Regional Cultural Tradition. AM 14:179-217. Bamforth, D. B., and A. C. Spaulding. 1982. Human Behavior, Explanation, Archaeology, History, and Science. JAA 1:170-95. Barnett, W., and J. Hoopes, eds. 1995. Emergence o f Pottery: Technology and Innovation in An cient Societies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press. Barnhart, E. L. 2002. Residential Burials and Ancestor Worship: A Reexamination of Classic Maya Settlement Patterns. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 2:41-58. Barrera Rubio, A. 1978. Settlement Patterns in the Uxmal Area, Yucatan, Mexico. Paper presented at the 43 rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Tucson. ---------. 1980. Mural Paintings of the Puuc Region in Yucatan. In Robertson 1980,173-82. ---------. 1985. Littoral-Marine Economy at Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. In Chase and Rice 1985, 50-61. ---------. 1995. El Puuc. ArqM 2 (11): 18-25. Barrera Rubio, A., and J. Hutchin H. 1990. Architectural Restoration at Uxmal, 1986-1987. University of Pittsburgh Latin American Archaeology Reports, no. 1. Pittsburgh. Barrera Vásquez, A. 1939. Algunos datos acerca del arte plumaria entre los Mayas. Cuadernos Mayas i. Mérida. ---------. 1980. Diccionario Maya Cordemex, Maya-Español, Español-Maya. Mérida: Ediciones Cordemex. Barrera Vásquez, A., and S. G. Morley. 1949. The Maya Chronicles. CIW Publication 585. Barrientos Q., T., M. Popenoe de Hatch, and M. Ivic de Monterroso. 1999. Región del Oriente: del Preclásico al Postclásico. In H GG 1:331-38. Barthel, T. 1968. El complejo “emblema.” ECM 7:159-93. Bassie Sweet, K. 1991. From the Mouth o f the Dark Cave. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1996. A t the Edge o f the World. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 2002. Corn Deities and the Complementary Male/Female Principle. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 2:105-25. Baudez, C. F., ed. 1983. Introducción a la arqueología de Copan, Honduras. 3 vols. Tegucigalpa: Secre taría de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo, y Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia.
817
8l8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1986. Iconography and History at Copán. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 17 26. -------- . 1999. Los templos enmascarados de Yucatan. ArqM 7 (37): 5 4 “ 5 9 * Beach, T., and N. P. Dunning. 1995. Ancient Maya Terracing and Modern Conservation in the Peten Rainforest in Guatemala. Journal o f Soil and Water Conservation 50:138—45. Beaudry, M. P. 1987. Southeast Maya Polychrome Pottery: Production, Distribution, and Style. In P. Rice and Sharer 1987, 503-23. Becker, M. J. 1972. Plaza Plans at Quirigua, Guatemala. Katunob 8 (2): 47-62. -------- . 1973. Archaeological Evidence for Occupational Specialization among the Classic-Period Maya at Tikal, Guatemala. AAnt 38:396-406. -------- . 1979. Priests, Peasants and Ceremonial Centers: The Intellectual History of a Model. In Ham mond and Willey 1979, 3-20. -------- 1992. Burials as Caches; Caches as Burials: A New Interpretation of the Meaning of Ritual De posits among the Classic Period Lowland Maya. In Danien and Sharer 1992,185-96. -------- . 2003. Plaza Plans at Tikal: A Research Strategy for Inferring Social Organization and Processes of Culture Change at Lowland Maya Sites. In Sabloff 2003, 253-80. Becker, M. J., with C. Jones. 1999. Excavations in Residential Areas o f Tikal: Groups with Shrines. Tikal Report, no. 21. UPM. Becquelin, P. 1969. Archéologie de la region de Nebaj (Guatemala). Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie, no. 2. Paris. Becquelin, P., and C. Baudez, eds. 1975. Architecture et sculpture à Tonina, Chiapas, Mexique. 41st ICA Actas 1:433-35. -------- , eds. 1979. Tonina, une cité Maya du Chiapas, Tome I. CEMCA. -------- , eds. 1982a. Tonina, une cité Maya du Chiapas, Tome II. CEMCA. -------- , eds. 1982b. Tonina, une cité Maya du Chiapas, Tome III. CEMCA. Becquelin, P., and E. Taladoire. 1991. Tonina, une cité Maya du Chiapas, Tome IV. CEMCA. Beetz, C. P. 1980. Caracol Thirty Years Later: A Preliminary Account of Two Rulers. Expedition 22 (3): 4-11. Beetz, C. P., and L. Satterthwaite. 1981. The Monuments and Inscriptions o f Caracol, Belize. University Museum Monograph 45. UPM. Bell, E. E. 2002. Engendering a Dynasty: A Royal Woman in the Margarita Tomb, Copan. In Ardren 2002, 89-104. Bell, E. E., M. A. Canuto, and J. Ramos. 2001. El Paraíso: Punto embocadero de la periferia sudeste maya. Yaxkin 29:41-75. Bell, E. E., M. A. Canuto, and R. J. Sharer, eds. 2004. Understanding Early Classic Copan. UPM. Bendix, R. 1978. Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer sity of California Press. Benevides C., A. 1976. El sistema prehispánico de comunicaciones terrestres en la region de Cobá, Quintana Roo, y sus implicaciones sociales. Tesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. -------- . 1977. Los caminos prehispánicos de Cobá. XV Mesa Redonda de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología 2:215-25. -------- . 1981. Cobá: Una ciudad prehispánica de Quintana Roo. Mexico City: INAH Centro Regional de Sureste. -------- . 1995. Becan y su región. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 81:259-66. -------- . 1996. Edzna, Campeche. ArqM 3 (18): 26-31. -------- . 1997. Edzna: A Pre-Columbian City in Campeche. Mexico: INAH; Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. -------- . 1998. Las mujeres mayas de ayer. ArqM 5 (29): 34-41. -------- . 2000. Ichmac, un sitio Puuc de Campeche. Mexicon 22:134-39. -------- . 2001. Xchan, Campeche, un sitio Puuc con columnas decoradas. Mexicon 2 3:146-48. Bennetzen, J., E. Buckler, V. Chandler, J. Doebley, J. Dorweiler, B. Gaut, M. Freeling, S. Hake, E. KelR* Poethig, V. Walbot, and S. Wessler. 2001. Genetic evidence and the origin of maize. LAA 12:84-8 6. Benson, E. P., ed. 1968. Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. DO.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------, ed. 1973. Mesoamerican Writing Systems. DO. ---------. 1977a. The Maya World. Rev. ed. New York: Crowell. ---------, ed. 1977b. The Sea in the Pre-Columbian World. DO. ---------, ed. 1987. City States o f the Maya: Art and Architecture. Denver: Rocky Mountain Institute for Pre-Columbian Studies. Benson, E. P., and E. H. Boone, eds. 1984. Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoameric#. DO. Benson, E. P., and G. G. Griffin, eds. 1988. Maya Iconography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Berdan, F. F. 1978. Ports of Trade in Mesoamerica: A Reappraisal. In Lee and Navarrete 1978,187-98. Berdan, F. F., M. A. Masson, J. Gaseo, and M. E. Smith. 2003. An International Economy. In Smith and Berdan 2003, 96-108. Berendt, C. H. 1957. Calendario cakchiquel de los indios de Guatemala, 1685. Antropología e Historia de Guatemala 9 (2): 17-29. Berlin, B. 1968. Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers: A Study in Ethnographie Semantics. The Hague: Mouton. Berlin, B., D. E. Breedlove, and P. H. Raven. 1974. Principles o f Tzeltal Plant Classification. New York: Academic Press. Berlin, B., and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Berlin, H. 1958. El glifo “emblema” en las inscripciones mayas. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 47:111-19. ---------. 1959. Glifos nominales en el sarcófago de Palenque. Humanidades 2 (10): 1-8. ---------. 1963. The Palenque Triad. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 52:91-99. ---------. 1965. The Inscription of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. AAnt 30:330-42. ---------. 1970. The Tablet of the 96 Glyphs at Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. MARI Publication 26:13749-
---------. 1977. Signos y significados en las inscripciones mayas. Guatemala: Instituto Nacional del Patri monio Cultural de Guatemala. Bemal, I. 1969. The Olmec World. Trans. D. Heyden and F. Horcasitas. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni versity of California Press. Bey, G. J., T. M. Bond, W. M. Ringle, C. A. Hanson, C. W. Houk, and C. Peraza L. 1998. The Ceramic Chronology of Ek Balam. AM 9:101-20. Bey, G. J., C. A. Hanson, and W. M. Ringle. 1997. Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Archi tectural and Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. LAA 8:237-54. Bey, G. J., and W. M. Ringle. 1989. The Myth of the Center: Political Integration at Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Atlanta. Beyer, H. 1931. The Analysis of the Maya Hieroglyphs. Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie 31:120. ---------. 1935. On the Correlation between Maya and Christian Chronology. Maya Research 2 (1): 6 4 7
*-
---------. 1936. The True Zero Date of the Maya. Maya Research 3:202-4. ---------. 1937. Studies on the Inscriptions at Chichen Itza. CIW Publication 483. Bill, C. R. 1997. Patterns of Variation and Change in Dynastic Period Ceramics and Ceramic Produc tion at Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. diss., Tulane University. Bill, C. R., C. L. Hernández, and V. R. Bricker. 2000. The Relationship between Early Colonial Maya New Year’s Ceremonies and Some Almanacs in the Madrid Codex. AM 11:149-68. Bishop, R. L. 1984. Análisis por activación de neutrones de la cerámica de El Mirador. Mesoamerica 5 (7): 103-11. Bittmann, B., and T. D. Sullivan. 1978. The Pochteca. NWAF Papers, no. 40:211-18. Blake, M. 1991. An Emerging Early Formative Chiefdom at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. In Fowler 1991, 27-46. ---------, ed. 1999. Pacific Latin America in Prehistory. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
819
820
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blake, M., and J. E. Clark. 1999. The Emergence of Hereditary Inequality: The Case of Pacific Coastal Chiapas, Mexico. In Blake 1999, 3 9 ~ 5 4 Blake, M., J. E. Clark, B. Voorhies, G. Michaels, M. W. Love, M. E. Pye, A. A. Demarest, and B. Arroyo. 1995 Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. AM 6:161-83. Blanton, R., and G. Feinman. 1984. The Mesoamerican World System. AA 86:673-82. Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, and P. N. Peregrine. 1996. A Duel-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. CA 37:1-14. Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, G. M. Feinman, and L. Finsten. 1993. Ancient Mesoamerica : A Com parison o f Change in Three Regions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blom, F. 1932. Commercet Trade and Monetary Units o f the Maya. MARI Publication 4. -------- . 1936. The Conquest o f the Yucatan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Blom, F., and O. La Farge. 1926-27. Tribes and Temples. MARI Publications 1 and 2. Boggs, S. H. 1950. Olmec Pictographs in the Las Victorias Group, Chalchuapa Archaeological Zone, El Salvador. CIW NMA 99. Bolles, D. 1990. The Maya Calendar: The Solar-Agricultural Year and Correlation Questions. Mexicon 12:85-89. Bolles, J. S. 1977. Las Monjas: A Major Pre-Mexican Architectural Complex a t Chichen Itza. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Boone, E. H., and G. R. Willey, eds. 1988. The Southeast Maya Zone. DO. Borgstede, G. 2004. Ethnicity and Archaeology in the Western Highlands, Guatemala. PhD diss., Uni versity of Pennsylvania. Borhegyi, S. F. 1950. A Group of Jointed Figurines in the Guatemala National Museum. CIW NM A 100. -------- . 1961. Miniature Mushroom Stones from Guatemala. AA nt 26:498-504. -------- . 1965a. Archaeological Synthesis of the Guatemalan Highlands. In H M A l 2:3-58. -------- . 1965b. Settlement Patterns of the Guatemalan Highlands. In HMAI 2:59-75. Borowicz, J. 2003. Images of Power and the Power of Images: Early Classic Iconographie Programs of the Carved Monuments of Tikal. In Braswell 2003e, 217-34. Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions o f Agricultural Growth: The Economics o f Agrarian Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: Aldine. Boucher Le Landais, S., and Y. Palomo C. 2000. Cerámica ritual de Calakmul. ArqM 7 (37): 34-39. Bove, F. J. 1991. The Teotihuacan-Kaminaljuyu-Tikal Connection: A View from the South Coast of Guatemala. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 135-42. -------- . 2002. The Archaeology of Late Postclassic Settlements on the Guatemala Pacific Coast. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 179-216. Bove, F. J., and L. Heller, eds. 1989. N ew Frontiers in the Archaeology o f the Pacific Coast o f Southern Mesoamerica. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers, no. 39. Tempe. Bove F. J., and S. Medrano B. 2003. Teotihuacan, Militarism, and Pacific Guatemala. In Braswell 2003e, 45- 79« Bove, F. J., S. Medrano, B. Lou, and B. Arroyo, eds. 1993. The Balberta Project: The Terminal Forma tive-Early Classic Transition on the Pacific Coast o f Guatemala. MLAA, no. 6. Bowditch, C. P. 1901. Notes on the Report ofTeobert Maler in Memoirs o f the Peabody Museum 2(1). PMAE. -------- . 1910. The Numeration , Calendar Systems and Astronomical Knowledge o f the Mayas. Cam bridge, MA: University Press. Brady, J. E. 1995« A Reassessment of the Chronology and Function of Gordon’s Cave #3, Copan, Hon duras. AM 6:29-38. -------- . 1997. Settlement Configurations and Cosmology: The Role of Caves at Dos Pilas. AA 9 9 :6 0 2 18. Brady, J. E., and W. Ashmore. 1999« Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Landscapes of the Ancient Maya. In Ashmore and Knapp 1999,124-45.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brady, J. E., J. W. Ball, R. L. Bishop, D. C. Pring, N. Hammond, and R. A. Housley. 1998. The Low land Maya aProtoclassic”: A Reconsideration of Its Nature and Significance. AM 9:17-38. Brainerd, G. W. 1954. The Maya Civilization. Los Angeles: Southwest Museum. ---------. 1958. The Archaeological Ceramics o f Yucatan. Anthropological Records, no. 19. University of California, Berkeley. Brasseur de Bourbourg, C. E. 1866. Palenque et autres mines de l'ancienne civilisation du Mexique. Paris: Bertrand. Braswell, G. E. 1992. Obsidian-Hydration Dating, the Coner Phase, and Revisionist Chronology at Copan, Honduras. LAA 3:130-47. ---------. 1998. La arqueología de San Martín Jilotepeque, Guatemala. Mesoamerica 3 5:117-54. ---------. 2001. Post-Classic Maya Courts of the Guatemalan Highlands: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Approaches. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:308-34. ---------, ed. 2002. Praise the Gods and Pass the Obsidian?: The Organization of Ancient Economy in San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 285-306. ---------. 2003a. Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. In Braswell 2003e, 1-43. ---------. 2003b. Dating Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyu and Central Mexico. In Braswell 2003e, 81-104. ---------. 2003c. Understanding Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyu and Central Mexico. In Braswell 2003e, 105-41. ---------. 2003 d. K’iche’an Origins, Symbolic Emulation, and Ethnogenesis in the Maya Highlands, AD 1450-1524. In Smith and Berdan 2003,105-42. ---------. 2003 e. The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 2004. Lithic Analysis in the Maya Area. In Golden and Borgstede 2004,177-99. Bray, W. 1977. Maya Metalwork and Its External Connections. In Hammond 1977b, 365-403. ---------. 1997. Central American Influences on the Development of Maya Metallurgy. ¡CM 4:307-29. Brenner, M., D. A. Hodell, and J. H. Curtis. 2002. Paleoliminology of the Maya Lowlands: Long-Term Perspectives on Interactions among Climate, Environment, and Humans. AM 13:141-57. Bricker, H. M., and V. R. Bricker. 1983. Classic Maya Prediction of Solar Eclipses. Current Anthropol ogy 24:1-24. ---------. 1999. Astronomical Orientation of the Skyband Bench at Copan. JFA 26:435-42. Bricker, H. M., A. F. Aveni, and V. R. Bricker. 2001. Ancient Maya Documents Concerning the Move ments of Mars. PNAS 98:2107-10. Bricker, V. R. 1973. Ritual Humor in Highland Chiapas. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 1983. Directional Glyphs in Maya Inscriptions and Codices. AAnt 48:347-53. ---------. 1986. A Grammar o f Mayan Hieroglyphs. MARI Publication 56. ---------. 1992. Noun and Verb Morphology in the Maya Script. In HMAI , suppl. 5:70-81. ---------. 2002. Evidencia de doble descendencia en las inscripciones de Yaxchilan y Piedras Negras. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 1:125-45. Bricker, V. R., and C. R. Bill. 1994. Mortuary Practices in the Madrid Codex. In Robertson and Fields 1 9 9 4 » 195-100Bricker, V. R., and G. Vail, eds. 1997. Papers on the Madrid Codex. MARI Publication 64. Brinton, D. G. 1882. The Maya Chronicles. Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal American Literature, no. 1. Philadelphia. ---------. 1885. The Annals o f the Cakchiquels. Brinton’s Library of Aboriginal American Literature, no. 6. Philadelphia. ---------. 1895. A Primer o f Mayan Hieroglyphs. University of Pennsylvania Series in Philology, Litera ture and Archaeology 3 (2). Philadelphia. Bronson, B. 1966. Roots and the Subsistence of the Ancient Maya. SWJA 22:251-59. Brotherston, G. 1979. Continuity in Maya Writing: New Readings of Two Passages in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. In Hammond and Willey 1979, 241-58. Brown, C. H. 1987. The Linguistic History of Mayan Year (*ha?ab*). Anthropological Linguistics 29: 362-88.
821
822
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, C», and S. Witkowski. 1979. Aspects of the Phonological History of Mayan-Zoquean. IJAL 45:34-47. Brown, K. L. 1977. The Valley of Guatemala: A Highland Port of Trade. In Sanders and Michels 1 9 7 7 » 2.05-95. -------- . 1980. A Brief Report on Paleo-Indian-Archaic Occupation in the Quiche Basin, Guatemala. AAnt 45:313-24. Brown, L. A. 2004. Dangerous Places and Wild Spaces: Creating Meaning with Materials and Space at Contemporary Maya Shrines on El Duende Mountain. Journal o f Archaeological M ethod and The ory 11:31-58. -------- . Forthcoming. Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at 20th and 19th Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. LAA. Brown, L. A., and P. D. Sheets. 2000. Distinguishing Domestic from Ceremonial Structures in Southern Mesoamerica: Suggestions from Ceren, El Salvador. Mayab 13:11-21. Brown, M. K., and J. F. Garber. 2003. Evidence of Conflict during the Middle Preclassic in the Maya Lowlands. In Brown and Stanton 2003, 91-108. Brown, M. K., and Stanton, T. W., eds. 2003. Warfare and Conflict in Ancient Mesoamerica. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Bruce, R. D. 1975. Lacandon Dream Symbolism: Dream Symbolism and Interpretation among the Lacandon Maya o f Chiapas, Mexico. Mexico City: Ediciones Euro-Americanas Klaus Thiele. Brumfiel, E. 1992. Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem: Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show. AA 94:551-67. Brumfiel, E., and T. K. Earle, eds. 1987. Specialization , Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfiel, E., and J. W. Fox, eds. 1994. Factional Competition and Political Developm ent in the N ew World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brunhouse, R. L. 1971. Sylvanus G. Morley and the World o f the Ancient Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. -------- . 1973. In Search o f the Maya: The First Archaeologists. Albuquerque: University of New Mex ico Press. -------- . 1975» Pursuit o f the Ancient Maya: Some Archaeologists o f Yesterday. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Buikstra, J. E., T. D. Price, L. E. Wright, and J. A. Burton. 2004. Tombs from the Copan Acropolis: A Life History Approach. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 191-212. Bullard, W. R., Jr. 1952. Residential Property Walls at Mayapan. CIW Current Reports, Department of Archaeology, no. 3. -------- . i960. Maya Settlement Pattern in Northeastern Peten, Guatemala. A A nt 2 5:355-72. -------- . 1970. Topoxte, A Postclassic Site in Peten, Guatemala. PMAE Papers 61:245-307. Bunzel, R. 1952. Chichicastenango, a Guatemalan Village. American Ethnological Society Publication 22. Locust Valley, NY. Burkitt, R. 1930a. Excavations at Chocóla. UM Journal 15:115-44. -------- . 1930b. Explorations in the Highlands of Western Guatemala. UM Journal 21:41-72. Butzer, K. 1996. Ecology in the Long View: Settlement Histories, Agrosystemic Strategies, and Ecologi cal Performance. JFA 23:141-50. Byers, D. S., ed. 1967. The Prehistory o f the Tehuacan Valley. Vol. 1, Environment and Subsistence. Austin: University of Texas Press. Campbell, L. R. 1976. The Linguistic Prehistory of the Southern Mesoamerican Periphery. X IV Mesa Redonda , Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología 1:157-83. -------- . 1977- Quichean Linguistic Prehistory. University of California Publications in Linguistics, no. 81. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. (with P. Ventur, R. Stewart, and B. Gardner). 1978» Bibliography o f Mayan Languages and Lin guistics. IMS Publication, no. 3. Campbell, L. R., and T. S. Kaufman. 1976. A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs. AA nt 4 1:8 0 -8 9 . -------- . 1980. On Mesoamerican Linguistics. AA 82:850-57.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1984. The Implications of Mayan Historical Linguistics for Glyphic Research. In Justeson and Campbell 1984, 1-16. Canuto, M. A. 2002. A Tale of Two Communities: The Role of the Rural Community in the Sociopoliti cal Integration of the Copan Drainage in the Late Preclassic and Classic Periods. PhD diss., Univer sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. ---------. 2004. The Rural Settlement of Copan: Changes through the Early Classic. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 29-50. Canuto, M., and W. L. Fash. 2004. The Blind Spot: Where the Elite and Non-Elite Meet. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 51-76. Canuto, M., and J. Yaeger, eds. 2000. The Archaeology o f Communities: A N ew World Perspective. London: Routledge Press. Carlsen, R. S. 1997. The War for the Heart and Soul o f a Highland Maya Town. Austin: University of Texas Press. Carmack, R. M. 1968. Toltec Influences on the Postclassic Culture History of Highland Guatemala. MARI Publication 26:49-92. ---------• I 973- Quichean Civilization. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. ---------. 1977. Ethnohistory of the Central Quiche: The Community of Utatlan. In Wallace and Car mack 1977, 1-19. ---------. 1981. The Quiche Mayas o f Utatlan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Carmack, R. M., and J. M. Weeks. 1981. The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Utatlan: A Conjunctive Approach. AAnt 46:323-41. Carmean, K. C. 1991. Architectural Labor Investment and Social Stratification at Sayil, Yucatan, Mex ico. LAA 2:151-65. ---------. 1998. Leadership at Sayil: A Study of Political and Religious Decentralization. AM 9:259-70. Carmean, K., N. Dunning, and J. K. Kowalski. 2004. High Times in the Hill Country: A Perspective from the Terminal Classic Puuc Region. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 424-49. Carmean, K., and Sabloff, J. A. 1996. Political Decentralization in the Puuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico. JAR 52:317-30. Carnegie Institution of Washington. 1935. Botany o f the Maya Area. CIW Publication 461. ---------. 1940. Botany o f the Maya Area. CIW Publication 522. Cameiro, R. L. 1967. On the Relationship between Size of Population and Complexity of Social Orga nization. SWJA 23:234-43. ---------. 1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-38. ---------. 1988. The Circumscription Theory. American Behavioral Scientist 31:497-511. ---------. 1998. What Happened at the Flashpoint? Conjectures on Chiefdom Formation at the Very Moment of Conception. In Redmond 1998, 18-42. Carr, H. S. 1996. Precolumbian Maya Exploitation and Management of Deer Populations. In Fedick 1996, 251-61. Carr, R. F., and J. E. Hazard. 1961. Map o f the Ruins ofTikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Tikal Report, no. i i , UPM Monograph 21. Carrasco, D. 1982. Quetzalcoatl and the Irony o f Empire: Myths and Prophesies in the Aztec Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carrasco, D., L. Jones, and S. Sessions, eds. 2000. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Carrasco V., R. 1991. The Structure 8 Tablet and the Development of the Great Plaza at Yaxchilan. In Robertson and Fields 1991,110-17. ---------. 1996. Calakmul, Campeche. ArqM 3 (18): 46-51. ---------. 1999a. Actividad ritual y objetos de poder en la Estructura IV de Calakmul, Campeche. In Gubler 1999, 69-84. ---------. 1999b. Tumbas reales de Calakmul: Ritos funerarios y estructura de poder. ArqM 7:28-31. ---------. 2000. El Cuchcabal del la Cabeza de Serpiente. ArqM 7 (42): 12-19. Carrasco V., R., S. Boucher, P. Alvarez, V. Tiesler Bios, V. Garcia V., R. García M., and J. Vasquez N.
823
824
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1999. A Dynastic Tomb from Campeche, Mexico: New Evidence on Jaguar Paw, A Ruler of Calakmul. LAA 10:47-58. Carrelli, C. W. 2004. Measures of Power: The Energetics of Royal Construction at Early Classic Copan. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 113-27. Carrillo y Ancona, C. 1937. Historia antigua de Yucatán, Mérida: Tipográfica Yucateca. Carsten, J., and S. Hugh-Jones, eds. 1995. About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. New York: Cam bridge University Press. Carter, W. E. 1969. N ew Lands and O ld Traditions: Kekchi Cultivators in the Guatemalan Lowlands. Latin American Monograph, no. 6. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Cashdan, E. 1980. Egalitarianism among Hunters and Gatherers. AA 82:116-20. Caso, A. 193 6. La religion de los Aztecas. Mexico City: Imprenta Mundial. -------- . 1965. Sculpture and Mural Painting of Oaxaca. In HMAI 3:849-70. Castañeda, Q. E. 1996. In The Museum o f Maya Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Catherwood, F. 1844. Views o f Ancient Monuments in Central America , Chiapas, and Yucatan. New York: Barlett and Welford. Chamberlain, R. S. 1948. The Conquest and Colonization o f Yucatan, 1517-50. CIW Publication 582. Chang, K. C. 1972. Settlement Patterns in Archaeology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Modules in An thropology, no. 24. Chapman, A. M. 1957. Port of Trade Enclaves in Aztec and Maya Civilizations. In Trade and M arket in the Early Empires, ed. K. Polanyi, C. Arensberg, and H. Pearson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Charencey, H. de. 1872. Recherches sur les lois phonétiques dans les idiomes de la famille MameHuastèque. Revue de Linguistique et de Philologie Comparée 5:129-67. Chase, A. F. 1979. Regional Development in the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, El Peten, Guatemala: A Pre liminary Statement. CCM 11:87-119. -------- . 1990. Maya Archaeology and Population Estimates in the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, Peten, Guatemala. In Gilbert and Rice 1990, 149-65. -------- . 1991. Cycles of Time: Caracol in the Maya Realm. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 32-42. Chase, A. F., and D. Z. Chase, 1987. Investigations at the Classic Maya City o f Caracol, Belize: 19851987. PARI Monograph 3. -------- . 1989. The Investigation of Classic Period Maya Warfare at Caracol, Belize. Mayab 5 :5-18. -------- . 1996a. A Mighty Maya Nation: How Caracol Built an Empire by Cultivating Its “Middle Class.” A 49 (5): 66-72. -------- . 1996b. The Organization and Composition of Classic Lowland Maya Society: The View from Caracol, Belize. In Robertson, Macri, and McHargue 1996, 213-22. -------- . 1996c. More Than Kin and King: Centralized Political Organization among the Late Classic Maya. CA 37:803-30. -------- . 1998a. Scale and Intensity in Classic Period Maya Agriculture: Terracing and Settlement at the ‘Garden City* of Caracol, Belize. Culture and Agriculture 20 (2): 60-77. -------- . 1998b. Late Classic Maya Political Structure, Polity Size, and Warfare Arenas. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998, 11-29. . 2000. Sixth and Seventh Century Variability in the Southern Maya Lowlands: Centralization and Integration at Caracol, Belize. In Gunn 2000, 55-65. -------- . 2001a. The Royal Court of Caracol, Belize: Its Palaces and People. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:102-37. -------- . 2001b. Ancient Maya Causeways and Site Organization at Caracol, Belize. AM 12:273-81. -------- . 2004. Un katun de investigaciones en Caracol, Belize. ArqM 66:40-47. Chase, A. F., D. Z. Chase, and W. A. Haviland. 2002. Maya Social Organization from a “Big Site” Per spective: Classic Period Caracol, Belize, and Tikal, Guatemala. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 1:251-76. Chase, A. F., D. Z. Chase, and H. W. Topsey. 1988. Archaeology and the Ethics of Collecting. A 41 (1): 56-60, 87. Chase, A. F., N. Grube, and D. Z. Chase. 1991. Three Terminal Classic Monuments from Caracol, Belize. RRAMW 36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chase, A. F., and P. M. Rice, eds. 1985. The Lowland Maya Postclassic. Austin: University of Texas Press. Chase, D. Z. 1981. The Maya Postclassic at Santa Rita Corozal. A 34 (1): 15-33. ---------. 1985. Ganned but Not Forgotten: Late Postclassic Archaeology and Ritual at Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. In Chase and Rice 1985,104-25. ---------. 1986. Social and Political Organization in the Land of Cacao and Honey? Correlating the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland Maya. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 347“ 77. ---------. 1988. Caches and Censerwares: Meaning from Maya Pottery. In A Pot for All Reasons, ed. C. C. Kolb and M. Kirkpatrick, 81-104. Philadelphia: CCM (Special Publication). ---------. 1990. The Invisible Maya: Population History and Archaeology at Santa Rita Corozal. In Culbert and Rice 1990,199-213. ---------. 1991. Lifeline to the Gods: Ritual Bloodletting at Santa Rita Corozal. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 89-96. Chase, D. Z., and A. F. Chase. 1988. A Postclassic Perspective: Excavations at the Maya Site o f Santa Rita Corozol, Belize. PARI Monograph 4. ---------, eds. 1992. Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. Norman: University of Okla homa Press. ---------. 1994. Studies in the Archaeology o f Caracol, Belize. PARI Monograph 7. ---------. 1996. Maya Multiples: Individuals, Entries, and Tombs in Structure A34 of Caracol, Belize. LAA 7:61-79. ---------. 1998. The Architectural Context of Caches, Burials, and Other Ritual Activities for the Classic Period Maya (as reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Houston 1998, 299-332. ---------. 2000. Inferences about Abandonment: Maya Household Archaeology and Caracol, Belize. Mayab 13:67-77. Chase, D. Z., A. F. Chase, and W. A. Haviland. 1990. The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering “The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition.” AA 92:499-506. Cheek, C. D. 1977a. Excavations at the Palangana and the Acropolis, Kaminaljuyu. In Sanders and Michels 1977, 1-204. ---------. 1977b. Teotihuacan Influence at Kaminaljuyu. In Sanders and Michels 1977, 441-52. ---------. 1986. Construction Activity as a Measurement of Change at Copán, Honduras. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 50-71. Childe, V. G. 1954. What Happened in History. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin. Chinchilla, O. F. 1996. Settlement Patterns and Monumental Art at a Major PreColumbian Polity: Cotzumalguapa, Guatemala. PhD diss., Vanderbilt University. ---------. 1997. El Baúl: Un sitio defensivo en la zona nuclear de Cotzumalguapa. In Laporte and Es cobedo 1997, 375-86. ---------. 2002. Palo Gordo, Guatemala, y el estilo artístico Cotzumalguapa. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 147-78. Chowning, A. 1956. A Round Temple and Its Shrine at Mayapan. CIW Current Reports, Department of Archaeology, no. 34. Christenson, A. J. 2003. Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book o f the Maya. New York: O Books. Christie, J. J., ed. 2003. Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Austin: Uni versity of Texas Press. Ciudad R., A., Y. Fernández M., J. M. Garcia C., M. J. Iglesias Ponce de León, A. Lacadena G., and L. T. Sanz C., eds. 1998. Anatomía de una civilización: Aproximaciones interdisciplinarias a la cul tura Maya. Madrid: SEEM. Ciudad R., A., M. J. Iglesias Ponce de León, and M. del Carmen Martínez M., eds. 2001. Recon struyendo la cuidad Maya: El urbanismo en las sociedades antiguas. Madrid: SEEM. Claassen, C., and R. A. Joyce, eds. 1997. Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica. Phil adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Claessen, H. J. M., and P. van de Velde, eds. 1991. Early State Economies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
825
826
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clancy, F. S. 1985. Maya Sculpture. In Gallenkamp and Johnson 1985, 58-70. -------- . 1990. A Genealogy for Freestanding Maya Monuments. In Clancy and Harrison 199°» ZI~ 3 Z-------- . 1999. Sculpture in the Ancient Maya Plaza: The Early Classic Period. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Clancy, F. S., and P. D. Harrison, eds. 1990. Vision and Revision in Maya Studies. Albuquerque: Uni versity of New Mexico Press. Clarke, J. E. 1991. The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative. In Fowler 1991, 13-26. Clarke, J. E., and M. Blake. 1994. The Power of Prestige: Cpmpetative Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Brumfiel and Fox, 1994» i 7 “ 3 °Clarke, J. E., and R. D. Hansen. 2001. The Architecture of Early Kingship: Comparative Perspectives on the Origin of the Maya Royal Court. In Inomata and Houston 2001,1-45. Clarke, J. E., and T. A. Lee. 1984. Formative Obsidian Exchange and the Emergence of Public Econo mies in Chiapas, Mexico. In Hirth 1984, 235-74. Clewlow, C. W. 1974. A Stylistic and Chronological Study o f Olmec Monumental Sculpture. UCARF Contribution 18. Clewlow, C. W., and H. F. Wells. 1986. El Balsamo: A Middle Preclassic Complex on the South Coast of Guatemala. In Pahl 1986, 27-40. Cliff, M. B. 1988. Domestic Architecture and the Origins of Complex Society at Cerros. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988,199-225. Cline, H. F. 1944. Lore and Deities of the Lacandon Indians, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal o f American Folklore 57:107-15. -------- , ed. 1972-75. Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources. In H M A I 12-15. Closs, M. D. 1984. The Dynastic History of Naranjo: The Early Period. ECM 15:77-96. -------- . 1985. The Dynastic History of Naranjo: The Middle Period. In Robertson and Benson 1985, Ö5 - 7 7 -------- . 1987. Bilingual Glyphs. RRAMW, no. 12. -------- . 1988. The Hieroglyphic Text of Stela 9, Lamanai, Belize. RRAMW, no. 21. -------- . 1989. The Dynastic History of Naranjo: The Late Period. In Hanks and Rice 1989, 244-54. Clutton-Brock, J., and N. Hammond. 1994. Hot Dogs: Comestible Canids in Preclassic Maya Culture at Cuello, Belize. JAS 21 (6): 819-26. Cobean, R., M. Coe, E. Perry, K. Turekian, and D. Kharkar. 1971. Obsidian Trade at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Science 174:666-71. Cobos P., R. 1997. Chichen Itza y el clásico terminal en las tierras bajas Mayas. In Laporte and Escobedo 1997, 791-801. -------- . 1998. Chichen Itza: Análisis de una comunidad del periodo clásico terminal. Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 6:316-31. -------- . 1999. Fuentes históricas y arqueología: Convergencias y divergencias en la reconstrucción del périodo clásico terminal de Chichen Itza. Mayab 12:58-70. -------- . 2002. Chichen Itza: Settlement and Hegemony during the Terminal Classic Period. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 517-44. Cobos P., R., and T. L. Winemiller. 2001. The Late and Terminal Classic-Period Causeway Systems of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. AM 12:283-91. Coe, M. D. 1961. La Victoria: An Early Site on the Pacific Coast o f Guatemala. PMAE Papers 53. -------- . 1965. The Olmec Style and Its Distribution. In HMAI 3:739-75. -------- . 1970. The Archaeological Sequence at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Veracruz, Mexico. UCARF Contribution 8:21-34. -------- . 1973. The Maya Scribe and His World. New York: Grolier Club. -------- . 1975a- Classic Maya Pottery at Dumbarton Oaks. DO. —:---- . 1975b. Native Astronomy in Mesoamerica. In Aveni 1975b, 3-31. -------- . 1976. Early Steps in the Evolution of Maya Writing. In Origins o f Religious A rt and Iconogra phy in Preclassic Mesoamerica, ed. H. B. Nicholson, 107-22. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications/Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1977. Olmec and Maya: A Study in Relationships. In Adams 1977,183-95. ---------. 1988. Ideology of the Maya Tomb. In Benson and Griffin 1988, 222-35. ---------. 1989. The Royal Fifth: Earliest Notices of Maya Writing. RRAMA, no. 28. ---------. 1992. Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames and Hudson. ---------. 1998. The A rt o f the Maya Scribe. New York: Abrams. ---------. 1999. The Maya. 6th ed. London: Thames and Hudson. ---------. 2004. Gods of the Scribes and Artists. In Miller and Martin 2004, 239-41. Coe, M. D., and R. A. Diehl. 1980. In the Land o f the Olmec. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press. Coe, M. D., and K. V. Flannery. 1964. The Pre-Columbian Obsidian Industry of El Chayal, Guatemala. AA nt 30:43-49. ---------. 1967. Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal Guatemala. Smithsonian Contribu tions to Anthropology 3. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Coe, M. D., and M. van Stone. 2001. H ow to Read Maya Glyphs. London: Thames and Hudson. Coe, S., and M. D. Coe. 1996. The True History o f Chocolate. London: Thames and Hudson. Coe, W. R. 1959. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches and Burials. UPM Monograph 18. ---------. 1962. A Summary of Excavation and Research at Tikal, Guatemala: 1956-61. AAnt 27:479507. ---------. 1965a. Tikal, Guatemala, and Emergent Maya Civilization. Science 147:1401-19. ---------. 1965b. Tikal: Ten Years of Study of a Maya Ruin in the Lowlands of Guatemala. Expedition 8 (1): 5 - 5 6 . ---------. 1968. Tikal: In Search of the Mayan Past. In The World Book Yearbook, 160-90. Chicago: Field Educational Enterprises. ---------. 1990. Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis o f Tikal. 6 vols. Tikal Report, no. 14. UPM. Coe, W. R., and W. A. Haviland. 1982. Introduction to the Archaeology o f Tikal, Guatemala. Tikal Report, no. 12. UPM. Coe, W. R., and R. Larios V. 1988. Tikal: A Handbook o f the Ancient Maya Ruins. 2nd ed. Guatemala: UPM and Asociación Tikal. Coggins, C. C. 1972. Archaeology and the Art Market. Science 175:263-66. ---------. 1975. Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and Iconographie Reconstruction. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. ---------. 1976. Teotihuacan at Tikal in the Early Classic Period. 42nd ICA Actas 8 : 251-69. ---------. 1979. A New Order and the Role of the Calendar: Some Characteristics of the Middle Classic Period at Tikal. In Hammond and Willey 1979:38-50. ---------. 1980. The Shape of Time: Some Political Implications of a Four-part Figure. AAnt 45:729-39. ---------. 1990. The Birth of the Baktun at Tikal and Seibal. In Clancy and Harrison 1990, 79-97. ---------, ed. 1992. Artifacts from the Cenote o f Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan. PMAE Papers 10 (3). Coggins, C. C , and O. C. Shane, eds. 1984. Cenote o f Sacrifice: Maya Treasures from the Sacred Well at Chichen Itza. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cohen, R. 1978. State Origins: A Reappraisal. In The Early State, ed. H. J. Claessen and P. Skalnik, 3175. The Hague: Mouton. ---------. 1984. Warfare and State Formation: Wars Makes States and States Make Wars. In Warfare, Culture, and Environment, ed. F. Clancy and R. Ferguson, 329-58. New York: Academic Press. Cohn, B. S. 1980. History and Anthropology: The State of Play. Comparative Studies in Society and H istory 22:198-221. Cohodas, M. 1978. The Great Ball Court at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. New York: Garland. Cojti Cuxil, D. 1996. The Politics of Maya Revindication. In Fischer and McKenna Brown 1996,1950. Colas, P. R., and A. Voss. 2001. A Game of Life and Death: The Maya Ball Game. In Grube 2001a, 186-93. Conkey, M. W., and J. M. Gero. 1997. Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Annual Review o f Anthropology 26:411-37.
827
828
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cook, O. F. 1921. Milpa Agriculture: A Primitive Tropical System. In Annual Report o f the Smithson ian Institution , 1919: 307-26. Washington, DC. Cooke, C. W. 1931. Why the Mayan Cities of the Peten District, Guatemala, Were Abandoned. Journal o f the Washington Academy o f Sciences 21 (13): 283-87. Copeland, D. R. E. 1989. Excavations in the Mono Group , El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. NWAF Papers, no. 61. Cortés, H. 1928. Five Letters o f Cortés to the Emperor (1519-1516). Trans. J. B. Morris. New York: Norton. Costin, C. L., and R. P. Wright, eds. 1998. Craft and Social Identity. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 8. Arlington, VA. Cowgill, G. L. 1964. The End of the Classic Maya Culture: A Review of Recent Evidence. SWJA 20:145-59. -------- . 1975. On Causes and Consequences of Ancient and Modem Population Changes. AA 7 7 : 5 ° 5 ~ 25. -------- . 1979. Teotihuacan, Internal Militaristic Competition, and the Fall of the Classic Maya. In Ham mond and Willey 1979, 51-62. Cowgill, U. M. 1962. An Agricultural Study of the Southern Maya Lowlands. AA 64: 273-86. Cowgill, U. M., and G. E. Hutchinson. 1963. El Bajo de Santa Fe. Transactions o f the American Philo sophical Society 53 (7). Philadelphia. Craine, E. R., and R. C. Reindorp, eds. and trans. 1979. The Codex Pérez and the Book o f Chilam Balam o f Maní. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Cuevas G., M. 2004. The Cult of Patron and Ancestor Gods in Censers at Palenque. In Miller and Mar tin 2004, 253-55. Culbert, T. P. 1963. Ceramic Research at Tikal, Guatemala. CCM 1:3 4 -4 2 . -------- , ed. 1973. The Classic Maya Collapse. SAR. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- . 1977a. Early Maya Development at Tikal, Guatemala. In Adams 1977, 27-43. -------- . 1977b. Maya Development and Collapse: An Economic Perspective. In Hammond 1974b, 509-30. -------- . 1985. Maya Ceramics. In Gallenkamp and Johnson 1985, 71-83. -------- . 1988. The Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. In Yoffee and Cowgill 1988, 69-101. -------- , ed. 1991a. Classic Maya Political History. SAR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1991b. Maya Political History and Elite Interaction: A Summary View. In Gilbert 1991a, 311-46. -------- . 1991c. Polities in the Northeast Peten, Guatemala. In Culbert 1991a, 128-46. -------- . 1993. The Ceramics o f Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches, and Problematical Deposits. Tikal Report, no. 2 5A. UPM. -------- . 1998. The New Maya. A 51 (5): 48-51. -------- . 2003. The Ceramics of Tikal. In Sabloff 2003, 47-82. -------- . 2004. Continuities and Changes in Maya Archaeology: An Overview. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 311-20. Culbert, T. P., L. J. Kosakowsky, R. E. Fry, and W. A. Haviland. 1990. The Population of Tikal, Guatemala. In Culbert and Rice 1990,103-21. Culbert, T. P., L. J. Levi, and L. Cruz. 1990. Lowland Maya Wetland Agriculture. In Clancy and Harri son 1990,115-24. Culbert, T. P., and D. S. Rice, eds. 1990. Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Curtis, J. H., D. A. Hodell, and M. Brenner. 1996- Climate Variability on the Yucatan Peninsula (Mex ico) during the Past 3500 Years, and the Implications for Maya Cultural Evolution. Quaternary Research 46:37-47. Cyphers, A. 1999. From Stone to Symbols: Olmec Art in Social Context at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In Grove and Joyce 1999,155-82. Dahlin, B. H. 1979. Cropping Cash in the Protoclassic: A Cultural Impact Statement. In Hammond and Willey 1979, 21-37.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1983. Climate and Prehistory on the Northern Yucatan Peninsula. Climate Change 5:245-63. ---------. 1984. A Colossus in Guatemala: The Preclassic City of El Mirador. A 37 (5): 18-25. ---------. 2000. The Barricade and Abandonment of Chunchucmil: Implications for Northern Maya War fare. LAA i i (3): 283-98. ---------. 2003. Climate Change and the End of the Classic Period in Yucatan: Resolving a Paradox. AM 13:327-40. Dahlin, B. H., and T. Ardren. 2002. Modes of Exchange and Regional Patterns at Chunchucmil, Yuca tan. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 249-84. Dahlin, B. H., A. P. Andrews, T. Beach, C. Bezanilla, P. Farrell, S. Luzzadder-Beach, and V. McCormick. 1998. Punta Canbalam in Context: A Peripatetic Coastal Site in Northwest Campeche, Mexico. AM 9:1-16. Dahlin, B. H., and W. J. Litzinger. 1986. Old Bottle, New Wine: The Function of Chultuns in the Maya Lowlands. AAnt 51:721-36. Dahlin, B. H., R. Quizar, and A. Dahlin. 1987. Linguistic Divergence and the Collapse of Preclassic Maya Civilization. AAnt 52:367-82. Danien, E. 1997. The Ritual on the Ratinlixul Vase: Pots and Politics in Highland Guatemala. Expedi tion 39:37-48. Danien, E., and R. J. Sharer, eds. 1992. N ew Theories on the Ancient Maya. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Darch, J. P., ed. 1983. Drained Field Agriculture in Central and South America. BAR 189. Dávalos H., E., and A. Romano P. 1973. Estudio preliminar de los restos osteológicos encontrados en la tumba del Templo de las Inscripciones, Palenque. In Ruz L. 1973, 253-54. Deal, M. 1998. Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Deevey, E. S., D. S. Rice, P. M. Rice, H. H. Vaughan, M. Brenner, and M. S. Flannery. 1979. Maya Ur banism: Impact on a Tropical Karst Environment. Science 206:298-306. del Rio, A. 1822. Description o f the Ruins o f an Ancient City Discovered Near Palenque, in the King dom o f Guatemala , in Spanish America. Trans, from the Spanish. London: Berthoud and Suttaby, Evance and Fox. Demarest, A. A. 1986. The Archaeology o f Santa Leticia and the Rise o f Maya Civilization. MARI Pub lication 52. ---------. 1988. Political Evolution in the Maya Borderlands. In Boone and Willey 1988, 335-94. ---------. 1989. The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica. In Sharer and Grove 1989,303-44. ---------. 1992. Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In Demarest and Conrad 1992,135-57. ---------. 1996. Closing Comment: The Maya State: Centralized or Segmentary. CA 37:821-24. ---------. 1997a. War, Peace, and the Collapse of a Native American Civilization: Lessons for Contempo rary Systems of Conflict. In A Natural History o f Peace, ed. T. Gregor, 215-48. Nashville: Van derbilt University Press. ---------. 1997b. The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project, 1989-1994: Overview, History, and Major Results of a Mulitdisciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse. AM 8 :20927. ---------. 2001. Climatic Change and the Classic Maya Collapse: The Return of Catastrophism. LAA 12:105-7. ---------. 2002. Theoretical Speculations on the Rise of Complex Society on the South Coast of Guatemala. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 11-34. ---------. 2004. After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the Terminal Classic in Western Peten. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 102-24. Demarest, A. A., T. Barrientos Q., M. Wolf, and D. Garcia. 2003. Los proyectos de arqueología y desarollo comunitario en Cancuen: Metas, resultados y desafíos en 2003. Manuscript. Demarest, A. A., and G. W. Conrad. 1983. Ideological Adaptation and the Rise of the Aztec and Inca Empires. In Leventhal and Kolata 1983, 345-400.
82.9
830
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- , eds. 1992.. Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilization. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press. Demarest, A. A., and A. E. Foias 1993. Mesoamerican Horizons and the Cultural Transformations of Maya Civilization. In D. Rice 1993, I 4 7 - 9 1* Demarest, A. A., and W. R. Fowler, eds. 1984. Proyecto El Mirador de la Harvard University, 198z1983. Mesoamérica 5 (7): 1-160. Demarest, A. A., and S. D. Houston, eds. 1990. Proyecto Arqueológico Regional Petexbatun. Informe Preliminar, no. 2, Segunda Temporada 1990. A report presented to the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. Demarest, A. A., K. Morgan, C. Wolley, and H. Escobedo. 2003. The Political Acquisition of Sacred Geography: The Murciélagos Complex at Dos Pilas. In Christie 2003, 120-53. Demarest, A. A., M. O’Mansky, C. Wolley, D. Van Tuerenhout, T. Inomata, J. Palka, and H. Escobedo. 1997. Classic Maya Defensive Systems and Warfare in the Petexbatun Region: Archaeological Evidence and Interpretation. AM 8:229-53. Demarest, A. A., P. M. Rice, and D. S. Rice, eds. 2004. The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Demarest, A. A., and R. J. Sharer. 1982a. The Origins and Evolution of Usulutan Ceramics. AAnt 47:810-22. -------- . 1982b: The 1982 Ceramic Excavation Program at El Mirador, Guatemala. Paper presented at the 44th International Congress of Americanists, Manchester, England. -------- . 1986. Interregional Patterns in the Late Preclassic of Southeastern Mesoamerica: A Definition of Highland Ceramic Spheres. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 194-223. Demarest, A. A., R. J. Sharer, W. L. Fowler, E. King, and J. Fowler. 1984. Las excavaciones. In De marest and Fowler 1984,14-52. Demarest, A. A., R. Switsur, and R. Berger. 1982. The Dating and Cultural Associations of the “Potbel lied” Sculptural Style: New Evidence from Western El Salvador. AA nt 47:557-71. DeMarrais, M. L., L. J. Castillo, and T. K. Earle. 1996. Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. CA 37:15-31. de Montmollin, O. 1989. The Archaeology o f Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a Classic Maya Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1995. Settlement and Politics in Three Classic Maya Polities. Monographs in World Prehistory 24. Madison: Prehistory Press. -------- . 1997. A Regional Study of Classic Maya Ballcourts from the Upper Grijalva Basin, Chiapas, Mexico. AM 8:23-41. Denevan, W. M. 1970. Aboriginal Drained-Field Cultivation in the Americas. Science 169:647-54. Diaz del Castillo, B. 1963. The Conquest o f N ew Spain. Trans. J. M. Cohen. Baltimore: Penguin. Diebold, A. R., Jr. i960. Determining the Centers of Dispersal of Language Groups. IJAL 26:1-10. Diehl, R. A., and J. C. Berio, eds. 1989. Mesoamerica after the Decline o f Teotihuacan, A.D . 700-900. DO. Digby, A. 1972. Maya Jades. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Dillehay, T. D. 2000. The Settlement o f the Americas: A N ew History. New York: Basic Books. Dillon, B. D. 1975. Notes on Trade in Ancient Mesoamerica. UCARF Contribution 24:80-135. -------- . 1977- Salinas de los Nueve Cerros, Guatemala. Socorro, NM: Ballena Press. -------- . 1978. A Tenth-Cycle Sculpture from Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. UCARF Contribution 3 6 :3 9 46. Dixon, B., L. R. V. Joesink-Mandeville, N. Hasebe, M. Mucio, W. Vincent, D. James, and K. Petersen. 1994. Formative-Period Architecture at the Site of Yarumela, Central Honduras. LAA 5:7 0 -8 7 . Dobkin de Rios, M. 1974. The Influence of Psychotropic Flora and Fauna on Maya Religion. Current Anthropology 15:147-64. Doebley, J., A. Stec, J. Wendel, and M. Edwards. 1990. Genetic and Morphological Analysis of a MaizeTeosinte F* Population: Implications for the Origin of Maize. PNAS 87:988-92. Drennan, R. D. 1984. Long-Distance Movement of Goods in Prehispanic Mesoamerica: Its Importance in the Complex Societies of the Fromative and Classic. AAnt 49:27-43.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Drennan, R. D., and C. A. Uribe, eds. 1987. Chiefdoms in the Americas. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Dresden Codex. 1880. Die Maya-Handschrift der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Ed. E. Förste mann. Leipzig: Röder. 2nd ed., 1892. Reprinted as Codex Dresdensis: Die Maya-Handschrift in der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek Dresden , Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962. (See also Anders 1975; Kingsborough 1831-48; Thompson 1972b; Villacorta and Villacorta 1933:) Driver, W. D. 2002. An Early Classic Colonnaded Building at the Maya Site of Blue Creek, Belize. LAA 13:63-84. Driver, W. D., and P. Wanyerka. 2002. Creation Symbolism in the Architecture and Ritual at Structure 3, Blue Creek, Belize. Mexicon 2 4 :6 -8 . Drucker, P. 1952. La Venta, Tabasco: A Study o f Olmec Ceramic and Art. BAE Bulletin 153. Drucker, P., R. F. Heizer, and R. J. Squier. 1955. Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 19sS’ BAE Bulletin 170. Dull, R. A. 1998. Late Holocene Human Ecology of the Chalchuapa Archaeological Zone: A 3700 Year Stratigraphic Record of Agriculture, Erosion, Fire, and Vegetation Change from Laguna Cuzcachapa, Western El Salvador. American Quaternary Association Abstracts , p. 105. Mexico: Puerto Vallaría. Dull, R. A., J. R. Southern, and P. Sheets. 2001. Volcanism, Ecology and Culture: A Reassessment of the Volcán Ilopango TBJ Eruption in the Southern Maya Realm. LAA 12:25-44. Dumond, D. E. 1961. Swidden Agriculture and the Rise of Maya Civilization. SWJA 17:301-16. Dunham, P. S., T. R. Jameson, and R. M. Leventhal. 1989. Secondary Development and Settlement Economics: The Classic Maya of Southern Belize. Research in Economic Anthropology , suppl. 4:255-92. Dunnell, R. C. 1980. Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:35-99* ---------. 1982. Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archae ology. JAR 38:1-25. Dunning, N. P. 1992. Lords o f the Hills: Ancient Maya Settlement in the Puuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico. Madison: Prehistory Press. Dunning, N. P., and T. Beach. 1994. Soil Erosion, Slope Management, and Ancient Terracing in the Maya Lowlands. LAA 5:51-69. ---------. 2004. Noxious or Nuturing Nature: Maya Civilization in Environmental Context. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 125-42. Dunning, N. P., T. Beach, and D Rue. 1997. The Paleoecology and Ancient Settlement of the Petexbatun Region. AM 8:255-66. Dunning, N. R, T. Beach, P. Farrell, and S. Luzzadder-Beach. 1998. Prehispanic Agrosystems and Adap tive Regions in the Maya Lowlands. Culture and Agriculture 20:87-101. Dunning, N. P., J. G. Jones, T. Beach, and S. Luzzadder-Beach. 2003. Physiography, Habitats, and Landscapes of the Three Rivers Region. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003,14-24. Dunning, N. R, and J. K. Kowalski. 1994. Lords of the Hills: Classic Maya Settlement Patterns and Political Iconography in the Puuc Region, Mexico. AM 5:63~95Dunning, N. R, D. Rue, T. Beach, A. Covich, and A. Traverse. 1998. Human-Environment Interactions in a Tropical Watershed: The Paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala. JFA 2 5 : i 3 9 - 5ï . Dunning, N. P., V. Scarborough, F. Valdez Jr., S. Luzzadder-Beach, T. Beach, and J. G. Jones. 1999. Temple Mountains, Sacred Lakes, and Fertile Fields: Ancient Maya Landscapes in Northwestern Belize. Antiquity 73:650-60. Durán, D. 1965. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España y islas de tierra firme. Mexico City: Editoria Nacional. Dütting, D. 1976. Birth, Inauguration and Death in the Inscriptions of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. In Robertson 1976,183-214. ---------. 1985. On the Astronomical Background of Mayan Historical Events. In Robertson and Benson 1985, 261-74.
831
832.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Earle, D. M., and D. R. Snow. 1985. The Origin of the 260-day Calendar: The Gestation Hypothesis Reconsidered in Light of Its Use among the Quiche Maya. In Robertson and Benson 1985, 241-44. Earle, T. K., ed. 1991. Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1997. H ow Chiefs Come to Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Earle, T. K., and J. E. Ericson, eds. 1977. Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York: Academic Press. Earle, T. K., and R. W. Preucel. 1987. Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. CA 28:50138. Easby, E. 1961. The Squier Jades from Tonina, Chiapas. In Essays in Pre-Columbian A rt and Archaeol ogy, ed. S. K. Lothrop et al., 60-80. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eaton, J. D. 1975. Ancient Agricultural Farmsteads in the Rio Bee Region of Yucatan. UCARF Contri bution 27:56-82. -------- . 1978. Archaeological Survey of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. MARI Publication 46:1-67. Edmonson, M. S. i960. Nativism, Syncretism and Anthropological Science. MARI Publication 19:181203. -------- . 1967. Classical Quiche. In HMAI 5:249-67. -------- . 1971. The Book o f Counsel: The Popol Vuh o f the Quiche Maya o f Guatemala. MARI Publica tion 35. -------- , ed. and trans. 1982. The Ancient Future o f the Itza: The Book o f Chilam Balam o f Tizimin. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1986. Heaven Bom Merida and Its Destiny: The Book o f Chilam Balam o f Chumayel. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1988. The Book o f the Year: Middle American Calendrical Systems. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Edwards, E. R. 1978. Precolumbian Maritime Trade in Mesoamerica. In Lee and Navarrete 1978, 199209. Eggan, F. 1934. The Maya Kinship System and Cross-Cousin Marriage. AA 36:188-202. Ehrenreich, R., C. Crumley, and J. Levey, eds. 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis o f Complex Society. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6. Arlington, VA. Ekholm, S. M. 1969. Mound 30a and the Early Preclassic Ceramic Sequence o f Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 25. -------- . 1973. The Olmec Rock Carving at Xoc, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 32. Emery, K. F. 2002. The Noble Beast: Status and Differential Access to Animals in the Maya World. WA 34:498-515. -------- . 2004. Maya Zooarchaeology: In Pursuit of Social Variability and Environmental Heterogeneity. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 217-41. England, N. C. 2003. Maya Language Revival and Revitalization Politics: Linguists and Linguistic Ideologies. AA 105:733-43. Erasmus, C. J. 1968. Thoughts on Upward Collapse: An Essay on Explanation in Anthropology. SWJA 24:170-94. Escobedo, H. L. 1997. Arroyo de Piedra: Sociopolitical Dynamics of a Secondary Center in the Petexbatun Region. AM 8:307-20. -------- . 2004. Tales from the Crypt: The Burial Place of Ruler 4, Piedras Negras. In Miller and Martin 2004, 277-79. Escobedo, H. L., and S. D. Houston. 2004. Semblanza de la Antigua ciudad maya de Piedras Negras, Guatemala. ArqM 66:52-55. Escoto, J. A. 1964. Weather and Climate of Mexico and Central America. In HMAI 1:187-215. Estrada Belli, F. 1999. The Archaeology o f Complex Societies on Southeastern Pacific Coastal Guatemala. BAR 820. . 2002. Putting Santa Rosa on the Map: New Insights on the Cultural Development of the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Guatemala. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002,103-28. Estrada Belli, F., L. J. Kosakowski, B. Thomas, A. Lewis, J. Schultz, M. Wolf, and K. Berry. 1996. Pre-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
classic to Postclassic Patterns of Settlement and Land Use in Pacific Coastal Guatemala. Mexicon 18:110-15. Fahsen O., F. 1987. A Glyph for Self-Sacrifice in Several Maya Inscriptions. RRAMW, no. 11. ---------. 1988. A New Early Classic Text from Tikal. RRAMW, no. 17. ---------. 1990. A Logograph in Maya Writing for the Verb “To Record.” AM 1:91-98. ---------. 2002. Who Are the Prisoners in Kaminaljuyu Monuments? In Love, Popenoe de Hatch, and Es cobedo 2002, 359-74. Farriss, N. M. 1984. Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise o f Survival. Prince ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fash, B. W. 1992. Late Classic Architectural Sculpture Themes in Copan. AM 3:89-104. Fash, B. W., W. L. Fash, S. Lane, R. Larios, L. Scheie, J. Stomper, and D. Stuart. 1992. Investigations of a Classic Maya Council House at Copan, Honduras. JFA 19:419-42. Fash, W. L. 1983a. Deducing Social Organization from Classic Maya Settlement Patterns: A Case Study from the Copan Valley. In Leventhal and Kolata 1983, 261-88. ---------. 1983b. Maya State Formation: A Case Study and Its Implications. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. ---------. 1985. Lineage Patrons and Ancestor Worship among the Classic Maya Nobility: The Case of Copan Structure 9N-82. In Robertson and Fields 1985, 68-80. ---------. 1986. History and Characteristics of Settlement in the Copan Valley, and Some Comparisons with Quirigua. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 72-93. ---------. 1988. A New Look at Maya Statecraft from Copan, Honduras. Antiquity 62:157-59. ---------. 1994. Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual Review o f Anthropology 23:181208. ---------. 2001. Scribes, Warriors, and Kings: The City o f Copan and the Ancient Maya. Rev. ed. Lon don: Thames and Hudson. ---------. 2002. Religion and Human Agency in Ancient Maya History: Tales from the Hieroglyphic Stairway. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (i):5 -i9 . ---------. 2004. La ciudad de Copan, Honduras: Arte y escritura mayas. ArqM 66:64-69. Fash, W. L., E. W. Andrews, and T. K. Manahan. 2004. Political Decentralization, Dynastie Collapse, and the Early Postclassic in the Urban Center of Copan, Honduras. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 260-87. Fash, W. L., and B. W. Fash. 1990. Scribes, Warriors, and Kings. A 45 (3): 26-35. ---------. 2000. Teotihuacan and the Maya: A Classic Heritage. In Carrasco, Jones, and Sessions 2000, 433- 63. Fash, W. L., B. W. Fash, and K. L. Davis-Salazar. 2004. Setting the Stage: Origins of the Hieroglyphic Stairway Plaza on the Great Period Ending. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 65-83. Fash, W. L., and R. J. Sharer. 1991. Sociopolitical Developments and Methodological Issues at Copán, Honduras: A Conjunctive Perspective. LAA 2:166-87. Fash, W. L., and D. Stuart. 1991. Dynastic History and Cultural Evolution at Copan, Honduras. In Culbert 1991a, 147-79. Fash, W. L., R. V. Williamson, C. R. Larios, and J. Palka. 1992. The Hieroglyphic Stairway and Its An cestors: Investigations of Copan Structure 10L-26. AM 3:105-16. Feder, K. 1999. Frauds, Myths , and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 3rd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Fedick, S. L. 1994. Agricultural Terracing in the Upper Belize River Area. AM 5:107-27. ---------. 1995. Land Evaluation and Ancient Maya Land Use in the Upper Belize River Area, Belize, Central America. LAA 6:16-34. ---------, ed. 1996. The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Fedick, S. L., B. A. Morrison, B. J. Andersen, S. Boucher, J. Ceja Acosta, and J. P. Mathews. 2000. Wetland Manipulation in the Yalahau Region of the Northern Maya Lowlands. JFA 27:131-52. Feinman, G. M. 1997. Thoughts on New Approaches to Combining the Archaeological and Historical Records. Journal o f Archaeological Method and Theory 4:367-77.
833
834
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Feinman, G. M., and J. Marcus, eds. 1998- Archaic States. SAR. Feinman, G. M., and L. M. Nicholas, eds. 2004. Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Feinman, G., and D. Price, eds. 2001. Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Feldman, L. H. 1978. Moving Merchandise in Protohistoric Central Quauhtemallan. NWAF Papers, no. 40:7-17. -------- . 2000. Lost Shores, Forgotten Peoples: Spanish Explorations in the Southeast Maya Lowlands. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Feldman, L. H., R. Terzuola, P. Sheets, and C. Cameron. 1975. Jade Workers in the Motagua Valley: The Late Classic Terzuola Site. Columbia: University of Missouri, Columbia Museum of Anthropology. Fernández, M. A., and H. Berlin. 1954. Drawing of Glyphs and Structure XVUI, Palenque. CIW NMA 119. Fettweis-Vienot, M. 1980. Las pinturas murales de Coba. ECAUY Boletín 7 (40): 2-50. Fialko, V. 1988. Mundo perdido, Tikal: Un ejemplo de complejos de conmemoración astronómica. Mayab 4:13-21. -------- . 1997. Arqueología regional de intersitios entre los centros urbanos mayas de Yaxhá y Nakum. BAVA Band 17. -------- . 2004a. Tikal, Guatemala: La cabeza del reino de los hijos del sol y del agua. ArqM 66:32-39. -------- . 2004b. Naranjo, Guatemala. ArqM 66:56-57. Fischer, E. F. 1999. Cultural Logic and Maya Identity: Rethinking Constructivism and Essentialism. CA 40:473-500. Fischer, E. F., and R. McKenna Brown, eds. 1996. Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala. Austin: Uni versity of Texas Press. Fitzsimmons, J. L. 1998. Classic Maya Mortuary Anniversaries at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. AM 9:271-78. Fitzsimmons, J. L., A. Scherer, S. D. Houston, and H. L. Escobedo. 2003. Guardian of the Acropolis: The Sacred Space of a Royal Burial at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. LAA 14:449-68. Flannery, K. V. 1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review o f Ecology and Systematics 2:399-426. -------- , ed. 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press. -------- , ed. 1982. Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory o f Dennis E. Puleston. New York: Academic Press. -------- . 1994. Childe the Evolutionist: A Perspective from Nuclear America. In The Archaeology o f V. Gordon Childe, ed. D. R. Harris. London: UCL Press. -------- . 1998. The Ground Plans of Archaic States. In Feinman and Marcus 1998,15-57. -------- . 1999. Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 :3 21. Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus. 1976. Formative Oaxaca and the Zapotee Cosmos. American Scientist 64:374-83. -------- , eds. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution o f the Zapotee and Mixtee Civilizations. New York: Academic Press. -------- . 1994. Early Formative Pottery o f the Valley o f Oaxaca. Ann Arbor: Memoirs of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology 27. -------- . 2000. Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the “Mother Culture.” JAA 19:1-37. -------- . 2003. The Origin of War: ,4C Dates from Ancient Mexico. PNAS 100:11801-805. Foias, A. E. 2002. At the Crossroads: The Economic Basis of Political Power in the Petexbatun Region. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 223-48. -------- . 2004. The Past and Future of Maya Ceramic Studies. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 143-75. Foias, A. E., and R. Bishop. 1997. Changing Ceramic Production and Exchange in the Petexbatun Re gion, Guatemala. AM 8:275-91.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Folan, W. J. 1985. Calakmul, Campeche: Un centro urbano, estado y region en relación al concepto del resto de la Gran Mesoamérica. Información 9:161-85. --------r. 1988. Calakmul, Campeche: El nacimiento de la tradición clásica en la Gran Mesoamérica. In formación 13:122-90. ---------. 2002. Calakmul, Campeche, Mexico: The Sociopolitical Organization of the City, Its Regional State and Physiographic Basin. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 537-63. Folan, W. J., B. Faust, W. Lutz, and J. D. Gunn. 2000. Social and Environmental Factors in the Classic Maya Collapse. In Lutz, Prieto, and Sanderson 2000, 2-32. Folan, W. J., J. D. Gunn, and M. del Rosario Domínguez C. 2001. Triadic Temples, Central Plazas, and Dynastic Palaces: A Diachronic Analysis of the Royal Court Complex, Calakmul, Campeche, Mex ico. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:223-65. Folan, W. J., E. R. Kintz, and L. A. Fletcher. 1983. Coba: A Maya Metropolis. New York: Academic Press. Folan, W. J., J. Marcus, and W. F. Miller. 1995. Verification of a Maya Settlement Model through Re mote Sensing. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 5:277-83. Folan, W., J. Marcus, S. Pincemin, M. Carrasco, L. Fletcher, and A. Morales. 1995. Calakmul: New Data from an Ancient Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico. LAA 6:310-34. Folan, W. J., and J. May Hau. 1984. Proyecto Calakmul 1982-1984: El mapa. Información 8 : ï-1 4 . Folan, W. J., J. May Hau, J. Marcus, W. F. Miller, and R. González H. 2001. Los caminos de Calakmul, Campeche. AM 12:293-98. Folan, W. J., G. E. Stuart, L. A. Fletcher, and E. R. Kintz. 1977. El proyecto cartográfico arqueológico de Cobá, Quintana Roo. ECAUY Boletín 4 (22, 23): 14-18. Follett, P. H. F. 1932. War and Weapons o f the Maya. MARI Publication 4. Foncerrada de Molina, M. 1980. Mural Painting in Cacaxtla and Teotihuacan Cosmopolitism. In Robertson 1980, 183-98. Ford, A. 1986. Population Growth and Social Complexity: An Examination o f Settlement and Environ ment in the Central Maya Lowlands. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers, no. 35. Tempe. ---------. 1990. Maya Settlement in the Belize River Area: Variations in Residence Patterns of the Central Maya Lowlands. In Culbert and Rice 1990,167-81. ---------. 1991. Economic Variation of Ancient Maya Residential Settlement in the Upper Belize River Area. AM 2 :35-46. Ford, J. A. 1962. A Quantitative M ethod for Deriving Cultural Chronology. Technical Manual 1. Wash ington, DC: Department of Social Affairs, Pan American Union. Förstemann, E. W. 1904. Translations of Various Papers. BAE Bulletin 28:393-590. ---------. 1906. Commentary on the Maya Manuscript in the Royal Public Library o f Dresden. PMAE Papers 4 (2). Forsyth, D. W. 1983. Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico. Vol. 2, Ceramics. NWAF Publication 46. ---------. 1989. The Ceramics o f El Mirador, Petén, Guatemala. NWAF Publication 63. ---------. 1993. The Ceramic Sequence at Nakbe, Guatemala. AM 4:31-53. Forsyth, D. W , B. Bachand, and C. Helton. 1998. Investigaciones preliminares en varios sitios entre Nakbe y Wakna, Peten, Guatemala. In Laporte, Escobedo, and Suasnávar 1998, 87-100. Foshag, W. F., and R. Leslie. 1955. Jade from Manzanal, Guatemala. AAnt 21:81-82. Fought, J. G. 1967. Chorti (Mayan): Phonology, Morphophonemics, and Morphology. PhD diss., Yale University. ---------. 1972. Chorti (Mayan) Texts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ---------. 1984. Cholti Maya: A Sketch. In HMAI, suppl. 2: 43-55. Fowler, W. R. 1984. Late Preclassic Mortuary Patterns and Evidence for Human Sacrifice at Chalchuapa, El Salvador. AAnt 49:603-18. ---------. 1989. The Cultural Evolution o f Ancient Nahua Civilizations: The Pipil-Nicarao o f Central America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
835
836
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- , ed, 1991. The Formation o f Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Fox, J. A. 1978. Proto-Mayan Accent, Morpheme Structure Condition, and Velar Innovations. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Fox, J. A., and J. S. Justeson. 1978. A Mayan Planetary Observation. UCARF Contribution 36:55-59. -------- . 1980. Maya Hieroglyphs as Linguistic Evidence. In Robertson 1980, 204—16. -------- . 1984. Polyvalence in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing. In Justeson and Campbell 1984» 17~7 6Fox, J. W. 1978. Quiche Conquest: Centralism and Regionalism in Highland Guatemalan State Devel opment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, -------- . 1980. Lowland to Highland Mexicanization Processes in Southern Mesoamerica. AA nt 4 5 : 43 54 * -------- . 1981. The Late Postclassic Eastern Frontier of Mesoamerica: Cultural Innovation along the Pe riphery. CA 22:321-46. -------- . 1987. Maya Postclassic State Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1996. Playing with Power: Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica. CA 37:483-509« Fox, J. W., and G. W. Cook. 1996. Constructing Maya Communities: Ethnography for Archaeology. CA 37:811-21. Fox, J. W., G. W. Cook, A. F. Chase, and D. Z. Chase. 1996. Questions of Political and Economic Or ganization: Segmentary versus Centralized States among the Ancient Maya. CA 37:795-801. Freid, M. 1967. The Evolution o f Political Society. New York: Random House. Freidel, D. A. 1977. A Late Preclassic Monumental Mayan Mask at Cerros, Northern Belize. JFA 4:488-91. -------- . 1978. Maritime Adaptation and the Rise of Maya Civilization: A View from Cerros, Belize. In Stark and Voorhies 1978, 239-65. -------- . 1979. Culture Areas and Interaction Spheres: Contrasting Approaches to the Emergence of Civ ilization in the Maya Lowlands. AAnt 44:36-54. -------- . 1981a. Continuity and Disjunction: Late Postclassic Settlement Patterns in Northern Yucatan. In Ashmore 1981b, 311-32. -------- . 1981b. The Political Economics of Residential Dispersion among the Lowland Maya. In Ash more 1981b, 371-82. -------- . 1983. Political Systems in Lowland Yucatan: Dynamics and Structure in Maya Settlement. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983, 375-86. -------- . 1986a. Maya Warfare: An Example of Peer Polity Interaction. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 93-108. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press. -------- . 1986b. Terminal Classic Lowland Maya: Successes, Failures, and Aftermaths. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 409-30. -------- . 1990. The Jester God: The Beginning and End of a Maya Royal Symbol. In Clancy and Harri son 1990, 67-78. Freidel, D. A., M. Masucci, S. Jaeger, and R. A. Robertson. 1991. The Bearer, the Burden, and the Burnt: The Stacking Principle in the Iconography of the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands. In Robert son and Fields 1991,175-83. Freidel, D. A., K. Reese-Taylor, and D. Mora-Marin. 2002. The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old Shell Game, Commodity, Treasure, and Kingship. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 41-86. Freidel, D. A., R. Robertson, and M. B. Cliff. 1982. The Maya City of Cerros. A 35 (4): 12-21. Freidel, D. A., and J. A. Sabloff. 1984. Cozumel: Late Maya Settlement Patterns. New York: Academic Press. Freidel, D. A., and L. Scheie. 1988a. Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. AA 90:547-67. -------- . 1988b. Symbol and Power: A History of the Lowland Maya Cosmogram. In Benson and Griffin 1988,44-93.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1989. Dead Kings and Living Mountains: Dedication and Termination Rituals of the Lowland Maya. In Hanks and Rice 1989, 233-343. Freidel, D. A., C. Suhler, and R. Krochock. 1990. Yaxuná Archaeological Survey: A Report o f the 1989 Field Season and Final Report on Phase One. Dallas: Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University. Fry, R. E. 2003. The Peripheries of Tikal. In Sabloff 2003, 143-70. Fry, R. E., and S. C. Cox. 1974. The Structure of Ceramic Exchange at Tikal, Guatemala. JFA 1:209-25. ---------. 1983. The Structure of Economic Exchange at Tikal, Guatemala. WA 6 : 209-25. Fuentes, B., and C. L. Staines., eds. 1998. La pintura mural prehispánica en México: 2. Area Maya, Bonampak, México. 2 vols. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, UNAM. Fuentes y Guzmán, F. A. 1932-34. Historia de Guatemala o recordación florida. Guatemala: Biblioteca Goathemala. Furbee, L., ed. 1976. Mayan Texts I. ÍJAL, Native American Texts Series 1(1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Furbee-Losee, L., ed. 1979. Mayan Texts IL IJAL, Native American Texts Series, Monograph no. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---------, ed. 1980. Mayan Texts III. IJAL, Native American Texts Series, Monograph no. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fürst, P. T. 1976. Hallucinogens and Culture. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. Fürst, P. T., and M. D. Coe. 1977. Ritual Enemas. Natural History 86 (3): 88-91. Gallareta N., T. 1998. Isla Cerritos, Yucatan. ArqM 7 (33): 24-31. Gallareta N., T., L. Toscano, C. Pérez, and C. Péraza. 1999. Proyecto Labna, Yucatan, México. In Gubler 1999, 85-96. Gallenkamp, C., and R. E. Johnson, eds. 1985. Maya: Treasures o f an Ancient Civilization. New York: Abrams. Gann, T. W. F. 1900. Mounds in Northern Honduras. BAE Annual Report 19 (2): 655-92. ---------. 1904-5. Report of a Visit to the Ruins on the Columbia Branch of the Rio Grande in British Honduras. Proceedings o f the Society o f Antiquaries o f London 20:27-32. ---------. 1918. The Maya Indians o f Southern Yucatan and Northern British Honduras. BAE Bulletin 64. ---------. 1927. Maya Cities: A Record o f Exploration and Adventure in Middle America. London: Duckworth. Gann, T. W. F., and J. E. S. Thompson. 1931. The History o f the Maya from the Earliest Time to the Present Day. New York: Scribner’s. Garber, J. F. 1983. Patterns of Jade Consumption and Dispersal at Cerros, Northern Belize. AAnt 48:800-807. ---------. 1986. The Artifacts. In Robertson and Freidel 1986, 117-26. ---------, ed. 2004. The Ancient Maya o f the Belize Valley: H aifa Century o f Archaeological Research. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Garber, J. F., M. K. Brown, J. J. Awe, and C. J. Hartman. 2004. The Terminal Early Formative Kanocha Phase (1100-900 B.C.) at Blackman Eddy. In Archaeological Investigations in the Eastern Low lands: Papers o f the 2003 Belize Archaeology Symposium. Belize: Department of Archaeology. Garber, J. F., M. K. Brown, and C. J. Hartman, eds. 2002. The Belize Valley Archaeology Project: Results o f the zo o 1 Field Season. San Marcos: Southwest Texas State University. Garcia G , J. M. 1991. Edificios y dignatarios: La historia escrita de Oxkintok. In Oxkintok, una ciudad Maya de Yucatan: Excavaciones de la misión arqueológica de España en México, 1986-1991, 5576. Madrid: Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culurales. ---------. 2000. Estudio introductorio del léxico de las inscripciones de Chichen Itza, Yucatan, México. BAR 831. ---------. 2001. Santuarios urbanos: Casas para los antepasados en Chichen Itza. In Ciudad R., Iglesias Ponce de León, and del Carmen Martínez M. 2001,137-61. García Moll, R. 1996. Yaxchillan, Chiapas. ArqM 4 (22): 36-45.
837
838
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 2004. Shield Jaguar and Structure 33 at Yaxchilan. In Miller and Martin 2004, 268 70. García-Morena, R., and J. Granados. 2000. Tumbas reales de Calakmul. ArqM 7 (4 2,): 33* Gamica, M., E. Robinson, and H. Neff. 2001. The Preclassic Archaeological Cultures of the Guatemalan Highlands and Pacific Coast: Interregional Interaction and Cultural Evolution. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Garrett, W. E. 1989. La Ruta Maya. National Geographic 176 (4): 424-79. Garza Tarazona de González, S. G., and E. B. Kurjack. 1980. Atlas arqueológico de estado de Yucatán. 2 vols. Mexico City: LNAH Centro Regional del Sureste. Gates, W. 1920. The Distribution of the Several Branches of the Mayance Linguistic Stock. In Morley 1920, appendix 12. -------- , trans. and notes. 1937. Yucatan before and after the Conquest, by Friar Diego de Landa, with Other Related Documents. Maya Society Publication no. 20. Baltimore. -------- . 1938. A Grammar o f Maya. Maya Society Publication no. 13. Baltimore. Gendron, F., D. C. Smith, and A. Gendron-Badou. 2002. Discovery of Jadeite-Jade in Guatemala Confirmed by Non-Destructive Raman Microscopy. JAS 29:837-51. Gerry, J. P., and H. W. Krueger. 1997. Regional Diversity in Classic Maya Diets. In Whittington and Reed 1997,196-207. Gersde, A. 1987. Ethnic Diversity and Interaction at Copan, Honduras. In Robinson 1987, 328-56. Gibson, E. C., L. C. Shaw, and D. R. Finamore. 1986. Early Evidence o f Maya Hieroglyphic Writing at Kichpanha, Belize. Working Papers in Archaeology no. 2. CARUTS. Gifford, J. C. 1976. Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics o f Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley, comp. C. A. Gifford. PMAE Memoirs 18. Gill, R. B. 2000. The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Gill, R. B., and J. P. Keating. 2002. Volcanism and Mesoamerican Archaeology. AM 13:125-40. Gillespie, S. D. 1989. The Aztec Kings: The Construction ofRulership in Mexica History. Tucson: Uni versity of Arizona Press. -------- . 1999. Olmec Thrones as Ancestral Altars: The Two Sides of Power. In Material Symbols: Cul ture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 224-53. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. -------- . 2000. Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing “Lineage” with “House.” AA 102:467-84. Gillespie, S. D., and R. A. Joyce. 1997. Gendered Goods: The Symbolism of Maya Hierarchical Ex change Relations. In Claassen and Joyce 1997, 189-207. -------- . 1998. Deity Relationships in Mesoamerican Cosmologies: The Case of the Maya God L. AM 9:279-96. Glass, J. B. 1975. A Survey of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts. In HMAI 14:3—80. Glass, J. B., and D. Robertson. 1975. A Census of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts. In HMAI 14:81-280. Golden, C. W. 2003. The Politics of Warfare in the Usumacinta Basin: La Pasadita and the Realm of Bird Jaguar. In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, ed. M. Brown. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Golden, C. W., and G. Borgstede, eds. 2004 Continuity and Change in Maya Archaeology: Perspectives at the Millennium. New York: Routledge. Gómez-Pompa, A., M. Allen, and S. Fedick, eds. 2003. Lowland Maya Area: Three Millennia at the Human-Wildland Interface. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. Gómez-Pompa, A., J. S. Flores, and M. A. Fernández. 1990. The Sacred Cacao Groves of the Maya. LAA 1:247-57. González, A. 1993. El Templo de la Cruz. ArqM 1 (2): 39-41. Goodman, J. T. 1897. The Archaic Maya Inscriptions. Appendix to Maudslay 1889-1902. -------- . 1905. Maya Dates. AA 7:642-47. Gordon, G. B. 1896. Prehistoric Ruins o f Copan, Honduras. PMAE Memoirs 1(1). Gordon, G. B., and J. A. Mason. 1925-43. Examples o f Maya Pottery in the Museum and in Other Collections. 3 vols. UPM.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gossen, G. H. 1994. From Olmecs to Zapatistas: A Once and Future History of Souls. AA 9 6 : 553-70. Gossen, G. H., and R. M. Leventhal. 1993. The Topography of Ancient Maya Religious Pluralism: A Dialogue with the Present. In Sabloff and Henderson 1993, 185-217. Graham, E. 1987. Resource Diversity in Belize and Its Implications for Models of Lowland Trade. AAnt 52:753-67. ---------. 1994. T&e Highlands in the Lowlands: Environment and Archaeology in the Stann Creek District, Belize, Central America . Madison: Prehistory Press. Graham, E., and D. M. Pendergast. 1989. Excavations at the Marco Gonzalez Site, Ambergris Cay, Belize, 198 6.JFA 16:1-16. Graham, I. 1967. Archaeological Explorations in El Peten, Guatemala. MARI Publication 33. ---------. 1975. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 1, Introduction. PMAE. ---------. 1978. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 2, pt. 2, Naranjo, Chunhuitz, Xunantunich. PMAE. ---------. 1979. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions.Vol. 3, pt. 2, Yaxchilan. PMAE. ---------. 1980. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions.Vol. 2, pt. 3, Ixkun, U canalIxtutz, Naranjo. PMAE. ---------. 1982. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions.Vol. 3, pt. 3, Yaxchilan. PMAE. ---------. 1986. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions.Vol. 5, pt. 3, Uaxactun. PMAE. ---------. 2002. Alfred Maudslay and the Maya: A Biography. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Graham, I., and E. Von Euw. 1975. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 2, pt. 1, Naranjo. PMAE. ---------. 1977. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 3, pt. 1, Yaxchilan. PMAE. Graham, J. A. 1971. Commentary on Calendrics and Writing. UCARF Contribution 11:133-40. ---------. 1972. The Hieroglyphic Inscriptions and Monumental Art o f Altar de Sacrificios. PMAE Papers 64 (2). ---------. 1973. Aspects of Non-Classic Presences in the Inscriptions and Sculptural Art of Seibal. In Culbert 1973, 207-17. ---------. 1977. Discoveries at Abaj Takalik, Guatemala. A 30:196-97. ---------. 1979. Maya, Olmecs and Izapans at Abaj Takalik. 42nd ICA Actas 8: Í79-88. Graham, J. A., R. F. Heizer, and E. M. Shook. 1978. Abaj Takalik 1976: Exploratory Investigations. UCARF Contribution 36:85-110. Graham, J. A., and R. Hester. 1968. Notes on the Papalhuapa Site, Guatemala. UCARF Contribution 5:101-25. Graham, J. A., and J. Porter. 1989. A Cycle 6 Initial Series? A Maya Boulder Inscription of the First Millennium B.C. from Abaj Takalik. Mexicon 11:46-49. Graulich, M. 2003. El sacrificio humano en Mesoamérica. ArqM 63:16-21. Green, D. F., and G. W. Lowe. 1967. Altamira and Padre Piedra, Early Preclassic Sites in Chiapas, Mex ico. NWAF Papers, no. 20. Greenberg, J. H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Greene, M. 1967. Ancient Maya Relief Sculpture. New York: Museum of Primitive Art. Greene, M., R. L. Rands, and J. A. Graham. 1972. Maya Sculpture from the Southern Lowlands, the Highlands, and Pacific Piedmont Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras. Berkeley: Lederer, Street and Zeus. Griscom, L. 1932. The Distribution o f Bird-Life in Guatemala. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin 64. New York. Grove, D. C. 1981a. The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex Culture. SHMAI 1:373-91. ---------. 198.1b. Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to Meaning. In The Olmec and Their Neigh bors , ed. E. P. Benson, 49-68. ---------, ed. 1987. Ancient Chalcatzingo. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 1997. Olmec Archaeology: A Half Century of Research and Its Accomplishments. JWP 11:51101. ---------. 1999. Public Monuments and Sacred Mountains: Observations on Three Formative Period Sa cred Landscapes. In Grove and Joyce 1999,155-299.
839
840
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grove, D. C , and S. D. Gillespie. 1992. Ideology and Evolution at the Pre-State Level: Formative Period Mesoamerica. In Ideology and PreColumbian Civilizations, ed. A. A. Demarest and G. W. Conrad, 15-36. SAR. Grove, D. C., K. G. Hirth, D. E. Bugé, and A. M. Cyphers. 1976. Settlement and Cultural Development at Chalcatzingo. Science 192:1203-10. Grove, D. C., and R. A. Joyce, eds. 1999. Social Patterns in Preclassic Mesoamerica. DO. Grube, N. 1991. An Investigation of the Primary Standard Sequence on Classic Maya Ceramics. In Robertson and Fields 1991» 223-32. -------- . 1994a. Epigraphic Research at Caracol, Belize. In D. Chase and A. Chase 1994* 83” I2,i* -------- . 1994b. Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwest Yucatan. In Prem 1994, 316-58. -------- , ed. 1995. The Emergence o f Classic Maya Civilization. Möckmühl: Anton Saurwein. -------- . 1996. Palenque in the Maya World. In Robertson, Macri, and McHargue 1996,1-13. -------- . 1998. Observations on the Late Classic Interregnum at Yaxchilan. In Bray and Manzanilla 1998,116-27. -------- . 2000a. The City-States of the Maya. In M. Hansen 2000, 547-65. -------- . 2000b. On Classic Maya Inscriptions. CA 41:837-38. -------- , ed. 2001a. Maya: Divine Kings o f the Rain Forest. Cologne: Könemann. -------- . 2001b. Grave Robbers in the Jungle. In Grube 2001a, 244-45. -------- . 2 0 0 1 C . Cacao: Beverage of the Gods. In Grube 2 0 0 1 a , 3 2 - 3 3 . -------- . 2ooid. Bark Paper Books. In Grube 2001a, 128-29. -------- . 2001e. Hieroglyphs: The Gateway to History. In Grube 2001a, 114-27. -------- . 2002. Appendix 2: Epigraphic Analysis of Altar 3 of Altar de los Reyes. In Sprajc 2002. Grube, N., and S. Martin. 2001. The Dynastic History of the Maya. In Grube 2001a, 148-71. Gruhn, R., and A. L. Bryan. 1976. An Archaeological Survey of the Chichicastenango Area of Highland Guatemala. CCM 9:75-119. -------- . 1977. Los Tapiales: A Paleoindian Campsite in the Guatemalan Highlands. American Philo sophical Society Proceedings 121:235 -73. Gubler, R., ed. 1999. Land o f the Turkey and the Deer: Recent Research in Yucatan. Lancaster: Labyrinthos. Guderjan, T. H. 1993. Ancient Maya Traders o f Ambergris Caye. Benque Viejo: Cubóla Productions. -------- . 1995. Maya Trade and Settlement on Ambergris Caye, Belize. AM 6:147-59. Guderjan, T. H., J. Baker, and R. J. Lichtenstein. 2003. Environmental and Cultural Diversity at Blue Creek. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, 77-91. Guderjan, T. H., and J. F. Garber, eds. 1995. Maya Maritime Trade, Settlement, and Populätions on Ambergris Cayet Belize. Lancaster: Maya Research Program and Labyrinthos. Guderjan, T. H., J. F. Garber, H. A. Smith, F. Stross, H. V. Michel, and F. Asaro. 1989. Maya Maritime Trade and Sources of Obsidian at San Juan, Ambergris Cay, Belize. JFA 16:363-79. Guillemin, J. F. 1965. Iximche: Capital del antiguo reino Cakchiquel. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropología e Historia. -------- . 1967. The Ancient Cakchiquel Capital of Iximche. Expedition 9 (2): 22-35. Gunn, J. D., ed. 2000. The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and Its Aftermath. BAR 872. Gunn, J. D., R. T. Matheny, and W. J. Folan. 2002. Climate-Change Studies in the Maya Area: A Di achronic Analaysis. AM 13:79-84. Guthe, C. E. 1932. The Maya Lunar Count. Science 75: 271-77. Haas, M. L. 1969. The Prehistory o f Languages. The Hague: Mouton. Hall, G. D., S. M. Tarka, W. J. Hurst, D. Stuart, and R. E. W. Adams. 1990. Cacao Residues in Ancient Maya Vessels from Rio Azul, Guatemala. AAnt 55:138-43. Hall, J., and R. Viel. 2004. The Early Classic Copan Landscape: A View from the Preclassic. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004,17-28. Hamblin, R. L., and B. L. Pitcher. 1980. The Classic Maya Collapse: Testing Class Conflict Hypotheses. AAnt 45:246-67. Hammond, N. 1972. Obsidian Trade Routes in the Mayan Area. Science 178:1092-93. -------- , ed. 1974. Mesoamerican Archaeology: N ew Approaches. Austin: University of Texas Press.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
---------. 1975- Lubaantun, a Classic Maya Realm. PMAE Monograph 2. ---------. 1977a. The Earliest Maya. SA 236 (3): 116-33. ---------, ed. 1977b. Social Process in Maya Prehistory, Essays in Honour o f Sir J. Eric S. Thompson. New York: Academic Press. -------- . 1978. The Myth of the Milpa: Agricultural Expansion in the Maya Lowlands. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 23-24. ---------. 1980. Early Maya Ceremonial at Cuello, Belize. Antiquity 54:176-90. ---------. 1981. Settlement Patterns in Belize. In Ashmore 1981b, 157-86. ---------. 1985a. The Emergence of Maya Civilization. SA 255 (2): 106-15. ---------, ed. 1985b. Nohmul: A Prehistoric Maya Community in Belize. BAR 250. ---------. 1991a. Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---------. 1991b. Inside the Black Box: Defining Maya Polity. In Culbert 1991a, 253-84. ---------. 1992. Preclassic Maya Civilization. In Danien and Sharer 1992,137-44. ---------. 1999. The Genesis of Hierarchy: Mortuary and Offertory Ritual in the Preclassic at Cuello, Be lize. In Grove and Joyce 1999, 49-66. ---------. 2001a. A New Maya Stela from La Milpa, Belize. Antiquity 7 51x67-68. ---------. 2001b. The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Beginnings of Village Life. In Grube 2001a, 34- 47Hammond, N., and W. A. Ashmore. 1981. Lowland Maya Settlement: Geographical and Chronological Frameworks. In Ashmore 1981b, 19-36. Hammond, N., A. Aspinall, S. Feather, J. Hazelden, T. Gazard, and S. Agrell. 1977. Maya Jade: Source Location and Analysis. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, ed. T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson, 3 5 67. New York: Academic Press. Hammond, N., J. Bauer, and S. Hay. 2000. Preclassic Maya Architectural Ritual at Cuello, Belize. An tiquity 74:265-66. Hammond, N., A. Clarke, and S. Donaghey. 1995. The Long Goodbye: Middle Preclassic Maya Ar chaeology at Cuello, Belize. LAA 6:120-28. Hammond, N., R. A. Housley, and I. A. Law. 1991. The Postclassic at Cuello, Belize. AM 2:71-74. Hammond, N., and G. Tourtellot. 1992. Survey and Excavations at La Milpa, Belize. Mexicon 15:7175Hammond, N., G. Tourtellot, S. Donaghey, and A. Clarke. 1998. No Slow Dusk: Maya Urban Develop ment and Decline at La Milpa, Belize. Antiquity 72:831-37. Hammond, N., and G. R. Willey, eds. 1979. Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hanks, W. F., and D. S. Rice, eds. 1989. Word and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing, and Representation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Hansen, M. H., ed. 2000. A Comparative Study o f Thirty City-State Cultures. Copenhagen: Royal Dan ish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Hansen, R. D. 1987. Informe preliminar de los estudios realizados en el sitio arqueológico Nakbe, Petén, Guatemala. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropología e Flistoria. ---------. 1989. Las investigaciones del sitio arqueológico Nakbe, Petén, Guatemala: Temporada 1989. A report presented to the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. ---------. 1990. Excavations in the Tigre Complex, El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. NWAF Papers, no. 62. ---------. 1991a. The Road to Nakbe. Natural History, May, 8-14. ---------. 1991b. An Early Maya Text from El Mirador, Guatemala. RRAMW 37. ---------. 1992. The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Preclassic Architectural Sculpture at Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala. PhD diss., UCLA. ---------. 1994. Las dinámicas culturas y ambientales de los orígnes mayas: Estudios recientes del sito arqueológico Nakbe. In Laporte and Escobedo 1994, 369-87. ---------. 1998a. Continuity and Disjunction: The Preclassic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. In Houston 1998, 49-122. ---------. 1998 b. Incipient Maya Wetland Agriculture: Definition o f Ancient Systems and Sustainable A p plication in Contemporary Rainforest Populations. Los Angeles: FARES.
841
842
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
-------- . 2001. The First Cities: The Beginnings of Urbanization and State Formation in the Maya Low lands. In Grube 2001a, 50-65. -------- . 2004. El Mirador, Guatemala. ArqM 6 6 : 26-31. Hansen, R. D., R. Bishop, and F. Fahsen. 1991. Notes on Maya Codex-Style Ceramics from Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala. AM 2:225-43. Hansen, R. D., S. Bozarth, J. Jacob, D. Wahl, and T. Schreiner. 2002. Climatic and Environmental Vari ability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A Preliminary Perspective from Northern Peten. AM 13:273-95. Hansen, R. D., and D. W. Forsyth. 1987. U te Preclassic Development of Unslipped Pottery in the Maya Lowlands: The Evidence from El Mirador. In Rice and Sharer 1987, 439-68. Hansen, R. D., D. W. Forsyth, J. C. Woods, E. F. Hansen, T. Schreiner, and G. L. Titmus. 1997. Devel opmental Dynamics, Energetics, and Complex Interactions of the Early Maya in the El Mirador Basin, Guatemala. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Ar chaeology, Nashville, TN. Harris, D. R. 1972. Swidden Systems and Settlement. In Ucko, Tringham, and Dimbleby 1972, 245-62. -------- . 1978. The Agricultural Foundations of Lowland Maya Civilization. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 301-23. Harris, J. F., and S. K. Sterns. 1997. Understanding Maya Inscriptions: A Hieroglyph H andbook. 2nd ed. UPM. Harris, M. 1990. Ernies and Etics Revisited. In Headland, Pike, and Harris 1990, 48-61. Harrison, P. D. 1977. The Rise of the Bajos and the Fall of the Maya. In Hammond 1977b, 469-508. -------- . 1978. Bajos Revisited: Visual Evidence for One System of Agriculture. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 247-53. -------- . 1981. Some Aspects of Preconquest Settlement in Southern Quintana Roo, Mexico. In Ashmore 1981b, 259-86. -------- . 1985. Ancient Maya Architecture. In Gallenkamp and Johnson 1985, 84-96. -------- . 1990. The Revolution in Ancient Maya Subsistence. In Clancy and Harrison 1990, 99-113. -------- . 1999. The Lords ofTikal: Rulers o f an Ancient Maya City. New York: Thames and Hudson. -------- . 2001a. Maya Agriculture. In Grube 2001a, 70-79. -------- . 2001 b. Thrones and Throne Structures in the Central Acropolis of Tikal as an Expression of the Royal Court. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:74-101. Harrison, P. D., and R. E. Fry. 2000. Pulltrouser Swamp: The Settlement Maps. Salt Lake City: Univer sity of Utah Press. Harrison, P. D., and B. L. Turner, eds. 1978. Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. Austin: University of Texas Press. Hartung, H. 1975. A Scheme of Probable Astronomical Projections in Mesoamerican Architecture. In Aveni 1975b, 191-204. Hassig, R. 1988. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. -------- . 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Haug, G. H., D. Gunther, L. C. Peterson, D. M. Sigman, K. A. Hugden, and B. Aeschlimann. 2003. Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization. Science 299:1731-35. Haviland, W. A. 1967. Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Ancient Maya Demography and Social Organization. AAnt 32:316-25. -------- . 1968. Ancient Lowland Maya Social Organization. MARI Publication 26:93-117. -------- . 1970. Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican Urbanism. WA 2:186-98. -------- . 1977. Dynastic Genealogies from Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Descent and Political Organization. AAnt 42:61-67. . 1981. Dower Houses and Minor Centers at Tikal, Guatemala: An Investigation into the Identification of Valid Units in Settlement Hierarchies. In Ashmore 1981b, 89-117. -------- . 1985a. Excavations in Small Residential Groups ofTikal: Groups 4F-1 and 4F-2. Tikal Re ports, no. 19. UPM.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
---------. 1985b. Population and Social Dynamics: The Dynasties and Social Structure of Tikal. Expedi tion 27 (3): 34-41. ---------. 1988. Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with Reconstructing Household Composition. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988,121-34. ---------. 1989. Excavations in Residential Areas o f Tikal: Non-Elite Groups without Shrines. Tikal Re ports, no. 20. UPM. ---------. 1992. From Double Bird to Ah Cacaw: Dynastic Troubles and the Cycle of the Katuns at Tikal, Guatemala. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 71-80. ---------. 1997. On the Maya State. CA 38:443-45. ---------. 2003. Settlement, Society, and Demography at Tikal. In Sabloff 2003,111-42. Haviland, W. A., and A. de Laguna Haviland. 1995. Glimpses of the Supernatural: Altered States of Consciousness and the Graffiti of Tikal. LAA 6 : 295-309. Hay, C. L., R. L. Linton, S. K. Lothrop, H. L. Shapiro, and G. C. Vaillant, eds. 1982. The Maya and Their Neighbors: Essays on Middle American Anthropology and Archaeology. Salt Lake City: Uni versity of Utah Press. (Orig. pub. 1940.) Hayden, B. 1993. Archaeology: The Science o f Once and Future Things. New York: W. H. Freeman. ---------. 1995. Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Price and Feinman 1995, 15-86. Headland, T. N., K. Pike, and M. Harris, eds. 1990. Ernies and Etics: The InsiderIOutsider Debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Healy, P. F. 1974. The Cuyamel Caves: Preclassic Sites in Northeastern Honduras. AAnt 39:435-47. ---------. 1983. An Ancient Maya Dam in the Cayo District, Belize. JFA 10:147-54. ---------. 1988. Music of the Maya. A 41 (1): 24-31. ---------. 1990. Excavations at Pacbitun, Belize: Preliminary Report on the 1986 and 1987 Investigations. JFA 17:247-62. ---------, ed. 1999. Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1996 and 1997 Field Season. Trent University Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. Peterborough, Ontario. Healy, P. F., and J. J. Awe., eds. 1995. Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season. Trent University Occasional Papers in Anthropology 10. Peterborough, Ontario. ---------, eds. 1996. Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1995 Field Season. Trent Uni versity Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12. Peterborough, Ontario. ---------. 2001. Middle Preclassic Jade Spoon from Belize. Mexicon 2 3 :6 1 -6 4 . Healy, P. F., J. D. H. Lambert, J. T. Amason, and R. J. Hebda. 1983. Caracol, Belize: Evidence of An cient Maya Agricultural Terraces. JFA 10:397-410. Heizer, R. F. 1968. New Observations on La Venta. In Benson 1968, 9-4 0 . Heizer, R. F., J. A. Graham, and L. K. Napton. 1968. The 1968 Investigations at La Venta. UCARF Contribution 5:127-54. Hellmuth, N. M. 1971a. Possible Streets at a Maya Site in Guatemala. Mimeo. ---------. 1971b. Preliminary Report on Second-Season Excavations at Yaxha, Guatemala. Mimeo. ---------. 1972. Excavations Begin at Maya Site in Guatemala. A 25:148-49. ---------. 1976. Naya Architecture of Nakum, El Peten, Guatemala. FLAAR Progress Reports 2(1). ---------. 1978. Teotihuacan Art in the Escuintla, Guatemala Region. In Pasztory 1978, 71-85. Helms, M. W. 1975. Middle America: A Cultural History o f Heartland and Frontiers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ---------. 1993. Craft and Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 1998. Access to Origins: Affines, Ancestors, and Aristocrats. Austin: University of Texas Press. Henderson, H. 2003. The Organization of Staple Crop Production at K’axob, Belize. LAA 14:469-96. Henderson, J. S. 1975. Origin of the 260-Day Cycle in Mesoamerica. Science 185:542. ---------. 1992. Variations on a Theme: A Frontier View of Maya Civilization. In Danien and Sharer, 161-71. ---------. 1997. The World o f the Ancient Maya. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Henderson, J. S., and M. Beaudry-Corbett, eds. 1993. Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology.
843
844
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Henderson, J. S., and J. A. Sabloff. 1993. Re-Conceptualizing the Maya Cultural Tradition: Programmatic Comments. In Sabloff and Henderson i9 9 3 : 4 4 5 ” 7 5 * Henderson, J. S., I. Sterns, A. Wonderly, and P. A. Urban. 1979- Archaeological Investigations in the Valle de Naco, Northwestern Honduras: A Preliminary Report. JFA 6:169-92. Hendon, J. A. 1991. Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: An Archaeological Study. AA 9 3 .8 9 4 918. -------- . 1999. The Preclassic Maya Compound as the Focus of Social Identity. In Grove and Joyce 1999, 97-125. -------- . 2000. Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations. AA 102:42— Hermes, B. 2002. Sintesis preliminar de la ocupación prehispánica en al area central de Nakum. BAVA Band 22:277-85. -------- . 2004. Arte en material malacolóogico en la Laguna Yaxha, Guatemala. ArgM 66:74-77. Hermes, B., and R. Noriega. 1997. El período postclásico en el área de la Laguna Yaxha: Una vision desde Topoxte. In Laporte and Escobedo 1997, 755-78. Hermes, B., J. Olko, and J. Zralka. 2002. Entre el arte elitistica y el arte popular: Los graffiti de Nakum, Guatemala. Mexican 24:123-32. -------- . n.d. The Maya Settlement in Nakum, Peten, Guatemala: Terminal Classic Phenomena in the Southern Lowlands. Manuscript. Herrera, A. 1726-30. Historia general de los hechos de los Castillanos en las islas i tierra firme del mar océano. 5 vols. Madrid: Imprenta Real de Nicolas Rodríguez Franco. Hester, T. R., ed. 1979. The Colha Project: A Collection o f Interim Papers. CARUTS. Hester, T. R., and N. Hammond, eds. 1976. Maya Lithic Studies: Papers from the 19-76 Belize Field Symposium. CARUTS. Hester, T. R., and H. J. Shafer. 1984. Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize. WA 16 (2): 157-73. -------- , eds. 1991. Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference. M ono graphs in World Archaeology, no. 1. Madison: Prehistory Press. Hewett, E. L. 1911. Two Seasons’ Work in Guatemala. Bulletin o f the Archaeological Institute o f Am er ica 2:117-34. -------- . 1912. The Excavations at Quirigua in 1912. Bulletin o f the Archaeological Institute o f America 3:163-71. -------- . 1916. Latest Work of the School of American Archaeology at Quirigua. In Holmes Anniversary Volume: Anthropological Essays, ed. F. W. Hodge, 157-62. Washington, DC. Hewitt, E. A. 1999. What’s in a Name: Gender, Power, and Classic Maya Women Rulers. AM 10:25162. Hill, R. M. 1996. Eastern Chajoma Political Geography: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Contribu tions to the Study of a Late Postclassic Masya Polity. A M 7 :6 3 -8 7 . -------- . 1998. Los otros kaqchikeles: Los chajoma vinak. Mesoamerica 35:229—54. Hill, R. M., and J. Monaghan. 1987. Continuities in Highland Maya Social Organization: Ethnohistory in Sacapulas, Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hirth, K. G., ed. 1984. Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hodder, I., ed. 1987. The Archaeology o f Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. -------- , ed. 2001. Archaeology Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hodder, I., and R. W. Preucel, eds. 1996. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Hodell, D. A., J. H. Curtis, and M. Brenner. 1995. Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. Nature 375:391-94. Hodell, D. A., M. Brenner, J. H. Curtis, and T. Guilderson. 2001. Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands. Science 292:1367-69. Hodge, M. G. 1992. Aztec Market Systems. NGRE 8:428-45.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hohmann, H. 1998. A Maya Palace in Mexico: Structure IV at Becan. Graz: Academic Publishers. Hohmann, H., and A. Vogrin. 1982. Die Architektur von Copan. Graz: Akademische Druck Ver lagsanstalt. Holmes, W. H. 1895-97. Archaeological Studies among the Ancient Cities o f Mexico. Pt. 1, Monu ments o f Yucatan. Pt. 2, Monuments o f Chiapas, Oaxaca and the Valley o f Mexico. Field Colum bian Museum, Anthropological Series 1. Chicago. Hopkins, N. A. 1985. On the History of the Choi Language. In Robertson and Fields 1985,1-5. ---------. 1991. Classic and Modem Relationship Terms and the “Child of Mother” Glyph. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 255-65. Hosier, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colors o f Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology o f Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hosier, D., and A. Macfarlane. 1996. Copper Sources, Metal Production, and Metals Trade in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Science 273:1819-24. Houston, S. D. 1983a. Warfare between Naranjo and Ucanal. Contributions to Maya Hieroglyphic Decipherment 1:31-39. ---------. 1983b. On “Ruler 6” at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Mexicon 5:84-86. ---------. 1986. Problematic Emblem Glyphs: Examples from Altar de Sacrificios, El Chorro, Río Azul, and Xultun. RRAMW, no. 3. ---------. 1987. Notes on Caracol Epigraphy and Its Significance. In Chase and Chase 1987, 85-100. ---------. 1988. Political History and the Decipherment of Maya Glyphs. Antiquity 62,135-52. ---------. 1989. Archaeology and Maya Writing. Journal o f World Prehistory 3:1-32. ---------. 1992. Classic Maya Politics. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 65-69. ---------. 1993. Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics o f the Classic Maya. Austin: Uni versity of Texas Press. ---------. 1996. Symbolic Sweatbaths of the Maya: Architectural Meaning in the Cross Group at Palenque, Mexico. LAA 7:132-51. ---------. 1997. The Shifting Now: Aspect, Deixis, and Narrative in Classic Maya Texts. AA 99:291306. ---------, ed. 1998. Function and Meaning in Maya Architecture. DO. ---------. 2000. Into the Minds of Ancients: Advances in Maya Glyph Studies. Journal o f World Prehis tory 14:291-301. ---------. 2004a. Dos Pilas, Guatemala. ArqM 66:70-73. ---------. 2004b. The Acropolis of Piedras Negras. In Miller and Martin 2004, 271-76. Houston, S. D., O. Chinchilla M., and D. Stuart, eds. 2001. The Decipherment o f Ancient Maya Writ ing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Houston, S. D., and M. D. Coe. 2003. Has Isthmian Writing Been Deciphered? Mexicon 25:151-61. Houston, S. D., H. Escobedo, M. Child, C. Golden, R. Muñoz, and M. Urquizú. 1999. Monumental Architecture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Time, History, and Meaning. Mayab 11:40-56. Houston, S. D., H. Escobedo, M. Child, C. Golden, R. Terry, and D. Webster. 2000. In the Land of the Turtle Lords: Archaeological Investigations at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, 2000. Mexicon 22:97no. Houston, S. D., H. Escobedo, M. Child, C. Golden, and R. Muñoz. 2001. Crónica de una muserte anunciada: Los años finales de Piedras Negras. In Ciudad R., Iglesias Ponce de León, and del Car men Martínez M. 2001, 65-92. Houston, S. D., H. Escobedo, M. Child, C. Golden, and R. Muñoz. 2003. Moral Community and Set tlement Transformation among the Classic Maya: Evidence from Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In The Social Construction o f Ancient Cities, ed. M. Smith. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Houston, S. D., and W. R. Fowler, eds. 1990. Remembering Carnegie Archaeology. AM 1:245-76. Houston, S. D., and A. Lacadena García-Gallo. Maya Epigraphy at the Millennium: Personal Notes. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 115-24. Houston, S. D., and P. Mathews. 1985. The Dynastic Sequence o f Dos Pilas, Guatemala. PARI Mono graph i.
845
846
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Houston, S. D., J. Robertson, and D. Stuart. 1996. The Language of Classic Maya Inscriptions. CA 41:321-56. Houston, S. D., and D. Stuart. 1989. The Way Glyph: Evidence for “Co-essences” among the Classic Maya. RRAMW, no. 30. _____ . 1996. Of Gods, Glyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70:289-312. -------- . 1998a. Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Linguistic Change and Continuity in Classic Society. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998, 275-96. -------- . 1998b. The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portraiture in the Classic Period. Res: Anthro pology and Aesthetics 33:73-101. Houston, S. D., and K. A. Taube. 1987. “Name-Tagging” in Classic Mayan Script. Mexicon 9 :3 8 -4 1 . -------- . 2000. An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception and Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:261-94. Howell, W. K. 1989. Excavations in the Danta Complex , El Mirador, Retén, Guatemala. NWAF Papers, no. 60. Huchim Herrera, J., and L. Toscano H. 1999. El cuadrángulo de los pájaros de Uxmal. ArqM 7 (37): 18-23. Hunn, E. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification o f Discontinuities in Nature. New York: Aca demic Press. Huntington, E. 1912. The Peninsula of Yucatan. Bulletin o f the American Geographical Society 44: 801-22. Hurst, W. J., R. A. Martin, S. M Tarka, and G. D. Hall. 1989. Authentication of Cocoa in Maya Vessels Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Journal o f Chromatography 4 66:279-89. Iannone, G. 2002. Annales History and the Ancient Maya State: Some Observations on the “Dynamic Model.” AA 104:68-78. Iannone, G., and S. V. Connell, eds. 2003. Perspectives on Ancient Maya Rural Complexity. Los Ange les: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Iceland, H. B. 1997. The Preceramic Origins of the Maya: The Results of the Colha Preceramic Project in Northern Belize. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin. -------- . 2001. The Preceramic to Early .Middle Preclassic Transition in Northern Belize. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Ichon, A. 1975. Organización de un centro Quiché protohistórico: Pueblo Viejo Chichaj. Instituto de Antropología e Historia Publicación Especial, no. 9. Guatemala. -------- . 1977a. Les sculptures de la Lagunita, El Quiche, Guatemala. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. -------- . 1977b. A Late Postclassic Sweathouse in the Highlands of Guatemala. AA nt 42:203-9. -------- . 1979. Rescate arqueológico en la cuenca del Río Chixoy. Guatemala: Informe Preliminar, Mis ión Científica Franco-Guatemalteca. Ichon, A., M. F. Fauvet-Berthelot, C. Plocieniak, R. Hill, R. González L., and M. A. Bailey. 1980. Archéologie de sauvetage dans la vallé du Rio Chixoy 2: Cauinal. CNRSIE. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. Ichon, A., and R. Grignon. 1981. Archéologie de sauvetage dans la vallé du Rio Chixoy 3: El Jocote. CNRSIE. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. -------- . 2000. El Chagüite, Jalapa: El Período Formativo en el Oriente de Guatemala. BAR 887. Ichon, A., and R. Grignon-Cheesman. 1983. Archéologie de sauvetage dans la vallé du Rio Chixoy y: Les sites classiques de la vallée moyenne du Chixoy. CNRSIE. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. Ichon, A., and M. Hatch. 1982. Archéologie de sauvetage dans la vallé du Rio Chixoy 4: Los encuen tros. CNRSIE. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. Iglesias Ponce de León, M. J. 2003. Problematical Deposits and the Problem of Interaction: The Mate rial Culture of Tikal during the Early Classic Period. In Braswell 2003e, 167-98. Iglesias Ponce de León, M. J., and A. Ciudad R. 1999. El altiplano occidental. In H G G 1:265-88. Iltis, H. H. 1983. From Teosinte to Maize: The Catastrophic Sexual Transmutation. Science 222 :8 8 6 94-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ingle, M. I. 1984. The Mayan Revival Style. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Ingstad, A. S. 1977. The Discovery o f a Norse Settlement in America: Excavations at VAnse aux Meadows, Newfoundland , 1961-1968. Oslo, Bergen, Tromso. Inomata, T. 1997. The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca, Guatemala. AM 8:337-51. ---------. 2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation: Elite Craft Specialists«^ Classic Maya Soci ety. CA 42:321-49. ---------. 2004. The Spatial Mobility of Non-Elite Populations in Classic Maya Society. In Lohse and Valdez 2004:175-96. Inomata, T., and S. D. Houston, eds. 2001. Royal Courts o f the Ancient Maya. Vol. 1, Theory , Com parison and Synthesis. Vol. 2, Data and Case Studies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Inomata, T., and L. Stiver. 1998. Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya Households. JFA 25:431-52. Inomata, T., and D. Triadan. 2000. Craft Production by Classic Maya Elites in Domestic Settings: Data from Rapidly Abandoned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Mayab 13:57-66. ---------. 2003. Where Did Elites Live? Identifying Elite Residences at Aguateca, Guatemala. In Christie 2003, 154-83. Inomata, T., D. Triadan, E. Ponciano, R. Terry, and H. F. Beaubien. 2001. In the Palace of the Fallen King: The Royal Residential Complex at Aguateca, Guatemala. JFA 28:287-306. • Ivie de Monterroso, M. 2004. The Sacred Place in the Development of Archaeology in Guatemala: An Analysis. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 295-307. Jackson, S., and D. Stuart. 2001. The Aj K ’uhun Title: Deciphering a Classic Maya Term of Rank. AM 12:217-28. Jackson, T. L., and M. W. Love. 1991. Blade Running: Middle Preclassic Obsidian Exchange and the In troduction of Prismatic Blades at La Blanca, Guatemala. AM 2:47-59. Jacob, J. S. 1995. Ancient Maya Wetland Agricultural Fields in Cobweb Swamp, Belize: Construction, Chronology, and Function. JFA 22:175-90. Johnson, A. W., and T. K. Earle. 2001. The Evolution o f Human Societies: From Foraging Groups to Agrarian State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Johnston, K. J. 1985. Maya Dynastic Territorial Expansion: Glyphic Evidence for Classic Centers of the Pasión River, Guatemala. In Robertson and Fields 1985, 49-56. ---------. 2001. Systems, Agents, and Histories: Processualist and Postprocessualist Perspectives in Low land Maya Archaeology. Reviews in Anthropology 30 (1): 79-97. ---------. 2003. The Intensification of Pre-industrial Cereal Agriculture in the Tropics: Boserup, Cultiva tion Lengthening, and the Classic Maya. JAA 22 (2): 126-61. Johnston, K. J., A. J. Breckenridge, and B. C. Hansen. 2001. Paleoecological Evidence of an Early Post classic Occupation in the Southwestern Maya Lowlands: Laguna Las Pozas, Guatemala. LAA 12:14 9-6 6 . Jones, C. 1977. Inauguration Dates of Three Late Classic Rulers of Tikal, Guatemala. AAnt 42:28-60. ---------. 1983a. Monument 26, Quirigúa, Guatemala. In Schortman and Urban 1983, Paper no. 13. ---------. 1983b. New Drawings of Monuments 23 and 24, Quirigúa, Guatemala. In Schortman and Ur ban 1983, Paper no. 15. ---------. 1986. A Ruler in Triumph: Chocolá Monument 1. Expedition 28:3-12. ---------. 1991. Cycles of Growth at Tikal. In Culbert 1991a, 102-27. ---------. 1996. Excavations in the East Plaza o f Tikal. Tikal Report, no. 16. UPM. ---------. 2003. The Tikal Renaissance and the East Plaza Ball Court. In Sabloff 2003, 207-25. Jones, C., W. R. Coe, and W. A. Haviland. 1981. Tikal: An Outline of its Field Study (1956-1970) and a Project Bibliography. SHMAI 1:296-312. Jones, C., and L. Satterthwaite. 1982. The Monuments and Inscriptions o f Tikal: The Carved Monu ments. Tikal Report, no. 3 3A. UPM. Jones, C., and R. J. Sharer. 1986. Archaeological Investigations in the Site Core of Quirigua, Guatemala. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 27-34. Jones, G. D., ed. 1977. Anthropology and H istory in Yucatan. Austin: University of Texas Press.
847
848
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____ . 1983. The Last Maya Frontiers of Colonial Yucatan. In MacLeod and Wasserstrom 1983, 6 4 91. -------- . 1989. Maya Resistance to Spanish Rule: Time and History on a Colonial Frontier. Albu querque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- . 1998. The Conquest o f the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jones, G. D., and R. R. Kautz, eds. 1981. The Transition to Statehood in the N ew World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, G. D., R. R. Kautz, and E. A. Graham. 1986. Tipu: A Maya Town on the Spanish Colonial Fron tier. A 39 (1): 40-47. . . T r Jones, G. D., D. S. Rice, and P. M. Rice. 1981. The Location of Tayasal: A Reconsideration in Light of Peten Maya Ethnohistory and Archaeology. AAnt 46:530-47. Jones. J. G. 1994. Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in Northern Belize. Palynology 18:105-11. Jones, M. R. 1952. Map o f the Ruins o f Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. CIW Current Reports, Depart ment of Archaeology, no. 1. Josserand, J. K. 1975. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations for Mayan Prehistory. 41st ICA Pro ceedings 1 : 501-10. -------- . 1991. The Narrative Structure of Hieroglyphic Texts at Palenque. In Robertson and Fields 1991,12-31. Joyce, R. A. 1986. Terminal Classic Interaction on the Southeastern Maya Periphery. AAnt 51:313-29. -------- . 1988. The Ulua Valley and the Central Maya Lowlands: The View from Cerro Palenque. In Boone and Willey 1988, 269-95. -------- . 1991. Cerro Palenque: Power and Identity on the Maya Periphery. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1993. Woman’s Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in Pre-Hispanic Southern Cen tral America. CA 34:255-74. -------- . 2000. Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin: University of Texas Press. Joyce, R. A., and S. D. Gillespie, eds. 2000. Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Joyce, R. A., and J. S. Henderson. 2001.. Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern Mesoamerica. LAA 12 (1): 5-24. Joyce, T. A. 1932. The Eccentric Flints of Central America. Journal o f the Royal Anthropological Insti tute 62:xvii-xxvi. Joyce, T. A., J. C. Clark, and J. E. S. Thompson. 1927. Report on the British Museum Expedition to British Honduras. Journal o f the Royal Anthropological Institute 57:295-323. Juárez C., D. 2002. Moral Reforma en la senda de Xibalba. ArqM 9 (61): 38-43. Justeson, J. S. 1986. The Origin of Writing Systems: Preclassic Mesoamerica. WA 17:437-58. Justeson, J. S., and L. R. Campbell, eds. 1984. Phoneticism in Mayan Hieroglyphic Writing. IMS Publi cation no. 9. Justeson, J. S., and T. Kaufman. 1993. A Decipherment of Epi-Olmec Hieroglyphic Writing. Science 259:1665-79. -------- . 1997. A Newly Discovered Column in the Hieroglyphic Text on La Mojarra Stela 1: A Test of the Epi-Olmec Decipherment. Science 277:207-10. Justeson, J. S., and P. Mathews. 1983. The Seating of the Tun: Further Evidence Concerning a Late Preclassic Lowland Maya Stela Cult. AAnt 48:586-93. Justeson, J. S., W. M. Norman, L. Campbell, and T. Kaufman. 1985. The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan Language and Script. MARI Publication 53. Justeson, J. S., W. M. Norman, and N. Hammond. 1988. The Pomona Jade Flare: A Preclassic Mayan Hieroglyphic Text. In Benson and Griffin 1988, 94-151. Kaplan, J. 1995. The Incienco Throne and Other Thrones from Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: Late Preclas sic Examples of a Mesoamerican Throne Tradition. AM 6:185-96. -------- . 2002. From under the Volcanoes: Some Aspects of the Ideology of Rulership at Late Preclassic Kaminaljuyu. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 310-57.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kaplan, J., and J. A. Valdés. Forthcoming. Chocola, An Apparent Regional Capital in the Southern Maya Preclassic: Findings from the 2003 Season of the Proyecto Arqueológico Chocola (PACH). Mexicon.
Kappelman, J. G. 2004. Demystifying the Late Preclassic Izapan-style Stela-altar “Cult.” Res: Anthro pology and Aesthetics 45:99-122. Kaufman, T. S. 1964. Materiales lingüisticos para el estudio del las relaciones internas y externas de la familia de idiomas Mayanos. In Desarrollo cultural de los Mayas, ed. E. Z. Vogt and A. Ruz L., 86-136. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ---------. 1969. Some Recent Hypotheses on Mayan Diversification. Language Behavior Research Labo ratory, Working Paper no. 26. Berkeley: University of California. ---------. 1973. Areal Linguistics in Middle America. In Current Trends in Linguistics 11, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 459-83. The Hague: Mouton. ---------. 1974. Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 15th ed. ---------. 1976. Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Mesoamerica. WA 8:101-18. Kaufman, T. S., and W. M. Norman. 1984. An Outline of Proto-Cholan Phonology and Morphology. In Justeson and Campbell 1984, 77-166. Kaufmann, C. 2003. Sistine Chapel of the Early Maya. National Geographic Magazine, December, 7 2 77-
Keeley, L. Forthcoming. War before Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kelemen, P. 1943. Medieval American Art. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan. Keller, K. C. 1959. The Phonemes of Chontal. IJAL 25:44-53. Kelley, D. H. 1962a. A History of the Decipherment of Maya Script. Anthropological Linguistics 4 (8): 1-48. ---------. 1962b. Glyphic Evidence for a Dynastic Sequence at Quirigua, Guatemala. AAnt 27:323-35. ---------. 1975. Planetary Data on Caracol Stela 3. In Aveni 1975b, 257-62. ---------. 1976. Deciphering the Maya Script. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 1983. The Maya Calendar Correlation Problem. In Leventhal and Kolata 1983,157-208. ---------. 1984. The Toltec Empire in Yucatan. Quarterly Review o f Archaeology 5:12-13. ---------. 1985. The Lords of Palenque and the Lords of Heaven. In Robertson and Fields 1985, 235-39. Kelley, D. H., and K. A. Kerr. 1973. Mayan Astronomy and Astronomical Glyphs. In Benson 1973, I 7 9 - 2 Ï 5. Kelley, T. C. 1993. Preceramic Projectile-point Typology in Belize. AM 4:205-27. Kepecs, S. 1998. Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and Its Social Implications in the Chikinchel Region, Northeast Yucatan, Mexico. AM 9:121-35. Kepecs, S., G. Feinman, and S. Boucher. 1994. Glichen Itza and Its Hinterland: A World-Systems Per spective. AM 5:141-58. Kepecs, S., and M. J. Kolb, eds. 1997. New Approaches to Combining the Archaeological and Histori cal Records. Journal o f Archaeological Method and Theory 4 (Special Issue). Kertzer, D. 1988. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kidder, A. V. 1937. Notes on the Ruins o f San Agustín Acasaguastian , Guatemala. CIW Publication 456. ---------. 1940. Archaeological Problems of the Highland Maya. In Hay et al. 1982 (orig. 1940), 117-25. ---------. 1947. The Artifacts ofUaxactun, Guatemala. CIW Publication 576. ---------. 1951. Artifacts. In Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. CIW Publication 594:32-76. ---------. 1961. Archaeological Investigations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. American Philosophical Soci ety Proceedings 105:559-70. ---------. 1965. Preclassic Pottery Figurines of the Guatemala Highlands. In HMAI 2:146-55. Kidder, A. V., J. D. Jennings, and E. M. Shook. 1946. Excavations at Kaminaljuyut Guatemala. CIW Publication 501:493-510. Kievit, K. A. 1994. Jewels of Ceren: Form and Function Comparisons for the Earthen Structures of Joya de Ceren, El Salvador. AM 5:193-208.
849
850
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Killion, T. W., J. A. Sabloff, G. Tourtellot, and N. P. Dunning. 1989. Intensive Surface Collection of Res idential Clusters at Terminal Classic Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico. JFA 16:273-94. King, A. 1974. Coban and the Verapaz: History and Culture Process in Northern Guatemala. MARI Publication 37. King, E. M. 2000. The Organization of Late Classic Lithic Production at the Prehistoric Maya Site of Colha, Belize: A Study in Complexity and Heterarchy. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. King, E. M., and D. Potter. 1994. Small Sites in Prehistoric Maya Socioeconomic Organization: A Per spective from Colha. In Schwartz and Falconer 1994, 6.4-90. King, E. M., and L. C. Shaw. 2003. A Heterarchical Approach to Site Variability: The Maax Na Ar chaeology Project. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, 64-76. Kingsborough, E. K. 1831-48. Antiquities o f Mexico. 9 vols. London: Aglio. Kirchhoff, P. 1952. Mesoamerica. In Heritage o f Conquest, ed. S. Tax, 17-30. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Kirke, C. M. 1980. Prehistoric Agriculture in the Belize River Valley. WA 1 1 : 281-87. Klein, C. F., ed. 2001. Gender in Pre-Hispanic America. DO. Klein, C. F., E. Guzmán, E. C. Mandell, and M. Stanfield-Mazzi. 2002. The Role of Shamanism in Mesoamerican Art: A Reassessment. CA 43:383-419. Knorozov, Y. V. 1958. The Problem of the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. AA nt 23:284-91. -------- . 1967. The Writing o f the Maya Indians. English trans. by S. Coe of chaps. 1, 6, 7, and 9 of Pis’menost Indeitsev Maiia. Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Sciences. PMAE Russian Translation Series, no. 4. -------- . 1982. Maya Hieroglyphic Codices. Trans. S. Coe. IMS. Koontz, R., K. Reese-Taylor, and A. Headrick, eds. 2001. Landscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamer ica. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kosakowsky, L. J. 1987. Preclassic Maya Pottery at Cuello, Belize. Anthropological Papers of the Uni versity of Arizona, no. 47. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. -------- . 2001. The Ceramic Sequence from Holmul, Guatemala: Preliminary Results from the Year 2000 Season. Mexicon 23:85-91. Kosakowsky, L. J., and F. Estrada Belli, and H. Neff. 1999. Late Preclassic Ceramic Industries of Pacific Guatemala and El Salvador: The Pacific Coast as Core, Not Periphery. JFA 26:377-90. Kosakowsky, L. J., F. Estrada Belli, and P. Pettit. 2000. Preclassic through Postclassic: Ceramics and Chronology of the Southern Pacific Coast of Guatemala. AM 11:199-215. Kosakowsky, L. J., and D. C. Pring. 1998. The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A New Evaluation. AM 9:55-66. Kovacevich, B., T. Barrientos, A. Demarest, M. Callahan, C. Bill, E. Sears, and L. Moran. 2001. Produc ción e intercambio en el reinado de Cancuen. In Laporte, Escobedo, and Arroyo 2001, 589-609. Kowalski, J. K. 1985. Lords of the Northern Maya: Dynastic History in the Inscriptions. Expedition 27 (3): 50-60. -------- . 1987* The House o f the Governor: A Maya Palace o f Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico. Norman: Uni versity of Oklahoma Press. -------- . 1994. The Puuc as Seen from Uxmal. In Prem 1994, 99-12.0. -------- , ed. 1999. Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -------- . 2003. Evidence for the Functions and Meanings of some Northern Maya Palaces. In Christie 2003, 204-52. Kowalski, J. K., and N. P. Dunning. 1999. The Architecture of Uxmal: The Symbolics of Statemaking at a Puuc Maya Regional Capital. In Kowalski 1999, 2.74-97. Kowalski, J. K., and W. L. Fash. 1991. Symbolism of the Maya Ball Game at Copan: Synthesis and New Aspects. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 59-67. Krejci, E., and T. P. Culbert. 1995. Preclassic and Classic Burials and Caches in the Maya Lowlands. In Grube 1995,103-16. Kristan-Graham, C. 2001. A Sense of Place at Glichen Itza. In Koontz et al. 2001, 317-69. Krochock, R. 1989. Hieroglyphic Inscriptions at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico: The Temples of the Ini tial Series, the One Lintel, the Three Lintels, and the Four Lintels. RRAMW, no. 23.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1991. Dedication Ceremonies at Chichen Itza: The Glyphic Evidence. In Robertson and Fields i 9 9 i , 4 3 - 50 ---------. 2002. Women in the Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Chichen Itza. In Ardren 2002, 152-70. Krochock, R. J., and D. A. Freidel. 1994. Ballcourts and the Evolution of Political Rhetoric at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. In Prem 1994, 359-75. Kubler, G. 1961. Chichen Itza y Tula. ECM 1:47-80. ---------. 1962. The Art and Architecture o f Ancient America: The Mexican , Maya, and Andean Peoples. Baltimore: Pelican History of Art. ---------. 1971. Commentary on Early Architecture and Sculpture in Mesoamerica. UCARF Contribution 11:157-68. ---------. 1973. The Clauses of Classic Maya Inscriptions. In Benson 1973,145-64. Kunen, J. L. 2001. Ancient Maya Agricultural Installations and the Development of Intensive Agricul ture in NW Belize. JFA 28:325-46. Kunen, J. L., T . P. Culbert, V. Fialko, B. McKee, and L. Grazioso. 2000. Bajo Communities: A Case Study from the Central Peten. Culture and Agriculture 22:15-31. Kunen, J. L., and P. J. Hughbanks. 2003. Bajo Communities as Resource Specialists. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, 92-108. Kurjack, E. B. 1974. Prehistoric Lowland Maya Community and Social Organization: A Case Study at Dzibilchaltun. MARI Publication 38. ---------. 1999. Was Dzibilchaltun a Preindustrial City? In Gubler 1999,119-28. Kurjack, E. B., and E. W. Andrews V. 1976. Early Boundary Maintenance in Northwest Yucatan, Mex ico. AAnt 41:318-25. Kurjack, E. B., and S. Garza T. 1981. Precolumbian Community Form and Distribution in the Northern Maya Area. In Ashmore 1981b, 287-310. Kurjack, E. B., and M. G. Robertson. 1994. Politics and Art at Chichen Itza. In Robertson and Fields 199 4 , 19 ~2 3 * Lacadena García-Gallo, A., and A. Ciudad R. 1998. Reflexiones sobre la estructura política Maya cla sica. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998, 31-64. La Farge, O. 1927. Adaptations of Christianity among the Jacalteca Indians of Guatemala. Thought, December, 1-20. ---------. 1947. Santa Eulalia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LaFarge, O., and D. Byers. 1931. The Year Bearer’s People. MARI Publication 3. Lambert, J. B., B. Ownbey-McLaughlin, and C. D. McLaughlin. 1980. Maya Arithmetic. American Sci entist 68:249-55. Landa, D. de. 1938. Relación de las cosas de Yucatán. Mérida: Edición Yucateca. Lange, F. W. 1971. Marine Resources: A Viable Subsistence Alternative for the Prehistoric Lowland Maya. AA 73:619-39. Laporte, J. P. 1988. Alternativas del clásico temprano en la relación Tikal-Teotihuacan: Grupo 6C-XVI, Tikal, Petén, Guatemala. PhD diss., Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ---------. 1998. Una perspectiva del desarrollo político prehispánico en el sureste de Petén, Guatemala. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998,131-60. ---------. 2001. Dispersión y estructura de las ciudades del sureste de Petén, Guatemala. In Ciudad R., Iglesias Ponce de León, and del Carmen Martínez M. 2001, 137-61. ---------. 2003a. Architectural Aspects of Interaction between Tikal and Teotihuacan during the Early Classic Period. In Braswell 2003e, 199-216. ---------. 2003 b. Thirty Years Later: Some Results of Recent Investigations in Tikal. In Sabloff 2003, 281-318. Laporte, J. P., and H. L. Escobedo, eds. 1994. VIIISIAG. ---------, eds. 199$. IX SIAG. ---------, eds. 1996. X SIAG. ---------, eds. 19 9 7 .X IS IA G . Laporte, J. P., H. L. Escobedo, and B. Arroyo, eds. 2001. XV SIAG. Laporte, J. P., H. L. Escobedo, and A. C. de Suasnávar, eds. 1998. XII SIAG.
851
852
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Laporte, J. P., H. L. Escobedo, A. C. de Suasnávar, and B. Arroyo, eds. 1 9 9 9 - X U l S1AG. ---------.2002 .X V IS IA G . Laporte, J. P., and V. Fialko. 1990. New Perspectives on Old Problems: Dynastic References for the Early Classic at Tikal. In Clancy and Harrison 1990, 33-66. -------- . 1995. Un reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. AM 6:41—94. -------- . 1999. El Preclásico en las Tierras Bajas Mayas Centrales. In H G G 1: 3 3 9 “ 5 °* Laporte, J. P., and H. E. Mejía. 2001. Los sitios arqueológicos de la cuenca del Río Salsipuedes en el sureste de Petén, Guatemala. Mexicon 23:65-72. Laporte, J. R, P. I. Morales, and M. Valdizón. 1997. San Luis Pueblito: Un sitio mayor al oeste de Dolores, Petén. Mexicon 9:47-51. Laporte, J. P., A. C. de Suasnávar, and B. Arroyo, eds. 2000. X IV SIAG. Laporte, J. P., and R. Torres. 1987. Los señores del sureste de Petén. Mayab 3:7-2.3. Laporte, J. R, R. Torres, B. Hermes, E. Pinto, R. Acevedo, and R. M. Flores. 1988. Proyecto Sureste de Petén, Guatemala: Segunda Temporada. Mexico« 9:49-56. Las Casas, B. de. 1909. Apologética historia de Lis Indias. 2 vols. Madrid: Serrano y Ganz. -------- . 1957. Historia de las Indias. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas. Lathrap, D. W., J. G. Marcos, and J. Zeidler. 1977. Real Alto: An Ancient Ceremonial Center. A 30 (1): 2 - I 3* Laughlin, R. M. 1975. Tibe Great Tzotzil Dictionary o f San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Smithsonian Contri butions to Anthropology, no. 19. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. -------- . 1976. O f Wonders Wild and New: Dreams from Zinacantan. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, no. 22. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. -------- . 1977. O f Cabbages and Kings: Tales from Zinacantan. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthro pology, no. 23. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Leach, E. R. 1983. The Gatekeepers of Heaven: Anthropological Aspects of Grandiose Architecture. Journal o f Anthropological Research 29:243-64. LeCount, L. J. 1999. Polychrome Pottery and Political Strategies in Late and Terminal Classic Lowland Maya Society. LAA 10:239-58. LeCount, L. J., J. Yaeger, R. M. Leventhal, and W. Ashmore. 2002. Dating the Rise and Fall of Xunantunich, Belize. AM 13:4 i-6 3 . Lee, T. A. 1969. The Artifacts o f Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 26. -------- . 1985. Los códices mayas: Introducción y bibliografía. San Cristóbal de las Casas: Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas. Lee, T. A., and B. Hayden, eds. 1988. Ethnoarchaeology among the Highland Maya o f Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 56. Lee, T. A., and C. Navarrete, eds. 1978. Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts. NWAF Papers, no. 40. Lehmann, H. 1968. Mixco Viejo: Guia de las ruinas de la plaza fuerte Pokoman. Guatemala: Tipografía Nacional. Lentz, D. L. 1991. Maya Diets of the Rich and Poor: Paleoethnobotanical Evidence from Copan. LAA 2:269-87. -------- . 1996. Foodstuffs, Forests, Fields and Shelter: A Paleoethnobotanical Analysis of Vessel Contents from the Ceren Site, El Salvador. LAA 7:247-62. -------- . 1999. Plant Resources of the Ancient Maya: The Paleoethnobotanical Evidence. In White 1999, 3 - 18. Lesure, R. G. 1997. Early Formative Platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. LAA 8:217-35. Leventhal, R. M. 1981. Settlement Patterns in the Southeast Maya Area. In Ashmore 1981b, 187-210. -------- . 1983. Household Groups and Classic Maya Religion. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983, 55-76. . 199°* Southern Belize: An Ancient Maya Region. In Clancy and Harrison 1990,125—41. -------- . 1992. The Development of a Regional Tradition in Southern Belize. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 1 4 5 - 54 * Leventhal, R. M., and W. Ashmore. 2004. Xunantunich in a Belize Valley Context. In Garber 2004, 168-79.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Leventhal, R. M., and K. H. Baxter. 1988. The Use of Ceramics to Identify the Function of Copan Structures. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 51-71. Leventhal, R. M., T. Jameson, B. Lewis, J. Miller, L. Neff, and C. Robin. Forthcoming. The Founding and Survival of Xunantunich: Recent Work in the Site Core. The First International Belize Confer ence. Belize: Department of Archaeology. Leventhal, R. M., and A. L. Kolata, eds. 1983. Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor o f Gordon R. Willey. PMAE and University of New Mexico Press. Leventhal, R. M., G. R. Willey, and A. A. Demarest. 1987. The Cultural and Social Components of Copan. In Polities and Partitions: Human Boundaries and the Growth o f Complex Societies, ed. K. Trinkhaus. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers, no. 37. Tempe. Leyden, B. 2002. Pollen Evidence for Climatic Variability and Cultural Disturbance in the Maya Low lands. AM 13:85-101. Leyden, B., M. Brenner, and B. Dahlin. 1998. Cultural and Climatic History of Coba, a Lowland Maya City in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Quaternary Research 49:111-22. Liendo S., R. 2001. Palenque y su área de sustentación: Patrón de asentamiento y organización política en un centro maya del clásico. Mexicon 23:36-42. Lincoln, C. E. 1986. The Chronology of Chichen Itza: A Review of the Literature. In Sabloff and An drews 1986,141-96. Linden, J. H. 1986. Glyph X of the Maya Lunar Series: An Eighteen-Month Lunar Synodic Calendar. AAnt 51:122-36. Littmann, E. R. 1980. Maya Blue: A New Perspective. AAnt 45:87-100. Litvak-King, J. 1972. Las relaciones externas de Xochicalco: Una evaluación de su significado. Anales de Antropología 9:53-76. Lizana, B. de. 1893. Historia de Yucatan. Devocionario de Nuestra Señora de Izmal y conquista espiri tual impresa en 1633. 2nd ed. Mexico City: Museo Nacional de México. Lohse, J. C., and P. N. Findlay. 2000. A Classic Maya House-lot Drainage System in Northwestern Be lize. LAA 11:175-85. Lohse, J. C., and Valdez, F., eds. 2004. Maya Commoners. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lombardo de Ruiz, S. 1998. La navegación en la iconografía Maya. ArqM 6 (33): 40-47. Longyear, J. M. 1944. Archaeological Investigations in El Salvador. PMAE Memoirs 9 (2). ---------. 1947. Cultures and Peoples o f the Southeastern Maya Frontier. CIW Theoretical Approaches to Problems, no. 3. ---------. 1952. Copan Ceramics: A Study o f Southeastern Maya Pottery. CIW Publication 597. Looper, M. 1999. New Perspectives on the Late Classic Political History of Quirigua, Guatemala. AM 10:263-80. ---------. 2003. Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua. Austin: University of Texas Press. Looper, M., and L. Scheie. 1994. The Founder of Quirigua, Tutum Yol K’inich. CN 119. López B., R. 2000. La veneración de los ancestors en Palenque. ArqM 8:38-43. ---------. 2004. State and Domestic Cult in Palenque Censer Stands. In Miller and Martin 2004, 256-58. López V., S. L., P. A. McAnany, and K. A. Berry. 2001. Ceramics Technology at Late Classic K’axob, Belize. JFA 28:177-91. Loten, H. S. 2002. Miscellaneous Investigations in Central Tikal. Tikal Report, no. 23A. UPM. ---------. 2003. The North Acropolis: Monumentality, Function, and Architectural Development. In Sabloff 2003, 227-52. Lothrop, S. K. 1924. Tulum: An Archaeological Study o f the East Coast o f Yucatan. CIW Publication 335---------. 1933. Atitlan: An Archaeological Study o f the Ancient Remains on the Borders o f Lake Atitlan, Guatemala. CIW Publication 444. ---------. 1939. The Southeastern Frontier of the Maya. AA 41:42~54. ---------. 1952. Metals from the Cenote o f Sacrifice, Chichen Itza , Yucatan. PMAE Memoirs 10 (2). Lounsbury, F. G. 1974. The Inscription of the Sarcophagus Lid at Palenque. In Robertson 1974, 5-19*
853
854
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1*76. A Rationale for the Initial Date of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. In Robertson 1976,211-24. . -------- . 1978. Maya Numeration, Computation, and Calendrical Astronomy. In Dictionary o f Scientific Biography, ed. C. C. Gillispie, 759-818. -------- . 1982.. Astronomical Knowledge and Its Uses at Bonampak, Mexico. In Aveni 1982., i 4 3 —68. -------- . 1984. Glyphic Substitutions: Homophonie and Synonymic. In Justeson and Campbell 1984, 167-84. -------- . 1985. The Identities of the Mythological Figures in the Cross Group Inscriptions of Palenque. In Robertson and Benson 1985, 45-58. Love, B. 1987. Glyph T93 and Maya “Hand-scattering” Events. RRAMW, no. 5. -------- . 1989. The Hieroglyphic Lintels of Yula, Yucatan, Mexico. RRAMW, no. 24. -------- . 1992. Divination and Prophecy in Yucatan. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 205—16. -------- . 1995. A Dresden Codex Mars Table? LAA 6:350-61. Love, M. W. 1999. Ideology, Material Culture, and Daily Practice in Preclassic Mesoamerica: A Pacific Coast Perspective. In Grove and Joyce 1999,127-53. -------- . 2002a. Early Complex Society in Pacific Guatemala: Settlements and Chronology o f the Rio Naranjo, Guatemala. Papers of the NWAF 66. Brigham Young University, Provo. -------- . 2002b. Ceramic Chronology of Preclassic Period Western Pacific Guatemala and Its Relation ship to Other Regions. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 51-74. Love, M. W., E. Arredondo, T. Barrientos, K. Cardona, E. Mirón, C. Monzón, P. Rodas, M. Sullivan, and L. Yurrita. 1995. La cerámica de Ujuxte, Retalhuleu: Un estudio preliminar. In Laporte and Escobedo 1995,19-2.4. Love, M. W., M. Poponoe de Hatch, and H. L. Escobedo, eds. 2002. Incidents o f Archaeology in Cen tral America and Yucatan: Essays in Honor o f Edwin M. Shook. Lanham MD: University Press of America. Love, M., R. Ugarte, D. Castillo, B. Damiata, and J. Steinberg. 2004. Archaeological Investigations at La Blanca, Guatemala, 2003. Unpublished report to the NWAF. Lowe, G. W. 1962. Mound j and Minor Excavations, Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Pa pers, no. 12. -------- . 1977. The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya. In Adams 1977, 197-248. -------- . 1989. The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture. In Sharer and Grove 1989, 33-67. Lowe, G. W., P. Agrinier, J. A. Mason, F. Hicks, and C. E. Rozaire. i960. Excavations at Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, nos. 8-11 (issued as Publication no. 7). Lowe, G. W., T. A. Lee, and E. Martínez E. 1982. Izapa: An Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. NWAF Papers, no. 31. Lowe, J. G. 1985. The Dynamics o f Apocalypse: A Systems Simulation o f the Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Lucero, L. J. 1999. Classic Maya Political Organization: A Review.JW P 13:211-63. -------- . 2001. Social Integration in the Ancient Maya Hinterlands: Ceramic Variability in the Belize River Valley. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers, no. 53. Tempe. -------- . 2002. The Collapse of the Classic Maya: A Case for the Role of Water Control. AA 104:81426. ---------. 2003. The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic Maya Rulers. CA 44:523-58. Lucero, L. J., and B. W. Fash, eds. Forthcoming. Water and Ritual: The Rise and Fall o f Classic Maya Rulers. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lundell, C. L. 1933. The Agriculture of the Maya. Southwest Review 19:65-77. -------- . 1937. The Vegetation o f Peten. CIW Publication 478. -------- . 1938. Plants Probably Utilized by the Old Empire Maya of Peten and Adjacent Lowlands. Pa pers o f the Michigan Academy o f Science, Arts, and Letters 24:37-56. Lutz, W., L. Prieto, and W. Sanderson, eds. 2000. Population, Development, and Environment on the Yucatan Peninsula: From Ancient Maya to 2030. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mackie, E. W. 1961. New Light on the End of the Classic Maya Culture at Benque Viejo, British Hon duras. AAnt 27 (2): 216-24. MacKinnon, J. J., and S. M. Kepecs. 1989. Prehispanic Saltmaking in Belize: New Evidence. AAnt 54:522-33. MacKinnon, J. J., and E. M. May. 1990. Small-scale Maya Lime Making in Belize. AM 1:197-203. MacLeod, B. 1984. Cholan and Yucatecan Verb Morphology and Glyphic Verbal,Affixes in the Inscrip tions. In Justeson and Campbell 1984, 233-62. MacLeod, M. J., and R. Wasserstrom, eds. 1983. Spaniards and Indians in Southeastern Mesoamerica: Essays on the History o f Ethnic Relations. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. MacNeish, R. S. 1964a. Ancient Mesoamerican Civilization. Science 143:531-37. ---------. 1964b. The Origins of New World Civilization. SA 211 (5): 29-37. ---------. 1983. Final Annual Report o f the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Andover, MA: Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology. MacNeish, R. S., and F. A. Peterson. 1962. The Santa Marta Rock Shelter, Ocozocoantla, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 14. MacNeish, R. S., F. A. Peterson, and K. V. Flannery. 1970. The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley. Vol. 3, Ceramics. Austin: University of Texas Press. MacNeish, R. S., S. J. K. Wilkerson, and A. Nelken-Terner. 1980. First Annual Report o f the Belize Ar chaeological Reconnaissance. Andover, MA: Robert F. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology. Macri, M. J., and A. Ford, eds. 1997. The Language o f Maya Hieroglyphs. PARI. Macri, M. J., and M. G. Looper. 2003. The N ew Catalogue o f Maya Hieroglyphs. Vol. 1, The Classic Period Inscriptions. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Macri, M- J., and G. Vail. n.d. The N ew Catalogue o f Maya Hieroglyphs. Vol. 2, The Postclassic Codices. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Maddin, R., ed. 1988. The Beginnings o f the Use o f Metals and Alloys. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Madeira, P. C. 1931. An Aerial Expedition to Central America. UM Journal 22 (2). Madrid Codex. 1869-70. Manuscrit Troano: Etudes sur le système graphique et la langue des mayas [Tro Fragment], comp. C. E. Brasseur de Bourbourg. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. ---------. 1892. Códice Maya denominado cortesiano que se conserva en el Museo Arqueológico Na cional (Cortés Fragment). Madrid: Hecha y publicada bajo la dirección de Dios y Delgado y López de Ayala y del Hierro. ---------. 1930. Facsimile of combined fragments issued by Artes e Industrias Gráficas. Madrid: Matev. (See also Anders 1967; Villacorta and Villacorta 1933.) Madsen, W. i960. Christo-Paganism. MARI Publication 19:105-79. Magaloni, D. 2004. Technique, Color, and Art at Bonampak. In Miller and Martin 2004, 250-52. Mahler, J. 1965. Garments and Textiles of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 3:581-93. Makemson, M. W. 1951. The Book o f the Jaguar Priest: A Translation o f the Book o f Chilam Balam o f Tizimin. New York: Schuman. Maler, T. 1901. Researches in the Central Portion o f the Usumatsintla Valley: Report o f Explorations for the Museum, 1 898-1900. PMAE Memoirs 2(1). ---------. 1903. Researches in the Central Portions o f the Usumatsintla Valley: Reports o f Explorations for the Museum. PMAE Memoirs 2 (2). ---------. 1908a. Explorations in the Department o f Peten, Guatemala, and Adjacent Region: Topoxte; Yaxha; Benque Viejo; Naranjo. PMAE Memoirs 4 (2). ---------. 1908b. Explorations o f the Upper Usumatsintla and Adjacent Region: Altar de Sacrificios; Seibal; Itsimté-Sácluk; Cancuen. PMAE Memoirs 4(1). ---------. 1911. Explorations in the Department o f Peten, Guatemala: Tikal. PMAE Memoirs 5(1). Manahan, K. 2002. Reevaluating the Classic Maya Collapse at Copan: New Data and New Socioeco nomic Implications. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002,1:331-37Manzanilla, L., and L. Barba. 1990. The Study of Activities in Classic Households: Two Case Studies from Coba and Teotihuacan. AM 1:41-50. Marcus, J. 1973. Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180:911-16. ---------. 1974. The Iconography of Power among the Classic Maya. WA 6:83-94.
855
856
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1976a. The Origin of Mesoamerican Writing. Annual Review o f Anthropology 5 :35 ~ 67-------- . 1976b. Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands. DO. -------- . 1980. Zapotee Writing. SA 242. (2): 50-64. -------- . 1983a. Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads. AA nt 48:454-88. -------- . 1983b. On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983,195-242. -------- . 1987. The Inscriptions o f Calakmul: Royal Marriage at a Maya City in Campeche, Mexico. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Technical Report 21. Ann Arbor. -------- . 1989a. Zapotee Chiefdoms and the Nature of Formative Religions. In Sharer and Grove 1989» 148-97. -------- . 1989b. From Centralized Systems to City States: Possible Models for the Epiclassic. In Diehl and Berio 1989, 201-8. -------- . 1992a. Dynamic Cycles of Mesoamerica States. NGRE 8:392-411. -------- . 1992b. Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and H istory in Four Ancient Civi lizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. -------- . 1993. Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Henderson and Sabloff 1993, 111-83. -------- . 1995. Where Is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? JAR 3:3-53. -------- . 1998. The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model. In Feinman and Marcus 1998, 59-94. -------- . 1999. Men’s and Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca. In Grove and Joyce 1999, 67-126. -------- . 2001. Breaking the Glass Ceiling: The Strategies of Royal Women in Ancient States. In C. F. Klein 2001, 305-40. -------- . 2003 a. Monumentality in Archaic States: Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Excavations of the Past. In Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: O ld World and N ew World Pèrspectives , ed. J. Papadopoulis and R. Leventhal, 115-34. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. -------- . 2003b. Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. JAR 11 (2): 71-148. -------- . 2003c. The Maya and Teotihuacan. In Braswell 2003e, 337-56. -------- . 2004. Primary and Secondary State Formation in Southern Mesoamerica. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 357-73. Marcus, J., and R. E. W. Adams. Forthcoming. The Formative Period in Mesoamerica: An Overview. In Bridging Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, ed. T. Powis. Austin: University of Texas Press. Marcus, J., and K. V. Flannery. 1996. Zapotee Civilization: H ow Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames and Hudson. Marquina, I. 1951. Arquitectura prehispánica. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Martin, S. 1996a. Calakmul y el enigma del glifo Cabeza de Serpiente. ArqM 3 (18): 4 2 -4 5 . -------- . 1996b. Tikal’s “Star War” against Naranjo. In Robertson, Maori, and McHargue 1996, 22335-------- . 1997. The Painted King List: A Commentary on Codex-Style Dynastic Vases. In The Maya Vase Book , ed. B. Kerr and J. Kerr, 5:846-867. New York: Kerr Associates. -------- . 1999. The Queen of Middle Classic Tikal. PARI Newsletter , March, 4 -5 . -------- . 2000a. Nuevos datos epigráficos sobre la guerra maya del clásico. In Trejo 2000, 105-24. -----— . 2000b. Los Señores de Calakmul. ArqM 7 (42): 40-45. -------- . 2001a. Power in the West: The Maya and Teotihuacan. In Grube 2001a, 98-113. -------- . 2001 b. Under a Deadly Star: Warfare among the Classic Maya. In Grube 2001a, 174-85. -------- . 200ic. Court and Realm: Archaeological Signatures in the Classic Maya Southern Lowlands. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 1:168-94. -------- . 2002. Moral-Reforma y la contienda por el oriente de Tabasco. ArqM 9 (61): 4 4 -47. -------- . 2003. In Line of the Founder: A View of Dynastic Politics at Tikal. In Sabloff 2003, 3 -4 6 . Martin, S., and N. Grube. 1995. Maya Superstates. A 48 (6): 41-46. . 2000. Chronicle o f the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson. ------ - . 2002. Crónica de los Reyes y Reinas Mayas: La Primera Historia de las Dinastías Mayas. Mex ico City: Editorial Planeta Mexicana.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martínez-Hemández, J. H., ed. 1930. Diccionario de Motul, Maya Español, atribuido a Fray Antonio de Ciudad Real, y arte de lengua maya por Fray Juan Coronel. Mérida: Talleres de la Compañía Tipográfica Yucateca. Mason, J. A. 1931. A Maya Carved Stone Lintel from Guatemala. UM Bulletin 3 (1): 5-7. ---------. 1932. Excavations at Piedras Negras. UM Bulletin 3 (6): 178-79. Masson, M. A. 1999. Postclassic Maya Communities at Progresso Lagoon and Laguna Seca, Northern Belize. JFA 26:285-306. ---------. 2000. in the Realm o f Nachan Kan: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. ---------. 2002. Community Economy and the Mercantile Transformation in Postclassic Northeastern Belize. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 335-64. Masson, M. A., and D. A. Freidel, eds. 2002. Ancient Maya Political Economies. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Mateos G., F. 1997. Tonina: La Pintura Mural y los Relieves. Colección Científica 358, INAH. Matheny, R. T. 1976. Maya Lowland Hydraulic Systems. Science 193:639-46. ---------. 1979. El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala: Report of the 1979 Season. Paper presented at the 43rd ICA, Vancouver. —;-----, ed. 1980. El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala, an Interim Report. NWAF Papers, no. 45. ---------. 1986. Investigations at El Mirador, Petén, Guatemala. National Geographic Research 2: 32253 ---------. 1987. Early States in the Maya Lowlands during the Late Preclassic Period: Edzna and El Mi rador. In Benson 1987,1-44. Matheny, R. T., D. L. Gurr, D. Forsyth, and F. R. Hauck. 1985. Investigations at Edzna, Campeche, Mexico. Vol. i, pt. i, The Hydraulic System. NWAF Papers, no. 46. Mathews, P. 1980. Notes on the Dynastic Sequence of Bonampak. Pt. 1. In Robertson 1980, 60-73. ---------. 1983. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 6, pt. 1, Tonina. PMAE. ---------. 1985. Maya Early Classic Monuments and Inscriptions. In Willey and Mathews 1985, 5-54. ---------. 1986. Classic Maya Site Interaction. Paper presented at the symposium “Maya Art and Civiliza tion: The New Dynamics,” Fort Worth. ---------. 1987. Thoughts on Classic Maya Political Geography. Paper presented at the University Mu seum Centennial Symposium, “The Use of Written Texts and Archaeological Material in the Re construction of Ancient Cultures,” Philadelphia. ---------. 1988. The Sculptures of Yaxchilan. PhD diss., Yale University. ---------. 1991. Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In Culbert 1991a, 19-29. ---------. 1997. La escultura de Yaxchilan. Mexico City: INAH. ---------. 2001. Dates of Tonina and a Dark Horse in its History. PARI Journal 2(1): 16. Mathews, P., and D. M. Pendergast. 1979. The Altun Ha Jade Plaque: Deciphering the Inscription. UCARF Contribution 41:197-214. Mathews, P., and M. G. Robertson. 1985. Notes on the Olvidado, Palenque Chiapas, Mexico. In Robertson and Fields 1985, 7-17. Mathews, P., and L. Scheie. 1974. Lords of Palenque— The Glyphic Evidence. In Robertson 1974, 6375Mathews, P., and G. R. Willey. 1991. Prehistoric Polities of the Pasión Region: Hieroglyphic Texts and Their Archaeological Settings. In Culbert 1991a, 30-71. Matson, F. R. 1956. Ceramics and Man. Chicago: Aldine. Maudslay, A. C., and A. P. Maudslay. 1889. A Glimpse at Guatemala, and Some Notes on the Ancient Monuments o f Central America. London: Murray. Maudslay, A. P. 1889-1902. Biología Centrali-Americana: Archaeology. 5 vols. London: R. H. Porter and Dulau and Co. Maxwell, D. 2000. Beyond Maritime Symbolism: Toxic Marine Objects from Ritual Contexts at Tikal. AM 11:91-98. Mayer, K. H. 1978. Maya Monuments: Sculptures o f Unknown Provenance in Europe. Trans. S. L. Brizee. Ramona, CA: Acoma.
857
858
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1984. Maya Monuments: Sculptures o f Unknown Provenance in Middle America. Berlin: Ver lag Karl-Friedrich von Flemming. -------- . 1989. Maya Monuments: Sculptures o f Unknown Provenance. Suppl. 2. Berlin: Verlag KarlFriedrich von Flemming. -------- • 1995. Eine Stuckfassade in den Maya-Ruinen von Balamku, Campeche, Mexiko. Antike Welt 26:355-63. May Hau, J., R. Couoh M., R. González H., and W. J. Folan. 2001. El Mapa de Calakmul. Centro de Investigaciones Históricas y Sociales, Universidad Autónoma de Campeche, Campeche, Mexico. McAnany, P. A. 1989. Stone-Tool Production and Exchange in the Eastern Lowlands: The Consumer Perspective from Pulltrouser Swamp, Belize. AAnt 54:332-46. -------- . 1990. Water Storage in the Puuc Region of the Northern Maya Lowlands: A Key to Population Estimates and Architectural Variability. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 263-84. -------- . 1993. The Economics of Social Power and Wealth among Eighth-Century Maya Households. In Sabloff and Henderson 1993, 65-89. -------- . 1995. Living with Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 2002. A Social History of Formative Maya Society. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 1:229-39. -------- , ed. 2004a. K'axob: Ritual, Work, and Family in an Ancient Maya Village. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. -------- . 2004b. Appropriative Economies: Labor Obligations and Luxury Goods in Ancient Maya Soci eties. In Feinman and Nicholas 2004, 145-65. McAnany, P. A., and S. L. López V. 1999. Re-creating the Formative Maya Village of K’axob: Chronol ogy, Ceramic Complexes, and Ancestors in Archaeological Context. AM 10:147-68. McAnany, P. A., and S. Plank. 2001. Perspectives on Actors, Gender Roles, and Architecture at Classic Maya Courts and Households. In Inomata and Houston 2001,1:84-129. McAnany, P. A., R. Storey, and A. K. Lockard. 1999. Mortuary Ritual and Family Politics at Formative and Early Classic K’axob, Belize. AM 10:129-46. McAnany, P. A., B. S. Thomas, S. Morandi, P. A. Peterson, and E. Harrison. 2002. Praise the Ajaw and Pass the Kakaw: Xibun Maya and the Political Economy of Cacao. In Masson and Freidel 2002, Ï2 3 -3 9 .
McBryde, F. W. 1947. Cultural and Historical Geography o f Southwest Guatemala. Institute of Social Anthropology Publication 4. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. McKillop, H. 1984. Prehistoric Maya Reliance on Marine Resources: Analysis of a Midden from M oho Cay, Belize. JFA 11:25-36. -------- . 1994. Ancient Maya Tree Cropping: A Viable Subsistence Adaptation for the Island Maya. AM 5:129-40. -------- • I 995* Underwater Archaeology, Salt Production, and Coastal Maya Trade at Stingray Lagoon, Belize. LAA 6 : 214-28. -------- . 1996. Ancient Maya Trading Ports and the Integration of Long Distance and Regional Econo mies: Wild Cane Cay in South-Coastal Belize. AM 7 :49-62. -------- . 2002. Salt: The White Gold o f the Ancient Maya. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. McKillop, H., and P. F. Healy, eds. 1989. Coastal Maya Trade. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, no. 8. Peterborough, Eng.: Trent University. McNeil, C. L., ed. Forthcoming. The Origins o f Chocolate: Cacao in the Americas. Gainesville: Univer sity of Florida Press. McNeil, C. L., W. J. Hurst, E. E. Bell, and L. P. Traxler. 2001. The Ritual Use and Representation of Theobroma Cacao at Copan. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for Amer ican Archaeology, New Orleans. McQuown, N. 1955. The Indigenous Languages of Latin America. AA 47:501-70. -------- . 1956. The Classification of Maya Languages. IJAL 22:191-95. . 1964. Los orígenes y la diferenciación de los Mayas según se infiere del estudio comparativo de
BIBLIOGRAPHY
las lenguas mayanas. In Desarrollo cultural de los Mayas, ed. E. Z. Vogt and A. Ruz L., 49-80. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ---------. 1967. Classical Yucatec (Maya) In HMAI 5:201-47. ---------• I 97^. American Indian Linguistics in New Spain. In American Indian Languages and American Linguistics: Papers o f the Second Golden Anniversary Symposium o f the Linguistic Society o f America , ed. W. Chafe. Lisse, Belgium: Peter de Ridder Press. McVicker, D. 1985. The Mayanized Mexicans. AAnt 50:82-101. McVicker, D., and J. W. Palka. 2001. A Maya Carved Shell Plaque from Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. AM
12:175-97. Means, P. A. 1917. History o f the Spanish Conquest o f Yucatan and o f the Itzas. PMAE Papers 7. Me-Bar, Y., and F. Valdez Jr. 2003. Droughts as Random Events in the Maya Lowlands. JAS 30:15991606. Meggers, B. J. 1954. Environmental Limitation on the Development of Culture. AA 56:801-24. Meggers, B. J., C. Evans, and E. Estrada. 1965. Early Formative Period o f Coastal Ecuador: The Valdevia and Machalilla Phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 1. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Mejia Pérez Campo, E., and L. M. Silva, eds. 1992. Comalcalco. INAH. Mercer, H. C. 1975. Tfce Hill-Caves o f Yucatan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. (Orig. pub. 1896.) Merwin, R. E., and G. C. Vaillant. 1932. The Ruins o f Holmul, Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 3 (2). Messenger, L. C. 1990. Ancient Winds of Change: Climatic Settings and Prehistoric Social Complexity in Mesoamerica. AM 1 : 21-40. ---------. 2002. Los Mayas y El Niño: Paleoclimatic Correlations, Environmental Dynamics, and Cultural Implications for the Ancient Maya. AM 13:159-70. Metz, B. 1998. Without Nation, Without Community: The Growth of Maya Nationalism among Ch’orti’s of Eastern Guatemala. JAR 54:325-50. Meyer, K. E. 1977. The Plundered Past. New York: Atheneum. Michaels, G. H., and B. Voorhies. 1999. Late Archaic Period Coastal Collectors in Southern Mesoamer ica: The Chanuto People Revisited. In Blake 1999, 39-54. Michels, J. W., ed. 1979. Settlement Pattern Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Pennsylvania State University Press Monograph Series of Kaminaljuyu. University Park. Midlarsky, M. I. 1999. The Evolution o f Inequality: War, State Survival, and Democracy in Compara tive Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Milbrath, S. 1999. Star Gods o f the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars. Austin: Univer sity of Texas Press. Milbrath, S., and C. Peraza L. 2003. Revisiting Mayapan: Mexico’s Last Maya Capital. AM 14:1-46. Miles, S. W. 1957. The Sixteenth-Century Pokom Maya: A Documentary Analysis of Social Structure and Archaeological Setting. Transactions o f the American Philosophical Society 47:731-81. ---------. 1965. Sculpture of the Guatemala-Chiapas Highlands and Pacific Slopes and Associated Hiero glyphs. In HMAI 2:237-75. Miller, A. G. 1977a. “Captains of the Itza”: Unpublished Mural Evidence from Chichen Itza. In Ham mond 1977b, 197-225. ---------. 1977b. The Maya and the Sea: Trade and Cult at Tancah and Tulum. In Benson 1977b, 97-225. ---------. 1978. A Brief Outline of the Artistic Evidence for Classic-Period Culture Contact between Maya Lowlands and Central Mexican Highlands. In Pasztory 1978, 63-70. ---------. 1982. On the Edge o f the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico. IX). ---------, ed. 1983. Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches. DO. ---------. 1986a. Maya Rulers o f Time. UPM. ---------. 1986b. From the Maya Margins: Images of Postclassic Politics. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 199-222. Miller, M. E. 1985. Tikal, Guatemala: A Rationale for the Placement of the Funerary Pyramids. Expedi tion 27 (3): 6-15. ---------. 1986. The Murals o f Bonampak. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
859
86o
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 19.88. The Meaning and Function of the Main Acropolis, Copan. In Boone and Willey 1988, 149-94. -------- . 1999. Maya Art and Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson. -------- . 2000. Guerra y escultura maya: Un argumento en favor del tributo artístico. In Trejo 2000, 175-87. -------- . 2001a. Life at Court: The View from Bonampak. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:201-22. -------- . 2001b. Understanding the Murals of Bonampak. In Grube 2001a, 234-43. -------- . 2001c. The Art o f Mesoamerica. 3rd ed. New York: Thames and Hudson. Miller, M. E., and S. Martin. 2004. Courtly Art o f the Ancient Maya. New York: Thames and Hudson. Miller, M. E., G. Ware, K. Duffin, K. Taube, and S. Houston. 1999- Imaging Maya Art: Infrared Video “Prospecting” of Bonampak’s Famous Murials Yields Critical Details No Longer Visible to the Naked Eye. A 50:34-40. Millon, R., ed. 1973. Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Vol. 1, The Teotihuacan Map. Austin: Uni versity of Texas Press. Miram, H-M. 1994. A Method for Recalibrating Historical Dates in the Books of Chilam Balam. In Prem 1994, 376-88. Mock, S. B. 1998. Monkey Business at Northern River Lagoon: A Coastal-Inland Interaction Sphere in Northern Belize. AM 8:165-84. -------- , ed. 1998. The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication , and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record o f Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mex ico Press. Moholy-Nagy, H. 1975. Obsidian at Tikal, Guatemala. 41st ICA Actas 1:511-18. -------- . 1976. Spatial Distribution of Flint and Obsidian Artifacts at Tikal, Guatemala. In Hester and Hammond 1976, 91-108. -------- . 1997. Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence for the Organization of Classic Pe riod Craft Production at Tikal, Guatemala. JFA 24:293-313. -------- . 1999. Mexican Obsidian at Tikal, Guatemala. LAA 10:300-313. -------- . 2003 a. The Artifacts o f Tikal: Utilitarian Artifacts and Unworked Material. Tikal Report, no. 27B. UPM. -------- . 2003 b. Beyond the Catalogue: The Chronology and Contexts of Tikal Artifacts. In Sabloff 2003, 83-110. Moholy-Nagy, H . , and F. W. Nelson. 1990. New Data on Sources of Obsidian Artifacts from Tikal. AM 1:71-80. Molloy, J. P., and W. L. Rathje. 1974. Sexploitation among the Late Classic Maya. In Hammond 1974b, 431-44. Monaghan, J. 1996. The Mesoamerican Community as a “Great House.” Ethnology 35:181-94. Montejo, V. 1999. Voices from Exile: Violence and Survival in M odem Maya History. Norman: Univer sity of Oklahoma Press. -------- . 2002. The Multiplicity of Maya Voices: Mayan Leadership and the Politics of SelfRepresentation. In Warren and Jackson 2002, 123-48. Montgomery, J. 2002. Dictionary o f Maya Hieroglyphs. New York: Hippocrene Books. Morales, A. 1998. INAH-PARI Group of the Cross Project Season Report. PARI Newsletter 26:1-3. Morales, A., and J. C. Miller. 2004. The Discoveries in Temple 19, Palenque. In Miller and Martin 2004, 259-61. Morán, F. 1935. Arte y Diccionario en Lengua Cholti: A Manuscript Copied from the Libro Grande o f Fray Pedro Moran o f About i6 z y . Baltimore: Maya Society Publication no. 9. Moreno, W. J. 1959. Síntesis de la historia pretolteca de mesoamérica. In Esplendor del México antiguo , ed. C. Cook de Leonard, 1019-1108. Mexico City: Centro Investigaciones Antropológicas. Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society. New York: Holt. Morley, F. R., and S. G. Morley. 1939. The Age and Provenance o f the Leyden Plate. CIW Publication 509.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Morley, S. G. 1910. Uxmal—A Group of Related Structures. American Journal o f Archaeology, ser. 2, 14:1-18. ---------. 1911. The Historical Value of the Books of Chilam Balam. American Journal o f Archaeology, ser. 2, 15:195-214. -------- . 1915. An Introduction to the Study o f the Maya Hieroglyphs. BAE Bulletin 57. ---------. 1916. The Supplementary Series in the Maya Inscriptions. In Holmes Anniversary Volume: An thropological Essays, ed. F. W. Hodge, 366-96. Washington, DC: n.p. ---------. 1920. The Inscriptions at Copan. CIW Publication 219. ---------. 1925. The Earliest Mayan Dates. Compte-Rendu o f the z i s t ICA 2:655-67. ---------. 1935. Guide Book to the Ruins o f Quirigua. CIW Suppl. Publication 16. ---------. 1937-38. The Inscriptions o f the Peten. 5 vols. CIW Publication 437. ---------. 1946. The Ancient Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (2nd ed. 1947.) ---------. 1970. The Stela Platform at Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico. Ed. and annotated by H. E. D. Pollock. MARI Publication 26:151-80. Morley, S. G., and G. W. Brainerd. 1956. The Ancient Maya. 3d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Morris, A. A. 1931. Digging in Yucatan. New York: Doubleday, Doran. Morris, E. H., J. Chariot, and A. A. Morris. 1931. The Temple o f the Warriors at Chicken Itza , Yucatan. CIW Publication 406. Morris, W. F. 1984. Mil años de tejido en Chiapas. Tuxtla Gutiérrez: Instituto de la Artesanía Chiapaneca. Muntsch, A. 1943. Some Magico-Religious Observations of the Present-Day Maya Indians of British Honduras and Yucatan. Primitive Man 16 (1): 31-44. Murdy, C. N. 1999. El período postclásico en el altiplano central. In H GG 1:319-30. Mûrie, A. 1935. Mammals from Guatemala and British Honduras. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications 26:7-30. Ann Arbor. Nahm, W. 1994. Maya Warfare and the Venus Year. Mexicon 16:6-10. ---------. 1997. Hieroglyphic Stairway I at Yaxchilan. Mexicon 19:65-69. Nalda, E., and J. López C. 1995. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el sur de Quintana Roo. ArqM 3 (14): 12-25. Nalda, E., and A. Velázquez. 1995. Kohunlich, Quintana Roo. ArqM 2 (11): 84-85. Nance, C. R., S. L. Whittington, and B. E. Borg. 2003. Archaeology and Ethnohistory o f Iximche. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Navarrete, C. i960. Archaeological Explorations in the Region o f the Frailesca, Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 7. ---------. 1976. Algunas influencias mexicanas en el area maya meridional durante el postclásico tardío. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 14:345-82. ---------. 1999. Influencias Mexicanas en el área Maya meridional en el postclásico tardío: Una revisión arquelógica. H G G 1: 397-410. Neff, H. 2002. Sources of Raw Material Used in Plumbate Pottery. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Es cobedo 2002, 217-31. Neff, H., F. J. Bove, E. J. Robinson, and B. Aroyo. 1994. A Ceramic Compositional Perspective on the Formative to Classic Transition in Southern Mesoamerica. LAA 5:333-58. Neff, H., J. W. Cogswell, L. J. Kosakowsky, F. Estrada Belli, and F. J. Bove. 1999. A New Perspective on the Relationships among Cream Paste Ceramic Traditions of Southeastern Mesoamerica. LAA 10:281-99. Neff, L. S. 2002. Gender Divisions of Labor and Lowland Terrace Agriculture. In Ardren 2002, 31-51. Netting, R. M. 1977. Maya Subsistence: Mythologies, Analogies, Possibilities. In Adams 1977, 299333* Neugebauer, B. 1983. Watershed Management by the Maya Civilization of Central Yucatan, Mexico. Vierteljahresberichte 94:3 9 5- 409. Nichols, D. L., and Charlton, T. H., eds. 1997. The Archaeology o f City-States: Cross-Cultural Ap proaches. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
86l
86Z
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Noble Bardslay, S. 1994. Rewriting History at Yaxchilan: Inaugural Art of Bird Jaguar IV. In Robertson and Fields 1994, 87-94. Norman, V. G. 1973. izapa Sculpture. Part 1, Album. NWAF Papers, no. 30. -------- . 1976. Izapa Sculpture. Part 2, Text. NWAF Papers, no. 30. Núñez Chinchilla, J. 1963. Copan Ruins. Publications of the Banco Central de Honduras. Tegucigalpa. Oakes, M. 1951. The Two Crosses o f Todos Santos. New York: Pantheon. Ochoa, L. 1983. El medio Usumacinta: Un eslabón en los antecedentes olmecas de los mayas. In Ochoa and Lee 1983, 147-74. -------- . 1987. Xicalango, puerto Chontal de intercambio: Mita y realidad. Anales de Antropoloía 24:95-114. Ochoa, L., and T. A. Lee, eds. 1983. Antropología e historia de los mixe-zoques y mayas (homenaje a Frans Blom). Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Méx ico and Brigham Young University. Ohi, K., ed. 1994. Kaminaljuyu. Tokyo: Museo del Tabaco y Sal. -------- . 2001. La Culebra, Kaminaljuyu. Tokyo: Museo del Tabaco y Sal. Olsen, G. W., A. H. Siemens, D. E. Puleston, G. Cal, and D. Jenkins. 1975. Ridged Fields in British Honduras. Soil Survey Horizons 16:9-12. O’Mansky, M., and N. P. Dunning. 2004. Settlement and Late Classic Political Disintegration in the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 83-101. Orrego C., M. 1988. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Abaj Takalik, El Asintal, Retalhuleu 1988. Guatemala: IDAEH. Orrego C , M., and R. Larios V. 1983. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el Grupo 5E-11, Tikal. Guatemala: Instituto de Antropología e Historia. Ortíz C., R, and M. del Carmen R. 1999. Olmec Ritual Behavior at El Manatí: A Sacred Space. In Grove and Joyce 1999, 225-54. Osborne, L. de Jongh. 1935. Guatemala Textiles. MARI Publication 6. -------- . 1965. Indian Crafts o f Guatemala and El Salvador. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Pahl, G. W. 1977. The Inscriptions of Rio Amarillo and Los Higos: Secondary Centers of the Southeast ern Maya Frontier. Journal o f Latin American Lore 3:133-54. -------- , ed. 1986. The Periphery o f the Southeastern Classic Maya Realm. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin America Center Publications. Paine, R. R., and A. Fréter. 1996. Environmental Degradation and the Classic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras (A.D. 600-1250): Evidence from Studies of Household Survival. AM 7:3 7 -4 8 . Paine, R. R., A. Fréter, and D. L. Webster. 1996. A Mathematical Projection of Population Growth in the Copan Valley, Honduras, A.D. 400-800. LAA 7:51-60. Palacios, E. J. 1932. Maya-Christian Synchronology or Calendrical Correlation. In MARI Publication 4:147-80. ------—. 1933. El calendario y los jeroglíficos cronográficos mayas. Mexico City: Editorial Cultura. Palka, J. W. 1997. Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation and the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. AM 8:293-306. -------- . 2001. Ancient Maya Defensive Barricades, Warfare, and Site Abandonment. LAA 12 (4): 42730. Paris Codex. 1887. Manuscrit hiératique des anciens Indiens de PAmérique centrale conservé à la Bib liothèque Nationale de Paris; avec une introduction par Leon de Rosny. 2nd ed. Paris: Maison neuve et cie.. Libraires de la Société Ethnographie. Reissued “under the care of William E. Gates, 1909.” (See also Anders 1968; Villacorta and Villacorta 1933.) Parsons, J. R. 1972. Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review o f Anthropology 1:127-50. Parsons, L. A. 1967-69. Bilbao, Guatemala. 2 vols. Milwaukee Public Museum Publications in Anthro pology, Nos. i i and 12. -------- . 1986. The Origins o f Maya Art: Monumental Stone Sculpture o f Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, and the Southern Pacific Coast. DO. Pasztory, E., ed. 1978. Middle Classic Mesoamerica. New York: Columbia University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Paxton, M. 2,001. The Cosmos o f the Yucatec Maya: Cycles and Steps from the M adtid Codex. Albu querque: University of New Mexico Press. Pearse, A. S., E. P. Creaser, and F. G. Hall. 1936. The Cenotes o f Yucatan, a Zoological and Hydrographic Survey. CIW Publication 457. Pendergast, D. M. 1962. Metal Artifacts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. AAnt 27:520-45. ---------. 1965. Maya Tombs at Altun Ha. A 18 (3): 210-17. ---------. 1969. Altun Ha, British Honduras (Belize): The Sun God's Tomb. Royal Ontario Museum Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 19. Toronto. ---------. 1971. Evidence of Early Teotihuacan-Lowland Maya Contact at Altun Ha. AA nt 36:455-60. ---------. 1979. Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970. Vol. 1. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. ---------. 1981. La mana i, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974^1980. JFA 8:29-53. ---------. 1982a. Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970. Vol. 2. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. ---------. 1982b. Ancient Maya Mercury. Science 2.17:533-35. ---------. 1986. Stability through Change: Lamanai, Belize, from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 223-49. ---------. 1988. Lamanai Stela 9: The Archaeological Context. RRAMW, no. 20. ---------. 1990a. Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970. Vol. 3. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. ---------. 1990b. Up from the Dust: The Central Lowlands Postclassic as Seen from Lamanai and Marco Gonzalez, Belize. In Clancy and Harrison 1990, 169-77. ---------. 1998. Intercession with the Gods: Caches and Their Significance at Altun Ha and Lamanai, Belize. In Mock 1998, 55-63. ---------. 2003. Teotihuacan at Altun Ha: Did It Make a Difference? In Braswell 2003, 235-47. Peraza L., C. A. 1999. Mayapan: Ciudad-capital del Postclásico. ArqM 7 (37): 48-59. Pincemin D., S. 1994. Entierro en el palacio: La tumba de la Estructura III de Calakmul, Campeche. Colección Arqueología, no. 5. Campeche: Universidad Autónoma de Campeche. ---------. 2002. De textiles y rango o a cada quien su vestido, Bonampak, 790 d.C. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002, 2:91-103. Pincemin, D., S., J. Marcus, L. Folan, W. Folan, M. Carrasco, and A. Morales L. 1998. Extending the Calakmul Dynasty Back in Time: A New Stela from a Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico. LAA 9:310-27. Pipemo, D. R., and K. V. Flannery. 2001. The Earliest Archaeological Maize (Zea mays L.) from Highland Mexico: New Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates and Their Implications. PNAS 98:2101-3. Piperno, D. R., and D. M. Pearsall. 1998. The Origins o f Agriculture in the Lowland Neotropics. San Diego: Academic Press. Plafker, G. 1976. Tectonic Aspects of the Guatemala Earthquake of 4 February 1976. Science 193:1201-8. Pohl, M. D. 1983. Maya Ritual Faunas: Vertebrate Remains from Burials, Caches, Caves, and Cenotes in the Maya Lowlands. In Leventhal and Kolata 1983, 55-103. ---------, ed. 1990. Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture: Excavations on Albion Island, Northern Belize. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. ---------. 1994. Late Classic Maya Fauna from Settlement in the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Willey et al. 1994, 4 5 9 - 7 6 . Pohl, M. D., K. O. Pope, J. G. Jones, J. S. Jacob, D. R. Piperno, S. D. DeFrance, J. Lentz, A. Gifford, M. E. Danforth, and J. K. Josserand. 1996. Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. LAA 7:3 5 5 72-
Pollock, H. E. D. 1937. The Casa Redonda at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. CIW Publication 456. ---------. 1954. Department of Archaeology. CIW Yearbook 5 3 :1 6 3 -6 7 . ---------. 1962. Introduction. In Pollock et al. 1962,1-22. ---------. 1965. Architecture of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 2:378-440. ---------. 1980. The Puuc, an Archaeological Survey o f the Hill Country o f Yucatan and Northern Campeche, Mexico. PMAE Memoirs 19.
863
864
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pollock, H. E. D., R. L. Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A. L. Smith. 1962. Mayapan, Yucatan , Mexico. CIW Publication 619. Pope, K. O., and B. Dahlin. 1989. Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture: New Insights from Ecological and Remote Sensing Research. JFA 16:87-106. Pope, K. O., M. E. D. Pohl, J. G. Jones, D. L. Lentz, C. von Nagy, F. J. Vega, and I. R. Quitmyer. 2001. Origin and Environmental Setting of Ancient Agriculture in the Lowlands of Mesoamerica. Science 292:1370-73. Poponoe de Hatch, M. 1989a. An Analysis of the Santa Lucia Cotzumalguapa Sculptures. In Bove and Heller 1989,167-94. . . . , ^ , T -------- . 1989b. Observaciones sobre el desarrollo cultural prehispánico en la costa sur de Guatemala. In Whitley and Beaudry 1989, 4-37. -------- . 1997. Kaminaljuyu/San Jorge: Evidencia Arqueológica de la Actividad Económica en el Valle de Guatemala, 300 a.C a 300 d.C. Guatemala City: Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. -------- . 1998. Los k’iche’s-kaqchikeles en el altiplano central de Guatemala: Evidencia arqueológica del período clásico. Mesoamerica 35:93-115-------- . 2002. New Perspectives on Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: Regional Interaction during the Preclassic and Classic Periods. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 277-96. Poponoe de Hatch, M., and M. Ivic de Monterroso. 1999. El altiplano norte durante el período post clásico. In H GG 1:241-64. Popenoe de Hatch, M., E. Ponciano, T. Barrientos Q., M. Brenner, and C. Ortloff. 2002. Climate and Technological Innovation at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. AM 13:103-14. Poponoe de Hatch, M., and R. Rubio. 1999. Arqueología de Cotzumalguapa. In H G G 1:201-12. Poponoe de Hatch, M., and E. M. Shook. 1999. La Arqueología de la Costa Sur. In H G G 1 : 171-90. Potter, D. F. 1977. Maya Architecture o f the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. MARI Publication 44. Potter, D. R., and E. M. King. 1995. A Heterarchical Approach to Lowland Maya Socioeconomics. In Ehrenreich, Crumley, and Levey 1995,17-32. Powis, T. G. Forthcoming. Bridging Formative Mesoamerican Cultures. Austin: University of Texas Press. Powis, T. G., N. Stanchly, C. D. White., P. F. Healy, J. J. Awe, and F. Longstaffe. 1999. A Reconstruc tion of Middle Preclassic Maya Subsistence Economy at Cahal Pech, Belize. Antiquity 73 (280): 364-76. Powis, T. G., F. Valdez, T. R. Hester, W. J. Hurst, and S. M. Tarka. 2002. Spouted Vessels and Cacao Use among the PreClassic Maya. LAA 13:85-106. Prem, H. J. 1971. Calendrics and Writing in Mesoamerica. UCARF Contribution 41:215-29. -------- , ed. 1994. Hidden among the Hills: Maya Archaeology in the Northwest Yucatan Peninsula. Möckmül: Verlag von Flemming. Preucel, R. W., ed. 1991. Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways o f Knowing the Past. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Price, T. D., and G. M. Feinman, eds. 1995. Foundations o f Social Inequality. New York: Plenum Press. Pring, D. C. 1976. Outline of the Northern Belize Ceramic Sequence. CCM 9:11-51. Proskouriakoff, T. 1946. An Album o f Maya Architecture. CIW Publication 558. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. -------- . 1950. A Study o f Classic Maya Sculpture. CIW Publication 593. -------- . 1954. Mayapan, Last Stronghold of a Civilization. A 7 (2): 96-103. -------- . 1955- The Death of a Civilization. SA 192 (5): 82-88. -------- . i960. Historical Implications of a Pattem of Dates at Piedras Negras. AAnt 25:454-75. -------- . 1961a. The Lords of the Maya Realm. Expedition 4(1): 14-21. -------- . 1961b. Portraits of Women in Maya Art. In Essays in Pre-Columbian A rt and Archaeology , ed. S. K. Lothrop et al., 81-99. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. -------- . 1962a. Civic and Religious Structures of Mayapan. In Pollock et al. 1962, 87-164. -------- . 1962b. The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Pollock et al. 1962, 321-442. -------- . 1963. Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Yaxchilan (Part I). ECM 3:149-67. -------- . 1964. Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Yaxchilan (Part H). ECM 4:177-202.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1965. Sculpture and Major Arts of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 2:469-97. ---------. 1971. Early Architecture and Sculpture in Mesoamerica. UCARF Contribution 11:141-56. ---------. 1973. The Hand-Grasping-Fish and Associated Glyphs on Classic Maya Monuments. In Benson 197 3 » 165-73. ---------. 1974. Jades from the Cenote o f Sacrifice, Chicken Itza, Mexico. PMAE Memoirs 10 (1). ---------. 1993- Maya History, ed. R. A. Joyce. Austin: University of Texas Press. . Pugh, T. 2001. Flood Reptiles, Serpent Temples, and the Quadripartite Universe: The Imago Mundi of Late Postclassic Mayapan. AM 12:247-58. ---------. 2003. The Exemplary Center of the Late Postclassic Kowoj Maya. LAA 14:408-30. Pugh, T , and P. Rice. 1996. Arquitectura estilo Mayapan y evidencias de organización dual en el sitio postclásico Zacpeten, Peten, Guatemala. In Laporte and Escobedo 1996, 521-32. Puleston, D. E. 1968. Brosimum alicastrum as a Subsistence Alternative for the Classic Maya of the Central Southern Lowlands. Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania. ---------. 1971. An Experimental Approach to the Function of Classic Maya Chultuns. AAnt 36:32235---------. 1974. Intersite Areas in the Vicinity of Tikal and Uaxactun. In Hammond 1974b, 303-11. ---------. 1977. The Art and Archaeology of Hydraulic Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. In Hammond 1977b, 449-67* ---------. 1978. Terracing, Raised Fields, and Tree Cropping in the Maya Lowlands: A New Perspective on the Geography of Power. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 225-45. ---------. 1979. An Epistemological Pathology and the Collapse, or Why the Maya Kept the Short Count. In Hammond and Willey 1979, 63-74. ---------. 1983. The Settlement Survey o f Tikal. Tikal Report, no. 13. UPM. Puleston, D. E., and D. W. Callender Jr. 1967. Defensive Earthworks at Tikal. Expedition 9 (3): 40-48. Puleston, D. E., and O. S. Puleston. 1971. An Ecological Approach to the Origins of Maya Civilization. A 24 (4): 3 3 0 - 3 7 * Pyburn, K. A. 1990. Settlement Patterns at Nohmul: Preliminary Results of Four Excavation Seasons. In Culbert and Rice 1990,183-97. ---------. 1998. Smallholders in the Maya Lowlands: Homage to a Garden Variety Ethnographer. Human Ecology 26:267-86. ---------. 2004. We Have Never Been Post-Modern: Maya Archaeology in the Ethnographic Present. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 287-93. Pyburn, A. K., B. Dixon, P. Cook, and A. McNair. 1998. The Albion Island Settlement Pattern Project: Domination and Resistance in Early Classic Northern Belize. JFA 25:37-62. Pye, M. E., A. A. Demarest, and B. Arroyo. 1999. Early Formative Societies in Guatemala and El Sal vador. In Blake 1999, 75-88. Quintana, O., and W. Wüster. 2002. Un nuevo plano del sitio Maya de Nakum, Peten, Guatemala. BAVA Band 22:243-75. Quirarte, J. 1973. Izapa-Style Art: A Study o f Its Form and Meaning. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 10. DO. —-------. 1977. Early Art Styles of Mesoamerica and Early Classic Maya Art. In Adams 1977, 249-83. ---------. 1979. The Representation of Underworld Processions in Maya Vase Painting: An Iconographie Study. In Hammond and Willey 1979,117-48. Raaflaub, K., and N. Rosenstein, eds. 1999. War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ramirez, R. D., and M. A. Azcárate S. 2002. Investigaciones recientes en Cozumel. ArqM 9 (54): 4 6 49* Rands, B. C., and R. L. Rands. 1961. Excavations in a Cemetery at Palenque. ECM 1 : 87-106. Rands, R. L. 1965a. Jades of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 3:561-80. ---------. 1965b. Classic and Postclassic Pottery Figurines of the Guatemalan Highlands. In HMAI 2:156-62. Rands, R. L., and B. C. Rands. 1959. The Incensario Complex of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. AAnt 25:225-3 6.
865
866
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1965. Pottery Figurines of the Maya Lowlands. In H M A l 2:535-60. Rands, R. L., and R. E. Smith. 1965. Pottery of the Guatemalan Highlands. In H M A l 2:95-145Rathje, W. L. 1970. Socio-Political Implications of Lowland Maya Burials: Methodology and Tentative Hypotheses. WA i:359~74-------- . 1971. The Origin and Development of Classic Maya Civilization. A A nt 36:275-85. -------- . 1973. Classic Maya Development and Denouement: A Research Design. In Culbert 1973, 4 ° 5 ” 56. -------- . 1977. The Tikal Connection. In Adams 1977, 373-82. -------- . 2002. The Nouveau Elite Potlatch: One Scenario for the Monumental Rise of Early Civiliza tions. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 31-40. Rathje, W. L., D. A. Gregory, and F. M. Wiseman. 1978. Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: Classic Maya Examples. NWAF Papers, no. 40:147-75. Rau, C. 1879. The Palenque Tablet in the United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. Smithson ian Contributions to Knowledge 22 (5). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Recinos, A. 1950. Popol Vuh: The Sacred Book o f the Ancient Quiche M aya . Trans. S. G. Morley and D. Goetz. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Recinos, A., and D. Goetz. 1953. The Annals o f the Cakchiquels. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Redfíeld, R. 1941. The Folk Culture o f Yucatan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. -------- . 1956. The Little Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Redfíeld, R., and A. Villa Rojas. 1934. Chan Kom: A Maya Village. CIW Publication 448. Redmond, E. M., ed. 1998. Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Reed, J. 2003. Spondylus: Precious Shells Worthy of a King. Institute o f Maya Studies N ew sletter 32 (4 ): i, 4 - 7 Reed, N. 1964. The Caste War o f Yucatan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Reents-Budet, D. J. 1987. The Discovery of a Ceramic Artist and Royal Patron among the Classic Maya. Mexicon 9:123 -26. -------- . 1988. The Iconography of Lamanai Stela 9. RRAMW, no. 22. -------- . 1994. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics, o f the Classic Period. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. -------- . 1997. Cerámica maya. ArqM 5 (28): 20-29. Reents-Budet, D. J., E. E. Bell, L. P. Traxler, and R. L. Bishop. 2004. Early Classic Ceramic Offerings at Copan: A Comparison of the Hunal, Margarita, and Subjaguar Tombs. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004,159-90. Reents-Budet, D. J., R. L. Bishop, J. T. Taschek, and J. T. Ball. 2000. Out of the Palace Dumps: Ceramic Production and Use at Buenavista del Cayo. AM 11:99-121. Reese-Taylor, K., and D. S. Walker. 2002. The Passage of the Late Preclassic into the Early Classic. In Masson and Freidel 2002, 87-122. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1965. Excavaciones arqueológicas en Puerto Hormiga, Departamento de Bolivar. Publicaciones de la Universidad de los Andes, Antropología 2. Bogota. Reina, R. E. 1962. The Ritual of the Skull of Peten, Guatemala. Expedition 4 (4): 26-36. -------- . 1966. The Law o f the Saints: A Pokomam Pueblo and Its Community Culture. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. -------- . 1967. Milpas and Milperos: Implications for Prehistoric Times. AA 69:1-20. Reina, R. E., and R. M. Hill II. 197®- The Traditional Pottery o f Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1980. Lowland Maya Subsistence: Notes from Ethnohistory and Ethnography. AA nt 4 5 :7 4 79 -
Restall, M. 1997. The Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550-1850. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. -------- . 1998. Maya Conquistidor. Boston: Beacon Press. Rice, D. S. 1976. Middle Preclassic Maya Settlement in the Central Maya Lowlands. JFA 3 :425-45.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- • I 97^- Population Growth and Subsistence Alternatives in a Tropical Lacustrine Environment. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 35-61. -------- . 1986. The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement Perspective. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 301-44. ---------. 1988. Classic to Postclassic Maya Household Transitions in the Central Peten, Guatemala. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 227-47. ---------, ed. 1993. Latin American Horizons. DO. ---------. 1996. Paleolimnological Analysis in the Central Peten, Guatemala. In Fedick 1996,193-206. Rice, D. S., and T. P. Culbert. 1990. Historical Contexts for Population Reconstruction in the Maya Lowlands. In Culbert and Rice 1990,1-36. Rice, D. S., and D. E. Puleston. 1981. Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns in the Peten, Guatemala. In Ashmore 1981b, 121-56. Rice, D. S., and P. M. Rice. 1979. Introductory Archaeological Survey of the Central Peten, Savanna, Guatemala. UCARF Contribution 41:231-77. ---------. 1981. Muralla de Léon: A Lowland Maya Fortification. JFA 8:271-88. ---------. 1984. Collapse to Contact: Postclassic Archaeology of the Peten Maya. A 37 (2): 46-51. ---------. 1990. Population Size and Population Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region, Guatemala. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 123-48. -------- . 2004. History in the Future: Historical Data and Investigations in Lowland Maya Studies. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 77-96. Rice, D. S., P. M. Rice, and T. Pugh. 1998. Settlement Continuity and Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region: The Case of Zacpeten. In Ciudad R. et al. 1998, 207-52. Rice, P. M. 1979. Ceramic and Nonceramic Artifacts of Lakes Yaxha-Sacnab, El Peten, Guatemala. CCM 11:1-85. ---------. 1984. Obsidian Procurement in the Central Peten Lakes Region, Guatemala. JFA 11:181-94. ---------. 1986. The Peten Postclassic: Perspectives from the Central Peten Lakes. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 251-99. ---------. 1987a. Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late Classic Period. In Brumfiel and Earle 1987, 76-85. ---------. 1987b. Macanche Island, El Peten, Guatemala: Excavations, Pottery, and Artifacts. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. ---------. 1999. Rethinking Classic Lowland Maya Pottery Censers. AM 10:25-50. ---------. 2004. Maya Political Science: Time, Astronomy, and the Cosmos. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rice, P. M., H. V. Michel, F. Asaro, and F. Stross. 1985. Provenience Analysis of Obsidians from the Peten Central Lakes Region, Guatemala. AAnt 50:591-604. Rice, P. M., and D. S. Rice. 1979. Home on the Range: Aboriginal Maya Settlement in the Central Peten Savannas. A 32 (6): 16-25. ---------. 1999. Período Postclásico: Tierras Bajas Mayas. In H GG 1:365-80. ---------. 2004. Late Classic to Postclassic Transformations in the Peten Lakes Region, Guatemala. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 125-39. Rice, P. M., and R. J. Sharer, eds. 1987. Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Confer ence. 2 vols. BAR 345. Richards, M. 2003. Atlas Lingüístico de Guatemala. Guatemala City: Universidad Rafael Landivar. Richardson, F. B. 1940. Non-Maya Monumental Sculpture of Central America. In The Maya and Their Neighbors , ed. C. L. Hay et al., 395-416. New York: Appleton Century. Ricketson, O. G. 1931. Excavations at Baking Pot, British Honduras. CIW Suppl. Publication 6: 1-15. Ricketson, O. G., and E. B. Ricketson. 1937. Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926-1937. CIW Publi cation 477. Riese, B. 1984a. Hel Hieroglyphs. In Justeson and Campbell 1984, 263-86. ---------. 1984b. Relaciones dásico-tardías entre Copán y Quirigúa: Algunas evidencias epigráficas. Yaxkin 7 (1): 23-30. ---------. 1988. Epigraphy of the Southeast Zone in Relation to Other Parts of Mesoamerica. In Boone and Willey 1988, 67-94.
86j
868
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ringle, W. M. 1988. Of Mice and Monkeys: The Value and Meaning of T1016, the God C Hieroglyph. RRAMW, no. 18. -------- . 1990. Who Was Who in Ninth-Century Chichen Itza. AM 1:233—43. -------- . 1996. Birds of a Feather: The Fallen Stucco Inscriptions of Temple XVIII, Palenque, Chiapas. In Robertson, Macri, and McHargue 1996, 45-61. -------- . 1999. Preclassic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics among the Early Lowland Maya. In Grove and Joyce 1999, 183-2.23. Ringle, W. M., and E. W. Andrews V. 1988. Formative Residences at Körnchen, Yucatan, Mexico. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 171-97. -------- . 1990. The Demography of Körnchen, An Early Maya Town in Northern Yucatan. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 215-43. Ringle, W. M., and G. J. Bey. 2001. Post-Classic and Terminal Classic Courts of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:266-307. Ringle, W. M., T. Gallareta Negron, and G. J. Bey HI. 1998. The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the Spread of a World Religion during die Epiclassic Period. AM 9:183-232. Rivera D., M. 1991. Ruinas, arqueólogos y problemas. In Oxkintok, una ciudad Maya de Yucatan: Ex cavaciones de la misión arqueológica de España en México, 1986-1991, 9-53. Madrid: Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culurales. -------- . 1999. La emergencia del estado maya de Oxkintok. Mayab 12:71-78. Rivet, P. 1954. Cités maya. 4th ed. Paris: Guillot. Robb, J. E., ed. 1999. Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University. Roberts, R. J., and E. M. Irving. 1957. Mineral Deposits o f Central America. Geological Survey Bulletin 1034. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Robertson, M. G. 1972. Monument Thievery in Mesoamerica. AA nt 37:147-55. -------- , ed. 1974. Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Parts I-II. Pebble Beach, CA: The Robert Louis Stevenson School. -------- , ed. 1976. The Art, Iconography and Dynastic History o f Palenque, Part III. Pebble Beach, CA: The Robert Louis Stevenson School. -------- . 1977. Painting Practices and Their Change through Time of the Palenque Stucco Sculptors. In Hammond 1977b, 297-326. -------- , ed. 1980. Third Palenque Round Table, Part 2. Vol. 5. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1983-91. The Sculpture o f Palenque. 4 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. -------- . 2004. The Techniques of the Palenque Sculptors. In Miller and Martin 2004, 247-49. Robertson, M. G., and E. P. Benson, eds. 1985. Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980. PARI. Robertson, M. G., and V. M. Fields, eds. 1985. Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983. PARI. -------- , eds. 1991. Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. -------- , eds. 1994. Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989. PARI. Robertson, M. G., and D. C. Jeffers, eds. 1979. T e r c e r a M e s a R e d o n d a d e P a le n q u e . Monterey, CA: PreColumbian Art Research Center. Robertson, M. G., M. J. Macri, and J. McHargue, eds. 1996. Eighth Palenque Round Table, 1993. PARI. Robertson, R. A. 1983. Functional Analysis and Social Process in Ceramics: The Pottery from Cerros, Belize. In Leventhal and Kolata 1983, 105-42. Robertson, R. A., and D. A. Freidel. 1986. Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America. Vol. 1, An Interim Report. Dallas: SMU Press. Robicsek, F. 1972. C o p a n : H o m e o f t h e M a y a n G o d s . New York: Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. -------- . 1975. A Study in Maya Art and History: The M at Symbol. New York: Museum of the Ameri can Indian, Heye Foundation. -------- . 1978. T h e S m o k i n g G o d s . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Robin, C. 1989. P r e c la s s ic M a y a B u r ia ls a t C u e llo , B e liz e . BAR International Series 480. Oxford.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 2001a. Kin and Gender in Classic Maya Society: A Case Study from Yaxchilan, Mexico. In N ew Directions in Anthropological Kinship , ed. L. Stone, 204-28. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. ---------. 2001b. Peopling the Past: New Perspectives on the Ancient Maya. PNAS 98 (1): 18-21. Robin, C., and N. Hammond. 1991. Burial Practices. In Hammond 1991a, 204-25. Robinson, E. J., ed. 1987. Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Periphery: Prehistoric and His toric Honduras and El Salvador. BAR 327. Robinson, E. J., P. M. Farrell, K. F. Emery, D. E. Freidel, and G. E. Braswell. 2002. Preclassic Settle ments and Geomorphology in the Highlands of Guatemala: Excavations at Urias, Valley of An tigua. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 251-76. Robinson, E. J., and Pye, M. E. 1996. Investigaciones en Rucal, Sacatepéquez: Hallazgos de una ocu pación del formativo medio en el altiplano de Guatemala. In Laporte and Escobedo 1996, 487-98. Robles C., J. F. 1980. La secuencia cerámica de la region de Cobá, Quintana Roo. Thesis, Escuela Na cional de Antropología e Historia, México. ---------. 1987. La sequencia céramica preliminar de Islas Cerritos, Costa Centro-Norte de Yucatan. In Rice and Sharer 1987, 99-109. ---------. 1990. La secuencia cerámica de la región de Cobá, Quintana Roo. Serie Arqueología, INAH. Robles C., J. F., and A. P. Andrews. 1986. A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in Northern Yucatan. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986, 53-98. ---------. 2003. Proyecto Costa Maya: Reconocimiento arqueológico en el noroeste de Yucataán, México. Reporte Interino, Temprada 2.002. Mérida: Centro IHAH Yucatán. ---------. 2004. An Archaeological Survey of Northwest Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 26:10-16. Rodríguez C., O. 2000. La gran plaza de Calakmul. ArqM 7:22-27. Romero, M. E., and J. H. Riqué Flores. 1995. Explorando un nuevo sitio, Chacchoben, Quintana Roo. ArqM 3 (15): 71-72Rosny, L. de. 1875. L ’interpretation des anciens textes mayas. Paris: Société Américaine de France. Rovner, I., and S. M. Lewenstein. 1997. Maya Stone Tools o f Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, and Becan and Chicanna, Campeche. MARI Publication 65. Roys, R. L. 1931. The Ethno-Botany o f the Maya. MARI Publication 2. ---------. 1933. The Book ofChilam Balam ofChumayel. CIW Publication 438. ---------. 1943. The Indian Background o f Colonial Yucatan. CIW Publication 548. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972. ---------. 1952. Conquest Sites and the Subsequent Destruction o f Maya Architecture in the Interior o f Northern Yucatan. CIW Publication 596. ---------. 1957. The Political Geography o f the Yucatan Maya. CIW Publication 548. ---------. 1962. Literary Sources for the History of Mayapan. In Pollock et al. 1962, 25-86. ---------. 1965. Lowland Maya Society at Spanish Contact. In HMAI 3:659-78. ---------. 1967. The Book ofChilam Balam o f Chumayel. Introduction by J. E. S. Thompson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. (Orig. pub. 1933.) Rue, D. J. 1987. Early Agriculture and Early Postclassic Maya Occupation in Western Honduras. Na ture 326:285-86. ---------. 1989. Archaic Middle American Agriculture and Settlement: Recent Pollen Data from Hon duras. JFA 16:177-84. Rue, D. J., A. C. Fréter, and D. A. Ballinger. 1989. The Caverns of Copan Revisited: Preclassic Sites in the Sesesmil River Valley, Copan, Honduras. JFA 16:395-404. Ruppert, K. J. 1931. Temple o f the Wall Panels. CIW Publication 403. ---------. 1935. The Caracol at Chicken Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. CIW Publication 454. ---------. 1943. The Mercado, Chicken Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. CIW Publication 546. ---------. 1952. Chicken Itza: Architectural Notes and Plans. CIW Publication 595. Ruppert, K. J., and J. H. Denison. 1943. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Peten. CIW Publication 543. Ruppert, K. J., E. M. Shook, A. L. Smith, and R. E. Smith. 1954. Glichen Itza, Dzibiac, and Balam Canche, Yucatan. CIW Yearbook 53:286-89.
869
870
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ruppert, K. J., J. E. S. Thompson, and T. Proskouriakoff. 1 9 5 5 - Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico. CIW Publication 602. Rust, W. F. 1992. New Ceremonial and Settlement Evidence at La Venta and Its Relation to Preclassic Maya Cultures. In Danien and Sharer 199*» 12.3-30. Rust, W. F., and R. J. Sharer. 1988. Olmec Settlement Data from La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Science 242:102-4. Ruz L., A. 1952a. Exploraciones en Palenque: 1950. INAH Anales 5 :25-45. -------- . 1952b. Exploraciones en Palenque: 1951. INAH Anales 5:47-66. -------- . 1954. La Pirámide-tumba de Palenque. Cuadernos Americanos 74:141-59. -------- . 1955. Exploraciones en Palenque: 1952. IN AH Anales 6:79-110. -------- . 1958a. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1953. INAH Anales 10:69-116. -------- . 1958b. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1954. IN AH Afiales 10:117-84. -------- . 1958c. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1955. INAH Anales 10:185-240. -------- . 19580. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1956. INAH Anales 10: 241-99. -------- . 1962. Exploraciones arqueológicas en Palenque: 1957. INAH Anales 14:35-90. -------- . 1965. Tombs and Funerary Practices in the Maya Lowlands. In H M AI 2:441-61. ---------, ed. 1973. El Templo de las Inscripciones. Mexico City: INAH. -------- . 1977. Gerontocracy at Palenque? In Hammond 1977b, 287-95. Sabloff, J. A. 1973a. Major Themes in the Past Hypotheses of the Maya Collapse. In Culbert 1973, 35“ 4°* -------- . 1973b. Continuity and Disruption during Terminal Late Classic Times at Seibal: Ceramic and Other Evidence. In Culbert 1973,107-33. -------- . 1975. Excavations at Seibal, Department o f the Petent Guatemala: The Ceramics. PMAE Mem oirs 13 (2). -------- . 1977. Old Myths, New Myths: The Role of Sea Traders in the Development of Ancient Maya Civilization. In Benson 1977b, 67-88. -------- . 1983. Classic Maya Settlement Pattern Studies: Past Problems and Future Prospects. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983,413-22. -------- . 1986. Interaction among Maya Polities: A Preliminary Examination. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 109-16. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versity Press. -------- . 1992a. Interpreting the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization: A Case Study of Changing Ar chaeological Perspectives. In Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers, ed. L. E. Embree, 92-119. Boston: Kluwer. -------- . 1992b. Beyond Temples and Palaces: Recent Settlement Pattern Research at the Ancient City of Sayil. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 155-60. -------- . 1994. The N ew Archaeology and the Ancient Maya. 2nd ed. New York: Scientific American Library. -------- . 1996. Settlement Patterns and Community Organization in the Maya Lowlands. Expedition 38:3-13. -------- . 1997. The Cities o f Ancient Mexico: Reconstructing a Lost World. Rev. ed. New York: Thames and Hudson. -------- . 2002. La Isla de Cozumel. ArqM 9 (54): 42-45. -------- , ed. 2003. Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs o f State: Advancing Maya Archaeology. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press. -------- . 2004. Looking Backward and Looking Forward: How Maya Studies of Yesterday Shape Today. In Golden and Borgstede 2004,13-20. Sabloff, J. A., and E. W. Andrews V, eds. 1986. Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sabloff, J. A., and W. Ashmore. 2001. An Aspect of Archaeology’s Recent Past and Its Relevance in the New Millennium. In Feinman and Price 2001, n - 3 2 . Sabloff, J. A., and D. A. Freidel. 1975. A Model of a Pre-Columbian Trading Center. In Sabloff and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975, 369-408.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sabloff, J. A., and J. S. Henderson, eds. 1993. Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks yth and 8th October, 1989. DO. Sabloff, J. A., and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. 1975. Ancient Civilization and Trade. SAR. Sabloff, J. A., and W. R. Rathje, eds. 1975a. A Study o f Changing Pre-Columbian Commercial Systems. PMAE Monograph 3. ---------. 1975b. The Rise of a Maya Merchant Class. SA 233 (4): 72-82. Sabloff, J. A., and G. Tourtellot. 1992. Beyond Temples and Palaces: Recent Settlement Pattern Research at the Ancient City of Sayil (1983-1985). In Danien and Sharer 1992, 156-60. Sabloff, J. A., and G. R. Willey. 1967. The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: A Consideration of History and Process. SWJA 23:311-3 6. Sachse, F. 2001. The Martial Dynasties: The Postclassic in the Maya Highlands. In Grube 2001a, 3567 iSaenz, C. A. 1975. Cerámica de Uxmal, Yucatán. Anales del INAH 7:171-86. Sahagún, B. de. 1946. Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. Mexico City: Editoria Nueva España. 2nd ed., with numeration, notes, and appendixes by A. M. Garibay K., 1969. Mexico City: Biblioteca Porrúa. Sanders, W. T. i960. Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo, Mexico. CIW Pub lication 606. ---------. 1973. The Cultural Ecology of the Lowland Maya: A Re-Evaluation. In Culbert 1973, 32.5-65. ---------. 1977. Environmental Heterogeneity and the Evolution of Lowland Maya Civilization. In Adams 1977, 287-97. ---------. 1981. Classic Maya Settlement Patterns and Ethnographic Analogy. In Ashmore 1981b, 35169. ---------, ed. 1986. Excavaciones en el area urbana de Copán, vol. 1. Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de Cultura y Turismo y IHAH. ---------, ed. 1990. Excavaciones en el area urbana de Copán , vol. 2. Tegucigalpa: Secretaría de Cultura y Turismo y IHAH. Sanders, W. T., and J. W. Michels, eds. 1977. Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: A Study in Prehistoric Cul tural Contact. Pennsylvania State University Press Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu. University Park. Sanders, W. T., and C. N. Murdy. 1982. Cultural Evolution and Ecological Succession in the Valley of Guatemala: 1500 BC-AD 1524. In Flannery 1982, 19-63. Sanders, W. T., and B. J. Price. 1968. Mesoamerica: The Evolution o f a Civilization. New York: Ran dom House. Sanders, W. T., and D. Webster. 1988. The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition. AA 90:521-46. Sanders, W. T., H. Wright, R. McC. Adams, and T. Earle, eds. 1984. On the Evolution o f Complex So cieties: Essays in H onor o f Harry Hoijer. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications. Sapper, K. 1896. Sobre la geografía física y la geología de la península de Yucatán. Instituto Geología, no. 3. Mexico City. ---------. 1897. Das Nördliche Mittel-Amerika Nebst einem Ausflug nach dem Hochland von Anahuac: Reisen und Studien aus den ]ahren 1888-1 8 9 s- Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn. Satterthwaite, L. 1937a. Thrones at Piedras Negras. UM Bulletin 7 (1): 18-23. ---------. 1937b. Identification of Maya Temple Buildings at Piedras Negras. Publications o f the Philadel phia Anthropological Society 1:161-77. ---------. 1943. Piedras Negros: Architecture. Pt. 1, Introduction. UPM. ---------. 1944a. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture. Pt. 2, Temples. UPM. ---------. 1944b. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture. Pt. 4, Ball Courts. UPM. ---------. 1944/1954. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture. Pt. 6, Unclassified Buildings and Sub structures. UPM. ---------. 1947. Concepts and Structures o f Maya Calendrical Arithmetic. Joint Publications, Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Anthropological Society, no. 3. ---------. 1950. Reconnaissance in British Honduras. UM Bulletin 16 (1): 21-37.
871
872.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1952. Piedras Negras Archaeology: Architecture. Pt. 5, Sweathouses. UPM. -------- . 1954» Sculptured Monuments from Caracol, British Honduras. UM Bulletin 18 (1—2). 1—45. -------- . 1958. The Problem of Abnormal Stela Placements at Tikal and Elsewhere. Tikal Report, no. 3. UPM Monograph 15:61-83. -------- . 1965. Calendrics of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 3:603-31. Satterthwaite, L., and E. K. Ralph, i960. New Radiocarbon Dates and the Maya Correlation Problem. AAnt 26:165-84. Saturno, W. 2002. Archaeological Investigations and Conservation at San Bartolo, Guatemala. FAMSI Website Research Report (www.famsi.org). Saul, F. P. 1972. The Human Skeletal Remains o f Altar de Sacrificios: An Osteobiographic Analysis. PMAE Papers 63 (2). -------- . 1973. Disease in the Maya Area: The Precolumbian Evidence. In Culbert 1 9 7 3 » 3 OI” 24 Saville, M. 1893. Vandalism among the Antiquities of Yucatan and Central America. Archaeologist 1:91-93. -------- . 1921. Reports on the Maya Indians o f Yucatan. Indian Notes and Monographs 9 (3). New York: Heye Foundation. Scarborough, V. L. 1983. A Preclassic Maya Water System. AA nt 4 8:720-44. -------- . 1991. Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America. Vol. 3, The Settlement System in a Late Preclassic Maya Community. Dallas: SMU Press. -------- . 1994. Maya Water Management. NGRE 10:184-99. -------- . 1996. Reservoirs and Watersheds in the Central Maya Lowlands. In Fedick 1996, 304-14. -------- . 1998. Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya. LAA 9:135-59. -------- . 2003. The Flow o f Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press. Scarborough, V. L., M. E. Becher, J. L. Baker, G. Harris, and F. Valdez Jr. 1995. Water and Land at the Ancient Maya Community of La Milpa. LAA 6:98-119. Scarborough, V. L., and G. G. Gallopin. 1991. A Water Storage Adaptation in the Maya Lowlands. Sci ence 261:658-62. Scarborough, V. L., and R. A. Robertson. 1986. Civic and Residential Settlement at a Late Classic Maya Center. JFA 13:155-76. Scarborough, V. L., and F. Valdez Jr. 2003. The Engineered Environment and Political Economy of the Three Rivers Region. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, 3-13. Scarborough, V. L., F. Valdez Jr., and N. Dunning, eds. 2003. Heterarchy, Political Economy, and the Ancient Maya: The Three Rivers Region of the East-Central Yucatan Peninsula. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Scarborough, V. L., and D. R. Wilcox., eds. 1991. The Mesoamerican Ballgame. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Scheie, L. 1976. Genealogical Documentation on the Tri-Figure Panels at Palenque. In Robertson 1976, 41-70. -------- . 1981. Sacred Site and World-View at Palenque. In Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views, ed. E. P. Benson, 87-117. DO. -------- . 1982. Maya Glyphs: The Verbs. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1984. Human Sacrifice among the Classic Maya. In Benson and Boone 1984, 6 -4 8 . -------- . 1985. The Hauberg Stela: Bloodletting and the Mythos of Maya Rulership. In Robertson and Fields 1985,135-49. -------- . 1986. The Founders of Lineages at Copan and Other Maya Sites. CN 8. -------- . 1987. Stela I and the Founding of the City of Copan. CN 30. -------- . 1988. Revisions to the Dynastic Chronology of Copan. CN 45. -------- . 1990. Early Quirigua and the Kings of Copan. CN 75. -------- . 1991a. An Epigraphic History of the Western Maya Region. In Culbert 1991a, 72-101. -------- . 1991b. The Demotion of Chac-Zutz: Lineage Compounds and Subsidiary Lords at Palenque. In Robertson and Fields 1991, 6-11. -------- . 1994- Some Thoughts on the Inscriptions of House C. In Robertson and Fields 1994,1-10. Scheie, L., and D. A. Freidel. 1990. A Forest o f Kings. New York: Morrow.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1991. The Courts of Creation: Ballcourts, Ballgames, and Portals to the Maya Otherworld. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, ed. D. Wilcox and V. Scarborough. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Scheie, L., and N. Grube. 1987. U Cit Tok, the Last King of Copan. CN 21. ---------. 1992. The Founding Events at Copan. CN 107. ---------. 1994. Notes on the Chronology of Piedras Negras Stela 12. Texas Notes 12. ---------. 1996. The Workshop for Maya on Hieroglyphic Writing. In Fischer and McKenna Brown 1996, 131-40. Scheie, L., N. Grube, and F. Fahsen. 1994. The Xukpi Stone: A Newly Discovered Early Classic Inscrip tion from the Copan Acropolis: Part H, The Epigraphy. CN 114. Scheie, L., and P. Mathews. 1979. The Bodega o f Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. DO. ---------. 1991. Royal Visits and Other Intersite Relationships among the Classic Maya. In Culbert 1991a, 226-52. ---------. 1998. The Code o f Kings: The Language o f Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. New York: Scribners. Scheie, L., and J. H. Miller. 1983. The Mirror, the Rabbit, and the Bundle: “Accession” Expressions from the Classic Maya Inscriptions. DO. Scheie, L., and M. E. Miller. 1986. The Blood o f Kings. New York: George Braziller. Schellhas, P. 1904. Representations o f Deities o f the Maya Manuscripts. PMAE Papers 4(1): 1-47. Schieber de Lavarreda, C., and M. Orrego C. 2003. Looking for the First Page of the Millenary History of Tak’alik Ab’aj. Institute o f Maya Studies Newsletter 32 (11): 6 -7 . Schmidt, K. P., and E. W. Andrews IV. 1936. Notes on Snakes from Yucatan. Field Museum of Natural History Zoological Series 20 (18): 167-87. Chicago. Schmidt, P. J. 1999. Chichén Itzá: Resultados y projectos nuevos (1992-1999). ArqM 7 (37): 32-39. ---------. 2000. Nuevos datos sobre la arqueología y iconografía de Chichén Itzá. ICM 8:38-48. Schmidt, P. J., M. de la Garza, and E. Nalda. 1998. Maya. New York: Rizzoli. Scholes, F. V. 1933. The Beginnings of Hispano-Indian Society in Yucatan. Scientific Monthly 44:53038. Scholes, F. V., C. R. Menéndez, J. I. Rubio M., and E. Adams, eds. 1936. Documentos para la historia de Yucatán. Vol. 1,1550-1561. Mérida: Tipografía Yucateca. Scholes, F. V , and R. L. Roys. 1938. Fray Diego de Landa and the Problem o f Idolatry in Yucatan. Cooperation in Research CIW Publication 501. ---------. 1948. The Maya Chontal Indians o f Acalan-Tixchel. CIW Publication 560. Schortman, E. M. 1980. Archaeological Investigations in the Lower Motagua Valley. Expedition 23 (1): 28-34. ---------. 1986. Interaction between the Maya and Non-Maya along the Late Classic Southeast Maya Pe riphery: The View from the Lower Motagua Valley, Guatemala. In Urban and Schortman 1986, 114-37. ---------• 1993* Quirigua Reports III: Archaeological Investigations in the Lower Motagua Valley, Izabal, Guatemala. University Museum Monographs. UPM. Schortman, E. M., and S. Nakamura. 1991. A Crisis of Identity and Interaction: Late Classic Competi tion and Interaction on the Southeast Maya periphery. LAA 2:311-36. Schortman, E. M., and P. A. Urban, eds. 1983. Quirigua Reports II. Papers 6-14. University Museum Monographs. UPM. ---------. 1987. Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:37-95. ---------. 1991. Patterns of Late Preclassic Interaction and the Formation of Complex Society in the Southeast Maya Periphery. In Fowler 1991,121-42. ---------. 1994. Living on the Edge: Core/Periphery Relations in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica. CA 35:401-30. ---------. 1995. Late Classic Society in the Middle Ulua Drainage, Honduras. JFA 22:439-57. ---------. 2004. Marching out of Step: Early Classic Copan and its Honduran Neighbors. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 319-35.
873
874
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Schortman, E. M., P. A. Urban, W. Ashmore, and J. Benyo. 1986. Interregional Interaction in the SE Maya Periphery: The Santa Barbara Archaeological Project, 1983-1984 Seasons. JFA 13:259-72. Schwartz, G. M., and S. E. Falconer, eds. 1994. A rc h a e o lo g ic a l V ie w s fr o m th e C o u n tr y sid e : V illa g e C o m m u n itie s in C o m p le x S o c ie ty . Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Sedat, D. W. 1996. Etapas tempranas en la evolución de la Acrópolis de Copan. Y a x k in 14:19-27. Sedat, D. W., and F. Lopez. 2004. Initial Stages in the Formation of the Copan Acropolis. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 85-99. Sedat, D. W., and R. J. Sharer. 1972. Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Maya Highlands: New Data on the Maya Preclassic. UCARF Contribution 16:23-35. -------- . 1994. The Xukpi Stone: A Newly Discovered Early Classic Inscription from the Copan Acropo lis: Part I, The Archaeology. CN 113. -------- . 1997. Evolución de la Acrópolis de Copan durante el clásico temprano. JCM 5:383—89. Seitz, R., G. E. Harlow, V. B. Sisson, and K. A. Taube. 2001. “Olmec Blue” and Formative Jade Sources: New Discoveries in Guatemala. A n tiq u ity 75:687-88. Seler, E. 1902-23. G e sa m m e lte A b h a n d lu n g e n z u r A m e rik a n isc h e n S p ra ch u n d A lte r th u m s k u n d e . 5 vols. Berlin: Ascher, Behrend. -------- . 1904. English translations of nine of Seler’s articles. BAE Bulletin 28:353-91. Service, E. 1962. P rim itive S o cia l O rg a n iza tio n . New York: Random House. -------- . 1975. O rig in s o f th e S ta te a n d C iv iliza tio n . New York: Norton. Shafer, H. J., and T. R. Hester. 1983. Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. A A n t 48:519-43. -------- . 1991. Lithic Craft Specialization and Product Distribution at the Maya Site of Colha, Belize. WA 23 (1): 79-97Sharer, R. J. 1974. The Prehistory of the Southeastern Maya Periphery. C u r re n t A n th r o p o lo g y 15 (2): 165-87. -------- . 1977. The Maya Collapse Revisited: Internal and External Perspectives. In Hammond 1977b, 531-52. -------- , ed. 1978a. T h e P r e h isto ry o f C h a lch u a p a , E l S a lv a d o r. 3 vols. UPM Monograph 36. Philadel phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. -------- . 1978b. Archaeology and History at Quirigua, Guatemala. JFA (1): 51-70. -------- . 1982. Did the Maya Collapse? A New World Perspective on the Demise of Harappan Civiliza tion. In H a ra p p a n C iv iliza tio n : A C o n te m p o r a r y P e r sp e c tiv e , ed. G. A. Possehl. American Institute of Indian Studies. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH. -------- . 1984. Lower Central America as Seen from Mesoamerica. In C e n tra l A m e ric a n A r c h a e o lo g y , ed. F. Lange and D. Stone. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- . 1985a. Terminal Events in the Southeastern Lowlands: A View from Quirigua. In Chase and Rice 1985, 245-53. -------- . 1985b. Archaeology and Epigraphy Revisited. E x p e d itio n 27 (3): 16-19. -------- . 1987. Nuevas perspectivas sobre los orígenes de la civilización maya. Y a x k in 1 0 (2): 81-88. -------- . 1988. Quirigua as a Classic Maya Center. In Boone and Willey 1988, 31-65. -------- . 1989a. The Olmec and the Southeast Periphery of Mesoamerica. In Sharer and Grove 1989, 247-71. -------- . 1989b. Preclassic Origins of Maya Writing: A Highland Perspective. In Hanks and Rice 1989, 165-75-------- . 1990. Q u irigu a: A C lassic M a y a C en te r a n d Its S cu lp tu re s. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. -------- . 1991. Diversity and Continuity in Maya Civilization: Quirigua as a Case Study. In Culbert 1991a, 180-98. -------- . 1992. The Preclassic Origin of Lowland Maya States. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 131-36. -------- . 1993. The Social Organization of the Late Classic Maya: Problems of Definition and Ap proaches. In Sabloff and Henderson 1993, 91-109. -------- . 2002. Early Classic Dynastic Origins in the Southeastern Maya Lowlands. In Love, Poponoe de Hatch, and Escobedo 2002, 459-76.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 2003a. Tikal and the Copan Dynastic Founding. In Sabloff 2003, 319-53. -------- . 2003b. Founding Events and Teotihuacan Connections at Copan, Honduras. In Braswell 2003e, 143-65. ---------. 2004a. External Interaction at Early Classic Copan. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 297317---------. 2004b. Arqueología e historia en Quirigua, Guatemala. ArqM 66:58-63. Sharer R. J., and W. Ashmore. 2002. Archaeology: Discovering Our Past. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sharer, R. J., W. L. Fash, D. W. Sedat, L. P. Traxler, and R. Williamson. 1999. Continuities and Con trasts in Early Classic Architecture of Central Copan. In Kowalski 1999, 220-49. Sharer, R. J., and C. Golden. 2004. Kingship and Polity: Conceptualizing the Maya Body Politic. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 23-50. Sharer, R. J., and D. C. Grove, eds. 1989. Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. SAR. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press. Sharer, R. J., J. C. Miller, and L. P. Traxler. 1992. Evolution of Classic Period Architecture in the East ern Acropolis, Copan, Honduras. AM 3:145-60. Sharer, R. J., and D. W. Sedat. 1973. Monument 1, El Portón, Guatemala, and the Development of Maya Calendrical and Writing Systems. UCARF Contribution 18:177-94. ---------. 1987. Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Maya Highlands, Guatemala: Interaction and the Development o f Maya Civilization. University Museum Monograph 59. UPM. ---------. 1999. El Preclásico en las Tierras Altas del Norte. In H G G 1:213-26. Sharer, R. J., L. P. Traxler, D. W. Sedat, E. Bell, M. Canuto, and C. Powell. 1999. Early Classic Archi tecture beneath the Copan Acropolis: A Research Update. AM 10:3-23. Shattuck, G. C. 1933. The Peninsula o f Yucatan, Medical, Biological, Meteorological and Sociological Studies. CIW Publication 431. Shaw, J. M. 2001. Maya Sacbeob: Form and Function. AM 12:261-72. ---------. 2003 Climate Change and Deforestation: Implications for the Maya Collapse. AM 14:157-67. ---------. 2004. Final Report o f the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey's 2004 Field Season. Eu reka, CA: College of the Redwoods. Shaw, J. M., and D. Johnstone. 2001. The Late Classic at Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 2 3 :1 0 14. Shaw, L. C. 1999. Social and Ecological Aspects of Preclassic Maya Meat Consumption at Colha, Be lize. In White 1999, 83-100. Sheehy, J. J. 1991. Structure and Change in a Late Classic Maya Domestic Group at Copan, Honduras. AM 2:1-19. Sheets, P. D. 1971. An Ancient Natural Disaster. Expedition 13 (1): 24-31. ---------. 1972. A Model of Mesoamerican Obsidian Technology Based on Preclassic Workshop Debris in El Salvador. CCM 8:17-33. ---------. 1973. The Pillage of Prehistory. AAnt 38:317-20. ---------. 1975. A Reassessment of the Precolumbian Obsidian Industry of El Chayal, Guatemala. AAnt 40:98-103. ---------. 1976. The Terminal Preclassic Lithic Industry of the Southeast Maya.Highlands: A Component of the Protoclassic Site-Unit Intrusions in the Lowlands. In Hester and Hammond 1976, 55-69. ---------. 1979a. Maya Recovery from Volcanic Disasters, Ilopango and Ceren. A 32 (3): 32-42. ---------. 1979b. 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, 525-64. New York: Academic Press. ---------, ed. 1983. Archaeology and Volcanism in Central America: The Zapotitlan Valley o f El Salvador. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 2002. Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Ceren Village in Central America. Austin: Uni versity of Texas Press. Sheets, P. D., H. F. Beaubien, M. Beaudry, A. Gerstle, M. McKee, C. D. Miller, H. Spetzler, and D. B. Tucker. 1990. Household Archaeology at Cerén, El Salvador. AM 1:81-90.
875
876
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sheets, P. D., and B. R. McKee, eds. 1989. Archaeological Investigations at the Ceren Site, El Salvador: A Preliminary Report. Boulder: Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. Shepard, A. O. 1948. P lu m b a te : A M e so a m e ric ä n T rade W are. CIW Publication 573. -------- . 1971. C eram ics fo r th e A rc h a e o lo g is t. CIW Publication 609. Shimkin, D. B. 1973. Models for the Downfall: Some Ecological and Cultural-Historical Considera tions. In Culbert 1973, 269-99. Shook, E. M. 1952. T h e G r e a t W all o f M a ya p a n . CIW Current Reports, Department of Archaeology, no. 2. -------- . 1954. T h e T em p le o fK u k u lc a n a t M a ya p a n . CIW Current Reports, Department of Archaeol ogy, no. 20. -------- . i960. Tikal Stela 29. E x p e d itio n 2 (2): 29-35. -------- . 1965. Archaeological Survey of the Pacific Coast of Guatemala. In H M A I 2:180-94. -------- . 1971. Inventory of Some Preclassic Traits in the Highlands and Pacific Guatemala and Adjacent Areas. UCARF Contribution 11:70-77. Shook, E. M., W. R. Coe, V. L. Broman, and L. Satterthwaite. 1958. T ik a l R e p o r ts N o s . 1 - 4 . UPM Monograph 15. Shook, E. M., and W. Irving. 1955. C o lo n n a d e d B u ild in g s a t M a y a p a n . CIW Current Reports, Depart ment of Archaeology, no. 20. Shook, E. M., and A. V. Kidder. 1952. M o u n d E -I I I -}, K a m in a lju yu , G u a te m a la . CIW Publication 596. Shook, E. M., and M. Poponoe de Hatch. 1978. The Ruins of El Balsamo, Department of Escuintla, Guatemala. Jou rn al o f N e w W o rld A rc h a e o lo g y 3 (1): 1-38. -------- . 1979. The Early Preclassic Sequence in the Ocos-Salinas La Blanca Area, South Coast of Guatemala. UCARF Contribution 41:143-95. -------- . 1999. Las Tierras Altas Centrales: Períodos Preclásico y Clásico. In H G G 1:289-318. Shook, E. M., M. Poponoe de Hatch, and J. K. Donaldson. 1979. Ruins of Semetabaj, Dept. Solola, Guatemala. UCARF Contribution 41:7-142. Shook, E. M., and T. Proskouriakoff. 1956. Settlement Patterns in Mesoamerica and the Sequence in the Guatemalan Highlands. In Willey 1956a, 93-100. Shurr, T. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA and the Peopling of the New World. A m e ric a n S c ie n tis t 8 8 :2 4 6 -
53Sidrys, R. V. 1976. Classic Maya Obsidian Trade. A A n t 41:449-64. Sidrys, R. V., C. M. Krowne, and H. B. Nicholson. 1975. A Lowland Maya Long Count/Gregorian Conversion Computer Program. A A n t 40:337-44. Siegel, M. 1941. Religion in Western Guatemala: A Product of Acculturation. A A 43:62-76. Siemens, A. H. 1978. Karst and the Pre-Hispanic Maya in the Southern Lowlands. In Harrison and Turner 1978,117-43. Siemens, A. H., and D. E. Puleston. 1972. Ridged Fields and Associated Features in Southern Campeche: New Perspectives on the Lowland Maya. A A n t 37:228-39. Sierra S., T. N. 1994. C o n tr ib u c ió n a l e stu d io d e lo s a s e n ta m ie n to s d e San G e r v a s io , Isla d e C o zu m e l. INAH. Sievert, A. K. 1992. M a ya C e re m o n ia l S p ecia liza tio n : L ith ic T o o ls fr o m th e S a c red C e n o te a t C h ic k e n Itza . Madison: Prehistory Press. Smailus, O. 1975a. E l M a y a -C h o n ta l d e A calan : A n á lisis lin g ü ístico d e u n d o c u m e n to d e lo s a ñ o s 1 6 1 0 - 1 2 . Centro de Estudios Mayas, Cuaderno 9. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. -------------- . 1 9 7 5 b .
T e x to s m a y a s d e B elice y Q u in ta n a R o o : F u en tes p a ra u n a d ia le c to lo g ía d e l M a y a Yu-
Indiana 3. Beiträge zur Völker un Sprachenkunde, Archäologie und Anthropologie des In dianischen Amerika. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Smith, A. L. 1934. T w o R e c e n t C era m ic F inds a t U a x a c tu n . CIW Publication 436. -------- . 1937. S tru ctu re A -X V I I I, U a x a ctu n . CIW Publication 483. -------- . 1950. U axactu n , G u a tem a la : E x c a v a tio n s o f 1 9 3 1 - 3 7 . CIW Publication 588. -------- . 1955. A rc h a e o lo g ic a l R eco n n a issa n ce in C e n tra l G u a te m a la . CIW Publication 608. -------- . 1962. Residential and Associated Structures at Mayapan. In Pollock et al. 1962, 165-320. c a teco .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------. 1965. Architecture of the Maya Highlands. In HMAI 2:76-94. -------- . 1972. Excavations at Altar de Sacrificios, Architecture, Settlement, Burials and Caches. PMAE Papers 62 (2). ---------• I 977* Patolli at the Ruins of Seibal, Peten, Guatemala. In Hammond 1977b: 349-63. Smith, A. L., and A. V. Kidder. 1943. Explorations in the Motagua Valley, Guatemala. CIW Publication 546. ---------. 1951. Excavations at Nebaj, Guatemala. CIW Publication 594. Smith, B. D. 1997. The Initial Domestication of Cucurbita pepo in the Americas 10,000 Years Ago. Sci ence 276:932-34. Smith, J. G. 2001. Preliminary Report of the Chichen Itza-Ek Balam Transect Project. Mexicon 23:3035Smith, M. E. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtee Place Signs and Maps. Nor man: University of Oklahoma Press. Smith, M. E., and F. F. Berdan, ed. 2003. The Postclassic Mesoamerican world. Salt Lake City: Univer sity of Utah Press. Smith, P. E. 1955. Excavations in Three Ceremonial Structures at Mayapan. CIW Current Reports, De partment of Archaeology, no. 21. Smith, R. E. 1937. A Study o f Structure A -i Complex at Uaxactun. CIW Publication 456. ---------. 1954. Explorations on the Outskirts ofM ayapán. CIW Current Reports, Department of Ar chaeology, no. 18. ---------. 1955. Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun , Guatemala. 2 vols. MARI Publication 20. ---------. 1971. The Pottery o f Mayapan. 2 vols. PMAE Papers 66. Smith, R. E., and J. C. Gifford. 1965. Pottery of the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 2:498-543. Smithsonian Institution. 1904. Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and His tory. Twenty-four papers by E. Seler, E. Förstemann, P. Schellhas, C. Sapper, and E. P. Dieseldorff, translated from the German under the supervision of C. P. Bowditch. BAE Bulletin 28. Smyth, M. P. 1990. Maize Storage among the Puuc Maya: The Development of an Archaeological Method. AM 1:51-70. Smyth, M. P., and C. D. Dore. 1994. Maya Urbanism. NGRE 10:39-55. Sorenson, J. L. 1956. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of West-Central Chiapas, Mexico. NWAF Pa pers no. 1:7-19. Spinden, H. J. 1913. A Study o f Maya Art. PMAE Memoirs 6. ---------. 1917. The Ancient Civilizations o f Mexico and Central America. American Museum of Natural History Handbook Series, no. 3. New York. ---------. 1924. The Reduction o f Maya Dates. PMAE Papers 6 (4). ---------. 1928. The Ancient Civilizations o f Mexico and Central America. 3d ed., rev. ---------. 1930. Maya Dates and What They Reveal. Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences 4(1). New York. Sprajc, I. 2002. Archaeological Reconnaissance in Southwestern Campeche, Mexico: 2002 Field Season Report. FAMSI Website Research Report (www.famsi.org). Stadelman, R. 1940. Maize Cultivation in Northwestern Guatemala. CIW Publication 523. Standley, P. C. 1930. Flora o f Yucatan. Field Museum of Natural History Publication 279, Botanical Se ries 3 (3). Chicago. Stanton, T. W., and T. Gallareta N. 2001. Warfare, Ceramic Economy, and the Itza: A Reconsideration of the Itza Polity in Ancient Yucatan. AM 12:229-45. Stark, B. L. 1981. The Rise of Sedentary Life. SHMAI 1:345-72. Stark, B. L., and B. Voorhies, eds. 1978. Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations: The Economy and Ecology o f Maritime Middle America. New York: Academic Press. Steggerda, M. 1941. Maya Indians o f Yucatan. CIW Publication 531. Stemp, W. J. 2001. Chipped Stone Tool Use in the Maya Coastal Economics o f Marco Gonzalez and San Pedro, Ambergris Caye, Belize. Oxford: John and Eric Hedges. Stephens, J. L. 1841. Incidents o f Travel in Central America , Chiapas, and Yucatan. 2 vols. New York: Harper. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1962.
8 JJ
878
I B L I O G R APH Y
-------- . 1843. Incidents o f Travel in Yucatan. 1 vols. New York: Harper. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1963. Stewart, R. 1977. Classic to Postclassic Period Settlement Trends in the Region of Santa Cruz del Quiche. In Wallace and Carmack 1977» 68-81. Stewart, T. 2004. Thirty-Thousand-Year-Old Site Found in Siberia. American Archaeology 8 (1 ): 7. Stirling, M. W. 1940. An Initial Series from Tres Zapotes , Vera Cruz, Mexico. National Geographic So ciety Mexican Archaeology Series 1(1). -------- . 1965. Monumental Sculpture of Southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In HM AI 3:716-38. Stone, A. J. 1985a. Variety and Transformation in the Cosmic Monster Theme at Quirigua, Guatemala. In Robertson and Fields 1985» 3 9 ~ 4 8-------- . 1985b. The Moon Goddess at Naj Tunich. Mexicon 7:23-30. --------- . 1995. Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition o f Maya Cave Painting. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1999. Architectural Innovation in the Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza. In Kowalski 1999,298-319. -------- , ed. 2002. Heart o f Creation: Linda Scheie and the Mesoamerican World. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Stone, A., D. Reents, and R. Coffman. 1985. Genealogical Documentation of the Middle Classic Dy nasty of Caracol, El Cayo, Belize. In Robertson and Benson 1985, 267-76. Stone, D. Z. 1984. Cacao and the Maya Traders. In Central American Archaeology , ed. F. Lange and D. Stone. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Strecker, M. 1987. Representaciones sexuales en el arte rupestre de la region maya. Mexicon 9:3 4 -3 7 . Stromsvik, G. 1942. Substela Caches and Stela Foundations at Copan and Quirigua. CIW Publication 528. -------- . 1952. The Ball Courts o f Copan, with N otes on Courts at La Union, Quirigua , San Pedro Pín ula and Asuncion Mita. CIW Publication 596. Stross, B. 1983. The Language of Zuyua. American Ethnologist 10:150-64. Stross, F. H., P. D. Sheets, F. Asaro, and H. V. Michel. 1983. Precise Characterization of Guatemalan Obsidian Sources, and Source Determination of Artifacts from Quirigua. AA nt 4 8:316-22. Stuart, D. 1985a. The Yaxha Emblem Glyph at Yax-ha. RRAMW, no. 1. -------- . 1985b. A New Child-Father Relationship Glyph. RRAMW, no. 2. -------- . 1985c. The “Count of Captives” Epithet in Classic Maya Writing. In Robertson and Fields 1985*97-101. -------- . 1987. Ten Phonetic Syllables. RRAMW, no. 14. -------- . 1988a. Blood Symbolism in Maya Iconography. In Benson and Griffin 1988,175-221. -------- . 1988b. The Río Azul Cacao Pot: Epigraphic Observations on the Function of a Maya Ceramic Vessel. Antiquity 62:153-57. -------- . 1989. The “First Ruler” on Stela 24. CN 7. -------- . 1990a. The Decipherment of “Directional Count Glyphs” in Maya Inscriptions. AM 1:213-24. -------- . 1990b. A New Carved Panel from the Palenque Area. RRAMW, no. 32. -------- . 1992. Hieroglyphs and Archaeology at Copan. AM 3:169-84. -------- . 1993. Historical Inscriptions and the Classic Maya Collapse. In Sabloff and Henderson 1993, 321-54. -------- . 1996. Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Maya Ritual and Representation. Res: An thropology and Aesthetics 29-30:149-71. -------- . 1997. Kinship Terms in Maya Inscriptions. In Macri and Ford 1997, 1-11. -------- . 1998a. “The Fire Enters His House”: Architecture and Ritual in Classic Maya Texts. In Hous ton 1998, 373-425. -------- . 1998b. Testimonios sobre la guerra durante el Clásico Maya. ArqM 6 :6 -1 3 . -------- 2000. The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. In D. Carrasco, Jones, and Sessions 2000, 465-513. -------- . 2002. Longer Live the King: The Questionable Demise of K’inich K’an Joy Chitam of Palenque. Manuscript.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 2003. La ideología del sacrificio entre los mayas. ArqM 63:24-29. -------- . 2004a. The Beginnings of the Copan Dynasty: A Review of the Hieroglyphic and Historical Evi dence. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 215-47. ---------. 2004b. History, Mythology, and Royal Legitimization at Palenque’s Temple 19. In Miller and Martin 2004, 261-64. Stuart, D., N. Grube, L. Scheie, and F. Lounsbury. 1989. Stela 63, a New Monurrfent from Copan. C N 56. Stuart, D., and S. D. Houston. 1989. Maya Writing. SA 261 (2): 82-89. ---------. 1994. Classic Maya Place Names. DO Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no. 33. Stuart, D., and L. Scheie. 1986. Yax-K’uk-Mo’, the Founder of the Lineage of Copán. CN 6. Stuart, G. E. 1986. Los códices maya. Archaeoastronomy 9:164-76. ---------. 1988. Glyph Drawings from Landa’s Relación: A Caveat to the Investigator. RRAMW, no. 19. ---------. 1989. The Beginnings of Maya Hieroglyphic Study: Contributions of Constantine S. Rafinesque and James H. McCulloh Jr. RRAMW, no. 29. -------- . 1992. Quest for Decipherment: A Historical and Biographical Survey of Maya Hieroglyphic In vestigation. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 1-63. Stuart, G. E., J. C. Scheffler, E. B. Kurjack, and J. W. Cottier. 1979. Map o f the Ruins o f Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. MARI Publication 47. Stuart, G. E., and G. S. Stuart. 1977. The Mysterious Maya. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. Stuart, L. C. 1964. Fauna of Middle America. In HMAI 1:316-62. Sugiyama, S., and R. Cabrera C. 2003. Hallazgos recientes en la Pirámide de la luna. ArqM 64:42-49. Suhler, C., T. Ardren, and D. Johnstone. 1998. The Chronology of Yaxuna: Evidence from Excavations and Ceramics. AM 9:167-82. Suhler, C., T. Ardren, D. Freidel, and D. Johnstone. 2004. The Rise and Fall of Terminal Classic Yax una, Yucatan, Mexico. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 450-84. Suhler, C., and D. Freidel. 1998. Life and Death in a Maya War Zone. A 51 (3): 28-34. Sullivan, P. 1989. Unfinished Conversations: Mayas and Foreigners between Two Wars. New York: Knopf. Swadesh, M. 1961. Interrelaciones de las lenguas mayenses. INAH Anales 13:231-67. ---------. 1967. Lexicostatistic Classification. In HMAI 5:79-115. Sweely, T. L. 1998. Personal Interactions: The Implications of Spatial Arrangements for Power Relations at Ceren, El Salvador. WA 29:393-406. Taladoire, E. 1981. Les terrains de jeu de balle. Mexico City: Mission Archéologique et Ethnologique Française au Mexico. Tamayo, J. L. 1964. The Hydrography of Middle America. In HMAI i : 84-121. Taschek, J. T., and J. W. Ball. 1999. The Ruins of Arenal: Preliminary Report on a Subregional Major Center in the Western Belize Valley. AM 10:215-35. ---------. 2003. Nohoch Ek Revisited: The Minor Center as Manor. LAA 14:371-88. Tate, C. 1985. Summer Solstice Ceremonies Performed by Bird Jaguar HI of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mex ico. Estudios de Cultura Maya 16:85-112. ---------. 1991. The Period Ending Stelae of Yaxchilan. In Robertson and Fields 1991,102-9. ---------. 1992. Yaxchilan: The Design o f a Maya Ceremonial City. Austin: University of Texas Press. Taube, K. 1985. The Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal. In Robertson and Fields 1985, 171-81. ---------. 1987. A Representation of the Principal Bird Deity in the Paris Codex. RRAMW, no. 6. ---------. 1988. A Prehispanic Maya Katun Wheel .Journal o f Anthropological Research 44:183-203. ---------. 1989a. Itzam Cab Ain: Caimans, Cosmology, and Calendrics in Postclassic Yucatan. RRAMW, no. 26. ---------. 1989b. The Maize Tamale in Classic Maya Diet, Epigraphy, and Art. AAnt 54:31-51. ---------. 1992. The Major Gods o f Ancient Yucatan. DO Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeol ogy, no. 32. ---------. 1998. The Jade Hearth: Centrality, Rulership, and the Classic Maya Temple. In Houston 1998, 427-78.
879
88o
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____ . 2000. The Turquoise Hearth: Fire, Self-Sacrifice, and the Central Mexican Cult of War. In Carrasco, Jones, and Sessions 2000, 269-340. -------- . 2001. The Classic Maya Gods. In Grube 2001, 262-77. -------- . 2004a. Flower Mountain: Concepts of Life, Beauty, and Paradise among the Classic Maya. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 4 5:69 - 98. -------- . 2004b. Structure 10L-16 and Its Early Classic Antecedents: Fire and the Evocation and Resur rection of K’inich Yax K*uk* Mo*. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 265-95. Tedlock, B. 1982. Time and the Highland Maya . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- . 1992. Mayan Calendars, Cosmology, and Astronomical Commensuration. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 216-27. Tedlock, D. 1985. Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book o f the Dawn o f Life. New York: Simon and Schuster. -------- . 1992. The Popol Vuh as a Hieroglyphic Book. In Danien and Sharer 1992, 229-40. Teeple, J. E. 1926. Maya Inscriptions: The Venus Calendar and Another Correlation. AA 28:402-8. -------- . 1931. Maya Astronomy. CIW Publication 403. Thomas, C. 1882. A Study of the Manuscript Troano. In U.S. Department of the Interior, Contributions to North American Ethnology 5:1-237. -------- . 1893. Are the Maya Hieroglyphs Phonetic? AA, o.s., 6:241-70. Thomas, N. D. 1974. The Linguistic, Geographic, and Demographic Position o f the Zoque o f Southern Mexico. NWAF Papers, no. 36. Thomas, P. M., Jr. 1974. Prehistoric Settlement at Becan: A Preliminary Report. MARI Publication 31:139-46. -------- . 1980. Prehistoric Maya Settlement Patterns at Becan, Campeche, Mexico. MARI Publication 45Thompson, D. E. i960. Maya Paganism and Christianity. MARI Publication 19:1-35. Thompson, E. H. 1897a. Cave of Loltun, Yucatan. PMAE Memoirs 1 (2): 49-72. -------- . 1897b. The Chultunes o f Labna. PMAE Memoirs 1 (3). Thompson, J. E. S. 1927. A Correlation of the Mayan and European Calendars. FMAS 17 (1): 1-22. -------- . 1930. Ethnology o f the Maya o f Southern and Central British Honduras. FMAS 17 (2). -------- . 1931. Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Cayo District, British Honduras. FMAS 17
(*).
-
-------- . 1932. The Solar Year of the Mayas at Quirigua, Guatemala. FMAS 17 (4): 365-421. -------- . 1934. Sky-Bearers: Colors and Directions in Maya and Mexican Religion. CIW Publication 436. -------- . 1935. Maya Chronology: The Correlation Question. CIW Publication 456. -------- . 1938. Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Reports on the Choi Mayas. AA 40:584-604. -------- . 1939a. Excavations at San Jose, British Honduras. CIW Publication 506. -------- . 1939b. The Moon Goddess in Middle America. CIW Publication 509. -------- . 1941. Dating o f Certain Inscriptions o f Non-Maya Origin. CIW Theoretical Approaches to Problems, no. 1. -------- . 1942. Maya Arithmetic. CIW Publication 528. -------- . 1943. Some Sculptures from Southeastern Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. CIW NMA, no. 17. -------- . 1944. The Fish as a Maya Symbol for Counting and Further Discussion o f Directional Glyphs. CIW Theoretical Approaches to Problems, no. 2. -------- . 1946. Some Uses of Tobacco among the Maya. CIW NM A, no. 61. -------- . 1948. An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Cotzumalhuapa Region, Escuintla, Guatemala. CIW Publication 574. -------- . 1950. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction. CIW Publication 589. Reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, i960 and 1971. -------- . 1952. Waxen Idols and a Sacrificial Rite of the Lacandon. CIW NMA, no. 109. -------- . 1 9 5 3 *Review of La antigua escritura de los pueblos de América Central by Y. V. Knorozov. Yan: Ciencias Antropológicas , 2:174—78. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones Antropológicas de México.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
---------• I 954- A Presumed Residence o f N obility at Mayapan. CIW Current Reports, Department of Archaeology, no. 19. ---------. 1958. Thomas Gage's Travels in the N ew World. Ed. J. E. S. Thompson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1959* Systems of Hieroglyphic Writing in Middle America and Methods of Deciphering Them. AAnt 24:349-64. ---------. 1962. A Catalog o f Maya Hieroglyphs. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1965a. Archaeological Synthesis of the Southern Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 2:331-59. ---------. 1965b. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. In HMAI 3:632-58. ---------. 1966. The Rise and Fall o f Maya Civilization. 2nd ed., rev. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1970. Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. ---------. 1972. A Commentary on the Dresden Codex. American Philosophical Society Memoir 93. ---------. 1973. Maya Rulers of the Classic Period and the Divine Right of Kings. In The Iconography o f Middle American Sculpture. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ---------. 1974. “Canals’* of the Rio Candelaria Basin, Campeche, Mexico. In Hammond 1974b, 297302. ---------. 1975. The Grolier Codex. UCARF Contribution 27:1-9. Thompson, J. E. S, H. E. D. Pollock, and J. Chariot. 1932. A Preliminary Study o f the Ruins o f Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico. CIW Publication 424. Thompson, R. H. 1958. M odem Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for Ameri can Archaeology, no. 15. Salt Lake City. Tiesler Bios, V. 2002. Un caso de decapitación prehispánica de Calakmul, Campeche. Antropología Física Latinomericana 3:129-42. Tiesler Bios, V., R. Cobos, and M. Greene, eds. 2002. La organización social entre los mayas prehis pánicos, colonials y modernos: Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. México: INAH. Toscano, S. 1944. Arte precolombino de México y de la América Central. Mexico City: Universidad Na cional Autónoma de México. Totten, G. O. 1926. Maya Architecture. Washington, DC: Maya Press. Tourtellot, G. 1970. The Peripheries of Seibal: An Interim Report. PMAE Papers 61:405-21. ---------. 1983. An Assessment of Classic Maya Household Composition. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983, 3 5 - 54 ---------. 1988a. Developmental Cycles of Households and Houses at Seibal. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 97-120. ---------. 1988b. Peripheral Survey and Excavation Settlement and Community Patterns. Excavations at Seibal, Department o f Peten, Guatemala , ed. G. R. Willey. PMAE Memoirs 16. ---------. 1990. Population Estimates for Preclassic and Classic Seibal, Peten. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 83-102. ---------. 1994. More Light on La Milpa: Maya Settlement Archaeology in Northwestern Belize. Mexicon 16:119-24. Tourtellot, G., A. Clarke, and N. Hammond. 1993. Mapping La Milpa: A Maya City in Northwestern Belize. Antiquity 67:96-108. Tourtellot, G., F. Estrada Belli, J. J. Rose, and N. Hammond. 2003. Late Classic Maya Heterarchy, Hi erarchy, and Landscape at La Milpa, Belize. In Scarborough, Valdez, and Dunning 2003, 37-51. Tourtellot, G., and J. J. González. 2004. The Last Hurrah: Continuity and Transformation at Seibal. In Demarest, Rice, and Rice 2004, 60-82. Tourtellot, G., F. M. Wolf, F. Estrada Belli, and N. Hammond. 2000. Discovery of Two Predicted An cient Maya Sites in Belize. Antiquity 74:481-82. Tourtellot, G., and J. A. Sabloff. 1972. Exchange Systems Among the Ancient Maya. AA 37:126-35. ---------. 1995. La antigua ciudad maya de Sayil. ArqM 2(11): 28-34. Tourtellot, G., J. A. Sabloff, and K. Carmean. 1989. Progress Report on the 1987 and 1988 Field Sea sons at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 9:12-15.
88l
882
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tourtellot, G., J. A. Sabloff, and M. P. Smyth. 1990- Room Counts and Population Estimation for Ter minal Classic Sayil in the Puuc Region, Yucatan, Mexico. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 245-61. Tozzer, A. M. 1907. A Comparative Study o f the Mayas and the Lacandones. Archaeological Institute of America. New York: Macmillan. -------- . 1911. A Preliminary Study o f the Prehistoric Ruins ofT ikal, Guatemala: A Report o f the Peabody Museum Expedition 1909-1910. PMAE Memoirs 5 (2). -------- . 1912. The Value of Ancient Mexican Manuscripts in the Study of the General Development of Writing. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1911: 493-506. -------- . 1913. A Preliminary Study o f the Prehistoric Ruins o f Nakum, Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 5 (3 )-------- . 1941. Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán. PMAE Papers 28. -------- . 1957. Chichen Itza and Its Cenote o f Sacrifice. PMAE Memoirs 11 and 12. Traxler, L. P. 1996. Los grupos de patios tempranos de la Acrópolis de Copan. Yaxkin 14:35-54. -------- . 2001. The Royal Court of Early Classic Copan. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2 :4 6 —73. ---------. 2003. At Court in Copan: Palace Groups of the Early Classic. In Christie 2003, 46 -6 8 . -------- . 2004. Redesigning Copan: Early Architecture of the Polity Center. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 65-83. Trejo, S., ed. 2000. La Guerra entre los Antiguos Mayas: Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. INAH and Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Mexico. Triadan, D. 2000. Elite Household Subsistence at Aguateca, Guatemala. Mayab 13:46~56. Triadan, D., and T. Inomata. 2004. What Did They Do and Where? Activity Areas and Residue Analy ses in Maya Archaeology. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 243-55. Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History o f Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -------- . 1992. Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior. World Archaeology 22 (2): 119-32. -------- . 1993. Marxism in Contemporary Western Archaeology. Archaeological M ethod and Theory 5:159-200. Trik, A. S. 1939. Temple X X XII at Copan. CIW Publication 509. -------- . 1963. The Splendid Tomb of Temple I, Tikal, Guatemala. Expedition 6(1): 2-18. Trik, H., and M. E. Kämpen. 1983. The Graffiti ofT ikal. Tikal Report, no. 33. UPM. Turner, B. L. 1974. Prehistoric Intensive Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Science 185:118-24. ---------. 1978a. The Development and Demise of the Swidden Thesis. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 13-22. -------- . 1978b. Ancient Agricultural Land Use in the Central Maya Lowlands. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 163-83. -------- . 1983. Once Beneath the Forest: Prehistoric Terracing in the Rio Bee Region o f the Maya L ow lands. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. -------- . 1990. Population Reconstruction of the Central Maya Lowlands: 1000 b . c . to a . d . 1500. In Culbert and Rice 1990, 301-24. Turner, B. L., and P. D. Harrison. 1978. Implications from Agriculture for Maya Prehistory. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 337-73. -------- , eds. 1983. Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat, Agriculture , and Settlement in Northern Belize. Austin: University of Texas Press. Turner, E. S., N. I. Turner, and R. E. W. Adams. 1981. Volumetric Assessment, Rank Ordering and Maya Civic Centers. In Ashmore 1981b, 71-88. Ucko, P. J., R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, eds. 1972. Mant Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth. Urban, P. A. 1978. An Analysis of Mammalian Fauna from Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala. Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Urban, P. A., and E. M. Schortman, eds. 1986. The Southeast Maya Periphery. Austin: University of Texas Press. -------- . 1988. The Southeast Zone Viewed from the East: Lower Motagua-Naco Valleys. In Boone and Willey 1988, 223-67.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Urban, P. A., E. M. Schortman, and M. Ausec. zoo2. Power without Bounds? Middle Preclassic Politial Developments in the Naco Valley, Honduras. LAA 13:131-52. Urcid S., J. 2001. Zapotee Hieroglyphic Writing. DO Vail, G. 2000. Pre-Hispanic Maya Religion: Conceptions of Divinity in the Postclassic Maya Codices. AM 11:123-47. ---------. 2002. Haab’ Rituals in the Maya Codices and the Structure of Maya Almanacs. RRAMW 53. Vail, G., V. R. Bricker, A. F. Aveni, H. M. Bricker, J. F. Chuchiak, C. L. Hernández, B. R. Just, M. J. Macri, and M. Paxton. 2003. New Perspectives on the Madrid Codex. CA 44 (suppl.): 105-112. Vaillant, G. C. 1935. Chronology and Stratigraphy in the Maya Area. Maya Research 2:119-43. Valdés, J. A. 1986. Uaxactun: Recientes investigaciones. Mexicon 7 (6): 125-28. ---------. 1988. Los mascarones preclásicos de Uaxactún: El caso del Grupo H. In Primer Simposio Mundial sobre Epigrafía Maya , 165-81. Guatemala: Associacíon Tikal. ---------. 1989. El Grupo H de Uaxactun: Evidencias de un centro de poder durante el preclásico. In Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Internacional de Mayistas, ed. Mercedes de la Garza et al., 60324. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ---------. 1997- Tamarindito: Archaeology and Regional Politics in the Petexbatun Region. AM 8:32135---------. 1998. Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala: Descubrimientos recientes sobre poder y manejo hidráulico. In Memorias del Tercer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, 752-70. Mexico City: Universidad Na cional Autónoma de México. ---------. 2001. Palaces and Thrones Tied to the Destiny of the Royal Courts in the Maya Lowlands. In Inomata and Houston 2001, 2:138-64. Valdés, J. A., and F. Fahsen. 1995. The Reigning Dynasty of Uaxactun during the Early Classic: The Rulers and the Ruled. AM 6:197-219. Valdés, J. A., F. Fahsen, and G. Muñoz Cosme. 1997. Estela 40 de Tikal: Hallazgo y lectura. IDAEH y Agencia Española de Cooperación International. Valdés, J. A., and D. Fernandez. 1999. Período clásico en las tierras bajas de Petén. In H GG 1:351-64. Valdés, J. A., and J. Kaplan. 2000. Ground-penetrating Radar at the Maya Site of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. JFA 27:329-42. Valdés, J. A., and L. E. Wright. 2004. The Early Classic and Its Antecedents at Kaminaljuyu: A Com plex Society with Complex Problems. In Bell, Canuto, and Sharer 2004, 337-55. Van der Merwe, N. J., R. K. Tykot, N. Hammond, and K. Oakberg. 2000. Diet and Animal Husbandry of the Preclassic Maya at Cuello, Belize: Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Evidence. In Biogeochemical Approaches to Paleodietary Analysis, ed. S. H. Ambrose and M. A. Katzenberg, 23-38. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Varela T., C., and G. E. Braswell. 2003. Teotihuacan at Oxkintok: New Perspectives from Yucatan. In Braswell 2003e, 249-71. Vargas, E. 2001. Itzamkanac y Acalan: Tiempos de crisis anticipando el futuro. Mexico City: Universi dad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. Vargas de la Peña, L., and V. R. Castillo B. 2001. Hallazgos recientes en Ek Balam. Mexicon 23:55-56. Velázquez V., R. 1980. Recent Discoveries in the Caves of Loltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 2:53-55. Velázquez V., and A. García B. 2002. Descubrimientos en Oxkintok, Yucatan; la Estructura 2 del Grupo Ah Canul: Un mausoleo. In Tiesler Bios, Cobos, and Greene 2002,1:459-80. Viel, R. 1993. Evolución de la Cerámica de Copan, Honduras. Tegucugalpa: IHAH. ---------. 1999. The Pectorals of Altar Q and Structure 11: An Interpretation of the Political Organization at Copan, Honduras. LAA 10:377-99. Villacorta, J. A., and C. A. Villacorta. 1927. Arqueología guatemalteca. Guatemala: Tipografía Nacional. ---------. 1933. Códices mayas reproducidos y desarrollados. Guatemala: Tipografía Nacional. Villagra, A. 1949. Bonampak, la ciudad de los muros pintados. INAH Anales 3 (suppl.). Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, J. de. 1933. Historia de la conquista de la provincia de el Itzá. Guatemala: Biblioteca Goathemala.
883
884
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------- . 1983. History o f the Conquest o f the Province o f the Itzas. Trans. R. D. Wood. Ed. F. E. Comparato. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos. Villa Rojas, A. 1934. The Yaxuna-Coba Causeway. CIW Publication 436. Vitelli, K., ed. 1996. Archaeological Ethics. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Vlcek, D. T. 1978. Muros de delimitación residencial en Chunchucmil. ECAUY Boletín 5 (28): 55—64. Vlcek, D. T., and W. L. Fash. 1986. Survey in the Outlying Areas of the Copán Region, and the CopanQuirigua “Connection.” In Urban and Schortman 1986,102-13. Vlcek, D. T., S. García de González, and E. B. Kurjack. 1978. Contemporary Farming and Ancient Maya Settlements: Some Disconcerting Evidence. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 211-23. Vogt, E. Z. 1961. Some Aspects of Zinacantan Settlement Patterns and Ceremonial Organization. ECM 1:131-45. -------- . 1964a. Ancient Maya and Contemporary Tzotzil Cosmology: A Comment on Some Method ological Problems. AAnt 30:192-95. -------- . 1964b. Some Implications of Zinacantan Social Structure for the Study of the Ancient Maya. 35th ICA Actas 1:307-19. -------- . 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands o f Chiapas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. -------- . 1983. Ancient and Contemporary Maya Settlement Patterns: A New Look from the Chiapas Highlands. In Vogt and Leventhal 1983, 89-114. Vogt, E. Z., and R. M. Leventhal, eds. 1983. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in H onor o f Gor don R. Willey. Cambridge, MA: PMAE and University of New Mexico Press. Von Euw, E. 1977. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 4, pt. 1, Itzimte, Pixoy , Tzum. PMAE. -------- . 1978. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 5, pt. 1, Xultun. PMAE. -------- . 1984. Corpus o f Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Vol. 5, pt. 2, Xultun , La Honradez3 Uaxactun. PMAE. Von Hagen, V. 1944. The Aztec and Maya Papermakers. New York: Augustin. Voorhies, B. 1976. The Chantuto People: An Archaic Period Society o f the Chiapas Littoral, Mexico , NWAF Papers, no. 41. -------- . 1982. An Ecological Model of the Early Maya of the Central Lowlands. In Flannery 1982, 65- 95-------- , ed. 1989. Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies o f the Soconusco Region o f Mesoamerica. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. -------- . 1996. The Transformation from Foraging to Farming in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Fedick 1996,17-29. Voorhies, B., D. J. Kennet, J. G. Jones, and T. A. Wake. 2002. A Middle Archaic Archaeological Site on the West Coast of Mexico. LAA 13:179-200. Voss, A. W. 2001. Astronomy and Mathematics. In Grube 2001a, 130-43. Wagley, C. 1949. The Social and Religious Life o f a Guatemalan Village. AA Memoir, no. 71. Wagner, E. 1995. The Dates of the High Priest Grave (“Osario”) Inscription, Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 17:10-13. -------- . 2001. Jade: The Green Gold of the Maya. In Grube 2001a, 66-69. Wagner, P. L. 1964. Natural Vegetation of Middle America. In H M A l 1:216-64. Wallace, D. T. 1977. An Intra-Site Locational Analysis of Utatlan: The Structure of an Urban Site. In Wallace and Carmack 1977, 20-54. Wallace, D. T., and R. M. Carmack, eds. 1977. Archaeology and Ethnohistory o f the Central Quiche. IMS Publication, no. 1. Walters, G. R. 1980. A Summary of the Preliminary Results of the 1979 San Augustin Acasaguastlan Archaeological Project. Mexicon 2:55-56. Wanyerka, P. 1996. The Carved Monuments of Uxbenka, Toledo District, Belize. Mexicon 18:29-3 6. Ward, W. C., A. E. Weidie, and W. Back. 1985. Geology and Hydrogeology o f the Yucatan and Quater nary Geology o f Northeastern Yucatan Peninsula. New Orleans: New Orleans Geological Society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Warren, B. W. 1961. The Archaeological Sequence at Chiapa de Corzo. In Los Mayas del sur y sus rela ciones con los Nahuas meridionales. Mexico City: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Warren, K. B., and J. E. Jackson, eds. 1002. Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Watanabe, J. M. 1983. In the World of the Sun: A Cognitive Model of Mayan Cosmology. Man 18:710-28. ---------. 1992. Maya Saints and Souls in a Changing World. Austin: University of Texas Press. Wauchope, R. 1934. House Mounds o f Uaxactun, Guatemala. CIW Publication 436. -------- . 1938. M odem Maya Houses. CIW Publication 502. ---------. 1948. Excavations at Zacualpa, Guatemala. MARI Publication 14. ---------. 1949. Las edades de Utatlán e Iximché. Antropología e Historia de Guatemala 1:10-22. ---------. 1962. Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---------, ed. 1964-76. Handbook o f Middle American Indians. Vols. 1-16. Austin: University of Texas Press. ---------. 1965. They Found the Buried Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---------. 1970. Protohistoric Pottery of the Guatemalan Highlands. PMAE Papers 61:89-244. ---------. 1975. Zacualpa, El Quiche, Guatemala. An Ancient Provincial Center o f the Highland Maya. MARI Publication 39. Wauchope, R., and M. N. Bond. 1989. Archaeological Investigations in the Department ofjutiapa, Guatemala. MARI Publication 55. Webb, M. 1973- The Peten Maya Decline Viewed in the Perspective of State Formation. In Culbert 1973» 367-404Webster, D. 1976. Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, Mexico. MARI Publication 41. ---------. 1977. Warfare and the Evolution of Maya Civilization. In Adams 1977, 335-71. ---------. 1979. Three Walled Sites of the Northern Maya Lowlands. JFA 5:375-90. ---------. 1988. Copan as a Classic Maya Center. In Boone and Willey 1988, 5-30. ---------, ed. 1989. The House o f the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. DO. ---------. 2000. The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War. Journal o f World Prehistory 14 (1): 65-119. ---------. 2002. The Fall o f the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery o f the Maya Collapse. New York: Thames and Hudson. Webster, D., B. Fash, R. Widmer, and S. Zeleznik. 1998. The Skyband Group: Investigation of a Classic Maya Elite Residential Compound at Copan, Honduras. JFA 25:319-43. Webster, D., and A. C. Freier. 1990a. Settlement History and the Classic Collapse at Copan: A Redefined Chronological Perspective. LA A 1: 66-85. — ------. 1990b. The Demography of Late Classic Copan. In Culbert and Rice 1990: 37-61. Webster, D., A. Fréter, and N. Gonlin. 2000. Copan: The Rise and Fall o f an Ancient Maya Kingdom. Orlando: Harcourt Brace. Webster, D., and N. Gonlin. 1988. Household Remains of the Humblest Maya. JFA 15: 169-90. Webster, D., and W. T. Sanders. 2001. The Ancient Mesoamerican City: Theory and Concept. In Ciu dad R., Iglesias Ponce de León, and del Carmen Martínez M. 2001, 34-64. Webster, D., W. T. Sanders, and P. van Rossum. 1992. A Simulation of Copan Population History and its Implications. AM 3:185-97. Weeks, J. M. 1983. Chisalin: A Late Postclassic Maya Settlement in Highland Guatemala. BAR 169. ---------. 1988. Residential and Local Group Organization in the Maya Lowlands of Southwestern Campeche, Mexico: The Early Seventeenth Century. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 73-96. ---------. 1997. Maya Civilization 1990-1995: A Bibliographic Guide. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos. ---------, ed. 2001. The Past and Present Maya: Essays in Honor o f Robert M. Carmack. Lancaster: Labyrinthos. ---------. 2002. Maya Civilization 1996-2000: A Bibliographic Guide. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos. West, G. 2002. Ceramic Exchange in the Late Classic and Postclassic Maya Lowlands: A Diachronic Approach. In Masson and Freidel 2002,140-96.
885
886
BIBLIOGRAPHY
West, R. C. 1964. Surface Configuration and Associated Geology of Middle America. In HMAI 1 :3 3 83. Wetherington, R. K., ed. 1978. The Ceramics o f Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Pennsylvania State University Press Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu. University Park. Wheaton, T. R. 1976. La cerámica clásica del área de Huejotzingo, Puebla. Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala Comunicaciones 13:25-31. White, C. D., ed. 1999. Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. White, C. D., P. F. Healy, and H. P. Schwarcz. 1993- Intensive Agriculture, Social Status, and Maya Diet at Pacbitun, Belize. JAR 4 9 : 3 4 7 - 7 5 White, C. D., D. M. Pendergast, F. J. Longstaffe, and K. R. Law. 2001. Social Complexity and Food Systems at Altun Ha, Belize: The Isotopic Evidence. LAA 12:371-93. Whidey, D. S., and M. P. Beaudry, eds. 1989. Investigaciones arqueológicas en la costa sur de Guatemala. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology Monograph 31. Whittington, S. L., and D. M. Reed, eds. 1997. Bones o f the Maya: Studies o f Ancient Skeletons. Wash ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Whorf, B. J. 1933. The Phonetic Value o f Certain Characters in Maya Writing. PMAE Papers 13 (2). -------- . 1942. Decipherment of the Linguistic Portion of the Maya Hieroglyphs. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1941: 479-502. Wilcox , D. R., and V. L. Scarborough, eds. 1991. The Mesoamerican Ballgame. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Wilford, J. N. 2003. Ancient Maya Altar Retaken from Looters in Guatemala. N ew York Times Inter national, October 30, p. A10. Wilk, R. R. 1988. Maya Household Organization: Evidence and Analogies. In Wilk and Ashmore 1988, 135-51. Wilk, R. R., and W. Ashmore, eds. 1988. Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Albu querque: University of New Mexico Press. Wilkerson, T. A. H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge. Wilkin, G. C. 1971. Food Producing Systems Available to the Ancient Maya. AA nt 36: 432-48. Willcox, H. 1954. Removal and Restoration of the Monuments of Caracol. UM Bulletin 18 (1-2): 4 6 7 1* Willey, G. R., ed. 1956a. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the N ew World. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 23. New York. -------- . 1972. The Artifacts o f Altar de Sacrificios. PMAE Papers 64 (1). -------- . 1973. The Altar de Sacrificios Excavation, General Summary and Conclusions. PMAE Papers 64 (3 )-------- . 1974. The Classic Maya Hiatus: A Rehearsal for the Collapse? In Hammond 1974b, 417—44. -------- , ed. 1975. Excavations at Seibal, Department o f Peten, Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 13(1, 2). -------- . 1977. The Rise of Maya Civilization: A Summary View. In Adams 1977, 383—423. -------- , ed. 1978. Excavations a t Seibal, Department o f Peten Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 14 (1-3). -------- . 1980. Towards a Holistic View of Ancient Maya Civilization. Man 15:249-66. -------- . 1981. Maya Lowland Settlement Patterns: A Summary Review. In Ashmore 1981b, 385-415. -------- . 1982a. Maya Archaeology. Science 215:260-67. -------- , ed. 1982b. Excavations at Seibal, Department o f Peten, Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 15 (1, 2). -------- . 1986. The Postclassic of the Maya Lowlands: A Preliminary Overview. In Sabloff and Andrews 1986,17-51. -------- . 1987. Changing Conceptions of Lowland Maya Culture History. In Essays in Maya Archaeol ogy, by G. R. Willey, 189-207. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. -------- , ed. 1990. Excavations at Seibal, Department o f Peten, Guatemala. PMAE Memoirs 17 (1-4). -------- . 1991. Horizontal Integration and Regional Diversity: An Alternating Process in the Rise of Civ ilizations. AAnt 56: 197-215. Willey, G. R., and W. R. Bullard Jr. 1965. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Maya Lowlands. In HMAI 2:360-77.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Willey, G. R., W. R. Bullard Jr., J. B. Glass, and J. C. Gifford. 1965. Prehistoric Maya Settlements in the Belize Valley. PMAE Papers 54. Willey, G. R., T. P. Culbert, and R. E. W. Adams. 1967. Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. AAnt 32:289-315. Willey, G. R., and J. C. Gifford. 1961. Pottery of the Holmul I Style from Barton Ramie, British Hon duras. In Essays in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology , ed. S. K. Lothrop et al., 152-70. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Willey, G. R., and R. M. Leventhal. 1979. Prehistoric Settlement at Copan. In Hammond and Willey 19 7 9 » 7 5 - 1 0 ** Willey, G. R., R. M. Leventhal, and W. L. Fash Jr. 1978. Maya Settlement in the Copan Valley. A 31:32-43. Willey, G. R., R. M. Leventhal, A. A. Demarest, and W. L. Fash Jr. 1994. Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Papers of the PMAE, no. 80. PMAE. Willey, G. R., and P. Mathews, eds. 1985. A Consideration o f the Early Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands. IMS Publication 10. Willey, G. R., and P. Phillips. 1958. M ethod and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Willey, G. R., and J. A. Sabloff. 1993. A History o f American Archaeology. 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman. Willey, G. R., and D. B. Shimkin. 1973. The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In Culbert 1973, 457“ 502. Willey, G. R., and A. L. Smith. 1969. The Ruins o f Altar de Sacrificios, Department o f Peten, Guatemala: An Introduction. PMAE Papers 62 (1). Williams, S. 1991. Fantastic Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Willson, R. W. 1924. Astronomical Notes on the Maya Codices. PMAE Papers 6 (3). ---------. 1950. Materials on the Chorti Language. MCMCA, no. 28. Wilson, R. 1995. Maya Resurgence in Guatemala: Q ’eqchi Experiences. Norman: University of Okla homa Press. Wilson, S. M., H. B. Iceland, and T. R. Hester. 1998. Preceramic Connections between Yucatan and the Caribbean. LAA 9:342-52. Winfield Capitaine, F. 1988. La Estela i de La Mojarra, Veracruz, México. RRAMW, no. 16. Wing, E. S., and Scudder, S. J. 1991. The Ecology and Economy of Cuello: The Exploitation of Animals. In Hammond 1991, 84-97. Winters, H. D. 1955. Three Serpent Column Temples and Associated Platforms at Mayapan. CIW Cur rent Reports, Department of Archaeology, no. 32. Wiseman, F. M. 1978. Agricultural and Historical Ecology of the Maya Lowlands. In Harrison and Turner 1978, 63-115. Witkowski, S. R., and C. H. Brown. 1978. Mesoamerican: A Proposed Language Phylum. AA 80:94244. Wolf, E. R., ed. 1959. Sons o f the Shaking Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---------, ed. 1976. The Valley o f Mexico. SAR. Woodbury, R. B. 1965. Artifacts of the Guatemalan Highlands. In HMAI 2:163-79. Woodbury, R. B., and A. S. Trik. 1953. The Ruins o f Zaculeu, Guatemala. 2 vols. Richmond, VA: William Byrd Press. Woodward, M. R. 2000. Considering Household Food Security and Diet at the Classic Period Village of Ceren, El Salvador ( a . d . 600). Mayab 13:22-33. Wren, L. H., and P. Schmidt. 1991. Elite Interaction during the Terminal Classic Period: New Evidence from Glichen Itza. In Culbert 1991a, 199-225. Wren, L. H., P. Schmidt, and R. Krochock. 1989. The Great Ball Court Stone o f Chichen Itza. RRAMW, no. 25. Wright, L. E. 1997. Biological Perspectives on the Collapse of the Pasión Maya. AM 8:267-73. ---------. 2004. Osteological Investigations of Ancient Maya Lives. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 201I 5*
887
888
IBLIOGRAPHY
Wright, L. E., and H. P. Schwarcz. 1999. Correspondence between Stable Carbon, Oxygen and Nitro gen Isotopes in Human Tooth Enamel and Dentine: Infant Diets and Weaning at Kaminaljuyu. JAS 26:1159-70. Wright, L. E., and C. D. White. 1996. Human Biology in the Classic Maya Collapse: Evidence from Pa leopathology and Paleodiet. Journal o f World Prehistory 10:147-98. Wurster, W. W., ed. 2000. El Sitio Maya de Topoxte: Investigaciones en una isla del lago Yaxha, Peten, Guatemala Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Ximénez, F. 1929-31. Historia de la provincia de San Vicente de Chiapa y Guatemala. 3 vols. Guatemala: Sociedad de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala. Yadeun A., J. 1992. Tonina. Mexico City: Citibank. -------- . 1993. Tonina: El laberinto de inframundo. Tuxtla Guterrez: Estado de Chiapas. Yaeger, J. 2000. The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In Canuto and Yaeger 2000,123-42. -------- . 2003. Internal Complexity, Household Strategies of Affiliation, and the Changing Organization of Small Communities in the Upper Belize River Valley. In Iannone and Connell 2003, 43-58. Yaeger, J., and G. Borgstede. 2004. Professional Archaeology and the Modern Maya: A Historical Sketch. In Golden and Borgstede 2004, 259-85. Yaeger, J., and D. A. Hodell. Forthcoming. Climate-Culture-Environment Interactions and the Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. In El Niño , Catastrophism, and Culture Change in Ancient America , ed. D. H. Sandweiss and J. Quilter. DO. Yanez-Bamuevo, G., and A. Ciudad R., eds. 1990. Los Mayas: El esplendor de una civilización. Madrid: Turner Libros, S.A. Yoffee, N. 1991. Maya Elite Interaction: Through a Glass, Sideways. In Culbert 1991a, 285-310. Yoffee, N., and G. L. Cowgill, eds. 1988. The Collapse o f Ancient States and Civilizations. Tucson: Uni versity of Arizona Press. Zeitlin, R. N., and J. F. Zeitlin. 2000: The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica. In The Cambridge History o f the Native Peoples o f the Americas, ed. R. E. W. Adams and M. J. MacLeod, 45-121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimmermann, G. 1956. Die Hieroglyphen der Maya Handschriften. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter.
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS Sources cited by author and date are given in the Bibliography. The following abbreviations are used for frequently cited sources: CIW
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC
CMR
Center for Maya Research, Barnardsville, NC
EC
Estudio Cámara, Mérida, Yucatán, México
ECAP
Early Copan Acropolis Program, UPM (Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia)
FG
Fotografía Guerra, Mérida, Yucatán, México
INAH
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, DF
MARI
Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans
NGS
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC
PAAC
Proyecto Arqueológico Acrópolis Copan (Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia)
PM
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
TAM
The Ancient Maya , 3rd edition (Morley & Brainerd 1956)
TP
Tikal Project, UPM
UPM
The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia
Frontispiece: American Museum of Natural History. Introduction 1.1, I.2: R. J. Sharer; I.3: (above) TP; (below) O. Imboden, courtesy of G. E. Stuart, CMR; pp. I.4, I.5: R. J. Sharer; 1.6: G. G. Healey; I.7: F. R. Morley; 1.8: (top four) F. R. Morley; (lower left) R. J. Sharer; I.9: B. Reyes; 1.10: R. J. Sharer; I.11: J. Hairs; 1.12: C. Jones, TP (neg. #65-43-705); (below) J. Hairs. Chapter 1 1.1: map drawn by W. Nelson; 1.2: map drawn by C. P. Beetz, after Fox 1978; 1.3: classification follows that in Fox 1978; 1.4-6: maps prepared by C. P. Beetz; 1.7: courtesy of W. Ashmore; 1.8: R. Eichenberger; 1.9: courtesy of Payson Sheets, Proyecto Cerén; 1.10: R. J. Sharer, UPM Verapaz Project; 1.11: CIW; 1.12: W. R. Coe, TP; 1.13: TAM; 1.14: C. O. Lundell; 1.15: R. A. Hedlund; 1.16: E. Palma Losa; 1.17: EC. Chapter 2 2.1: ECAP, prepared by L. P. Traxler; 2.2: del Rio 1822; 2.3: Maudslay 1889-1902, vol. II, plate 40; 2.4: R. J. Sharer; 2.5: courtesy of A. A. Demarest, Proyecto Cancuen. Chapter 3 3.1-5: TAM; 3.6: drawing by C. P. Beetz; 3.7-12: TAM; 3.13: drawings by S. Martin, after Miller & Martin 2004: fig. 42; 3.14: TAM; 3.15: Museum Library, UPM; 3.16-17: drawings by C. P. Beetz, after originals by J. A. Fox; 3.18: drawings by S. Martin, after Miller & Mar tin 2004: fig. 32; 3.19: from Tozzer 1941, by permission of PM; 3.20: after Grube 2001:
890
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS
fig. 189; 3.21: drawings by C. P. Beetz, after originals by J. A. Fox; 3.22: R. J. Sharer; 3.23: TAM; 3.24: drawings by S. Martin, after Miller & Martin 2004: figs. 2,10,12; 3.25: courtesy of S. Martin. Chapter 4 4.1: after Grube 2001: fig. 32; 4.2: drawings by José Espinoza, courtesy of W. L. Fash; 4.3: W. R. Rust, Proyecto La Venta; 4.4: R. J. Sharer, Chalchuapa Project; 4.5: courtesy J. Marcus. Chapter 5 5.1: R. J. Sharer; 5.2-5: courtesy of M. Love; 5.6: J. A. Graham, Abaj Takalik Project; 5.7: courtesy of Juan Antonio Valdés; 5.8: courtesy of J. Kaplan; 5.9: R. J. Sharer, UPM Verapaz Project; 5.10: D. W. Sedat, UPM Verapaz Project; 5.11: courtesy of N. Hammond; 5.12: cour tesy of Patricia A. McAnany; 5.13-15: courtesy of J. Garber; 5.16-17: R. D. Hansen, Re gional Archeological Investigation of the North Peten, Guatemala (UCLA); 5.18-19: TAM. Chapter 6 6.1: courtesy of G. E. Stuart, CMR; 6.2: Smithsonian Institution; 6.3: NGS; 6.4: after fig. 1, Lowe, Lee & Martinez 1982, by permission of the New World Archaeological Foundation; 6.5: after plate 202, Greene, Rands & Graham 1972, by permission; 6.6: R. J. Sharer, first published as fig. 5.4, p. 152, in Fundamentals o f Archaeology (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings, 1979), by permission; 6.7: drawing by J. A. Porter, by permission; 6.8: after fig. 15, Shook & Kidder 1952, by permission of CIW; 6.9-10: J. A. Graham, Abaj Takalik Project; 6.11: courtesy of J. Kaplan; 6.12: UPM; 6.13: courtesy of J. Kaplan; 6.14: drawing by W. R. Coe, Chalchuapa Project; 6.15: drawing by C. P. Beetz, Verapaz Project; 6.16: (above) UM, (right) J. A. Graham, Abaj Takalik Project, (below) W. R. Coe, TP; 6.17: PM; 6.18: R. T. Matheny, El Mirador Project; 6.19: drawing by T. W. Rutledge, after Hansen 1990; 6.20: R. T. Matheny, El Mirador Project; 6.21: R. D. Hansen, Regional Archeological Investigation of the North Peten, Guatemala (UCLA); 6.22: D. M. Pendergast, Lamanai Project; 6.23: R. Velazquez V, Proyecto Loltun; 6.24-25: courtesy of W. Saturno, Proyecto San Bartolo; 6.26-27: courtesy of D. A. Freidel, Cerros Project; 6.28: (left) after fig. 1, Gibson, Shaw & Finamore 1986; (right) after fig. 3.1, Elizabeth P. Benson, Maya Iconography, © 1988 Prince ton University Press, reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press; 6.29-30: CIW; 6.31: after Valdés 1988; 6.32-34: courtesy of E. Wyllys Andrews, MARI; 6.35-36: R. J. Sharer; 6.37: (above left) after Kidder et al. 1946: fig. I74d; (above right) W. R. Coe, TP; (be low) J. W. Ball, Becan Project. Chapter 7 7.1: TP (neg. #61-5-5); 7*2: O. Imboden, courtesy of G. E. Stuart, CMR; 7.3-4: W. R. Coe, TP (negs. #62-4-590 and 67-5-113); 7.5: W. R. Coe, TP; 7.6: (drawings) after Jones 8c Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; (photos) W. R. Coe, TP; 7.7: courtesy of J. P. Laporte, Proyecto Mundo Perdido (Tikal); 7.8: after Jones 8c Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; 7.9: TP; 7.10: CIW; 7.11: TAM; 7.12: CIW; 7.13: TAM; 7-14-15: Rio Azul Project, courtesy R. E. W. Adams; 7.16-17: (photos) TP; (drawings) after Jones 8c Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; 7.18: W. R. Coe, TP (neg. #61-4-267); 7.19: PAAC, courtesy of W. L. Fash; 7.20: PM; 7.21-22: R. J. Sharer, ECAP; 7.23: D. W. Sedat, ECAP; 7.24: drawing by
ILLUSTRATION CREDITS
B. W. Fash, PAAC; 7.25: D. W. Sedat, ECAP; 7.26: R. J. Sharer, ECAP; 7.27: ECAP, photo courtesy of K. Garrett; 7.28: R. Larios and R. J. Sharer, ECAP; 7.29: L. P. Traxler, ECAP; 7.30: School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; 7.31: C. P. Beetz, UPM Quirigua Project; 7.32: courtesy of J. Marcus and W. J. Folan; 7.33: courtesy of Caracol Archaeological Project (Arlen and Diane Chase); 7.34: drawing by S. D. Houston, courtesy of Caracol Archaeological Proj ect (Arlen and Diane Chase); 7.35: courtesy of Caracol Archaeological Project (Arlen and Diane Chase); 7.36-38: after Jones & Satterthwaite 1982; by permission of UPM; 7.39: cour tesy J. W. Ball, Becan Project. Chapter 8 8.1: Proyecto Petexbatun, courtesy A. A. Demarest; 8.2: after figs, on pp. 2:63, 2 :5 5 ,1. Gra ham 1978 (copyright 1978 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, by permission); 8.3-4: after Jones & Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; 8.5-6: W. R. Coe, TP; 8.7: W. R. Coe, TP (neg. #73-5-782); 8.8: G. Holton, TP; 8.9: J. Hairs, TP (neg. #62-33-39); 8.1011: after Jones & Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; 8.12: R.J. Sharer; 8.13: Proyecto Petexbatun, courtesy A. A. Demarest; 8.14-17: courtesy T. Inomata; 8.18: Proyecto Petex batun, courtesy A. A. Demarest; 8.19: courtesy of J. Marcus and W. J. Folan; 8.20: after Beetz & Satterthwaite 1981, by permission of UPM; 8.21: TP (neg. #66-5-49); 8.22: W. R. Coe, TP (neg. #65-4-621); 8.23: after Jones & Satterthwaite 1982, by permission of UPM; 8.24: (up per and lower left, right) UPM, (center) Museo Nacional de Guatemala; 8.25-26: UPM; 8.2728: after figs, on pp. 3 :6 -7 , 3:53, 3:55, 3 :5 7 ,1. Graham 1979 (copyright 1979 by the Pres ident and Fellows of Harvard College, by permission); 8.29: PM; 8.30-31: after figs, on pp. 3 :1 3 ,3 :1 5 ,3 :1 7 , 3 :2 7 ,1. Graham 1979 (copyright 1979 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, by permission); 8.32-33: after figs. 1 and 3, Ruppert, Thompson & Proskouriakoff 1955, by permission of CIW; 8.34: O. Imboden, courtesy G. E. Stuart, CMR; 8.35: map drawn by Edwin Barnhart, Maya Exploration Center; 8.36: after Maudslay 1889-1902, vol. IV, plate 33; 8.37: S. Greco; 8.38-39: A. Ruz L.; 8.40: rubbing by M. Greene Robertson; 8.41: R. J. Sharer; 8.42-43: Museo Nacional de Antropología, México; 8.44: R. J. Sharer; 8.45: S. Martin; 8.46: Museo Nacional de Antropología, México; 8.47: courtesy of P. Math ews; 8.48-50 (left): R. J. Sharer; 8.50 (right): L. P. Traxler; 8.52-53: R. J. Sharer, UPM Quirigua Project; 8.54: R. J. Sharer; 8.55: M. J. Becker, Proyecto Arqueológico Copan; 8.56: R. J. Sharer; 8.57-58: D. M. Pendergast, Altun Ha Project. Chapter 9 9.1: photo by J. Yaeger, Xunantunich Archaeological Project; 9.2-4: courtesy of J. A. Sabloff, Seibal Project; 9.5: courtesy G. R. Willey, Seibal Project; 9.6: after Proskouriakoff 1946, p. 53, by permission of CIW; 9.7: courtesy J. W. Bail, Becan Project; 9.8-9: R. J. Sharer; 9.10-11: TAM; 9.12: UPM and Fairchild Aerial Surveys; 9.13: R. J. Sharer; 9.14-15: CIW; 9.16: EC; 9.17: CIW; 9.18: EC; 9.19-20: courtesy J. A. Sabloff, Sayil Project; 9.21: fig. 272 in Maya Cities: Placemaking and Urbanization by George Andrews, © 1975 by the University of Oklahoma Press, by permission of the publisher; 9.22-23: courtesy of E. W. Andrews V, MARI; 9.24: UPM; 9.25: R. J. Sharer; 9.26: CIW; 9.27: after Grube 2001: III; 9.28: UPM and Fairchild Aerial Surveys; 9.29: TAM; 9.30: R. J. Sharer; 9.31: CIW; 9.32: TAM; 9.33: R. J. Sharer; 9.34: EC; 9.35: R. J. Sharer; 9.36: TAM; 9.37: INAH; 9.38: R. J. Sharer; 9.39:
891
892.
I LLUSTRATION CREDITS
TAM; 9.40: CIW; 9.41: EC; 9.42: R. J. Sharer; 9.43: (upper photos) Museo Nacional de Antropología, México; (below) PM; 9.44: TAM; 9.45: courtesy A. P. Andrews, Isla Cerritos Project; 9.46: after plate 189, Greene, Rands & Graham 1972, by permission. Chapter 10 10.1: after map in Jones 1952; 10.2: courtesy of C. Peraza Lope, INAH; 10.3—4: photos by S. Milbrath, courtesy of C. Peraza Lope, INAH; 10.5: CIW; 10.6: courtesy of J. A. Sabloff, Cozumel Project; 10.7-8: A. G. Miller, Tancah Project; 10.9: UPM Library; 10.10-13: A. G. Miller, Tancah Project; 10.14: R. J. Sharer; 10.15: courtesy of D. T. Wallace, after Wallace & Carmack 1977; 10.16-18: R. J. Sharer. Chapter 11 11.1: TAM; 11.2: courtesy of Payson Sheets, Proyecto Cerén; 11.3: courtesy of Caracol Ar chaeological Project (Arlen and Diane Chase); 11.4: R. T. Matheny, Edzna Project; 11.5-6: B. L. Turner, Pulltrouser Swamp Project; 11.7: courtesy of the Royal Air Force; 11.8: A. H. Siemens, from fig. 4, Siemens & Pulsion 1972, by permission of the Society for American Ar chaeology; 11.9: courtesy of A. P. Andrews. Chapter 12 12.1-2: TAM; 12.3: (upper two) A. Galindo; (lower two) CIW; 12.4: TAM; 12.5: courtesy J. A. Sabloff, Sayil Project; 12.6: after fig. 4, Eaton 1975, by permission; 12.7-8: courtesy of Payson Sheets, Proyecto Cerén; 12.9: courtesy of W. A. Ashmore; 12.10: courtesy of Caracol Archaeological Project (Arlen and Diane Chase). Chapter 13 13.1: TAM; 13.2: G. G. Healey; 13.3-4: TAM; 13.5: drawings by S. Martin, after Miller & Martin 2004: figs. 14 and 33; 13.6: TAM; 13.7: courtesy R. Agurcia F., PAAC; 13.8: drawing by W. R. Coe, TP; 13.9-11: TAM. Color Plates 1: W. R. Coe, TP; 2: (a) ECAP, photo by J. Kerr; (b) R. J. Sharer, ECAP; (c) Museum Library, UPM; 3: (a) Museum Library, UPM; (b) courtesy of F. Estrada-Belli, Proyecto Holmul; 4 and 5 (a): courtesy of W. Saturno, Proyecto San Bartolo; 5 (b) and 6 (a): D. W. Sedat, ECAP; 6 (b) and 7: R. J. Sharer, ECAP; 8 (a, b): W. R. Coe, TP; (c) R. J. Sharer; 9 (a) M. Cuevas Garcia; (b) Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC; (c) after Gordon & Mason 1925-43: plate XXX; 10-15: courtesy of Mary Miller (copyright © 2001 Bonampak Documentation Project); 16 (a): R. J. Sharer; 16 (b): Museum Library, UPM.
INDEX Abandonment, 55, 56, 74, 293, 42 .3 >4 * 5 » 517, 549; Classic cities, 4, 74, 78, 301, 305, 320 ,3 2 6 -2 7 ,3 3 9 ,3 7 3 ,3 7 4 , 405, 408-09, 491, 495, 500, 503, 505, 507, 510» 518-19, 520, 524, 527, 545, 548, 5 5 4 , 5 56 , 569, 585, 589, 591, 655; Postclassic cities, 595, 596, 603, 617, 618, 655» 690; Preclassic cities, 186, 223, 236, 244, 253, 269, 277, 279-80, 286, 295, 549; rapid, 37-38, 405, 409-12, 635, 656, 680-81; regions, 56, 373,413,491, 503, 505, 510-12, 515, 518-20 Abrams, Elliot, 636 Abstinence, 673, 748, 749 Acalan, 528, 761, 762, 768, 773
Acanceh, 301 Accession, 139, 148, 299, 424, 425, 744, 747; Bonampak, 449; Calakmul, 360-61, 381, 413; Caracol, 363, 365-66; Copan, 336-38, 349; Dos Pilas, 384-85; Los Alacranes, 358; Naranjo, 380, 382-83; Palenque, 453, 459-60, 461, 462, 463, 469, 471, 472; Piedras Negras, 422-23, 424, 425, 427, 428; Quirigua, 482, 483; San Bar tolo, 747; Tikal, 3i i - 13, 3 *9 , 3 3 0, 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 , 3 9 0 , 391, 417; Tonina, 473, 474; Yaxchilan, 433-34, 436, 440, 441, 443, 447, 699. See also Inaugurations Achij (K’iche warriors), 717 Acropolis: Bonampak, 449; Copan, 68, 87, 180, 33435, 339-40, 342, 344, 34849, 351, 476, 477, 4 7 8 - 79, 488, 489, 637, 693, 699, 734; Lubaantun, 494; Nakum, 374; Piedras
Negras, 423, 425, 430; Quirigua, 353, 484, 486, 495; Tikal, 87, 252, 258, 259, 274, 302-03, 304, 3 0 5 -1 0 ,316-17,318,332, 3 3 3 , 362, 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 3 , 4 0 0 , 4 0 3 , 4 5 4 , 519, 695, 732; Tonina, 472; Yaxha, 375 Activity areas, 339, 500, 677, 678, 679 Adams, Richard E. W., 3 26, 327, 372, 654 Adaptations, 7, 10, 44, 50, 53, 55-56, 64-65, 71-72, S i82, 84, 125, 153, 158, 164, 176, 177, 224, 291-92, 506, 509, 520, 522, 527, 532, 551, 630, 637-38, 641, 649, 702, 705, 713 Adobe, 38, 83, 182, 193, 195, 197, 201, 228, 342, 348, 3 4 9 ,677 Adornment, 61, 88, 96, 177, 186, 203, 293, 350, 351, 409, 426, 465, 637, 669, 6 7 1 ,7 3 4
Aerial surveys, 210, 252, 647, 648, 705 Affixes, 134, 137, 138 African civilization, 6, 7, 67, 7ii Afterlife, 500, 730, 732, 733, 7 3 4 ,7 5 6
Agave (pulque), 50, 635, 645, 652, 680, 750 Aggrandizers, 76, 88, 160 Agricultural ceremonies, 161, 288,721,723 Agricultural methods, 11, 35, 40, 4 7 ,5 6 ,8 1 ,8 2 , 90,158, 159, 160, 162, 174, 191, 202, 203, 218, 231, 511, 512, 637, 639, 640, 641, 643, 644, 645, 647, 649, 651,672 Agriculture, 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 29, 3 *, 3 3 - 3 4 , 3 5 , 4°, 4 4 , 53, 56, 6 5 ,7 1 ,7 5 ,8 5 ,8 8 ,
98, 153, 154, 157-58, 159, 160, 161-63, 165, 168, 1 7 4-75, *77» 180, 196, 2 0 1-03, 2°7» * I 9, * 2 i, 241, 243, 252, 277, 281, 282,
284, 290, 295, 320, 364, 37 3 , 409, 476, 507, 508, 510, 512-13, 515-16, 517, 519, 520, 532, 533, 534, 545 , 549 , 550, 634, 635, 637, 638, 649, 651, 677,
680, 681, 684, 703, 710, 713-14, 721,723,730, 742, 745; extensive, 81, 82, 87, 639-43; intensive, 81-82, 90, 218, 279, 375, 509, 511, 514,530, 640, 643-48 Agua (volcano), 35, 36, 766 Aguada X’caamal, 532 Aguas Calientes, 409 Aguateca, 130, 146, 147, 300, 384,385,386, 405,406, 407, 409-12, 510, 555; causeway, 410; emblem glyph, 146-147; fortifi cations, 147, 405, 406, 409, 410, 510; palace, 300, 405, 409,410,411,412, 671; research, 405, 409, 411, 412, 634, 656, 671; stelae, 384, 385, 407. See also Petexbatun Region Aguilar, Gerónimo de, 758, 7 5 9 ,761 Agurcia F., Ricardo, 700 Ahk (turtle), 118,149 Ahkal Mo’ Naab’ I (Palenque ruler), 459, 460, 470, 471, 472 Ahkal Mo’ Naab’ II (Palenque ruler), 459, 460, 470, 471, 472 Ahuachapan basin, 36 Aj atanzahob (matchmakers), 676 Aj Balam (Tikal lord), 432, 433 Aj Bolon Haab’tal (Seibal ruler), 520,523, 524 Aj Canul (mercenaries), 602
894
i n d e x
Aj Canul (province), 769 Aj Chak Wayib’ K’utiim (sajal), 42 6 Aj chembal winikob (common ers), 709, 710 Aj Chikum Ek (deity), 736, 744 Aj Dzun Xiu (Mani ruler), 603, 604 Aj holpop (title), 709 Aj K’ak’ Chaak (deity), 436 Aj Kan Ek’ (title), 616 Aj kuch kabob (councilors), 709 Aj Naum Pat (Cozumel ruler), 767 Aj Ne* Ohl Mat (Palenque ruler), 459, 461 Aj po (affix), 298 Aj Took’ (Calakmul ruler), 361, 415 Aj tz’ib (scribe), 123 Aj Wosal (Naranjo Ruler 1), 358, 360, 380, 381, 382 Aj Xupan Xiu (priest), 601, 603 Aj Ziyah Xiu, 604 Ajaw (day), 104-05,107, 108, 110-13,114-15,152,363, 3 9 1 392 ., 5 0 9 589 596 597, 598, 599, 603, 726, 738, 7 4 5 , 7 5 4 -5 5 Ajaw (title), 23, 138, 140,14950, 263, 267, 272, 284, 298, ^99, 304, 305, 310, 312, 313, 33 6 , 3 38 , 341 - 4 *, 3 4 8 , 3 5 1 , 38 7 , 3 9 9 , 416, 430, 444, 482,483, 528, 671, 6 9 7 , 709, 7 3 8 ,7 5 5 Ajaw glyph, 263, 267, 304, 3 6 3 , 39 1 , 3 9 1 , 671 Ajaw K’iche (descent group), 717,718 Ajaw K’in (deity), 739. See also K’inich Ajaw Ajawab (K’iche elite), 426, 717, 718 Ajkan (K’iche ruler), 626 Ajmen (shaman), 710 Ajpop (K’iche title), 623, 626, 717,718, 765 Ajpop k’amha (K’iche title), 717,765 Akalche, 46
,
, , ,
Akatek Mayan, 25, 27 Ake, 301, 767 A1 k'ajol (K’iche commoners), 717 Alaminos, Anton de, 760 Alaska, 153 Alcohol, 21, 750, 751 Alexander the Great, 79 Alliances, 4, 91, 95,126, 634, 657, 700-02, 708, 712; Calakmul, 312, 360, 36162, 369-71, 3 7 4 - 7 5 , 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 381, 384, 3 8 7 , 391, 393,400, 405,415,483, 496, 509, 664, 701; eco nomic, 77, 86,179, 237, 282, 291, 292-93, 525, 567, 570, 609, 634, 657, 663, 675, 702, 704; Kaqchikel, 762-63, 765; marriage, 77, 95, 315, 387, 407-08, 42 5 26, 440, 447, 487, 695, 718; Mexica, 664; military, 94, 95, 312, 325, 360, 361-62, 369-71, 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 381, 384, 391, 407, 664, 700-01, 762-63, 765, 772; political, 9 4 ,137,193, 315, 361, 366, 369, 3 7 4 - 7 5 , 3 7 6 , 3 7 9 , 381, 4 1 5 , 5 15 , 55 5 , 55 9 , 5 6 7 , 663, 665, 701-02, 704; so cial, 77,179, 296, 675, 695, 704; Tikal, 325, 361, 369, 376, 664 Allspice, 42, 638, 645 Almanac, 102, 104, 107,108, 109, n o , 112, 123, 127, 128, 129, 135, 671, 726. See also Calendar Almehenob (elite), 709 Alphabetic writing, 137, 140, M i, 735 Alta Verapaz, 34, 35, 40, 41, 4 5 ,151 ,7 1 6 Altar de los Reyes, 262, 263 Altar de Sacrificios, 183, 206, 386, 407, 409, 435, 520, 519 Altars, 172, 235, 452, 672, 731, 752; Altar de los Reyes, 262, 263; Caracol, 361, 363, 365, 366, 370, 371, 415;
Chalcatzingo, 172; Copan, 131, 3 3 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 , 340, 341, 342, 347, 349, 351» 488, 489, 491, 694, 698; Dzibilchaltun, 550; El Cayo, 426; El Portón, 197, 199; Izapa, 228, 230; Kaminaljuyu, 232; Los Mángales, 201; Mayapan, 594, 595, 602, 603; Nakbe, 213; Naranjo, 380, 382; Piedras Negras, 421, 422, 423; Quirigua, 353,477,482, 494; Río Azul, 326, 327; Sayil, 546; Tak’alik Ab’aj, 239; Tikal, 305, 3 J 3, 391, 392, 395, 400, 403, 417, 418, 419; Tulum, 610; Uxmal, 537; Yaxchilan, 433, 434
Altun Ha, 129, 146, 492, 493 Alvarado, Pedro de, 37, 760, 762-66, 770 Amaranth, 647 Ambergris Caye, 521, 611, 612 Analysis, 17, 6 0 -61, 80, 83, 139, 151, 163, 183,193, 195, 219, 239, 244, 291, 3 4 6 , 3 4 7 , 511, 5 76 , 609, 638, 643, 678, 685,754 Ancestors, 11, 21, 51, 56, 66, 77,179, 206, 296, 603, 621, 6 9 5 , 7 3 3 , 7 4 5 , 7 5 6 ; royal, 89, 97, 146, 183, 221, 274, 1 8 5,197,310,317,329, 3 6 1 , 4 5 3 - 54 , 693,699, 700, 715, 734; veneration, 97, 171, 201, 206, 274, 391, 675, 693, 699-700, 7 2 6 17, 7 3 3 - 3 4 , 7 4 6 , 756 Andean area, 28, 70, 155, 156, 661 Andean civilization, 70 Anderson, A. H., 364 Andrews IV, E. Wyllys, 372, 55 ° Animal husbandry, 75, 637, 638, 651,742 Animal resources, 33, 42, 75, 122, 126,149, 154, 159, 163, 638-39, 651, 671, 726, 7 3 3 , 7 4 6 , 749
INDEX
Animal Skull (Tikal ruler), 312, 379
Annals o f the Cakchiquels, 124,
626, 765, 766 Anthropological archaeology, 61, 66, 72, 74 Anthropomorphic deities, 161, 72.0, 735 Antigua Guatemala, 36, 37, 162, 766, 773 Antiquities market, 17, 21 Aoyama, Kazuo, 633 Apotheosis, 453, 489, 732, 733, 7 3 4 »741 Apotheosis ceremonies, 733 Apron moldings, 212, 309 Aquatic resources, 375, 638 Arboriculture, 643, 645, 651 Archaeological data, 20, 57, 71-72, 114, 201, 305, 339» 364, 423, 631, 651, 690-91, 705 Archaeological evidence, 7, 17, 58, 64, 153-54, 156, 16869, 171, 175, 179, 185, 190, 201, 203, 220-21, 249, 251, 278, 292, 300, 322, 431, 486, 491, 500, 504, 506, 508, 514, 517, 519, 524, 529, 574, 579, 591, 602, 615, 618, 620, 647, 652, 656, 661, 714, 755 Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), 352 Archaeological record, 17, 21, 51 , 5 3 - 54 , 57 - 59 , 65, 67, 69, 71-76, 79, 84, 88, 96, 9 9 ,151» 155-56, 160, 17580, 280, 284, 286, 296, 310, 341,362,371,377, 407, 487, 500, 505, 509, 5 Ü -1 3 , 517, 527, 532» 585, 62.8, 651, 657, 675, 691 Archaeological research, 3,16, 1 8 ,3 1 ,4 4 ,5 5 , 57-61, 6369, 71-73, 7 4 , 7 8 , 83, 87, 92,95, 96-97, 163, 165, 178, 185, 194, 197, 242, 265, 275, 287, 294, 339, 407, 409, 424,431,455, 456, 505, 517, 52°, 531» 534» 589, 604, 605, 610,
611, 617, 641, 644, 651, 691 Architectural decoration, 183, 252, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 302, 309, 320, 362, PI. 3b, 5b, 6a, 7a; mo saics, 215, 218, 516, 531, 53 4 , 536, 5 3 7 , 540, 545 , 554, 563, 566, 595 Architectural planning, 478, 489 Architectural style, 74, 215, 3 0 3 , 3 3 9 , 3 7 3 , 4 5 2“ 53 , 4 9 4 , 5 3 0 - 3 3 , 5 36 , 540,580, 604, 704,713 Architecture. See Acropolis; Ball courts; Causeways; Corbelled vaults; Hieroglyphic stair ways; Houses; Masonry; Palaces; Shrines; Temples Arctic, 4 Arithmetic, 1, 4, 7 0 ,1 0 1 ,116 Arroyo, Barbara, 289 Art history, 99, 666, 690 Artifacts, 17, 20, 21, 37, 39, 42, 60, 61, 64, 120,130, 166, 176, 191, 194,195, 2° 3 , 22 3 , 24 9 , 2 5 I , 2 57 , 259, 261, 289, 290, 291, 296,321,423,471, 576, 584, 591, 619, 659, 666, 678, 680 Artisans, 1, 45, 84,130, 290, 4 4 4 , 653,656, 717 Artists, 21, 378, 610 Ashmore, Wendy, 516, 732 Asia, 7, 67, 74, 153,154, 695, 712, 714, 721 Astrology, 125 Astronomy, 4, 104, 114, 116, 118,119, 120,125,127, 135,136,137, 147, 3 2®, 3 7 4 , 4 24 , 564, 7 22 Asunción Mita, 3 5 Atitlan, 35, 36, 290, 619, 621, 765, 766. See also Chuitinamit Atjoltekat (K’iche artisans), 717 Atlantis, 4, 7, 58 Atlatl, 322, 323, 326, 545, 739, 740 Atzij winaq (speaker), 717
Austria, 127 Avendaño, Father Andres de, 7 7 4 , 7 7 5 , 776 Avocado, 28, 42, 645 Awakatek Mayan, 25, 27 Awe, Jaime, 516 Awilix (deity), 622, 623, 718 Axes, 37, 635, 636, 653, 656, 6 59 , 704, 754 Aztec, 5, 23, 33, 41, 107,109, 125,156, 600, 657, 664, 760. See also Mexica
Baak (bone, captive), 134, 145, 146,149 B’aakal, 456, 461. See also Palenque Bacalar, 51, 669, 773, 774 Backstrap loom, 9, 51 Bahía de Ascensión, 760 Bahía de Chetumal, 46, 265, 266, 285, 608, 610, 611, 615, 616 Bahía Espíritu Santo, 52 Baja Verapaz, 251, 590 Bajos, 4 6 -4 7 , 54-56, 81, 88, 201-03, 2 I8, 2.2.0, 302, 356, 380, 643, 648-50, 684, 686, 688, 703 Bakabs (deities), 727, 743 Baker, M. Louise, 429 Bak’tun (time unit), 7 8 ,1 0 2 03, n o - 1 2 , 311, 317, 326, 3 36 , 3 4 4 , 3 4 8 - 4 9 , 4 9 1 , 504 , 7 2« B’alaj Chan K’awiil (Dos Pilas ruler), 312, 360, 382, 383, 384,387,389, 403,405 Balakbal, 317, 358 Balam Nehn (Copan ruler), 33 6 , 3 3 7 , 341, 361, 365 Balam Quitze (K’iche ruler), 626 Balamku, 215 Balberta, 289, 290, 292 Balche, 750 Ball court markers, 214, 473, 488 Ball courts, 207, 214, 215, 261, 285, 298, 500, 677, 684, 704, 732; Blackman Eddy,
895
896
INDEX
207; Calakmul, 356; Caracol, 415; Cerros, 265; Chichen Itza, 74, 214, 560, 565» 567» 568, 569, 58o> 581; Colha, 654; Copan, 68, 3 3 4 , 3 3 5 , 340, 3 4 8 - 4 9 , 4 7 8 , 481, 488, 491; Dos Pilas, 408; Los Achiotes, 214, 215, 244; Lubaantun, 494; Nakbe, 212, 214, 261; Palenque, 452; Quirigua, 353; Sayil, 546; Seibal, 520; Tikal, 304, 395, 403; To nina, 473; Uxmal, 214, 536; Xibalba, 529, 530 Ball game, 42, 168, 214, 298, 580, 586, 729 Ball game ceremonies, 730, 731, 732 -, 751 Ball, Joseph, 696 Ballplayers, 214, 580, 729 Balsas River, 158 Band societies, 34, 154,155 Bar-and-dot numerals, 101, 224, 226-28, 246, 248, 317 Bark cloth, 637 Bark paper, 126,129, 224, 225, 227 Barnhart, Edwin, 456 Barra ceramics, 160 Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo, 550 Barrientos, Tomas, 428 Barter, 636 Barton Ramie, 95 Basalt, 36, 37, 46,158,177, 183, 195, 220, 633, 635, 657, 661 Basketry, 10, 41, 127, 635, 637, 651, 658 Bat K’awill (Naranjo ruler), 383 Batab (title), 709, 710 Baudez, Claude, 471 Bautista Poot, Juan, 13 Becan, 283, 288, 371-73, 3 7 5 , 521, 529-31, 686, 687, 689, 690 Becquelin, Pierre, 471 Beekeeping, 44, 594, 639 Beeswax, 604, 710 Beetz, Carl, 366 Beleheb Tzy (K’iche Ajpop k’amha), 765
Belize River, 95, 202, 207, 376, 380, 516, 517, 616, 689 Belize Valley, 95, 687, 690 Bells, 576, 599, 636, 742, 754, 769 Belma, 767 Ben (day), 104,105,108,109 Beringia (Bering land bridge), 153,154 Berlin, Heinrich, 137, 138,146 Bernoulli, Gustav, 87 Beyer, Hermann, 136 Bilbao, 245, 289, 584 Bird Claw (Tikal ruler), 312, 367 Bird Jaguar (Bonampak ruler), 433
Bird Jaguar I (Yaxchilan ruler), 433
Bird Jaguar II (Yaxchilan ruler), 431, 433, 44* Bird Jaguar IH (Yaxchilan ruler), 431, 4 3 3 , 4 3 4 , 441 Bird Jaguar IV (Yaxchilan ruler), 423, 431, 432, 433, 4 3 4 , 4 3 6 , 440, 441, 441, 4 4 3 , 4 4 4 , 4 4 5 , 446, 4 4 7 , 515, 699 Birds, 32, 33, 39,41,42, 51, 128, 159,184,191, 311, 443, 444, 4^6, 602, 638, 6 3 9 , 671, 710, 746 Birds (deities), 184, 191, 230, 4 5 3 , 4 5 4 , 469, 719, 738 Birth glyph, 134 B’ital, 366, 383, 415 Blackman Eddy, 206-10, 259, 317 Blake, Michael, 161 Blom, Franz, 78 Bloodletters, 177, 179, 202, 269, 426 Bloodletting (offerings), 37, 149, 190, 197, 257, 406, 4 3 ^ , 4 3 7 , 441,450,615, 746, 748 Blowguns, 28, 230, 638, 729 Bodleian Codex, 118, 120 Body modifications, 378, 668, 669, 672, 759 Boggs, Stanley H., 193 Bolles, J. S., 356
B'oion K’awiil (Calakmul ruler), 361,415 Bolon Tzakab (deity), 741 Bolontik’uh (deities), 730 Bonampak, 12, 433, 434, 4 4 7 , 448, 449-50, 45IÏ causeway, 449; lintels, 449; murals, 41, 51, 448, 449-50, 631, 634, 671, 723, PI. 10-15; stela, 12; Str. 1,448, 451 Bone artifacts, 130,146, 270, 303, 390, 399,411,413, 638, 744 Books, i, 7, 8, 99, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126-27 ,1 2 9 ,1 3 9 , 153, 5 96 , 5 98 , 604, 698, 722, 723, 741, PI. 3a, 9c. See also Codices Books o f Chilam Balam, 113, 123,153,177, 287, 499, 582, 589, 595-96, 5 9 8 , 5 99 , 603, 604, 617, 720, 741, 757
Boundary walls, 594, 643 Bove, Frederick, 190, 289 Bow and arrow, 752 Bowditch, Charles, 139 Brainerd, George, 550 Brasseur de Bourbourg, Abbé Charles, 124,127,135 Bridges, 28,154, 405 Brigham Young University, 424 Brinton, Daniel, 136 Buenavista, 702 Buluk Chabtan (deity), 736, 744
Burial rituals, 67, 77, 88, 201, 203, 206, 249, 258, 397, 406 Burials, 17, 59, 67, 77, 88, 92, 97,161,194, 221, 237, 249, 157,158, 274, 291, 296, 378, 508, 666, 669, 675, 678, 682, 691, 693, 699, 733, 734; Calakmul, 360; Caracol, 364; Comalcalco, 130; Copan, 180, 336, 337, 338, 340, 344, 347, 349, 350, 4 7 6 , 478, 4 9 1 ,6 9 9 700; Cuello, 203, 258-59; Dos Pilas, 384, 406; K’axob, 205, 206, 207; Izapa, 228;
INDEX
Los Mángales, 200, 201; Mayapan, 675; Palenque, 453, 460, 463, 471; Piedras Negras, 422, 426, 428, 430; Quirigua, 354, 483, 494; Río Azul, 327; Tikal, 302, 303,3 0 4 -0 5 ,3 0 8 ,3 1 0 ,3 2 1 , 322,327,332,333,379, 3 9 5 » 3 9 7 , 4 1 7 , 682, 744; Uaxactun, 322, 674. See also Tombs Burning, 81, 92, 149,161, 197, 210, 253, 259, 267, 293, 428, 431,436, 5°*, 640, 642, 700, 722, 725, 733, 746, 748, 749, 764 B’utz* Aj Sak Chik (Palenque ruler), 459
Caah (city or town), 682, 683, 684 Cabo Catoche, 759 Cacao, 9, 23, 26, 32, 33, 84, 101, 190, 191, **o, 232, 282, 289,327,347, 603, 613, 621, 633, 634, 636, 6 4 5 , 647, 710, 742 .; deity, 736, 742; trade, 33, 169, 242, 289, 290, 292, 494, 572 -, 583, 586, 610, 631, 661, 664 Cacaxtla, 522, 528 Caches, 17, 237, 257, 565, 615, 657, 7 4 7 ; Becan, 288, 373; Chichen Itza, 565, 573, 591; Copan, 45, 51, 348, 576, 741,746, 747, PI. 2a, 2b; El Portón, 180, 197; K’axob, 205; Santa Rita, 755; Seibal, 202; Tikal, 317, 747 Cahal Pech, 163, 206, 702 Cahal Pichik, 364 Calabtun (time unit), 103 Calakmul, 4, 94,140, 152, 252, 259, 262, 279, 301, 327, 356-61, 367, 372, 373, 374, 376,380,382,383,384, 387, 388,389, 390, 406, 413-15, 433, 436, 441, 478, 480, 483, 4 9 5 - 9 7 , 500, 511, 517, 519, 523, 524, 529,
53 0 , 554 , 634, 694, 699, 7 0 0 - 01, 703, 704-05, 707, 743; alliances, 44, 312, 317, 360-61, 365, 369-71, 37475,377,379,380,381,384, 387,388,390,391, 395, 400, 403, 405,415,469, 482,483,495-96, 509, 664, 7 01- 02; burial, 360; cause ways, 252, 705, 708, 713; emblem glyph, 140, 152, 162, 3 5 7 , 3 5 8 , 523, 524; fortifications, 358-59, 375; research, 7 4 , 3 5 6 - 57 , 3 5 8 , 413, 705; stelae, 183, 35657 , 358, 360-61,413,414, 415, 519; structures, 35657 , 3 5 8 , 3 5 9 , 413; tombs, 180, 357, 413; wars, 304, 312, 313, 360-62, 365, 369-71, 3 7 6 , 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 381, 384, 387, 389, 3 9 3 - 9 5 , 3 9 9 , 403,413,415,432, 433, 459, 460, 461, 462, 474, 4 7 5 , 4 9 6 , 509-10,515, 5*6, 664, 701-02, 704, 705, 708 Calendar, 8, 11, 78, 98, 100, 102-18, 125,127, 131, 135, 136, 261, 659,717, 721, 728, 745; Gregorian, 98, n o , 114, 116; Julian, 114; lunar, i n , 112, 116; 365day, 107-09, n o , 112,127, 520, 523, 524; 260-day, 104-05,107,108, 233, 671, 7 4 5 , 750, 7 7 9 - 8 4 Calendar correlations, n o , 114, 136, 512 Calendar round, 102, 104, 107-09, n o , 112, 127, 233, 520, 523, 524, 671, 726, 7 4 5 , 750 Calendrical cycles, 99-100, 102, 104, 107, 109-10, 116-20, 127, 149, 227, 250, 300,589, 59 6 ,7 1 5 , 7*0-21, 728, 7 3 1 , 7 4 7 ,7 5 0 Calendrical deities, 101-02, 104, n o , 112, 116, 127, 136 Canals, 44, 54, 56, 81, 83, 85, 181-82,195-96, *19, *35,
*49, *65-66, 278-79,356, 358, 375, 500,532, 636, 643, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650 Cancuen, 66, 360, 384, 386, 407, 408, 633, 634, 701, 703 Candelaria (river), 46, 648, 650 Canoes, 12, 45, 265, 386, 400, 5*8, 549 , 5 7 *, 579 , 580, 590, 604, 605, 610-12, 633, 634, 638, 654, 662, 701, 7 4 4 , 7 5 8 , 768, 773, 774, 7 7 5 , 7 7 6 , 7 7 7 , 778 Canopies, 32, 41, 42 Canul, 598, 599, 601, 602, 603, 769, 771 Canuto, Marcello, 244 Capes, 41,193, 366, 671 Capitals. See Polity capitals Captive glyph, 134,145,146, 149 Captives, 83, 90,134, 149,150, 151,172,183,185, 218, 222, 274, 297, 299, 300, 500-01, 578, 582, 601, 628, 699, 714, 715,716,717, 751; Aguateca, 407, 408; Bonampak, 449, 450, 723, PL 12-13; Calakmul, 356, 360, 371, 381; Caracol, 312, 366, 415; Chalchuapa, 249, 733; Chichen Itza, 565, 572, 580, 586, 711; Chocola, 236, 242; Copan, 488, 489; Cuello, 258-259; Dos Pilas, 384, 408, 520; Iximche, 626; Izapa, 230; Kabah, 535, 543, 545; Kami naljuyu, 195, 197, 198, 232, 291; Los Mangales, 201, 249; Mayapan, 602, 711; Naranjo, 382, 383,384,388, 390, 393; Palenque, 426, 454, 456, 460, 462, 473; Piedras Ne gras, 4*1, 4 * 5 , 4 3 ï , 4 3 *, 4 3 3 , 4 3 5 , 462.; Quirigua, 3 0 1 , 3 3 7 , 3 5 3 , 4 8 2 , 483, 489, 751; San José Mogote, 172, 173, 224; Spanish, 762, 765; Tikal, 313, 315, 317, 326,371,393,395,399,
897
898
INDEX
400, 403, 753; Tonina, 460, 470, 4 7 3 , 4 7 4 , 4 7 5 - 7 6 ; Yaxchilan, 366, 423, 431, 4 3 2>4 3 3 , 4 3 4 , 435-36, 4 4 °, 441, 442, 4 4 5 - 4 6 , 447, 716. See also Human sacrifice Captor glyph, 134 Caracol, 4, 44, 261, 312, 317, 360, 361, 362, 363-66, 367, 369-71, 3 7 5 , 3 »1, 3 88 - 8 9 , 392,415-17,519,520,522, 523, 644, 675, 686, 687, 700, 706, 708, 713, 733; al liances, 360, 361, 369, 370, 375,381,415, 509,519, 522, 523; Altar 21, 361, 363, 365, 370-71; altars, 366, 370, 371, 415; burials, 364; Caana, 364, 367, 415; causeways, 362, 364, 705, 706, 708, 713; research, 364, 367, 415, 519, 705, 708;
stelae, 364, 365, 366, 415, 416, 417; terraces, 364, 520, 644, 713; tombs, 364, 675, 733;wars, 312, 369-71, 381,382,388-89,415 Carcha, 251 Cardinal directions, 168, 704, 726, 731, 732, 743, 755i color associations, 147, 148, 739
Cariaco Basin, 513 Carmack, Robert, 622 Carnegie Institution of Wash ington, 68, 74, 78, 83, 87, 9 i , 3 5 i , 35 6 , 3 7 5 , 4 4 9 , 556
Carrasco, Ramón, 356 Carrelli, Christine, 637 Carthage, 6 Carved bones, 303, 390, 399, 4n , 4i3 Carved stone, 165, 172, 173, 179,186,187,211,225, 236, 285,435,452,455, 478, 486, 489, 500, 579, 595
Casper (Palenque ruler), 459, 461 Catastrophes, 4, 280, 503, 506, 507, 526
Catherwood, Frederick, 64, 68, 609, 611, Pi. 2C Catholic Church, 4, 762, 771, 773, 7 7 8 Causeways, 54, 85, 168, 182, 183, 258, 278, 285, 500, 684, 705, 708, 710, 713, 765; Aguateca, 410; Becan, 373; Bonampak, 449; Calakmul, 252, 705, 708, 713; Caracol, 362, 364, 705, 706, 708, 713; Chichen Itza, 565, 581, 592; Coba, 555, 556, 55 8 , 569, 705, 708, 713; Co pan, 340; Dzibilchaltun, 550, 551, 552; El Mirador, 210, 211, 252, 253, 278, 285, 705, 708; Ichmul, 705; Körn chen, 275, 277; Nakbe, 210, 211, 2 i4 r 705; Nakum, 374; Naranjo, 3 80; San Bartolo, 262; Sayil, 546, 547; Seibal, 520; Tenochtitlan, 5; Tikal, i, 87, 302, 304, 305, 306, 395, 403, 659; Uaxactun, 320; Uxmal, 535, 544, 545; Xunantunich, 516; Yaxha, 375. See also Sacbeob Caves, 51, 147,154, 158,168, 172,190, 259, 260, *72, 28 2 ,3 8 6 , 563, 655, 675,
714, 726, 727, 731, 745. See also Underworld Cehpech ceramics, 74 Ceiba, 42, 7 2 3 , 7 3 1 ,7 3 3 Celestial Bird (deity), 453, 454, 469, 738 Celestial Serpent, 310, 400, 401,454, 466, 524,731 Celestun, 549 Celts, 37, 357, 404, 671 Cenotes, 5 2 -5 3 , 275, 421, 532, 534; Chichen Itza, 51, 562, 565, 569, 575, 5 7 6 -7 8 , 592, 603, 605, 668, 675, 710,
742, 748, 749, 752, 753, 754; Dzibilchaltun, 550, 552; Mayapan, 594, 595, 598; Tulum, 609 Censers, 289, 290, 293, 590, 635, 652, PI. 9a. See also Incensarios
Center for Maya Research, 146 Centralized authority, 91, 502, 503, 705
Ceramics, 61, 74, 146,160, 193, 211, 236, 237, 244, 154, 294, 5 01 , 5 5 5 , 591, 597,617, 636, 653. See also Figurines; Incensarios; Pottery Ceremonial bar, 314, 388, 523, 740. See also Double-headed serpent bar Ceremonies, 85, 90, 127, 149, 151, 156, 206, 222, 265, 285, 298, 299,315, 349, 3 9 1 , 3 9 5 , 415, 4 5 5 , 4 6 i, 468, 523, 565, 594, 602, 615, 659, 684, 703,710, 716,721, 722, 726, 731, 738, 7 4 5 - 49, 751- 55, 756, 771 Cerén, 33, 37, 38, 635, 64142, 645, 652, 659, 680, 681 Cerro Chino, 243, 244 Cerro de las Conchas, 159, 225 Cerro de las Mesas, 225 Cerros, 178, 215, 251, 252, 254, 265, 266-69, 273, 278, 279, 284, 285,320,454, 608, 732; architectural deco ration, 252, 267, 268, 269, 320; canal, 265, 266, 278; research, 265, 284; struc tures, 252, 265, 266-67, 268, 273, 320, 454; tomb, 267 Chaa Creek, 516 Chaak (deity), 148, 149, 575, 583, 59 5 , 726, 729, 730, 7 3 6 - 3 7 , 7 3 8 - 3 9 , 7 4 5 , 7 47 Chaak Chel (deity), 737, 742 Chacmool (site), 574 Chacmool (statue), 579 Chajoma Kaqchikel, 621, 625 Chak (priest), 672, 710 Chak B’olon Chaak (Tonina ruler), 474 Chak Suutz* (sajal), 460, 471 Chak Tok Ich’aak I (Tikal ruler), 304, 311, 315, 317, 322 Chak Tok Ich’aak U (Tikal
INDEX
ruler), 312, 316, 366, 367, 3 9 1 , 395 Chakan Itza, 775, 776 Chakan, 769, 771 Chakanputun, 529, 567, 589, 599
Chaktemal, 608, 610, 755 Chalamikat (K’iche priests), 717 Chalcatzingo, 169, 170, 172, 174,176, 181, 191,193, 201 Chalchitan, 619 Chalchuapa, 35, 162, 169,170, 181, 193,194, 221, 237, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 249, 280, 281, 284, 723; monuments, 170,191, 193, 194, 241, 243, 245, 246; research, 162, 181,193, 194, 237, 280, 723; Str. E 3i, 186,193, 241, 243, 245 Chama, 35 Chamelecon (river), 46 Champollion, Jean-François, 99 Champoton, 51, 595, 598, 599, 759, 760, 768, 770, 771, 772 Chamula, 15 Chan Chak K’ak’nal Ajaw (Uxmal ruler), 534-35, 536, 537
Chan Ek’ Hopet (Ucanal ruler), 523
Chan Kom, 688 Chan K’uh (sky god), 73 5 Chan Muwaan (Bonampak ruler), 434, 447 Chan Noohol, 516 Chan Pet (Calakmul ruler), 361, 415 Charles V, Emperor, 127 Charnay, Désiré, 435, 452 Chase, Arien, 364, 708 Chase, Diane, 364, 615, 708, 755
Chatan Winik, 262, 263 Chauaca, 767, 768, 772 Ch’een (cave), 147, 714 Chel Te* Chan K’inich (heir), 434, 442, 443, 444, 447 Chel, 434, 442, 443, 444, 447,
601, 605, 672, 736, 738, 742, 769, 770 Ch’en (month), 106, 107 Chenes architecture, 340, 531, 534,562 Chert, 37, 44, 159, 261, 262, * 85 , 3 7 5 , 412,565, ¿ 3 5 , 651, 653, 654, 655,656, 660. See also Flint Chiapa de Corzo, 35, n o , 227, 232, 245 Chicanel ceramics, 244, 254 Chicanna, 372, 373, 531 Chichen Itza, 4, 44, 74, 129, 132, 214, 216, 217, 218, 3 5 6 , 5 48 , 55 4 , 55 5 , 556 , 558-67, 568-74, 575, 57657 8 , 5 7 9 - 8 2 , 583, 584, 586-587, 589, 590, 591-92., 59 4 , 595 , 597 , 598, 599, 601, 602, 603, 604, 609, 616, 619, 620, 626, 627, 628, 629, 634, 664, 702, 705, 708, 711,723,724, 740, 7 4 3 , 7 5 2, 7 5 4 , 7 6 9 Î Akabtzib, 217, 563; caches, 565, 57 3 , 5 9 IJ Caracol, 74, 217, 563, 564, 595, 599; causeways, 565, 581, 592; Court of the Thousand Columns, 565, 581; El Castillo, 74, 217, 560, 563, 565, 566, 567, 594, 595, 596, 597, 609, 763; El Mer cado, 565, 574; Great Ball Court, 74, 560, 565, 567, 568, 569, 580, 581; Iglesia, 563; lintels, 563, 571; Mon jas & Annex, 216, 562, 563, 580; murals, 129, 565, 567, 568, 569, 572, 580, 619, 668, 711, 752, PI. 16b; Red House, 217, 563; research, 7 4 , 56 5 , 567, 568, 572, 5745 Sacred Cenote, 51, 565, 568, 575, 5 7 6 - 7 8 , 592., 603, 605, 6 7 5 , 710, 742 .» 7 4 8 , 7 4 9 , 75^, 753, 754; stela, 563, 564; Temple of the Chacmool, 565, 573, PI. 16b; Temple of the Warriors, 74, 560, 565, 571, 572, 573,
580, 591, 668, 711, 724, 740; temples, 563, 565, 572; tzompantli, 565, 570 Chichicastenango, 10 Chiefdoms, 73, 75-77, 90, 169, 178,179, 185, 190, 231, 2-35, 629,711 Chiefs, 73, 77,155,161,168, I72, I78-79, I9 I, 201, 220, 222, 709, 761, 764-67, 777 Chikchan (day), 104,105,108 Chikomuceltek Mayan, 25, 27 Chilanes (shamans), 710 Childbirth, 671, 733, 742 Children, 16, 88,104, 148, 161, 250,322,455, 473, 669, 671-72, 676, 677, 682, 692-93, 711, 728, 759, 766, 775
Chiles (Chili), 28, 33, 155, 645, 748
Chimu, 156 Chinautla Viejo, 621 Chinchilla, Oswaldo, 289 Chinese writing, 137 Chipped-stone artifacts, 45, 51, 154,191, 655, 656, 657, 6 7 5 , 7 3 9 , 7 4 1 ,7 5 2
.S eealso
Chert; Eccentric Flints; Flint; Obsidian Chisalin, 718 Chisels, 37,183. See also Celts Chitinamit, 290, 622 Chixoy (river), 40, 45, 407, 421, 585, 619, 623 Chixoy Valley, 251 Chocola, 33, 236, 240-41, 242, 246, 292 Chocolate, 23, 32, 33, 61, 146,169, 190, 347. See also Cacao Ch’ol Mayan, 25, 27, 130, 224 Ch’olan languages, 26, 27, 130, 131, 132, 145, 528, 567, 619,622 Ch’olti* Mayan, 25, 27, 132 Chômai Maya, 46, 528, 529, 567, 579, 582-86, 591,612, 619, 620, 761, 762, 773 Chômai Mayan, 25, 27,130, 619
899
900
INDEX
Chontalpa, 511, 528, 559, 570, 604 Ch’orti* Maya, 719 Ch’orti* Mayan, 25, 27, 121, 130,131,132 Christ, n o , 726, 773, 774 Christianity, 123,127, 723, 725, 726, 7 3 3 *7 7 1 , 7 7 4 , 775, 778; conversion, 10, 303,687, 688, 723, 773, 774
Chronicle o f the Maya Kings and Queens, 146
Chronology, 74, 78, 98, 99, 102,104, n o , 112,153, 156 , 159 , 311 , 336 , 360 ,
365,382,384, 422, 433, 4 5 9 , 4 7 4 , 4 8 3 , 589 , 59 6 , 597 , 707 Ch’ulel, 733 Chultunes, 534, 546 Chunchucmil, 548, 549, 686, 703 Chuntuqui, 776 Chuwen (day), 104, 105,108, 112 Cinnabar, 232, 349, 350, 733 Cisterns, 53, 532, 534, 545. See also Chultunes Cities, 71-72, 77, 79; as cosmograms, 732; origins, 82, 85, 8 7 ,9 8 ,1 2 6 ,1 3 2 ,1 5 5 56, 203, 214, 258, 265; past examples, 1-9, 17, 33, 5556, 58-60, 74, 292, 295, 3 3 9 , 3 7 6 , 4 i i , 4 5 7 , 4 8 o, 482, 487, 492, 495, 500, 503-06, 510, 518, 520, 524, 530, 5 3 4 - 3 5 , 545 , 5 4 8 - 4 9 , 554 , 5 5 8 - 59 , 561, 585, 591, 594, 601, 607, 610, 620, 626, 633, 684, 687-88, 703-05,709, 7 H ,7 i 3 - i 4 , 728, 730-31, 749, 760 Ciudad Vieja, 766 Cival, 263, PI. 3b Civil war (Guatemala), 11 Civilization, 1, 57, 70, 71, 73, 75,125, 223, 628-30; Afri can, 6, 711; Andean, 4, 5, 6, 18, 70,95, 155, 156, 66 1, 770; Chinese, 4, 6, 70, 79,
88, 296, 297, 713; Egyptian, 4, 5, 70, 79, 88, 90, 126, 296, 297, 714; Greek, 5, 6, 7 3 , 7 4 , 7 9 , 9 4 , 9 5 , 5 IQ, 7 ©5 i Indus, 4, 6, 70; Mesoamerican, 28-29, 1 5 3 -56,15776, 1 7 8 , 1 9 4 ,1 1 4 ,1 1 8 ,1 1 9 , 221, 224; Mesopotamian, 4, 5, 70,71, 79, 88,126*713; Preindustrial, 4, 70, 78, 79, 82, 86, 87,91,155, 235, 249, 259, 285, 295, 296, 297, 514, 631, 632, 689, 691, 707,711,711,714, 731; Roman, 5, 6 Clark, John, 161 Classes, 76, 86, 93, 97, 131, 132,168,171, 175, 182, 157,196, 364, 517, 601, 604, 627, 636, 655, 662, 665, 675, 677, 691, 710, 717, 721, 722, 734, 756 Climate, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37, 42, 44,45, 49, 53, 80, 126,129, 158, 286, 502, 511, 512, 513, 515, 519, 516, 554 , 641, 642; changes, 53, 54, 56,90, 286, 500, 512-13, 515-17,518,519,526,532, 5 3 3 , 585, 586, 591, 629, 702, 720, 730, 742, 748, 753,756; rainfall, 30,31, 32, 34, 40, 4 1 , 4 5 , 4 6 , 4 9 , 50,51, 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 80, 88,158,190, 220, 281, 500, 509, 511-13, 515-17, 518, S i,. 53 *> 545 , 554 , 640, 642, 643; temperature, 30, 32,34, 40 ,4 5 ,4 6 , 49, 53,
54 Climate cycles, 53, 511, 512, 513 Clothing, i i , 88,146, 214, 634, 658, 666, 667, 668, 670, 676. See also Regalia Clovis points, 154, 159 Coatzacoalcos River, 164 Coba, 44,52, 7 4 , 5 5 4 , 555, 5 5 6 , 55 7 , 5 58 , 567, 569, 586, 605, 694, 705, 708, 713; causeways, 555, 556, 558 , 569, 705, 708, 713; re
search, 74, 556; stelae, 554, 580; structures, 556, 557, 605 Cobweb Swamp, 159, 164, 654 Cocaib (K’iche ruler), 622, 626 Cochua, 772 Cocoja (K’iche ruler), 626 Cocom, 598, 599, 601, 602, 603, 604, 663, 675, 711, 763 Codex Pérez, 123 Codices, i , 8, 114, 116-17, 118, 120, 121, 122,123, 124, 126-2 9 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 3 , 135, 136, 137, 141» 141, 144,
147, 225, 262, 493, 607, 638, 641,717, 714, 717, 730, 7 3 5 , 7 3 6 , 7 3 8 , 7 3 9 , 741, 742, 744, 746, 747, PI. 3a, 9c. See also Dresden Codex; Grolier Codex; Madrid Codex; Mexican codices; Paris Codex Coe, William, 87, 417 Coercive power, 6, 8, 73, 76, 77, 78,182, 297,582, 697, 7H ,7i 5 Coffee, 9, 34, 40, 645 Coggins, Clemency, 313, 321, 3 1 6 , 3 7 9 , 391, 731 Cohuanacox (Texcoco ruler), 761 Colha, 37,159, 163,164, 261, 262, 285, 635, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 703 Collapse, 59, 252, 295, 340, 342, 371, 472, 503, 508, 509, 510, 515, 545, 591, 626, 629, 702. See also Decline Colombia, 163, 754 Colonial period, 8,10, 11, 35, 3 6 , 3 7 , 4 9 , 91, n o , 121, 123, 124, 126, 129, 131, 132,142, 144,147, 560, 596, 603, 676, 709, 710, 725, 728, 7 3 3 , 7 4 0 , 766, 774
Colonization, 6, 29, 90, 95, 156,190, 201, 202, 210, 151, 494, 629, 651,757, 767
INDEX
Colonnades, 565, 571, 580, 595, 609 Colors, 41, 147, 288, 294, 378, 59°, 637, 767; glyphs for, 136,148; symbolism of, 51; terminology for, 121 Columbus, Christopher, 528, 758
Comalclaco, 130, 451, 722 Comales, 590 Comalpa, 670 Commerce, 1,4, 5, 8-10, 31, 46, 71, 85, 91, 281, 286, 32.7, 353, 37i>37 6,
407
,
4 9 5 - 9 7 , 4 9 9 , 509, 514-15,
585, 618, 628, 630, 632, 634, 640, 642, 664, 700, 707. See also Warfare Complex society, 29, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 80, 83, 86, 98, 155,157,160,161,169, 174, 175, 176,177, 178, 185, 190,193,194,102., 207, 220, 223, 371, 506. See also Chiefdoms; States Conache (K’iche ruler), 626 Conil, 767 Conquest, 75, 77, 79, 90, 93, 94, 126,193, 195, 300, 322, 325, 341, 348, 370, 371, 3 7 7 , 3 8 1 , 386, 407, 426, 4 9 6 , 517, 5 55 , 55 8 , 567, 569, 591, 619, 621, 624, 625, 626, 628, 629, 669, 718; glyph, 150; of patron deities, 300, 393, 400, 40102, 744. See also Spanish Conquest; Warfare Conquistadors, 1, 6,17, 758 Conservation of sites, 68, 352,
425,431,495, 528, 529, 532, 548, 559, 582, 583, 586, 590, 604, 610-13, 627-28, 659, 661, 663-64, 718, 743. See also Trade Commodities, 82, 84, 160, 169, 180,190, 191,2135, *84, 290-92, 508, 527, 532, 569, 572 -, 583, 586, 604, 627, 628, 631-35, 639, 655, 658-60, 664, 700, 703, 713, 718 Commoners, 18, 61, 91, 97, 449 Constellations, 117,118, 728 220, 221, 500, 509, 527, Copal (pom), 613, 657, 668, 586, 604, 632, 635, 666, 710, 725,733,748, 749, 669, 691,709,710,717, 756. See also Nonelites 754 Copan, 4, 35, 44, 55, 60, 64, Communities, 9-10, 26, 5468, 118,139,146, 148,162, 56, 59 , 7 5 - 7 6 , 82, 84-86, 180,183,190, 215, 241, 92, 96; origins, 82, 84-86, 243,282, 301, 333-51, 352, 92, 9 7 - 9 8 , 1 5 3 - 55 , 1 5 9 61, 163-64, 174-78, 182, 3 5 3 , 3 5 4 , 361, 365, 3 7 4 , 201-03, 2.06-07, 2.19-2.2; 3 7 8 , 3 7 9 , 3 9 9 , 415, 460, 472, 4 7 6 -8 2 ,4 8 3 ,4 8 4 -8 5 , past examples, 241, 244, 487-91, 494, 495, 496, 497, 265, 267, 269, 516, 635, 500, 502, 504, 505, 507, 636, 651, 659, 660, 665, 510, 511, 515, 516, 576, 672, 676, 683, 684, 685, 581, 633, 636-37, 647, 663, 687, 691, 697, 703, 709, 686, 687» 688, 693, 694, 719, 721, 722, 726, 745, P1698, 699, 700, 702, 705, 16b; present-day, 9, 10-11, 707, 713,716, 732, 733, 14, 16, 20, 56, 70, 81, 669, 7 3 4 , 7 4 4 , 7 4 6 , 7 4 7 , 7 5 *J 673, 675, 677, 680, 688, Acropolis, 68,180, 334, 6 9 3 , 710, 719, 72.5-Í6, 7 4 3 , 33 5 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 0 , 3 4 1 , 3 4 4 , 749 348, 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 , 3 5 3 , 4 7 6 , Competition, 84, 90, 91, 94, 160, 176, 183,185, 218-20, 4 7 7 , 4 7 8 , 4 7 9 , 488, 489, 222, 249, 258, 284, 299, 637, 693, 699, 7 3 4 Î ahars, 33 6 , 3 3 7 , 3 3 8 , 340,489, 300, 319, 371, 3 7 5 - 7 6 ,
491; Altar Q, 132, 338, 341, 3 4 1 , 3 4 7 , 3 49 , 3 5 1 , 4 8 8 , 694, 698; Ante, 336, 349, PI. 2a, 2b; ball courts, 68, 334, 337, 340, 348, 481; burials, 180, 336 , 3 3 7 , 3 38 , 340, 3 44 , 3 47 , 3 49 , 3 50 , 4 7 6 , 478, 491, 699-700; caches, 4 5 , 51 , 348 , 576 , 741, 7 4 6 , 747; causeway, 340; Ceme tery Group, 68, 340, 537; Chorcha, 337, 477, 478; corte, 68, 334, 335, 339; East Court, 68, 335, 340,
349, 351, 379, 395,46o, 462, 476, 478, 479,489, 490; eccentrics, 45, 51, 741; emblem glyph, 148, 399; Great (Monument) Plaza, 63, 3 34 , 335 , 3 4 0 , 478,480, 481, 489; Hieroglyphic Stair way, 68, 334, 335, 336, 337, 33 8 , 5 3 9 - 4 0 , 3 41 , 3 4 3 , 34 8 , 478, 482, 487, 746; Hunal, 336 , 3 44 , 3 4 5 , 3 46 , 3 4 7 , 348,349,351,354, PI. 6b; Margarita, 348, 349, 350, 699, PI. 6; Motmot, 336, 3 44 , 3 4 5 , 348, 34 9 , 487; North Group, 68, 340, 489, 537, 731; Papagayo, 336, 349, 477, 478; research, 60, 68, 146, 339, 342, 344, 346-48,431,456, 491, 636-37; Rosalila, 45, 51, 337, 351,477, 700,741, PI. 7a; Sepulturas Group, 340, 488; stelae, 63, 68, 118,119, 3 33 , 3 3 6 - 3 8 , 3 40 , 3 41 , 3 4 3 , 3 49 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 - 7 8 , 480, 484-85,486,487,489, 524; structures, 68, 217, 334, 335 . 336 - 38 . 339 - 44 . 348, 349 . 351 , 477 - 79 , 481 , 487 ,
488-89, 490, 620, 636-37, 731; tombs, 68, 336, 337, 3 4 0,344-49,350,351,354, 476,488, 490, 491,693, 699-700, 733,734; West Court, 334, 340, 469, 476, 477, 488; Xukpi Stone, 336, 344, 348; Yehnal, PI. 5b
9OI
902
INDEX
Copan (river), 68, 334, 335, 3 3 9 , 34 0 , 3 4 8 , 489 Copan Valley, 130, 162, 171, 214, 241, 244, 258, 337, 3 3 9 , 4 7 7 , 502,512-, 637, 688
Copernicus, Nicolaus, 116 Copper, 576, 599, 608, 610, 636, 656, 671, 742, 754 Coral, 43, 637, 710 Corbelled vaults, 215-16, 374, 4 5 3 , 554 Córdoba, Francisco Hernández de, 759, 760 Cortés, Hernán, 5, 87,127, 528, 617, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 766, 770, 773 Corvée labor, 85, 89,168, 180-82,195, 221, 279, 285, 296, 298, 517, 605, 628, 633, 636, 637, 691, 697, 713 Cosmic monster, 744 Cosmograms, 732 Cosmology, 8, 91, 92, 93, 96, n o , 116,123,168, 230, 262, 265, 267, 274, 285, 320, 452 -, 4 5 5 , 673,704, 7 1 9 -2 0 ,7 2 6 -4 5 ,7 5 5 -5 6 Costa Rica, 245, 576 Costumbre, 693 Cotton, 9,10, 28, 33, 34,41, 4 9 , 51, 84,119,190,192., 532., 5 7 *, 586, 59 9 , 601, 63 3 , 634, 637, 645, 647, 664, 666, 669, 671, 679, 7 4 6 , 754 Cotuja (K’iche ruler), 623, 626 Cotzumalguapa, 293, 584, Councils, 82, 89, 485, 544, 565, 580, 581, 582, 627, 69 7 , 709, 717, 7 7 5 , 7 7 7 *See also Multepal Couohs, 617, 770, 771 Cozumel, 64, 529, 574, 60406, 609, 660, 687, 710, 742, 760, 761, 767, 772 Craft specialization, 79, 84, 155,161,163-64,174, 177, 179, 682 Craftsmen, 8, 39, 45, 180, 501, 663
Creation myths, n o , 147,168, 214, 230, 263, 364, 454, 455, 460, 461, 468, 72-7-30, 7 3 1» 7 3 *, 7 3 8 , 7 4 4 , 7 4 6 , 7 4 7 , 7 5 0 ,7 5 1 Cremation, 675 Cross, 312, 454, 456, 460, 467, 468, 469, 728, 762, 771 Cuauhtemoc (Tenochtitlan ruler), 761 Cuba, 758, 759, 760, 766 Cuchumatanes, 34, 39,40, 621 Cuello, 163,178, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 245, 258-59, *74
Cultura madre, 169, 176, 629 Cultural complexity, 5, 7, 8, 28, 44, 61, 70, 169, 219, 250, 287 Cultural historical archaeology, 64 Cunil Horizon, 202 Cupul, 769 Curing ceremonies, 161,175, 722, 726, 748 Cuscatlan, 766 Cuyamel Cave, 162, 171 Cyclical history, 509; See also Calendrical cycles; Develop mental cycles
Dances, 16,149, 384, 440, 450, 580, 586, 700, 709-10, 722, 7 3 9 , 7 4 7 - 9 , 7 5 *, 7 5 *, PI14-15 Darien, 758, 759 Dark Sun (Tikal ruler), 305, 313,417, 420 Darts, 329, 545. See also Spears d’Avila, Alonso, 767, 768, 770 Death deities, 736, 742 Decadence, 157 Decapitation, 185, 230, 300, 580, 602, 723, 729, 730, 7 3 *, 751 Decentralized authority, 156, 485, 502, 514, 515, 517, 518,519, 581, 664 Deciphering the Maya Script, 141 Decipherment, 17, 20, 67, 69,
89, 9 *, 9 5 , I* 1» i * 5 - 5 *, 225, 246, 305, 317, 3**, 3 7 5 , 4 4 9 , 4 5 *, 4 5 5 , 4 8 *, 665, 693, 700, 719, 720, 722, 732, 735, 738, 747, 755; history, 125-27,130, 1 3 5 -3 6 ,1 3 7 -4 7 ; phonetic, 66, 1 20,121,124,125,130, 131, I 3 5 , 137,138,140, 141, 142,143, 144,145, 146, 147,149,150, 15*, 179; semantic, r 2 4 , 140. See also Maya writing Decline, 4, 5, 44, 54, 9 5 , 9 $, 9 8 ,1 5 5 -5 7 ,1 8 6 , 1 9 4 - 9 5 , 197, 223, 249, 267, 276, 279, 280-81, 284, 2 8 6 287, 289, 290, 293, 295, 301, 305, 310, 326, 366, 371, 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 , 4 1 5 , 417, 431, 470, 476, 487, 499-07, 509-14, 520, 525, 527, 529-30, 534, 545, 548, 554, 560, 569, 585-86, 589-91, 663, 702, 708, 711,715, 716 Dedication dates, n o , 112, 139,151, 245 -4 6 ,3 0 4 , 311-13,317,327,329, 336-38, 3 4 4 , 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 - 4 9 , 352, 360-61, 365-66, 380, 3 82-85,390, 391, 397, 403, 413,415,417, 4 22-25,429, 4 3 3 - 3 4 , 4 4 7 , 459"6o, 467, 4 7 *~ 7 4 , 478, 4 7 9 , 481, 483, 487-89, 491, 500, 517-19, 520, 523, 569, 594, 598, 602, 747, 754-55 Dedication rituals, 45, 92,151, 183,197, 208, 299-300, 3 i 7 , 3 * 7 , 3 9 i, 3 9 5 , 4 i 5 , 4 4 0 , 4 5 5 , 468, 475, 476, 699-700, 739, 7 4 7 - 4 8 , 7 5 1 Deerskin, 129, 667 Deforestation, 54, 56, 201, 295, 500, 502, 512-14 Deities, 9, 45, 9 1 -92,134, 146-49, 161, 171, 178, 1 8 1 ,183-84,191, 202, 218, *63, *69, *7 *, *9 7 , 3 **» 326, 340,354, 409, 441, 4 5 3 , 4 9 *~ 9 3 , 5 **, 5 3 *,
INDEX
581-83, 598, 609, 622-23, 656, 671,715,718,720, 721-23, 726-27, 730-31» 7 3 3 - 4 9 , 7 5 4 - 56, 778ï See also Calendrical deities; Patron deities Deity impersonation, 522, 735, 748 del Rio, Antonio, 62, 64, 452 Delgado, Father Diego, 774 Demarest, Arthur, 187, 386 Denison, John, 372 Depopulation, 281, 491, 50203, 505, 507-08, 519, 585, 618, 664, 689 Descent, 34, 296, 297, 327, 461, 619, 620, 622, 627, 672, 677, 692-96, 699, 717, 729
Descent groups, 692, 717 Destiny, 1, 7, 11, 94, 104, 259, 267, 279, 297, 326, 358, 393,400,483,485, 509, 517, 569, 628, 671,715, 722, 7 3 3 , 742 -, 7 4 5 ,7 4 7 Developmental cycles, 54, 79, 96,156, 499, 509-10, 631, 660, 663, 708, 711 Diaz del Castillo, Bernal, 5, 37, 760, 761, 763 Diccionario de Motul , 124 Dictionaries, 120, 121, 124, 130, 142, 709,710, 751 Diet, 59, 61, 81, 159, 162, 163, 175, 203, 206, 638, 639, 6 5 7 , 775 Direction glyphs, 135, 147, 148 Disease, 4, 6, 8, 44, 507, 508, 514, 526, 585, 647, 710, 7 3 8 , 763 Disharmony, 144-45. See also Synharmony Dispersed settlement, 71, 72, 82, 648, 714 Distance numbers, 112, 136, 140 Distribution of goods, 77, 80, 83, 94, 179, 180, 632, 634, 635,657, 659, 714 Diversity, 31, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 72, 81, 82,93,95, 96, 97, 156, 158, 163, 174,
203, 220, 225, 230,235, 259, 275, 279, 296, 317, 511, 628, 637, 660, 678, 6 9 4 , 699,71^,71 3 ,7 3 5 Divination, 93, 102, 127, 680, 710, 717, 721, 749, 750, 756; rituals, 750, 751 Divine Kings, 89-90, 93, 94, 96,155, 156, 183, 194, 220, 263, 294, 295, 296-99, 499-504, 505, 517, 519, 5 * 5 ~* 7 , 5 34 , 53 5 , 549 , 55 4 , 556, 5 5 8 , 569, 580, 581-82, 585, 586, 590, 628, 629, 664, 696-98, 699-702, 713, 715-16, 721, 729, 730, 755, 756. See also K’uhul Ajaw; Rulers Divine Kingship, 89, 90, 93, 96, 155-56, 183,194, w o , 263, *94-95, 499, 500-01, 50305, 5 I 7 , 519, 515-17, 53 4 , 53 5 , 5 4 9 , 55 4 , 556, 558, 569, 580-82, 585, 586, 590, 628, 629, 664, 696-700, 702,713,715-16, 711,719, 7 3 0 , 7 5 5 , 756 Divorce, 676 Docking areas, 353, 607, 610, 614,659 Dogs, 144,145, 163, 206, 425, 638, 769 Domesticated resources, 33, 37, 75,78, 81, 144,154-55, 158,161,163, 165,174, 177, 190, 203, 206, 208, 210,254, 289,352, 405, 500, 544, 548, 635,638, 639, 644, 645, 652, 655, 657, 666, 677-78, 684-86, 709-10, 750. See also Agri culture Dos Pilas, 130, 300, 312, 313, 360, 379,381,383-87,389, 390, 3 9 5 , 403, 405, 406, 407, 408, 4 0 9 , 4 1 5 , 4 9 6 , 499, 510, 520, 555, 694, 699, 700, 701, 704, 707; burials, 3 84, 406; £1 Duende Group, 386, 408; emblem glyph, 383; fortifications, 386, 408, 510, 555; hiero
glyphic stairways, 384, 385, 386, 403, 408; Main Group, 385, 386, 407, 408; Mur ciélagos Group, 386, 408; stelae, 383, 386; tombs, 384, 406, 407. See abo Petexbatun Region Double-headed serpent bar, 310,454, 524, 731 Drainage, 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 4 7 , 51, 54 , 55 ,130,185, 186, 193, 195, 202, 242, 179,376,386,534, 594 , 620, 639, 641, 643, 646, 647, 648, 703 Dresden Codex, 114,116-17, 126,127,129,135, 142, 144, 724, 727, 744, PI. 3a Drinking, 605, 672, 749, 750, 756, 766 Drought, 53, 54, 56, 90, 286, 500, 512, 513, 515-19, 516, 531-33,585-86, 592, 629, 702, 720, 730, 742, 748, 7 5 3 , 756 Drums, 450, 749, 777 Dualism, 730 Dumbarton Oaks, 118, 460 Dupaix, William, 452 Dyes, 42, 637 Dynastic succession, 246, 692, 693; royal, 90,134,148, 183,197,198, 232, 248, 197,198,310,352,374, 409,415,424,426, 436, 441, 4 4 4 , 4 4 7 , 4 5 5 , 4 5 8 , 461-62, 468, 476, 482, 665, 6 9 3 - 9 5 , 696, 698-99, 701 Dynasties, 1, 94, 96, 134, 138, 156, 276, 295, 297-98, 301, 499, 500, 665, 684, 695, 702, 713; Calakmul, 262, 357-61, 363, 369-71, 3 9 3 , 499, 400,413-15,495-97; Caracol, 361-62, 363, 36566, 369-71, 379, 380, 381, 388-89, 415-17; Coba, 554, 580; Copan, 132, 146, 180,333,336-38, 340-51, 476-82, 483-485, 487-91, 502; Dzibilchaltun, 549, 580; £k Balam, 556;
903
904
INDEX
El Mirador, 261, 295; Naranjo, 94, 380-81, 38283, 388-90, 400, 694, 699, 701; Palenque, 146, 452-72; Petexbatun, 383-87, 40309, 412-13; Piedras Negras, 421-31; Quirigua, 35 1 - 55 » 482-87, 492 - 9 5 Ï Sayil, 5455 Tak'alik Ab’aj, 239; Tikal, 1, 262, 294, 302-04, 308, 310-15,329,333,362, 366-71, 3 7 ^ - 7 7 » 3 7 9 » 383» 390-403,413,417-21, 4 9 5 - 9 7 , 5 l8 » 696, 698, 732; Tonina, 472-76; Utatlan, 626; Uxmal, 580; Xunantunich, 517; Yaxchilan, 43147, 4 5 i Dzibanche, 358 Dzibikal, 769 Dzibilchaltun, 44,163, 275, 276, 277, 536, 548, 549-54, 569, 580, 686, 689, 703; al tar, 550; cenote, 550, 552; emblem glyph, 554; Mirador Group, 275, 276; research, 175, 2.77, 550; sacbeob, 550, 551, 552; stelae, 549, 554i Temple of the Seven Dolls, 550, 553; tomb, 554 Dzilam, 769, 770 Dzolob (offenders), 728 Dz’onot, 52. See also Cenote Dzuluinicob, 613, 774
E Groups, 261, 293, 320, 321, 364 Early Maya Civilization, 157. See also Chronology Earth, 5, 23, 29, 37, 39, 92, 93, 116,117, 147,168, 173, 230, 272, 342, 377, 526, 704,714,719, 729, 730, 738, 741, 746,755,767; deities, 161, 171, 181, 454, 731, 7 3 5 ,7 4 3 Earthquakes, 34, 35, 37, 56, 181, 507, 516, 720 Earthworks, 302, 367, 687, 688. See also Fortifications Eaton, Jack, 654
Eb (day), 104, 105,108 Eccentric flints, 45, 51, 655, 656, 7 3 9 , 741 Eclipses, 117,120 Ecological failures, 502, 511, 526, 548 Ecology, 31, 53, 54, 56, 64, 65, 69, 3 3 9 , 4 9 7 , 506, 5i i , 548 Economic changes, 179,511, 586, 615 Economic development, 16, 153,180, 630 Economic heterarchies, 631, 632, 634, 651, 652, 653, 655
Economic hierarchies, 76, 157158, 652, 655 Economic power, 80, 82-88, 91.168, 175,178-79, 194, 221-222, 232-35, 249, 257-58, 284-85, 291-92, 196-97, 3 5 3 , 3 7 6 , 527-29, 570-80, 586-87, 599-600, 604-05, 627-28, 632-37, 660-64, 7°3 Economy, 9, 10, 11, 16, 33, 42, 55 » 65, 70,71, 7 3 , 7 6 , 7 7 , 79, 80-86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 9 5 , 9 6 , 153,155,156, 160, 164.165.168, 169,174-75, 176,177,178-80,185, 190, 203, 210, 220-21, 222, 227, 231-32, 237, 249, 250,259, 261-62, 281, 285, 286, 291, 292, 293-94, 295, 296, 297, 199, 301, 316, 329, 364, 371, 373, 374, 483, 485, 487, 491, 4 9 5 - 9 6 , 4 9 7 , 500, 501, 503, 506, 510-11, 513, 515, 517-19, 53 6 , 54 4 , 568, 569, 570-80, 583, 584-85, 586-87, 604-05, 610-17, 626-30, 631-64, 675, 684, 6 9 7 , 701, 703-04, 711, 711, 713-14, 715, 716; political, 80, 83, 84, 631, 632, 63335, 636, 656, 657, 659,713; social, i i , 80, 82, 84, 85, 95, 98, 171, 178,186,190, 201, 206, 219, 223, 285, 296, 506,510,513,514,559, 585» 591, 626, 628, 629,
631, 632, 634, 635-36, 659, 684 Ecuador, 163 Education, 16, 57 Edzna, 44, 278, 532, 533, 5 3 4 , 646, 647 Egalitarian, 70, 73, 75, 80, 174, 203 Egyptian civilization, 4, 5, 6, 70, 79, 88, 89, 90, 126, 296, 1 9 7 ,7 1 4
Egyptian writing, 126 Ehecatl (deity), 511, 563, 583 819-day count, 104 Ek Balam, 149, 556, 558, 559, 569 Ek Chuaj (deity), 736, 742 Ekab, 767, 772 El Baúl, 33, 237, 245, 246, 248, 284 El Caribe, 409 El Cayo, 426, 431, 716 El Chayal, 36, 219, 235, 291, 611 El Chorro, 384 El Encanto, 310, 311 El Excavado, 386 El Guayabal, 241 El Meco, 574, 767 El Mesak, 187 El Mirador, 4, 44, 47, 49, 164, 178, 203, 210, 211, 214, 215, 218, 219, 223, 235, 1 4 5 ,1 5 1 - 5 7 ,1 5 8 ,1 5 9 ,1 6 1 ,
262, 263, 265, 267, 269, 275, 276, 278, 279, 284, 285, 286, 293, 301, 305, 3 1 0 ,317,333,356,357, 371, 374, 376,386,454, 4 9 5 , 4 9 7 , 504, 620, 629, 663, 703, 705, 708, 713, 732; causeways, 210, 211, 151,153,178,185, 705, 708; El Tigre, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256; monuments, 223, 151,157,159,161, 269, 275, 285, 295; research, 252, 1 5 3 ,1 9 5 , 645
El Mirador Basin, 47, 49, 164, 178, 203, 210, 211, 214, 2 1 8 -1 9 ,1 3 5 ,151» 159,161, 269, 278,184,357,645
INDEX
El Niño, 53 El Palmar, 741 El Perú, 400, 496, 694, 744 El Portón, 35; altars, 197,199; caches, 180, 197; monu ments, 197,199, 201, 224 El Quiche, 245, 251, 290 El Trapiche, 193, 241 El Ujuxte, 186, 187, 189, 190, 235, 236, 239 El Zapote, 317 Elevation, 30, 34, 36, 42, 47, 53 , 195, 3 3 9 , 4 5 1 , 4 7 i Emal, 572, 574 Emblem glyphs, 138, 298, 310, 316,317,327,329,331, 357, 358, 368, 375, 383, 386, 516, 523, 524, 537, 554, 707, 7 i 3 i Aguateca, 146-47; Altar de Sacrificios, 386; Calakmul, 140, 152, 2.62,357,358,523,524; Copan, 148, 399; Dos Pilas, 383; Dzibalchaltun, 554; Los Higos, 476; Motul de San José, 152, 523, 524; Naranjo, 402; Palenque, 138, 148, 399, 4755 Petexbatun, 138; Río Azul, 327; Seibal, 138,152, 386, 524; Tikal, 138, 148, 152, 262, 310, 316, 329, 331, 368, 383, 523, 524, 707; Uxmal, 537; Xunantunich, 516; Yaxchilan, 138; Yaxha, 146, 148, 375 Emic, 66, 67, 69 Endogamy, 76, 86, 296, 371 Enemas, 751 Environment, 24, 28, 29-56, 66, 71, 79, 80-82, 84, 88, 92., 9 3 ,153, 154, 157,15859, 164, 174, 176, 177, 178, 182,190, 219, 295,339, 405, 409, 471, 495, 497, 500, 506, 507-08, 515-17, 519, 526, 535, 545, 581, 613, 628, 630, 637-51, 660, 665, 677, 682, 704,713, 720; changes, 30, 53, 54, 56, 290, 502, 507, 511-14, 52.6, 545, 585, 586, 592., 629,
689, 702, 770; diversity, 54, 628; overexploitation, 286, 295; plants and animals, 28, 3 2 ,3 3 ,4 1 ,4 2 ,4 3 ,4 4 ,4 5 , 50, 56,75, 81,154,155, 159, 163, 174, 637,638, 639, 640, 642, 644, 645, 6 4 7 , 651,750 Epidemics, 4, 90, 507, 508, 603, 753, 763. See also Dis ease Epigraphers, 17, 120, 136, 137, i 4 i ,4 3 5 Epigraphy, 99, 366, 690 Equinoxes, 320, 321, 563, 594 Erosion, 35, 54, 56, 3 3 9 , 356, 366, 500, 502, 511, 512, 513, 514, 643 Escobedo, Héctor, 386, 424, 428 Escuintla, 190 Estrada-Belli, Francisco, 263 Ethnic groups, 69, 93,185, 202, 224, 225, 528 Ethnographic analogies, 67, 94, 711,712 Ethnographic data, 71, 72, 94, 179, 666, 677, 692,711 Ethnography, 74,178, 665, 6 9 5 , 719 Ethnohistorians, 580, 616, 709 Ethnohistoric data, 67, 72, 74, 99, 121,178, 509, 580, 589, 615, 616, 618, 619, 620, 621-22, 631, 639, 647, 651, 657, 661, 665, 666, 668, 677, 679, 690, 691-92, 693, 696, 698, 708, 709-11, 714, 719, 750 Ethnohistory, 67, 72, 74, 99, 121, 178, 589, 615, 618, 619, 620, 621, 631, 665, 666, 668, 677, 690, 691, 693, 696, 698, 708, 711, 719 Etic, 66, 67, 69 European contacts, 5, 7, 23, 79, 628, 733. See also Spanish Conquest Europeans, 4, 5, 6, 8, 33, 61, 15 3 , 7 5 8 , 761,763
Evening star, 117, 120, 267. See also Venus Evolution. See Social evolution Ex (loincloth), 667 Exchange, 1, 10, 60, 71, 82, 84-85, 153,168, 171, 175, 176.190.194, 220, 221, 244, 249, 284, 291, 296, 572, 631, 632-37, 651-53, 655, 657-61, 663, 703; of commodities (trade goods), 71, 73,77, 80, 82,83-85, 89, 94,153, 160, 165,169, 171,174,176,177, 180, 190-91,194,195, 219, 221, 227, 257, 284, 290-91, *92., 517, 532., 569, 570, 571, 576 , 579-80, 583, 586, 599, 604, 627, 628, 631-36, 639, 652.-53, 657-63, 664, 697, 700, 703,713-14, 718; of ideas, 84-85, 91,169,171, 174,175-76,178, 190, 194, 291, 292, 590-91, 626, 659, 660. See abo Trade Exogamy, 692, 695 Exotic goods, 77, 84, 85, 91, 96,165,1 6 8 -6 9 ,1 7 1 , 173, 191.194, 235, 257,527, 6 3 3 , 6 3 4 - 35 , 653, 655, 659
Extended families, 203, 677, 682, 692, 693, 695 Extremadura, 127
Fahsen, Federico, 132 Family, 9-13, 23, 26, 82, 85, 92, 102, 138,175, 182, 203, 205, 277, 299, 322, 325, 3 38 , 3 7 4 , 407,42.6,450, 462, 489, 605, 619, 636, 644, 652, 666, 672-73, 675-78, 682, 684-85, 68788, 703,72.0, 72.3,716, 746, 7 5 6 , 7 5 9 , 775 Famine, 8, 512, 515, 517, 518, 525, 526, 585, 730, 742, 753, 76i Fans, 41, 43 Farmers, 1, 56, 93, 102, 514, 641, 651, 663,710, 717,
905
90
6
INDEX
149,150,183,313,384, 393,436, 470,482, 675, Fash, William, 244, 478, 487 678, 7 0 3 , 7 3 9 , 7 4 i , 7 5 * Flores, 48, 616 Fasts, 673, 748, 749 Flower Mountain, 733 Feasts, 73, 77, 88,1 2 6 ,1 7 9 80,197, 208, 219, 221, 298,Flowers, 132, 700, 726, 733, 501, 632, 638, 672, 675-76, 7 4 5 , 773 Flutes, 378, 412 680, 694, 700, 703, 722, Folan, William J., 356, 556 746, 7 4 8 - 4 9 , 7 5 6 , 758 Foliated Jaguar (Tikal ruler), Feathered serpent (deity), 537, 310,311,314 565, 568, 571, 581-83, 598, Forests, 1, 2, 4,12, 30-3*, 34, 609, 619, 622-23, 743, 752. 41-43, 4 6 -4 7 , 49, 56, 79, See also K’uk’ulcan Feathered-serpent columns, 8 i , 9 9 , 159, *02, 203, 206, 220, 253, 307, 435, 493, 565, 568, 571, 582, 598, 609 505-07, 51*, 514, 5 *o, 554 , 567, 613, 616, 635, 637-38, Feathers, 9, 41, 84, 96,169, 175, 190, 291, 527, 610, 643,647, 7 3 3 ,7 7 5 Forgeries, 20, 129, 738. See also 6 ï 3, 633-35, 661, 666, Looting 671 Förstermann, Ernst, 135, 136 Featherwork, 329, 450, 582, Fortifications, 73, 91,147, 185, 656, 7 4 3 , 7 5 * 37 3 , 3 8 5 , 3 8 6 , 409,410, Fertility, 161, 743, 746; goddess of, 742, 743 413, 5 *9 , 55 5 , 5 8 5 , 617, 618, 619, 684, 717, 777 Feudalism, 94, 711 Fought, John, 121 Fialko, Vilma, 380 Fibers, 44, 51, 635, 637, 652, Founders, 95,148, 297, 298, 671, 680 315, 563, 5^9, 585, 589, Figurines, 61,164,168,169, 609, 682, 694-95, 704-05, 203, 251, 283, 293, 373, 715, 717, 734; Calakmul, . 423, 550, 605, 653, 666, *59, 358; Caracol, 365; Glichen Itza, 568, 569, 619; 675, 744i clay, 161,171, 181, 191, 218, 288, 378, Copan, 132,146,148.180, 615, PI. 9b; metal, 576, 577; 3 3 3 , 3 3 6 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 - 88 , mold-made, 288, 378, 501, 633, 637, 693, 698-700, 636, 654 PI. 6, 7a; Dos Pilas, 383, Fine Orange pottery, 501, 528, 386, 387; Ek Balam, 5 *9 , 579 , 584, 590, 653, 556; Mayapan, 595-98, 654 626; Naranjo, 380, 382; Firewood, 514, 549, 637 Palenque, 355, 456, 461; First Axewielder (Calakmul Piedras Negras, 422; ruler), 360, 379 Quirigua, 338, 351-54, First Father (deity), 728 482-83, 494; Tikal, 294, First Mother (deity), 728 302, 308,310,311,315, Fish, 32, 33,43, 81, 159, 163, 3 *7 , 3 7 0 , 3 7 4 , 3 7 6 , 3 7 9 , 206, 602, 638, 639, 647, 403, 417, 699; Utatlan, 623, 710, 746 626; Yaxchilan, 431, 433, Fishing, 55, 163,165, 174, 615, 436, 438. See also Dynasties 635, 638, 691, PI. 16b Fox, James, 118,130 Flannery, Kent V., 157, 176, Freidel, David, 265, 322 707 French Archaeological Mission, Flint, 9, 37, 4 4 ,4 5 ,5 1 ,6 4 , 84, 471 721, 734, 738, 746, 756. See
also Agriculture
Frescoes, 576, 609, 668, 740. See also Murals Fuensalida, Father Bartolomé de, 773 Funerary ceremonies, 61, 303, 400, 733 Funerary temples, 97, 232, 235, 250, 267, 274, 285, 291, 302-03, 305, 309, 344, 348-49, 3 7 9 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 8 , 400, 403, 4 5 3 , 483, 5 4 4 , 636, 674-75, 699, 7 3 *, 7 3 4 , pl5a, 6a, 7a. See also Shrines; Temples
Gage, Thomas, 751 Galactic polities, 712, 714 Galindo, Juan, 68, 476 Game animals, 42, 75, 81, 154, 174, 602, 710 Gamio, Manuel, 83 Gann, Thomas, 493-494 Garber, James, 207 García de Palacios, Don Diego, 68 Garcia Moll, Roberto, 435 Gathering, 7, 16, 51, 75, 81, 82, 151,154, 157-60, 16465, 174, 635-38, 651 Gatling, John, 326 Gemini, 117,118 Gender distinctions, 65, 70-71, 76, 97,13*, 147,367, 671, 6 9 5 , 735 Genealogies, 96, 126 Gifts, 73, 77, 88,127, 179, 180, 182, 296, 619, 632, 6 5 7 , 7 4 8 , 7 77 Glottochronology, 26 Glyph groups, 133, 144 Glyphs, 100, 103,105-06, 1 0 8 -1 3 ,12*, 1 * 5 -3 0 ,1 3 3 52,197, 241, 248, 257, 261, *69, 300, 340, 357, 370, 424, 426, 449, 470, 472, 4 7 3 , 487, 488, 491, 714, 7 3 *, 7 3 5 , 7 3 9 , 7 4 *, 7 5 *. 753; components, 120-121, *3 4 ,137, I 4 I - 4 5 Ï headvariants, 101 , 102; names, 17*, 173,1*4, 303, 315,
INDEX
3 29 , 3 3 *, 368, 371,446, 475» 477» 742- See also Affixes; Ajaw (glyph); Emblem glyphs; Hieroglyphs; Isthmian writing; Main signs God A, 735, 736, 742. See also Kimi (deity) God B, 735, 736-37» 7 3 8 - 3 9 . See also Chaak God C, 735, 736-37. See also K’uh God D, 736-37, 738. See also Itzamnaaj God E, 736, 741. See also Hun Hunapu God G, 493, 736, 739. See also Ajaw K’in or K’inich Ajaw God K, 342, 384, 728, 7 3 6 - 3 7 » 739» 74I *See ak ° Bolon Tzacab or K’awiil God L, 468, 737, 743 God M, 736, 742. See also Ek Chuaj God N, 743. See also Pauahtun, Bakab Goddess I, 73 6. See also lx Chel Godoy, Lorenzo de, 770, 771 Gold, 565, 576, 578-79, 608, 656, 658, 671, 742, 752, 7 5 3 - 54 » 7 5 9 , 760, 770 Golden, Charles, 423, 708 Goodman, J, Thomas, 136 Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) correlation, 114,136 Götze, Johann Christian, 127 Gourds, 51,160, 234, 450, 6 3 5 » 65*, 7 76 Gracias a Dios, 762 Graham, Ian, 130, 210, 252, 326 Graham, John, 239 Grammar, 23, 124, 131, 132, 136, 137, 145 Great Cycle, n o . See also Long Count Greater K’ichean, 26, 27 Greater Q’anjob’alan, 26, 27 Greek civilzation, 5, 6, 74, 79, 510, 705 Greek states, 73 Gregorian calendar, 98, n o , 114,116
Grijalva (river), 36, 39, 160 Grijalva, Juan de, 609, 759, 760, 761, 766 Grolier Codex, 129 Ground-stone artifacts, 58, 183, 195, 364, 409, 632., 635, 660, 678. See also Axes; Celts; Hammerstones; Manos and Metates Grove, David C., 170 Grube, Nikolai, 146, 262 Guaytan, 129, 703 Guerrero, Gonzalo de, 758-59, 768 Gulf of Honduras, 28, 36, 528, 5 29,570, 758 Gulf of Mexico, 26, 36, 40, 46, 185, 376, 421, 528, 570
Ha* K*in Xook (Piedras Negras ruler), 428 Haab, 107,109-10, 112,127, 520, 523, 524. See also Calendar Haiti, 758 Halach winik (title), 709, 710 Hallucinogens, 748, 750, 751. See also Psychotropic substances Hammerstones, 183 Hammond, Norman, 203, 494, 654
Hansen, Richard, 210, 218, 252, 295, 645 Harbors, 572, 611 Harrison, Peter, 317, 732 Harvard University, 68, 87, 95, 130, 386, 407, 520. See also Peabody Museum Havana, 758, 760 Haviland, William, 367, 677 Headdresses, 41,183,184,191, 234, 237, 246, 248, 250, 32 9 , 331» 347 » 366,411, 4 2 2 ,4 5 0 , 634, 656, 671,
680, 735, 741, 742, 744, 752 Head-variant glyphs, 101, 102, 136, 745 Healey, Giles, 449 Hearths, 182, 203, 204, 665, 672, 678, 728
Heir designation ceremonies, 297, 449, 462, 747, PI. i o ii Heirs, i i , 150, 297, 336, 348, 387 , 3 9 7 »406, 4 29 , 4 3 4 , 436, 442, 443, 444, 445, 447, 449, 450, 453, 455, 4 5 9 , 461,462, 469,487, 500,518,528, 549, 694, 698, 702,717, 7 4 7 ,7 5 1 Hellmuth, Nicholas, 375 Hematite, 46,190, 232, 426, 659
Henderson, John, 162 Hereditary offices, 155, 698, 709, 710, 766 Hero Twins, 230, 267, 488, 726, 729-31,741, 743,751 Herrera, A., 669, 710, 723 Hester, Thomas, 654 Heterarchies, 631-32, 634, 651-53,655 Hetzmek (ceremony), 672 Hewett, Edgar Lee, 352 Hierarchies, 1, 76, 631, 682, 696-702, 712-15, 722, 756; economic, 76, 580, 631-32, 652, 653, 655, 712-13; political, 73, 76, 78, 89, 296, 298-99, 371, 426, 525-26, 580, 696700, 701,707,712-15; set tlement, 73, 76, 77-78, 85, 161,165,183,185-86, 190, 197, 218-21, 236, 262, 263, 279, 298, 371, 682, 684, 707, 712-13; social, i, 76, 93,94,182, 489, 722,756 Hieroglyphic stairways: Copan, 68, 33 4 , 335 , 3 36 , 33 7 , 3 3 8 , 339-40, 342, 343, 348, 478, 482, 487, 746; Dos Pilas, 384,385,386, 403,408; Naranjo, 380, 381, 382; Seibal, 520; Tzibanche, 358; Yaxchilan, 432, 433, 434, 4 3 5 , 4 4 2 , 447 Hieroglyphs, 104, 107,123, 126,136, 214, 224, 327, 453» 546- See 633-34,
703 Paso de la Amada, 161 Paso del Cerro, 572 Paris, 51, 679 Patrilineal descent, 692, 693, 695
Patrilocal residence, 676, 677, 692 Patron deities, 104, n o , 127, 300, 393, 400, 402, 436, 455, 461-62, 467, 471, 483, 692, 695, 728, 735, 739, 7 4 3 - 45 , 7 5 4 -5 5 Pauahtuns (deities), 726, 743 Paxbolon, Pablo, 761 Paz (river), 193 Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 68, 87, 95, 103, 386, 407, 520, 754 Pearls, 171, 303,357 Pech (polity), 769 Pech, Trinidad, 326
Pectorals, 179, 194, 3 4 7 , 671 Pelts, 613, 635, 637, 671 Pendergast, David, 492 Peraza Lope, Carlos, 596 Perigny, Maurice de, 374 Peten, 4 5 -4 8 , 50, 378, 503, 505, 511-12, 521, 531, 554, 567, 590-91» 5 9 9 , 616-18, 627, 629, 638, 664, 687, 689-90, 693, 702-03, 77 2 7 3 ,7 7 5
Peten Lakes region, 521, 617, 689,772 Petexbatun, 138, 383, 386, 387, 395, 403, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409,412,413,499, 502, 504, 510, 512, 514, 515, 516, 519, 520, 521, 526, 702; emblem glyph, 138; research, 386, 405, 406, 407, 409; wars, 384, 385, 386,387,395, 405-06, 407-06, 409-13. See also Aguateca; Dos Pilas Petty states, 94, 409,412, 421, 501, 603, 617, 627, 702, 709, 716. See also Polities; States Peyote, 750 Phallic sculpture, 537, 546 Phoenicia, 6 Phonetic complements, 137,
145 Phonetic writing, 137, 140-47,
151 Piedras Negras, 41, 44, 139, 180, 215, 300, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 4 3 3 , 4 3 4 , 4 3 5 , 436, 4 4 4 , 447, 459» 460, 462, 511, 517, 694, 699, 702, 703, 704, 708,713,714,716, 7 2 4 , 7 4 7 , 7 5 4 i A c r o p o lis ,
423, 425, 43°ï altars, 421, 422, 423; burials, 422, 426, 428, 430; lintels, 422, 432; research, 423, 424, 431; stelae, 139-40, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 430, 699, 724, 747; Throne i, 423, 428, 430, 431; Wall
INDEX
Panel 3, 41,429,430,436; West Group, 356, 421, 423, 425, 428
Piers, 453» 455» 57* Pijijiapan, 191 Pik Chan Ankul, 382 Piktun (time unit), 102,103 Pilgrimages, 565, 569, 575, 592, 603, 605, 627, 660, 741, 7 5 3 Pipil, 583-84, 591, 766 Pizarro, Francisco, 770 Planets, 117. See also Jupiter; Mars; Saturn; Venus Plaques, 180, 584, 634, 671 Pleiades, 117,118 Plumbate pottery, 501, 528, 52 .9 , 5 7 9 » 583» 590, 653, 654, 656 Pole, 767, 77Z Political economy, 80, 83, 84, 631,632, 633-35, 636, 656, 6 5 7 » 6 5 9 »7 i 3 Political hierarchies, 73, 76, 78, 89, 296, 298-99, 371, 426, 525-26, 580, 696-700, 707, 701,712-15 Political ideology, 88-90, 9196, 164,168,171-73, 17879 ,1 8 0 -8 3 , 190-94, n i 222, 232, 250, 263-79, 285, 196-97, 301, 371, 3 7 6 , 461, 500-01, 580-83, 586-87, 598-99, 605, 627-28, 699700, 704, 721,731-32, 734 Political legitimacy, 97, 148, 1 8 2 , 4 4 0 ,7 1 5
Political power, 77, 78, 85, 8890, 93, 97,139, h i , 223, 235-36, 263, 265, 269, 274-75, 284, 297-99, 371, 415, 461,495, 501, 503, 511, 515-18, 5 H , 527, 544, 632, 633, 636, 659, 661, 694, 696-97, 702, 707, 712, 714-16, 748, 756 Polities, 55, 76-79, 85, 88-91, 9 3 , 9 5 , 9 6 ,146, 150,155, 171,179,183,185, 190, 194, 214, 220-22, 231, 249, 250, 262, 269, 275, 279, 281, 282, 284-86, 287, 290,
292-301,317,322,348, 358,361, 3 7 1 , 3 7 4 , 3 7 5 , 376,415, 417, 434,456, 4 7 8 , 483, 4 9 5 » 496, 4 9 7 , 499, 500, 502-05, 509, 511, 513,514,516,517,519, 520, 522, 525, 526, 527, 5 1 9 , 5 3 0 , 5 3 1 »5 4 4 , 5 4 5 »
559, 569, 570, 581, 582, 589, 613, 625, 626, 628, 634, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 663, 664, 684, 688, 696-708, 711-17, 721, 751, 7 5 5 , 769, 771, 7 7 2 ; bound aries, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32,46, 7 3 , 9 0 , 93,156, 225,298, 302, 326, 403,421,444, 4 4 7 , 467, 5 4 5 , 550, 589, 594, 643, 686, 690, 707, 708, 714; Balberta, 289; Calakmul, 259, 356-61, 377; Canul, 771; Caracol, 364, 369, 708; Chaktemal, 610; Chichen Itza, 580, 586, 591; Chocola, 242; Coba, 554-55, 567, 708; Copan, 301, 333, 339, 343, 348, 476, 502, 633, 700; Cotzumalguapa, 293; Dzibilchaltun, 549; Edzna, 532; Ek’ Balam, 556; El Mirador, 252, 262, 279, 285, 705, 708; El Ujuxte, 186-87, 236; Iximche, 703; Izapa, 236; Kaminaljuyu, 195-97, 235, 249, 285; Kan Ek’, 616, 617, 627, 693; Kowoj, 617, 618; La Blanca, 186,187, 221; Mani, 771; Mayapan, 598; Montana, 293; Nakbe, 218; Naranjo, 381, 389, 517; Oxkintok, 534, 549; Palenque, 451, 695; Piedras Negras, 421, 708, 716; Petexbatun, 383, 395, 407, 409, 514, 511; Quirigua, 4 7 6 , 4 9 4 , 502, 705; San Gervasio, 574; Seibal, 523; Tayasal, 778; territories, 58, 75, 76, 77, 78, 90, 9 3 , 9 4 , 161,171,186, 210, 219, 231, 284, 301, 381, 390,
407, 409, 475, 496, 534, 556, 582, 601, 603, 616, 626, 701,707,712,714, 716, 774; Tikal, 299, 300, 305,310,322,325,361, 390,519, 659, 695,708; Tonina, 451; Ucanal, 390; Utatlan, 703; Uxmal, 534, 535, 585; Yalain, 617; Yaxchilan, 407, 424, 425, 431, 4 3 5 » 708 Polity capitals, 78, 90, 183, 186,187, 214, 218, 220-21, 236, 249, 261, 279, 284, 285, 298, 299, 300, 305, 333, 339, 348, 371, 417, 421,431,451,495, 500-02, 516-17, 523, 534, 549, 555-56, 570, 585-86, 617, 634, 659, 684, 688, 695, 6 9 7 - 9 8 , 703, 705, 707, 713-14 Pollock, Harry, 74 Polochic (river), 41 Polol, 762 Polychrome pottery, 95,181, 291, 293-94, 378, 500-01, 527, 635, 653, 656, 659, 723, 748, PI. 6b, 7b, 8b, 9c Polygyny, 676 Polyvalency, 143 Pom, 668, 710, 725, 748, 749, 754. See also Copal Pomona (Belize), 269, 270, 423 Pomoná (Mexico), 430, 431 Pomoy, 474, 476 Pop (month), 106, 107, 113 Popol naah, 485, 486, 488, 580, 697, 709 Popol Vuh, 121, 123-24, 454, 618-19, 622-23, 726, 72819, 731, 7 3 8 , 7 4 1 , 7 4 6 , 750 Population decline, 6, 373, 500, 5°5» 554» 690. See also De population Population density, 81, 219, 514, 688,689 Population growth, 54-56, 8 0 82, 153, 155-56, 160, 164, 174, 176, 179,185, 195, 197, 201, 219-20, 251, 373, 377, 495, 508, 512, 514,
919
920
INDEX
526, 585, 604, 618, 628, 630, 649, 689. See also Overpopulation Population size, 65, 78, 284, 299» 326, 356» 641,687, 690 Poqomam Maya, 193, 626 Poqomam Mayan, 25, 27,193, 224, 621, 626 Poqomchi’ Mayan, 25, 27 Ports, 528-29, 570, 572, 574, 579, 599, 604-08, 610-12, 615, 617, 628, 634 Post-Conquest period, 127, 276, 666 Postprocessual archaeology, 65-67, 69 Potters, 501, 663 Pottery, 7,1 0 ,1 1 , 18, 51,- 57, 59-60, 64, 67, 74, 78, 84, 85,97, 120,151, 155, 162, 163, 169,171,175,180, 190, 195,197, 201-02, 203, 206, 211, 234, 237, 241, 245, 249, 250-51,253,254, 257, 259, 261, 275, 276, 281, 289-90, 293, 294, 321, 327,380,397, 399, 407, 409, 423, 472, 489, 491, 4 9 5 » 500» 5 21» 5 27 , S2«» 529 » 530» 53 4 » 554 » 5 * 5 , 568, 572, 574, 579, 583, 585» 589, 59 2» 599 » 604, 608, 611, 615, 625, 631, 63 3 » 635» 637» 651, 652, 655» 657-59» 675, 678, 682, 685, 7 2 3 »7 26 , 7 29 , 7 3 3 » 7 3 7 »7 3 8 , 7 4 6 , 7 4 8 , 7 4 9 » 754; incised, 130, 162, 164, 181, 252, 283, 288, 472; mold-made, 501, 590, 605, 636, 653, 654; painted, 17, 20,33,61, 92»95, 121, 146, 147,160,161,181,193, 244» 283, 288, 310, 322, 3 3 3 » 3 5 7 , 36 4 » 3 7 8 , 3 7 9 , 417, 501, 590, 634, 656, 7 2 8 , 7 3 5 , 7 3 8 , 7 4 3 , 7 5 1 , PI8b, 9c; stuccoed, 283, 288, 291, 322, PI. 6b, 7b Prayer, 287, 673, 719,725, 745, 749, 756. See also Rituals
Preindustrial states, 78-79, 82., 86, 87,91,155, 235, 249, 259, 285, 295, 296-97, 514, 632, 707, 711-12, 714. See also States Prestige goods, 37» 7 3 » 84-85, 89, 165,169, 171,177, 180, 186, 190-91, 194, 221» 2 3 5 » 249, 257, 291-92, 526.-27, 576, 586, 627-28, 633-35, 654-57, 661, 663, 691, 697, 700, 713,715,718 Priests, i, 8, 89,102,116,123, 124,127, 129, 489, 563, 580, 582, 601, 602, 665, 668, 671, 672, 676, 694, 698, 709,710,717,719, 721, 722, 723, 726, 733, 738, 748, 749,752,754, 756, 762, 770, 773, 774, 777» 778. See abo Religion A Primer o f Maya Hieroglyphs , 136
Prisoners, 450, 668, 751, 765, 776, PI. 13. See also Captives Processions, 425, 450, 744 Processual archaeology, 64-66, 69 Production of goods, 55,175, 261, 635, 651 Propaganda, 90, 431,440 Prophecy, 104, 123, 509, 526, 589, 7 4 5 » 7 7 3 » 7 7 5 - See abo Divination Proskouriakoff, Tatiana, 13741, 148,313,338,383, 390, 423-26, 4 3 4 - 3 5 , 4 8 3 , 530, 545
Prostitutes, 658 Protoclassic Period, 294 Proto-Mayan, 26, 27, 28 Providencia ceramics, 244 Psychotropic substances, 750. See also Divination Puberty ceremonies, 666, 672, 6 7 3 , 675,710 Public works, 77, 179-82, 232, 235, 278, 633 Puerto Escondido, 162 Puerto Hormiga, 163 Puleston, Dennis, 509
Pulltrouser Swamp, 647, 648, 649, 650 Punta de Chimino, 386, 4 1 2 13,510 Punta Laguna, 513 Pusilha, 183, 494, 762 Putun, 528. See also Chontal Maya Puuc architecture, 5 3 4 , 5 3 6 Puuc region, 52, 53, 215, 531, 5 3 3 - 3 4 , 5 5 4 , 566, 585 Pyrite, 46, 180, 411, 426, 634
Q’anjob’al Mayan, 25, 27 Q ’eqchi* Mayan 25, 27 Quarries, 183, 235, 249, 303, 6 3 3 ,651, 654, 655 Quetzal feathers, 41, 84, 96, 169, 291, 634, 661 Quetzalcoatl (deity), 563, 582, 583, 722, 743. See also K’uk'ulkan Quetzales, 148, 342, 461, 698 Quiche basin, 154, 158 Quintana, Oscar, 374 Quirigua, 44, 180, 183, 241, 301, 333, 337, 338, 351- 55, 361,415,476, 477, 478, 482-87, 4 9 4 - 9 5 , 507, 5 10» 511, 527, 576, 579, 647, 684, 686, 687, 688, 694, 703,704, 728, 732» 754, 762, PI. 7b; Acropolis, 353, 484,486, 495; altars, 353, 477, 482-, 494; burials, 354, 483, 494; Great Plaza, 484, 486, 494, 659; Group A, 352, 704; independence from Copan, 361, 415, 476, 4 8 2 87, 502, 515, 700, 705,744; monuments & stelae, 44, 111,1 1 2 -1 3 ,3 5 2 ,3 5 3 ,3 5 5 , 477, 482, 484, 485, 486, 494, 728; research, 351, 352, 353-54, 482., 486, 495, 507, 529, 659; structures, 352, 353» 482., 486,489, 494; zoomorphs, 351-52, 353, 354,482,484, 494, 740 Q’umarkaj, 623, 626. See also Utatlan
INDEX
Q’uq’umatz (deity), 622 Q'uq’umatz (Utatlan ruler), 623, 624, 625, 626
Religious specialists, 88, 175, Revolts, 476, 482, 508-09, 221,721,756 515,517,582, 603-04, 623, Renaissance, 95, 705 625, 626, 663, 718, 766, Research Reports on Ancient 772 Maya Writing, 146 Rice, Don, 618 Rabinal Achi, 124 Reservoirs, 1, 44, 54, 55-56, Rice, Prudence, 509, 618, 698 Rabinal, 40,124, 624, 626 88, 182, 203, 303, 306, 320, Ricketson, Edith, 78 Radiocarbon dating, 98, 114, 356, 358, 364, 500, 509, Ricketson, Oliver G., 78, 83, 160,163, 197, 201, 203, 514.516.518.532, 633, 320 211, 236, 281, 512, 537, 647 Riese, Berthold, 338, 483 Resettlement, 6, 9, 326, 528. Rio Amarillo, 55 563, 589 Raiding, 183, 201, 218, 219, See also Spanish Conquest Río Azul, 146, 325, 326, 327, 249, 259, 723. See also War Residences, 149,171, 194,197, 328-29,374, 3 7 6 , 704; al fare 203, 215, 220, 277, 298, tars, 326, 327; burials, 327; Rain deities, 148,149, 329, emblem glyph, 327; stelae, 317, 340,352,455,488, 327, 328; tombs, 326, 327, 544, 554, 594, 601, 605, 331» 5 7 5 » 5 8 3 » 5 9 5 »72.6, 636, 644, 652, 677-82, 685, 328, 329 729, 730, 736, 737» 738~39 Rainey, Froelich, 3 Rio Bee, 50, 372, 373, 530-31, 691, *>93» 696, 716 Rainfall, 30-32, 34, 40, 41, 42, Residential centers, 696 534, 6 4 3 Residential Groups, 679, 680Rio Bee region, 372, 373, 530, 45, 46, 4 9 - 5 0 , 51, 5 3 , 5 4 , 55-56, 80, 88,147, 158, 82, 683, 692-93, 695 643 181 , 190, 220,493, 500, Resources, 42, 53, 55, 64, 71, Río Dulce, 41, 46, 529, 762 Rituals, i, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 45, 75,77, 80,8 5 -8 6 , 90, 92, 505, 512-13, 515-17, 518, 519, 520, 532, 545, 554, 61, 77, 8 8 -8 9 ,92,121,123, 160,165,173,174-75,181, 183, 186, 218, 219-20, 222, 567, 640, 642, 643, 720, 146,161,165,168,171, 249, 250, 258, 259, 286, 742, 7 4 8 , 7 5 5 175,177,179, 181,194, 203-04, 206, 208, 210, 221, Rainforests, 30, 32, 41, 49, *99» 300, 371, 374, 409, 223, 227-28, 244, 245, 265, 417, 434, 435,447,456, 4 9 3 , 505, 5 2°, 567, 645 267, 269, 272-74, 285, 288, 467, 482, 491, 497, 5 1 0 - n , Raised fields, 81, 265, 279, *89, 297,313,317,336, 515, 517, 519, 526, 529, 639, 643, 647-49, 650, 651, 342, 349, 384, 390, 393, 585, 586, 626, 628, 632-33, 703 638, 663, 690, 700, 701, Ramón (breadnut), 42, 356, 395, 405, 408-09, 422, 440, 712, 718; food, 28, 59, 76, 645 4 4 7 , 4 5 5 , 4 5 6 , 478,483, 488-89, 500, 501, 509, 517, 80-82, 84, 88, 90, 154Ranking, 71, 73, 77, 88, 153, 527, 581, 586, 590, 600, 155,161, 164,165, 691, 155, 159,174-75,190, 265, 601, 605, 627, 632, 635, 275, 278-79, 281, 295, 375, 704, 710 637, 652, 655-57, 659, 666, Rathje, William, 660 4 7 6 - 7 7 , 4 8 5 , 487, 4 9 5 » 509, 511.532, 613, 621, 631, 671, 675, 677, 680, 682, Rattles, 118, 378, 450 685, 693, 698, 699, 701, Rebirth, 8, 286, 390, 421, 461, 633,637, 638-51, 703,713; 712, 714, 716, 717, 720, minerals, 34, 36, 80, 84, 85494, 720, 730, 73 3,74 1, 86, 89,159,175, 179, 237, 721-26, 728, 731, 734, 735, 746, 752 738, 745-55Ï bloodletting, Recinos, Adrian, 1, 377 285, 2 9 1 , 3 3 3 , 3 5 3 , 3 6 4 , 37, 149, 190,197, 250, 257, Regalia, 184, 310, 325, 326, 3 7 5 , 4 7 6 - 7 7 , 485,487, 5 3 2» 406, 436, 437, 44*, 450, 549, 560, 631, 633-34, 329, 342, 4 4 2 ,5 2 3 ,7 4 0 .5 ^ 615, 700, 722, 746, 748, 654-55, 660-61, 703,705, also Rulers 749, 751; burning, 197, 700, 715; water, 88, 89, 221, Religion, 6, 10, 71, 77, 78, 89, 722, 725, 7 3 3 , 7 4 8 , 7 4 9 î 9 1 ,125,168,171,191, 206, *7 8 - 7 9 , 364, 4 9 5 , 509,613, fire, 107,109, 423, 428. 288, 528, 582, 583, 586, 6 7 7 , 7 0 3 , 7 1 3 ,7 1 5 Reviewing stands, 215, 353, 4 7 4 , 4 7 5 , 476, 569, 710; 587, 605, 627, 628, 695, prayers, 287, 673, 719, 725, 488 715,719-5 6, 773,774 -See Revitalization, 195, 391, 395, 745, 749, 756; sacrifices, 90, also Ceremonies; Deities; 91,126, 219, 222, 249, 299, Rituals 487
921
922
INDEX
453.580, 602, 603,715, 723,730, 732, 745, 746, 748, 749, 751» 7 5 3 , 7 5 6; scattering, 149,152, 301, 426, 444, 4 7 3 . 7 3 3 , 7 4 7 i ter mination, 208, 253, 265, 3 9 1 , 4 * 3 , 4 7 7 , 4 7 8 , 5 9 1 - See also Ceremonies; Divination Robertson, John, 132, 144 Robertson, Merle Greene, 452 Roman civilization, 5, 6 Roof combs, 215 Rosny, León de, 127,135 Royal courts, 265, 298, 356, 371, 544, 656, 685, 697, 713, PI. 10, i i , 14 Royal headband, 409, 700, 701, 747. See also Jester god Royal houses, 296-98, 299, 301.389, 4 0 5 , 4 9 5 , 4 9 ^ - 9 7 , 534, 583, 619, 695-96, 699, 704; Calakmul, 357, 358, 413, 497; Caracol, 361; Cocom, 603, 663; Naranjo, 9 4 . 3 8 9 , 4 9 6 , 694, 702; Palenque, 325,461; Petexbatun, 408, 409; Tikal, 310, 327,371,374,381,387, 421, 497; Utatlan, 622; Yaxchilan, 447 Royal Ontario Museum, 492 Roys, Ralph, 153,177, 287, 499.580, 589, 709 Rubber, 42, 214, 232, 290, 658, 748 Ruler A (Piedras Negras), 422, 433
Ruler B (Piedras Negras), 422 Ruler C (Piedras Negras), 149, 422, 433 Ruler Y (Calakmul), 361, 415 Ruler Z (Calakmul), 361, 415 Ruler I (Tonina), 365, 366, 474, 476 Ruler 2 (Copan), 336, 341, 342, 344, 345, 348-49, 477, 478, 637 Ruler 2 (Piedras Negras), 422,
415, Ruler 2 (Tonina), 467, 473, 474, Ruler 3 (Copan), 336, 349
Ruler 3 (Dos Pilas), 384, 4 0 6 07, 408 Ruler 3 (Quirigua), 483 Ruler 4 (Copan), 336, 349 Ruler 4 (Piedras Negras), 422, 423, 426-28, 430, 433, 436, 699 Ruler 4 (Quirigua), 4 8 3 Ruler 4 (Tonina), 4 7 3 , 474, 4 7 5 , 483, 6 9 9 Ruler 5 (Copan), 336 Ruler 5 (Piedras Negras), 423, 427 Ruler 5 (Quirigua), 483 Ruler 5 (Tonina), 474 Ruler 5 (Yaxchilan), 433 Ruler 6 (Copan), 336 Ruler VII (Caracol), 365 Ruler 7 (Piedras Negras), 423, 426, 418-31, 434, 447 Ruler 7 (Tonina), 474, 475 Ruler 8 (Tonina), 474, 476 Ruler 9 (Copan), 336, 349, 351 Ruler 10 (Tonina), 351, 474, 476 Ruler Xin (Caracol), 366, 415, 417 Ruler 28 (Tikal), 313, 417 Rulers, 8, 45, 51, 69, 73, 78, 85-91, 9 3 , 9 6 , 100,123, 134, 147, 148,149-50,168, 171,171-73,176,177,179, 180,181-85, 2 I8, n o , 221-22, 235, 239, 249-50, 257-58, 263-67, 269, 2727 4 ,1 7 5 ,1 8 4 -8 5 ,1 9 4 ,1 9 6 3 0 1 , 4 5 3 , 4 5 4 , 4 5 5 , 500, 508, 510-11, 525-26, 628, 633-34, 637, 657, 666, 667, 669, 671, 69-95, 697-702, 707,710,712-16,718, 721-22, 7 3 1 - 3 5 , 7 3 8 , 7 3 9 , 743, 746, 747, 750, 751; Acalan, 528; Altun Ha, 493; Balberta, 289, 292; Bonampak, 447,449-50, 634, PI. 10-15; Calakmul, 259, 356, 357- 61, 370- 71, 374, 379, 381,386,390,393,399, 413-15, 482, 519, 523,700, 701; Cancuen, 633, 701; Caracol, 261, 363, 364-66,
369-70, 381,415-17, 700; Cerros, 265, 267, 284; Chalcatzingo, 170,172; Chalchuapa, 243, 246; Glichen Itza, 562, 569, 58182, 583, 586, 592; Chocola, 242, 292; Copan, 148, 301, 3 3 3 , 3 3 6 - 3 8 , 340-51, 471, 476-91, 4 9 5 , 4 9 7 , 501, 633, 637, 694, 700, 702, 732, 734, 744; Cupul, 769; Dos Pilas, 383, 388, 403-09, 700, 701; Dzibilchaltun, 554; Edzna, 532; Ek Balam, 556, 558, 559; El Mirador, 259, 261, 275, 278, 279, 3 7 4 , 4 9 7 5 E l P e rú , 4 9 6 ;
Izapa, 230; Jimbal, 519; Kaminaljuyu, 83, 191, 195, 197-98, 222, 232-35, 246, 248, 285, 290, 291-92; La Amelia, 409; La Blanca, 186; La Venta, 165,170; Los Mángales, 201; Mani, 60304, 769, 771; Mayapan, 597, 602, 603, 609, 675, 711; Mexica, 761; Moral Re forma, 469, 700-01; Motul de San José, 523; Nakbe, 275, 278; Naranjo, 148, 380, 381, 382-83, 388-90, 393, 400, 496, 699, 700, 702; Palenque, 145, 146, 148, 380, 451-71, 4 7 3 , 4 7 5 , 675, 694, 701, 702; Piedras Negras, 4 1 ,1 3 9 -4 0 , 42131, 436, 447, 699; Quirigua, 301,351-55, 478, 482-87, 489, 4 9 4 - 9 5 , 700, 732; Sak Tz*i, 426; San Bartolo, 263, 284, PI. 5a; San Gervasio, 605; Seibal, 409, 520-24; Sotuta, 603-04; Tak’alik Ab’aj, 236, 239, 248; Tayasal, 616, 617, 693, 762, 773, 775, 777; Tikal, 1,146, 148, 180, 275-76, 302-05, 308, 310-17, 318, 319, 322, 324, 326-27, 319-33, 361, 366-71, 376, 379,383,387, 3 9 0 -4 0 4 ,4 1 7 -2 1 , 523, 699, 744; Tollan, 619, 620;
INDEX
Tonina, 467, 472-76; Uaxactun, 272,317,319,322; Ucanal, 523; Utatlan, 41, 622-26, 709, 717-18, 765; Uxmal, 535-39; Xunantunich, 516, 517, 518; Yaxchilan, 428, 431-47, 515, 702; Yaxha, 148, 383, 388. See also Kings Ruling houses. See Royal houses Ruppert, Karl, 74, 372 Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto, 453, 471
Sabloff, Jeremy A., 157, 546 Sacbeob, 168, 210, 252, 275, 27 7 » 3 ° 2, 3 2°, 340, 3 ^2, 364,374,375, 449,516, 5 3 5 , 5 4 4 , 5 4 7 , 5 5 °, 5 5 *, 5 5 2, 5 5 5 , 5 5 6 , 5 5 8 , 565, 705, 710. See also Causeways Sächsische Landesbibliothek (Dresden), 127 Sacred places, 220, 684, 726. See also Caves Sacrifice, 51, 126, 219, 246, 489, 603, 668, 715, 730, 7 3 2» 7 4 5 , 748, 7 4 9 , 7 5 ¿; an imal, 488, 749; blood, 37, 149.190.197, 250, 257, 406, 436, 437, 442» 45°, 615, 700, 722, 730, 746, 748, 749, 751, Pl. 14.See also Human Sacrifice; Reli gion; Rituals Sacrificial knives, 45, 752., 753, 754
Sajal (title), 140,150, 299, 423, 426, 428, 431, 433,434, 435, 442-46, 460, 698 Sak (month), 106, 107 Sak Tz’i, 422, 425, 426, 431, 434, 447 Sak Xib Chaak (deity), 739 Sakajut, 162, 251 Sakapultek Mayan, 25, 27 Saklamakhal, 617, 618 Salamá Valley, 35, 40, 162, 180.197, 199-201, 221, 2 3 7 , 24 5 , 24 6 , 24 9 , 2.5 1
Salinas de los Nueve Cerros, 703 Salt, 10, 28,33,84, 89,165, 175, 2.85, 5 27 , 5 29 , 5 3 2, 5 4 8 - 4 9 , 550, 560, 572, 574, 586, 599, 602, 610, 631, 6 3 3 , 6 3 4 - 3 5 , 652., 657, 660-61, 664, 691, 703, 710, 7 1 5 ,7 4 8
Samala (river), 764 San Andrés, 659 San Andres Tuxtla, 227 San Bartolo, 262, 263-65, 279, 425; causeways, 262; murals, 130, 262, 263-65, 269, 273, 728, 729, 741, 747; Preclas sic texts, 130, 263, 269, 284 San Buenaventura, Father, 776 San Gervasio, 574, 605, 606 San José Mogote, 172,173, 224 San Lorenzo (Belize), 516 San Lorenzo (Mexico), 164, 165 San Martin Jilotepeque, 219, 290 San Pablo (river), 760, 778 San Pedro Mártir (river), 46 San Pedro Necta, 9,14 Sandals, 667, 668, 669, 671 Sanders, William, 609 Sandoval, Gonzalo de, 760 Sandstone, 183 Santa Elena, 422, 423, 425, 430,460 Santa Elena Valley, 533, 534 Santa Leticia, 245 Santa Marta (cave), 158 Santa Rita Corozal, 610, 61516, 686, 688, 689, 690; cache, 755; mural, 129, 610, 615, 616 Santiago de Cuba, 759 Santo Domingo, 758, 767, 768 Sapper, Karl, 130 Sarcophagus, 453, 464-66, 734 Sarstoon (river), 45 Sascab, 373, 556 Satterthwaite, Linton, 313, 364, 366, 424, 516 Saturn, 118 Saturno, William, 262 Savannas, 47, 48, 511
Saxon, 73, 74, 79 Sayil, 534, 544, 545, 546-47, 548, 678, 686, 687, 688; altar, 546; causeway, 546, 547; lintels, 546; Palace, 546, 547, PI. 16a; stelae, 545, 546 Scaffolds, 425, 427, 747, PI. 5a Scepters, 41, 45, 148, 172, 184, 201, 248, 326, 341, 342, 348, 3 5 4 , 4©2, 4 4 2»4 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 4 5 , 4 4 7 , 554 , 698, 7 3 9 " 4 i, 747
Scheie, Linda, 146, 322, 333, 3 5 1 , 3 7 9 , 4 5 2, 4 7 3 Schellhas, Paul, 136, 735, 738, 7 3 9 , 741, 7 4 2>7 4 3 Schieber, Christa, 239 Science, 59-60, 64-98 Scientific method, 57, 58, 99, 151 Scribes, 1, 8, 120,121,123, 124, 126,129, 135,488-89, 716 Scroll Serpent (Calakmul ruler), 360,381 Sculpture, 5, 9,17, 21, 64, 87, 92, 96, 99,183, 219, 249, 250, 252,352,356, 445, 4 4 7 , 465-66, 4 7 1 , 4 7 8 , 487, 566, 666, 773, 746, 750; ar chitectural, 17, 218, 274, 339, 340, 353, 488, 489, 490, 5 3 6 , 5 3 7 , 563, 565, 569, 580, 591, 619; stone, i, 17,1 8 ,1 9 ,1 6 5 ,1 7 0 -7 1 , 191-92, 202, 214, 227, 228, 230, 236, 239, 241-42, 24 5 - 4 7 , 2 5 9 - 6 o, 285, 295, 303,311,315,336,353, 3 5 7 , 3 7 5 , 3 9 5 , 4 24 , 426, 4 3 5 , 440, 4 4 2, 4 4 5 , 4 9 4 , 546, 5 7 4 , 5 9 4 , 7 3 4 , 7 4 4 , 754; wood, 8 7 ,114, 130, 22 5 , 303, 304, 305, 3 7 4 , 390, 393-94, 400-02,417, 420, 500, 744. See also Al tars; Lintels; Stelae; Thrones; Wall panels Sea walls, 572, 579 Seibal, 44, 138, 152, 202, 313, 361, 384, 386, 407, 408, 409,415,417, 520, 521-24,
923
924
INDEX
527, 529, 677, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691; cache, 202; causeways, 520; em blem glyph, 138,152, 386, 524; hieroglyphic stairway, 520; research, 520; stelae, 152, 520, 522, 523, 524; structures, 520, 521, 523 Sek (month), 106,107,112,
113 Seiden Codex, 118,120 Seler, Edward, 136 Serpentine, 39,168,177,190, 661 Servants, 1, 300, 489, 602, 683, 7 7 * , 773> 777 Settlement hierarchies, 73, 76, 77-78, 85, 161,165,183, 185-86,190,197, 218-21, 236, 262, 263, 279, 298, 371, 682, 684, 707, 711-13 Settlement patterns, 55, 56, 64, 68, 71, 72, 75-76, 77, 82, 95,161,171,185,190, 203, 219, 236,251, 253,258, 276, 284, 298, 339, 352, 356 , 364, 371, 4 1 4 , 4 5 6 , 491, 4 9 4 , 508, Si», 53 °, 5 3 4 - 3 5 , 5 4 5 - 4 6 , 5 4 9 - 5 °, 589, 594, 601, 609, 618-19, 645, 648, 665-66, 677, 681, 682-90, 696, 704, 758 Settlements, 24, 31, 37, 40, 51, 53, 56, 78,95,159,160, 165,175,177,187,197, 202, 210, 211, 220, 224, 265, 275, 293,352, 407, 516, 534, 585, 615, 618, 644, 654, 655, 681, 703, 704, 7 ° 5 - o 8 , 773 Shafer, Harry, 654 Shamans, 93,123,175, 673, 710, 721-22, 726, 750,756 Sheets, Payson, 280, 281, 680 Shields, 41,149,150, 313, 329, 331, 341, 354, 393, 436, 4 5 4 , 4 7 °, 481, 489, 576, 739, 74° Shook, Edwin M., 57, 78, 83, 87,188, 239, 289, 303,320, 377
Short Count, 104, 113,114
Shrines, 92, 168, 232, 235, 265, 267, 274, 285, 291, 302-03, 304, 305, 3 5 3 - 54 , 361, 3 7 9 , 391, 3 9 5 , 4 °°, 4 ° 3 , 4 5 3 - 54 , 467-68, 477, 488, 489, 550, 554, 594, 605, 606, 610, 636, 660, 674, 675, 678, 682, 692, 693, 723, 726, 731, 7 3 4 , 741, 7 4 5 , P l- 5 a, 6a. See also Temples Siberia, 153,154 Sierra de Chuacus, 39, 40 Sierra de las Minas, 39 Sierra Red, 244, 252 Silver, 658 Sip (month), 106, 107, 113, 744
Sipakapense Mayan, 25, 27 Sisia, 767 Site hierarchies, 73, 76,165, 185-86,197, 218, 220, 236, 707 Siyaj Chan K’awiil I (Tikal ruler), 148, 310, 311 Siyaj Chan K’awiil II (Tikal ruler), 148, 303, 308, 311, 316, 327, 329, 331-33, 338, 348, 362, 379, 391 Siyaj K*ak* (Tikal), 311, 322, 3 * 3 , 314, 315, 317, 3 3 8 , 341, 341 Sky, 138,147,148,149,173, 719, 732, 743, 744, 746, 755; deities, 117-118,149, 171, 622, 718, 720, 721, 717, 719, 7 3 ° - 3 i, 7 3 5 - 3 9 , 743; symbolism, 92,161, 168, 230, 265, 453, 656,
704 Sky Witness (Calakmul ruler), 358,360,371,379 Sky Xul (Quirigua ruler), 353, 3 5 4 , 483, 49 4 Skyraiser (Kan ruler), 259, 358 Slatewares, 501, 574 Slaves, 9,471, 599, 631, 658, 7 09, 7 H> 717. 759 Smith, Robert E., 78 Smith. A. Ledyard, 78, 407, 520 Smoke Imix (Copan ruler), 337, 3 5 3 , 4 7 6 , 477, 478, 483 Snares, 638
Social complexity, 76, 92,171, 17 7 , 179,13!, 185, 665 Social economy, 11, 80, 82, 84, 85,95, 9 8 , 1 71, 178,186, 190, 201, 206, 219, 223, 185,196, 506,510,513, 51 4 , 5 5 9 , 5 85 , 591, 626, 628, 629, 631, 632, 634, 6 3 5 - 36 , 659, 684 Social evolution, 57, 69, 70, 71, 73-97, 628-30 Social hierarchy, 1, 76, 93, 94, 182, 489, 722, 756 Social inequity, 73, 75 Social integration, 73, 222 Social stratification, 71, 73, 76, 79, 86,155, T9 3 , 1 9 4 ,1 1 9 20, 249, 285, 299, 661, 690-92 Soconusco, 33,185, 763, 764 Soil, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 4°, 41, 4 4 , 4 5 , 46, 4 7 , 5 °, 53 , 5 4 , 59, 66, 158,190, 220, 243, 519, 5 33 , 53 4 , 5 4 9 , 642-43, 649, 677, 684, 703; exhaus tion, 54, 56, 81, 286, 500, 502, 511-12, 513, 514, 515, 640, 642, 645; replenish ment, 44, 54, 81, 218, 641, 641, 643, 645, 647 Solar eclipses, 117 Solola, 16 Sotuta, 74, 572, 574, 603, 772 Sotuta ceramics, 74 South America, 7, 8, 28, 155, 156,163, 639, 661 Southeast Asia, 74, 695, 712,
714 Spain, 5, i i , 127, 709, 710, 713, 763, 764, 766, 767, 768, 775 Spaniards, 4, 5, 528, 599, 601, 604, 617, 620, 637, 657, 710, 723, 750, 757, 7 5 9 - 7 8 Spanish Conquest, 4, 6, 7, 8 -9 ,
16,13, 3 3 , 35, 37, 4 4 , 51,83,91, 99, i°9 ,H 4 , 115,120,123, 127, 129, i i ,
132,156,176, 193, 176, 503, 5 ° 7 >5 ° 9 , 515, 518, 5 54 , 5 7 5 , 583, 587, 589, 591,
195, 51°, 581, 599,
INDEX
603, 604, 609-10, 615, 617, 621, 626, 627, 628, 639, 641, 657, 662, 664, 665, 666 , 669, 671, 677, 687, 691, 69 3 ,708,711,717-19, 72.5 » 7 3 3 » 7 4 1 , 7 4 8 , 7 5 1 , 7 5 3 , 7 5 4 , 7 5 5 , 7 5 ^, 7 5 7 - 7 8 Spanish Empire, 8 Spearheads, 412 Spears, 37, 41, 154, 159, 248, 450, 4 5 4 , 489, 740, 753 Spearthrower Owl, 324, 379, 393
Specialists, 59, 75, 84, 88, 93, 120,146,174,175, 203, 221, 296, 378, 514, 527, 604, 6 35, 636, 651-54, 656, 717, 720, 721, 756 • Specialization, 76-77, 79, 8 2 85, 161,164,175, 177, 651-55,711 Spinden, Herbert, 114, 126 Spinden correlation, 114 Spindle whorls, 51, 746 Split Earth (Calakmul ruler), 360, 399, 413 Spondylus, 43,171, 257, 527, 634, 635, 656, 746, PI. 2a Squash (ayote), 28, 81, 155, 158, 163, 640, 645 Staffs, 14, 87, Z58, 248, 366, 368, 3 9 i , 3 9 i , 404 Stars, 53, 78, n o , 116-18, 120, 150, 267, 287, 370, 377, 383, 388, 413, 430, 460, 475, 609, 720, 728, 7 3 1 , 7 3 6 , 7 4 4 , 746 States, 23, 46, 56, 65, 73, 7 7 7 9 , 9 4 , 9 8 ,114,115, 116, 288, 289, 293, 294, 376, 377, 629, 634-35, 661, 664, 721, 762, 763; apogees, 44, 156, 278-79, 3 7 9 - 4 9 7 ; characteristics, 73, 77-79, 8 0 -9 3 ,9 5 ,9 6 ,1 5 6 , 70218, 757, 762-63; declines, 44,155,156, 279-84, 4 9 9 524; expansions, 44, 155156, 295-371; industrial, 79; origins, 44, 73-79, 8 0 9 3 , 154-55,179,113-50, 251-79, 284-86, 287-89,
663; preindustrial, 4, 70, 78, 79, 82, 86, 87,91, 155, 235, 249, 259, 285, 295, 296, 197,514, 631, 632, 689, 6 9 1 ,707, 7 i i , 7 n , 714,
731; transformations, 44, 155.156, 290 -9 5 ,5 2 5 -8 7 , 591-628 Status, 70-71, 7 3 , 7 6 - 7 7 , 82, 85, 86, 89, 96,160,163, 171, 182, 219, 220, 222, 150, 257, 259, 267, 29699,489,525-26, 622, 691, 6 9 5 , 711, 7 3 4 , 7 4 7 , 7 7 i; achieved, 76, 88; inherited, 76, 88,161; symbols, 42, 85, 8 8,161,179-80, 194, 221, 113.157, 579 , 605, 661, 666-67, 7*5 Stelae, 1,18,149,172,178, 182,197, 224, 227, 235, 145,173,174,180, 285, 294, 300, 302, 452, 500, 501, 504, 534, 700, 731, 754; Aguateca, 384, 385, 407; Bonampak, 12; Calak mul, 183, 356-57, 358, 360-61,413,414,415, 519; Caracol, 364, 365, 366, 415, 416, 417; Chiapa de Corzo, n o ; Chichen Itza, 563, 564; Coba, 554, 580; Copan, 63, 68,118,119, 333, 336-38, 340, 341, 343, 349, 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 - 7 8 ,480, 484-85, 4 8 6 , 487, 489, 524; Dos Pilas, 383, 386; Dzibilchaltun, 549, 554; El Baúl, 246, 248; El Mirador, 252, 253, 257, 261, 275; El Portón, 197, 199; Izapa, 228, 230; Jimbal, 19; Kaminaljuyu, 184,191, 232, 233, 241, 242, 246; La Mojarra, 225, 226; Mayapan, 594, 597, 598, 602, 700; Moral Reforma, 700; Nakbe, 212-213, 214, 218; Nakum, 374; Naranjo, 380, 382-83, 388-89, 390; Oxkintok, 534; Palenque, 460; Piedras Negras, 139-40, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426,
427, 428, 430, 699, 724, 747; Quirigua, n i , 112-13, 3 51 , 3 5 3 , 3 55 , 4 7 7 , 481, 484, 485, 486, 494, 728; Río Azul, 327, 328; Sayil, 545, 546; Seibal, 152, 520, 522, 523, 524; Tak’alik Ab’aj, 237, 238, 239, 245,246, 247, 248; Tikal, 303, 304, 305,308,310,311-17,319, 310,316,317,319,330-31, 333, 347, 361, 366, 367, 368-69, 370, 377, 39T, 392, 3 93 , 3 95 , 396, 400, 403, 404, 406,417,418,419, 504, 5x8, 694, 735; Tonina, 471, 4 7 3 » 504; Tulum, 301, 609; Uaxactun, 78, 317, 319,311,313,314, 504; Uxmal, 535, 537, 539í Xunantunich, 516, 517; Yaxchilan, 431, 4 3 3 , 4 3 4 , 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 , 440, 4 4 1 , 4 4 1 , 4 4 7 , 4 4 9 ; Yaxha, 375. See also Monu ments; Sculpture Stephens, John Lloyd, 7, 64, 68, 99,126, 352, 452, 609 Stingray spines, 177, 234, 250, 157,191, 3 5 7 , 4 i 6 , 615, 746
Storage, 10, 53, 55, 61, 75, 80, 89, 154,158,160,161,182, 1 0 3 ,3 7 8 ,4 1 1 -n , 605, 635-36, 655, 678, 680, 682. See also Cisterns; Chultunes Stromsvik, Gustav, 74 Stuart, David, 132, 144, 146, 147,322,327,333,347, 375, 477, 620,714 Stuart, George, 3 Stucco modeling, 393, 454, 455, 500, Subsistence, 69, 72, 75, 80, 81, 82, 8 7 ,1 5 3 ,1 5 4 ,1 5 7 ,1 5 9 ,
160,161, 163, 176, 220, 310,371,511,511,513, 514, 635, 637-51, 652, 672, 713. See also Agriculture; Animal husbandry; Gather ing; Hunting Suicide, 733, 736, 744 Sulin, 251
925
926
INDEX
Sumer, 126 Sun, 116, 148, 217, 282, 305, 3i3>3i9> 3 4 i , 4 i 7 ,
410
,
451, 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 , 460, 467, 698, 719, 716, 7 3 9 , 763, 766 Sunraiser Jaguar (Xhuy ruler), 483 Supernatural, 42, 91-93, 100, 232, 274, 297, 300, 348, 461, 471, 489, 500, 509, 526, 675, 719, 720, 721, 7 i6 -3 3 , 7 3 5 - 56 ; beings, 147,181, 183, 221, 297, 394, 401-02, 438, 493, 671, 720, 717-33, 735-45J inter action, 77, 88, 89, 91, 93, 102, 175,182, 221, 272, 274, 296, 509, 526, 700, 745-55; origins, 76,91, 163,196-97, 717-730; power, 88, 89, 91-93, 168, 172, 178-79, 180-83, 22122, 263-64, 269, 285, 29798,371,456, 461, 500,585, 669, 698, 715, 755-56. See also Cosmology; Deities Swasey ceramics, 202, 203 Sweat baths, 168 Swiddening, 81, 82, 640, 641 Swords, 297, 767 Syllabary, 141, 143, 145 Synharmony, 141, 142, 14445. See also Disharmony
Tabasco, 46, 166, 378, 421, 469, 501, 518, 598 , 603, 631, 700, 760, 761, 768, 770, 771 Tajoom Uk’ab’ K’ak’ (Calakmul ruler), 360, 381 Tak’alik Ab’aj, 33, 239; altars, 239; monuments, 191, 192, 136, 239, 245, 246, 247, 248; stelae, 237, 238, 239, 245, 246, 247, 248; tomb, 139 Talud-tablero, 83,195, 291, 292, 321, 322, 344, 348 Tamales, 161, 645, 746 Tamarindito, 386, 408
Tan Te’ K’inich (Dos Pilas ruler), 385, 409 Tancah, 3,129, 607 Tapachultec, 23 Tattooing, 668, 669, 672, 759 Taube, Karl, 146, 733 Tayasal, 4, 48, 509, 616-17, 688, 762, 772-75; Spanish conquest of, 509, 776-78 Tazes, 772 Tazumal, 193 Technology, 4, 9, 11, 45, 154, 1 7 5 , 4 4 9 , 5 4 9 , 637, 638, 6 5 3 , 655 Tecoh, 603 Tecpan Atitlan, 765. See also Atitlan Tecpan Quauhtemalan, 765. See also Iximche Tecpan Utatlan, 765. See also Utatlan Teeple,John, 136 Tehuacan, 157, 158 Tejeda, Antonio, 449 Teko Mayan, 25, 27 Temperature, 45, 49, 53 Temples, 1, 73, 85, 89, 91, 97, 149,168,181,182, 215, 284, 285, 299, 380, 386, 506, 50 9 , 5 3 1 , 54 4 , 5 4 9 , 569, 582, 601, 615, 617, 627, 628, 654, 665, 675, 677, 684, 693, 704, 710, 713, 719, 715, 7 5 4 ; Calak mul, 356-59, 413; Caracol, 364, 367, 415; Cerros, 252, 265, 266-67, 268, 273, 320, 454; Chalchuapa, 186, 193, 221, 241, 243, 245; Chichen Itza, 74, 217, 560, 563, 565-67, 571-73, 580, 591, 594-97, 609, 668, 711, 724, 740, 763; Coba, 556, 557, 605; Copan, 45, 51, 68, 217, 3 3 4 - 3 8 , 3 3 9 - 4 4 , 3 4 8 - 51 , 4 7 7 - 7 9 , 481, 487, 488-89, 490, 620, 636-37, 699, 700, 7 3 1 , 7 4 1 , PI-5b, 6a, 7a; Dzibilachaltun, 550, 553; Edzna, 533; El Mirador, 252-56; Kaminaljuyu, 83, 131,134-35,137,150 ; La
Blanca, 186, 188, 221; Mayapan, 5 9 4 - 9 9 , 602; Palenque, 217, 403, 451-56, 460, 462-69, 471, 473, 718; San Bartolo, 262, 273; Seibal, 523; Tikal, 2, 87, 114, 217, 253, 258-59, 274, 302-10, 313, 316-17, 3 3 1 3 3 , 3 6 2 , 376-77, 3 7 9 , 3 9 0 91, 3 9 3 - 9 5 , 3 9 7 - 9 9 , 4 0 0 03,417, 4 i o , 4 5 4 , 731, 734, 751-53; Tulum, 607, 609-10, 611, 612, 760; Uaxactun, 78, 269, 271-72; Utatlan, 622, 623, 625; Uxmal, 536-37, 542; Yaxchilan, 217, 434, 4 3 6 40, 442-47. See also Shrines Tenciz, 762 Tenochtitlan, 5, 600, 657, 761, 763, 770 Tenosique, 761 Teotihuacan, 29, 70, 83, 156, 281, 282, 284, 288-93,195, 321,322,324,326,333, 342, 348, 373, 374, 376, 488, 522, 528, 583, 620, 629, 663, 698 Tepeu ceramics, 1, 378 Terraces, 44, 54, 193, 197, 239, 145,153,179, 303, 309, 320, 3 4 0 , 3 5 1 - 5 3 , 3 5 7 , 3 6 4 , 386, 391,414, 432, 435, 4 4 5 , 4 4 9 , 451, 471, 4 9 4 , 516, 519, 510, 530, 5 3 6 - 3 7 , 5 4 6 , 563, 5 9 4 , 5 9 8 , 643-44, 713, 7 7 5 Terracing, 81, 643, 644 Testera, Brother Jacobo de, 770 Tetlepanquetzal (Tlacopan ruler), 761 Texcoco, 761 Textiles, 10, 11, 49, 51, 84, 85, 169, 180, 181, 357, 572, 599,610, 637, 659,710, 754
Thomas, Cyrus, 135, 136, 141, 493,615, 654, 751 Three Rivers region, 55 Thrones, 150,172, 342, 348, 353, 361, 366, 367, 379, 387, 400, 407, 426, 428,
INDEX
436, 440, 447, 450, 453, 470, 4 7 3 »4 7 8 , 4 9 4 » 4 9 5 » 4 9 7 , 5 35 » 591, 698, 699, 751; Altar de los Reyes, 262; Bonampal, 450; Chichen Itza, 565, 567; Copan, 488; Dos Pilas, 300, 386,408; Kaminaljuyu, 198, 232, 246; Naranjo, 388, 494; Palen que, 62, 454, 462, 469; Piedras Negras, 300, 422, 423, 425, 426, 428, 429, 430, 431; Quirigua, 353, 494; Tikal, 272, 303, 393, 3 9 4 , 401-02-, 404, 731; Utatlan, 41; Uxmal, 537; Yaxchilan, 432, 442, 444 Tierra caliente, 30, 32, 42, 45, 49
Tierra del Fuego, 4 Tierra templada, 30, 34, 45 Tikal, 1-4 , 19, 44, 47, 78, 87, 95,130, 138,146-49,152., 180, 215, 245, 247, 252-53, 258, 262, 275, 279, 282-83, 290, 294-95, 299, 300, 301, 302-17, 318-20, 321-22, 3 2 4 -2 7 ,3 2 9 -3 3 ,3 3 6 ,3 3 8 , 341-42, 344, 346-48, 353" 54 , 356, 358, 360-65, 36671, 372, 3 7 4 - 7 7 , 3 7 9 - 8 4 , 386-87, 390-403, 404-06, 407, 409,413,415,417-21, 4 i 5, 4 3 i - 3 3 , 4 5 i , 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 , 462, 478, 480, 482, 493, 4 9 5 - 9 7 , 500, 504-05, 511, 517-19, 513-14, 519, 53031, 554, 563, 605, 617, 633-34, 638, 659, 663-64, 677, 682, 685-90, 694-96, 698-700, 701-02, 703, 704-05, 707-08, 713, 73133, 735, 739, 744, 747, 751-53, 754, 776; altars, 305, 313, 391, 391, 395, 400, 403, 417, 418, 419; ar chitectural decoration, 252, 169, 309, 362; burials, 302, 303, 304-05, 308, 310, 321, 322, 327, 332, 333, 379, 395, 397, 417, 682, 744, PL 18a, 18b; caches, 317, 747;
causeways, 1, 87, 302, 304, 305, 306, 395, 403, 659; Central Acropolis, 252, 303, 304, 307,317,318,374, 3 9 3 , 5 1 9 , 695, 731; East Plaza, 304, 393, 403, 659; emblem glyph, 138, 148, 152, 262, 310, 316, 329, 331,368,383,523,524, 707; fortifications, 1, 302, 367, 687, 688; graffiti, 304, 751» 7 5 3 »Great Plaza, 87, 302, 303, 305, 307, 391, 395, 397, 398, 417, 47 8 ; Group G, 87, 304, 753; Group H, 87, 269, 273, 302, 304, 320, 391, 403; lintels, 87,114,130, 303, 304, 305, 3 7 4 , 390, 3 9 3 » 3 9 4 , 400, 401-02, 417, 420, 744; Lost World Group (Mundo Per dido), 87, 258, 261, 302,
304, 305,315,310,311, 324; murals, 259, 272, 302; North Acropolis, 87, 258, 159,174, 301, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 317, 332, 333, 362, 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 , 391, 400, 403, 454, 732; research, 19, 63, 64, 87, 302, 304, 307, 377, 659; reservoirs, 1, 306, 518, 633; stelae, 303, 304, 305, 308,310,311-17,319,320, 326, 327, 329, 330-31, 333, 347, 362., 366, 367, 368-69, 370, 3 7 7 , 391-93, 3 9 5 , 3 9 6 , 400, 403, 404, 406, 417-19, 504, 518, 694, 735; struc tures, 254, 259, 269, 272, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 315,316,317,327,331, 331, 3 3 3 , 362, 373, 3 7 9 , 391, 391, 3 9 3 , 3 9 5 , 400; Temple I, 87, 303, 304, 306, 307,313, 3 9 0 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 3 , 3 9 4 , 3 9 7 - 9 9 , 400, 7 3 4 ; Temple H, 303, 306, 307, 3 9 5 , 3 9 7 , 398, 751, 7535 Temple ID, 305, 306, 307, 417, 420; Temple IV, 2, 87, 114, 217, 253,302, 304,
306, 307, 395, 400, 401-02, 403, 417; Temple V, 304, 306, 307; Temple VI, 304, 306, 376, 400, 403; tombs, 146,180, 258, 261, 274, 302, 303, 304, 305, 308, 310-13,321-22,327,329, 3 3 1 - 33 , 3 7 7 , 3 79 , 3 9 0 , 391, 3 97 , 3 9 9 , 400, 4 0 3 , 7 3 3 ; Twin Pyramid Groups, 304, 305, 306, 3 75 , 391-91, 3 95 , 3 9 6 - 9 7 , 403,404,417, 418-19, 731, 754; wars, i, 300,303,304,311,312, 313, 360-62, 365, 369-71, 37 6 , 3 77 , 379, 381, 382, 384,387,389,390, 393-95, 399, 400, 401-02, 403, 405-406,413,415,433, 496, 497, 509-10, 515, 526, 664, 701-02, 704, 705 Tikal-Yaxha transect, 687, 690 Tiloom (La Pasadita sajal), 434, 441, 444 Tintai, 214 Tipu, 616, 617, 773, 774, 775 Titles, 132,139-40, 224, 692, 693, 696; female, 139-40, 198, 367, 3 79 , 461; royal, 89,146,148-50, 172,180, 284, 298, 299, 310, 311-13, 322,327,336-38, 341, 347-48,382, 432, 4 3 3 , 4 6 i, 482-83, 528, 581, 583, 616, 623, 626, 694, 697-98, 699, 702, 707, 709, 738, 739; subordinate, 123, 130,150, 2.98-99, 488-89, 500-01, 656, 709-10, 716 Tixcacal, 13* 670 Tizimin, 123, 598, 767 Tlacopan, 761 Tlaloc (deity), 329, 331, 488 Tlatelolco, 657, 658 Tlaxcalans, 762 Toads, 43, 244, 750, 751. See also Divination Tobacco, 2 8 ,171, 750, 751 Tojil (deity), 622, 718 Tok Casper (Quirigua ruler), 3 51 , 3 5 4 ,4 8 3
927
9 X8
INDEX
Tollan, 619, 620, 622, 626, 628, 717 Tombs, 17, 20, 2 i, 33, 97, 140, 218, 232, 245, 250, 257, 261, 274, 284, 293-94, 305, 338, 354, 360, 362, 378, 407, 417, 456, 460,478-79, 487, 500, 506, 636, 647, 65 5 , 657, 675, 693,699, 713, 732-34; Alton Ha, 129, 493; Calakmul, 180, 357, 413; Caracol, 364, 675, 733; Cerros, 267; Chiapa de Corzo, 245; Copan, 68, 336, 3 37 , 340, 3 4 4 - 4 9 , 3 5 0 , 3 5 1 , 354, 476, 488, 490, 491, 6 9 3 , 699-700, 7 3 3 , 7 3 4 ; Dos Pilas, 384,406, 407; Dzibilchaltun, 554; Ek Balam, 556, 559; Guaytan, 129; Holmul, 294; Kaminaljuyu, 83, 195, 232, 234, * 35 , * 3 7 , *4 9 - 50 , *7 4 , *85, 291-92,321,322, 751; La Venta, 165; Los Mángales, 200, 221, 249; Naachton, 18; Palenque, 180, 452, 453, 463-66, 471, 675, 699, 733, 734; Piedras Negras, 422, 4 * 3 , 4 *4 , 4*6, 4*8, 699; Río Azul, 326, 327, 328, 329; Tak'alik Ab’aj, 239; Teotihuacan, 293; Tikal, 146, 180, 258, 261, 274, 302, 303,304, 305, 308,310, 311,312,313,321-22,327, 3 *9 , 3 3 *, 3 3 3 , 3 7 7 , 37 9 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 1 , 3 9 7 , 3 9 9 ,400, 403, 733; Tonina, 474, 475, 476; Uaxacton, 129, 322, 674; Wakna, 261; Yaxchilan, 442. See also Burials Tonina, 35, 183, 366, 422, 451, 4 5 5 , 4 6 o, 463, 467,468, 470, 471, 471-76, 500, 504; monuments, 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 500, 504; research, 471; stelae, 471, 473, 504; tombs, 474, 475, 476; wars, 422, 460, 463, 467, 468, 470, 471-7*, 4 7 3 , 4 7 4 - 7 5 , 476
Topoxte, 599, 617 Tortillas, 28, 590, 645, 654, 672, 673, 746 Towers, 5, 452, 455, 456, 486, 530, 531, 550, 5 5 5 , 609, 612, 760 Tozzer, Alfred, 87, 374 Trade, 33, 37, 51, 55, 58, 6 0 61, 65, 71, 77, 82-85,^9091, 125-26, 156,171, 17476,177,179, 191,195, 219-20, 222, 227, 242, 253, 282, 289, 292-93,321,371, 374, 376, 378, 476, 4 9 7 , 501, 516, 519, 525, 5*7~*9, 533 , 548-50, 57 6 , 600, 604-05, 631, 638-39, 655, 657, 697, 711, 748; centers, 33,71,85, 285,407, 527, 608, 611; local, 219, 290, 373, 66o; long-distance, 83, 84, 85, 163,164, 165,168, 169,171, 175, 180, 186, 190,194, 220, 221, 237, 249, 257, 381, 510, 629, 6 3 3 - 3 5 , 659, 660-64, 5 54 ; networks, 1, 9, 82, 83, 85, 87, 91, 96, 169,1 7 1 ,1 9 0 91, 232, 235,257, 290-91, 292, 293-94, 487, 493, 5 *7 - * 9 » 548-50, 570-74, 578-80, 585, 586, 590, 599, 605, 611-13, 617, 620, 633—36, 660—64, 700; regional, 660, 661. See also Economy; Markets; Merchants Trade alliances, 292 Trade routes, 9, 35, 82, 84, 85, 88-90,158, 171, 173, 187, 190, 224, 231, 244-45, *49, 251, 281, 284, 285-86, 294, 3 0 i, 3 *7 , 3 5 *, 3 6 4 , 400, 421,431, 435,482-83,485, 496, 5 1 0 - n , 515, 5*1-**, 5 *4 , 5 *9 , 560, 569-70, 584, 586, 599, 616, 617, 620, 627-28, 634-36, 659, 66364, 700, 703-04, 715-16, 718, 764 Transportation, 375, 527, 604, 627,661, 664, 701
Transshipment, 285, 605, 608, 610, 611, 613, 703 Tree of life, 42, 263, 454, 466, 468, 469, 7 * 3 , 7 *9 , 731 Tres Zapotes, 225, 227, 228 Tribute, 1, 77, 85-86, 89, 90, 94, 125-26, 168,179-80, 182, 201, 221-22, 227, 296, 299-300, 377,403,406, 422, 4 7 3 - 7 5 , 487, 5 44 , 58*, 624, 631, 634, 657, 661, 684, 691, 697, 700, 709-10, 713,716-17, 735, 743, PI. 9c Trik, Aubrey, 3 Trophy heads, 201, 246, 249, 489, 565. See also War fare True History o f the Conquest o f N ew Spain , 763
Trujillo, 768 Tula, 29, 528, 565, 566, 620 Tulane University, 550 Tulum, 4, 218, 301, 556, 607, 608, 609-10, 611, 612, 613, 614, 760; altars, 610; Castillo, 607, 609-10, 611, 612, 760; cenote, 609; fortifications, 373, 607, 609, 612; murals, 129, 607, 608, 609, 610, 613; research, 609; stelae, 301, 609 Turn Yohl K’inich (Caracol Ruler VIII), 365 Tun (time unit), 103, h i Tupiles (constables), 710 Turkeys, 43, 128,141, 142, 144,163, 638 Turquoise, 565, 573, 579, 658, 668, 748, 754, 760 Turtle Tooth (Piedras Negras ruler), 422, 425 Tusik, 123 Tut, Ambrosio, 87 Tutul Xiu (Mani ruler), 771 Tutuum Yohl K’inich (Quirigua ruler), 483 Tuun Kab Hix (Calakmul ruler), 358 Tuxtla Statuette, 225, 227 Twin Pyramid Groups, 304, 305, 306, 375, 391, 392,
INDEX
395. 3 9 6 - 97, 403, 404, 417, 418-19, 731, 754 Tzab (rattles), 118 Tzakol ceramics, 288, 378 Tzeltal Mayan, 25, 27 Tzibanche, 358, 529. See also Dzibanche Tz’ikin (K’iche ruler), 626 Tzimin Chak (deity), 773 Tzompantli, 565, 570, 619 Tzotzil Maya, 15 Tzotzil Mayan, 25, 27 Tzul (dog), 144, 145
U? Chan (Calakmul ruler), 360 Uaxactun, 78, 118, 129, 217, 252, 261, 269, 271-73, 279, 3 02,305,317,319,320, 3 2 1 ,3 2 2-25,364,374,375, 504, 674, 686, 687; architec tural decoration, 252, 269, 271, 272, 273, 302, 320; burials, 322, 674; cause way, 535; Group A, 320; Group B, 320, 324; Group E, 78, 118, 261, 320, 321, 374, 375; Group H, 269, 273; murals, 324-25; research, 78, 87, 320, 322, 324; stelae, 7 8 ,3 1 7,319,322,323,324, 504; structures, 78, 216, 217, 254, 269, 271, 272, 273, 320, 322, 674; tombs, 129, 322, 674 Uaymil, 534 Ucanal, 366, 382, 390, 415, 522, 523 Uh Chapat (Tonina Ruler 9), 474, 476 Ukit K’an Lek Tok’ (Ek Balam ruler), 556, 559 Ukit Took’ (Copan ruler), 338, 491, 502 Ulua (river), 46, 162, 487, 489, 631 Underworld, 168,172, 214, 230, 265*272, 354,400, 421,453,454,466, 468, 488, 563, 575, 675, 704, 720, 729, 7 3 0 - 3 1 , 7 3 3 - 3 4 ,
7 3 7 , 7 3 9 , 7 4 I “ 4 2» 7 4 3 , 7 4 4 , 751, PI. 9c. See also Xibalba Une Balam (Tikal ruler), 310, 311 Universe, 67, 91, 104, 168, 221, 269, 285, 297, 401,461, 704,715,719, 72.0, 730, 7 3 *, 7 3 2, 755 Universidad del Valle de Guate mala, 16, 424 University of Pennsylvania Museum, 63, 87, 193, 307, 352,364, 424 Uolantun, 317 Ursua, Martin de, 774, 775, 7 7 6 , 7 7 7 , 778 Uspantek Mayan, 25, 27 Usulutan pottery, 181, 244, 245, 288 Usumacinta (river), 40, 43, 44, 4 5 -4 6 ,1 3 0 ,1 9 7 , 202, 215, 381,386, 407,421,424, 425, 431, 432,435-36, 442, 475, 510, 511, 521, 529, 567, 585, 619-20, 643,714, 761 Utatlan, 4, 35, 41, 124, 576, 621-26, 703, 717-18, 763; Spanish conquest of, 764-65 Utilitarian goods, 180, 656-57, 660-61, 663, 713 Uucyabnal, 562. See also Chichen Itza Uxbenka, 202 Uxmal, 4, 44, 216, 217, 53442» 544, 545, 54«, 580, 585, 599, 601, 602, 619, 664; Adivino, 536, 5 3 7 , 5 4 2; al tar, 537; ball court, 214, 536; causeway, 535, 544, 545; Cemetery Group, 68, 340, 537; emblem glyph, 537; Governor’s Palace, 216, 2i 7 , 5 3 6 , 53 7 , 53 8 , 540, PI. 2b; Great Pyramid, 536; House of the Pigeons, 217; House of the Turtles, 217, 536; Nunnery Quadrangle, 5 3 6 - 37 , 538, 540, 541, 5 44 ; research, 536, 537; stelae, 53 5 , 53 7 , 539; Temple of the Phallus, 537
Vahxak’i-Kaam (K’iche ruler), 625, 626 Vail, Gabrielle, 127, 137 Vaillant, George, 114 Valdivia, 163, 758, 759, 768 Valley of Guatemala, 35, 36, 39, 162, 165,194, 195, 197, 284, 293, 618, 702 Valley of Oaxaca, 155,156, 157-58, 160, 165,169, 171, 172,173, 174, 176,191, 201, 224 Valley of Puebla, 528 Vanderbilt University, 386 Velásquez, Diego de, 759, 766 Venus tables, 135 .See also Dresden Codex Venus, 102, 117,129, 135,150, 267, 300, 453, 609, 729, 744
Verapaz, 34, 35, 40-41, 4 5 , 2 5 I , 590, 7 2 6 Vienna, 127 Vigesimal, 100-02, 135 Vikings, 8 Villagra, Agustín, 449 Vista Alegre, 574 Volcanic ash, 572, 574, 590, 633, 641, 642, 645, 659, 680, 681 Volcanic eruptions, 34, 35, 37, 38, 53 , 54 , 681 Volcanoes, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 193, 280, 726, 766 Voorhies, Barbara, 159, 185 Vukub Hunapu, 729 Vukub Kaquix, 729, 738
Wak Chan K’awiil (Tikal ruler), 312, 360, 365 Wak Sip (deity), 744 Wäka, 322, 400, 415, 496, 694, 744. See also El Perú Wakna, 214, 261 Waldeck, Jean-Frédérick, 62, 452. Wall panels, 130; Lacanha, 449; Piedras Negras, 41,429, 430, 436 Walls, i, 92, 302, 358, 386, 410,412-13, 535, 592,
929
930
INDEX
593-94, 607, 608, 609, 612, 618, 687. See also Fortifications Wamaw K’awiil (Calakmul ruler), 361,415, 482, 483 Warfare, 6, 58, 73, 76, 77, 78, 90-91, 93*96,150,156, 700, 702, 712, 714-15» 716, 744, 7 5 1 *7 5 4 , PI- 12-13; as source of power, 90-91, 183-85, 94,191, 222, 235, 249-50, 273-74, 285, 297, 299-301, 369-70, 526, 586, 602, 627-28, 701-02; interpolity, 298, 299-301, 311-13,319,322, 348,358, 360-62, 363, 365-66, 36771, 376, 377, 379- 415, 421, 422-23, 425-26, 430 -36, 440,444, 446, 447, 450, 4 5 4 , 4 5 8 , 4 5 9 - 6 0 ,461, 462-70,472,473-76, 482, 4 8 3 , 4 9 5 - 9 6 , 4 9 9 , 502, 509-10, 514-15, 519, 526, 528, 535, 548, 556, 565, 567-69, 570, 578, 580, 583, 585, 586, 591-92, 594, 601, 602-04, 620, 624-26, 627, 628, 702, 704-05, 707, 718; origins, 160, 169,171,176, 179,183,185,191,197, 220, 222, 236, 243, 246, 249-50, 258-59, 284, 285. See also Captives; Conquest; Spanish Conquest Water management, 54, 56, 197, 218, 242, 278 Watery underworld, 400, 488, 575, 744. See also Xibalba Wattle and daub, 211, 677, 680, 717. See also Architecture Wauchope, Robert, 74, 78 Waxaklajuun Ub’aah K’awiil (Copan ruler), 337, 353, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483,485,489, 700,732, 751 Waxaklajuun Ub'aah K’awiil (Naranjo ruler), 383 Waxtek Mayan, 23, 25, 26, 27 Way (co-essence), 147,488, 720, 7 3 2 - 3 3 , 7 3 5 , 743
Wealth, i, 73, 76-77, 85-86, 88, 89-90, 169, 171,17475,177, 179, 180, 182, 197, 221-22, 232, 235, 249-50, 257, 284, 285, 291, 294, 296, 301, 3 5 3 , 364, 3 7 7 , 406, 456, 485, 488, 493, 497, 5H , 526-27, 586, 631, 633-34, 660-61, 691^92, 6 9 5 - 9 7 , 700, 702, 715, 717, 743
Weapons, 51, 222, 235, 246, 315,325, 638, 777. See also Bow and arrow; Spears Weaving, 9,10, 28, 51, 651, 7 42
Wells, 52-53, 54, 532, 562, 575, 592, 601, 753. See also Cenotes; Cisterns Wheels, 107, 108,115, 501 Whistles, 181, 378, 767 Whorf, Benjamin, 141 Wil Ohl K’inich (Copan Ruler 8), 336, 349, 351, PI. 2a, 7b Willey, Gordon R., 68, 95, 385, 407, 510
Winal (time unit), 103,
h i,
745
Winik, 147, 262, 263, 474, 709, 710 Witz (deity), 422, 433, 434 Wo (month), 106, 107 Women in texts, 10, 51, 65, 69, 89,140, 147, 171, 298, 322, 324, 450, 639, 669, 670, 672, 673, 676, 693, 694, 698, 7 3 3 , 7 4 2 , 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 , 749
Women rulers, 312, 366-67, 369, 382, 387, 388, 389, 390, 459, 461, 496 Workshop production, 651, 652,653, 654 Workshops, 84, 262, 290, 378, 409, 489, 501, 583, 634, 651,652,653,654,655, 656, 680, 702 Worldview, 121, 297 Writing, 4, 5, 7,16, 29, 71, 78, 92, 96, 99-115, 118-52, 155, 156,178,179,185, 197, 223-28, 232-33, 23839, 243,245-49, 250,251,
257, 261, 269, 294, 377, 563, 722, 723, 738. See also Alphabetic writing; Glyphs; Hieroglyphs; Isthmian writ ing; Logographic writing; Maya writing; Mesoamerica (writing systems); Mexica writing; Phonetic writing
Xamanha, 767, 768 Xbalanque (deity), 729 Xcalumkin, 534 Xcaret-Pole, 574 Xe ceramics, 202, 407 Xelahu, 764 Xelha, 574, 607, 767, 768 Xhuy, 483 Xibalba, 729, 730, 731. See also Underworld Xicalango, 529, 761, 768 Xinca, 23 Xiu, 599, 601, 602-04, 619, 663, 740, 763, 768-69, 771 Xiu, Gaspar, 595, 603 Xiuhmolpilli (time unit), 107, 109 Xoc, 202, 451 Xochicalco, 528, 580 XpuhiL, 373, 530, 531, 679 Xtampak, 217, 531 Xul (month), 106, 107, 114, 3 5 3 , 3 5 4 , 4 8 3 , 494 Xultun, 317 Xunantunich, 55, 507, 516, 517-18, 520, 644, 689, 732; causeways, 516; emblem glyph, 516; research, 55, 516; stelae, 516, 517; struc tures, 516, 517, 518 Xux Ek’ (Wasp star), 117
Yaeger, Jason, 516 Yajaw (title), 150* 299, 382, 3 8 7 , 3 9 0 , 411, 4 4 9 , 5 6 9 , 698 Yajaw Chan Muwaan, 434, 4 4 7 , 4 4 9 , PI. 10-15 Yajaw Te’ K’inich I (Caracol ruler), 361, 365 Yajaw Te’ K’inich II (Caracol
/
INDEX
Ruler III), 312, 362, 363, 365, 369-71 Yalain, 617, 618 Yamal (cord), 51 Yax (blue-green), 147,148, 149 Yax (month), 106, 107, 739 Yax Balam (deity), 729 Yax Deer-Antler Skull (Yaxchilan ruler), 433 Yax Ehb’ Xook (Tikal ruler), 302,308,310,311,315, 32-7 , 371, 379 Yax Mayuy Chan Chaak (Naranjo ruler), 313, 382, 390, 400 Yax Nuun Ayiin I (Tikal ruler), 303, 3 0 5 » 3 n » 3 i 3 , 312, 324,325,326,327,329, 330, 331, 336, 338, 347, 348, 379, 391, 393, 417, 419,699 Yax Nuun Ayiin II (Tikal ruler), 3 0 5 , 3 1 3 , 4 1 7 ,4 1 9 Yax Pasaj Chan Yopaat (Copan ruler), 338, 340, 341, 342, 460, 472, 483,487, 488, 489, 490, 4 9 1 , 4 9 5 , 502., 694,716 Yaxchilan, 43, 44, 138, 140, 215, 407, 421, 422, 424, 426, 428, 429, 431-47, 449, 450,451,511,515, 694, 699, 702, 703, 704, 708, 714, 716, 725, 748; altars, 433, 434Î emblem glyph, 138; hieroglyphic stairways, 432, 433,434,435,442, 447; lintels, 431, 433, 434,
435,436-39, 440, 442, 443-46, 447, 748; research, 435; stelae, 432, 433,434,
435,436, 440, 441, 442, 447, 449; Temple i,4 4 5 ,
Temples 2, 20, 5 4 , 55, Temples 3 , 4 4 , 4 3 4 , 447; Temple 8, 434; Temple 12, 442; Temple 21, 217, 440, 442; Temple 23, 4 3 6 39, 440, 442; Temple 33, 217, 442, 443-45; Temple 41, 440; Temple 42, 445; wars, 217, 358, 360, 366, 384, 422, 423,426, 430, 431, 432, 4 3 3 - 3 4 , 4 3 5 - 3 6 , 440, 4 4 2 , 4 4 4 , 4 4 7 , 517; tomb, 442 Yaxha, 146, 148, 317, 375, 376, 382, 617, 688, 689, 690; causeway, 375; emblem glyph, 146,148, 375; re search, 375; stelae, 375; Twin Pyramid Group, 375; wars, 382, 383, 390 Yaxuna, 554, 555, 556, 558, 446;
447i
145, 148, 210, 560, 616, 682, 709, 720, 725, 742 Yukatekan languages, 26, 27, 130, 132, 560 Yuknoom Chan (Calakmul ruler), 360, 365, 381 Yuknoom Ch’een I (Calakmul ruler), 358, 360, 381 Yuknoom Ch’een II (Calakmul ruler), 360, 381, 384, 387, 403, 496 Yuknoom Head (Calakmul ruler), 360, 381, 382 Yuknoom Took’ K’awiil (Calak mul ruler), 361, 400, 413, 414,415 Yuknoom Yich’aak K’ak’ (Calakmul ruler), 360, 384, 390, 39 3 , 4 0 3 , 413 Yum Kimil (deity), 742
569, 705
Year-bearers, 109, 755. See also Calendar Yich’aak Balam (Seibal ruler), 384, 407, 408 Yik’in Chan K’awiil (Tikal ruler), 303,304-05,313, 361, 400-04, 415, 417, 496, PI. ia, 8b Yo’nal Ahk HI (Piedras Negras Ruler 5), 423, 427, 428, Yopaat Balam I (Yaxchilan ruler), 431, 433 Yopaat Balam II (Yaxchilan ruler), 422, 428, 433, 436, 440, 442 Yukatek Maya, 13, 123, 132, 141, 148, 560, 591, 616, 682, 709, 720 Yukatek Mayan, 25, 27, 46, 52, 104, 107, 123,124, 131, 132, 135, 141,142, 144,
Zacpeten, 618 Zacualpa, 290, 621 Zaculeu, 290, 621, 624 Zapotee, 29, 70 Zapotitan basin, 36, 280, 680 Zender, Marc, 722 Zenith, 239, 290, 295, 499, 504, 532., 534 , 554 , 574, 584, 731. See also Cosmology Zinacantan, 15 Zoomorphic deities, 720 Zoque, 23. See also MixeZoquean Zubiaur, Pedro de, 776
931