Changing views of the changing maya: Evolu-tion and devolutionin an ancientsociety*

Marshall JOSEPH BECKER1 í)eparonen¡ uf .Irclsnecílogí.. ‘lije (.iniversit t o! (arnhridge)

PREFACE

Thedeath(5 December1985)of A. LedyardSmith markedthe endof anera in Maya arehaelogy.Ledyard was a tireless fleld worker and an ableseholar. He encouragedand aided others, both to build on and to gobeyondbis own significantachievements.He therebycreatedan enthusiasticteam of workers who have made major contributions to what we knowabout the ttIIcier1t Mava.

This paperis dedicatedto his memory.

1 NTRODUCTION

From the earliest reportsof «iost cities» in the ram forests of CentralAmerica, the deseriptionsof carved texts and human figures on theirnpressivestonenionurnenúswere rankedalongsideChe bugestonetemplesasindicatorsthat a greatsociety had onceheld dominion over this inhospitableworld. Ihe publications of John Lloyd Stephens(¡949) with Che exotiedrawingsof Fredrick Catherwood(1844) allowed a fascinatednineteenth

* Acknowledgernents.Thanks are doc ‘(‘he Universííy Museum ot AnthropologyandArchaeology for their support of my íntrodnctory ycars of work in Maya archaeology.Fundíngfor ihe researchwhícb producedthís paperderíved.in part. lrom a gratil froin WestChester tinívcrsity tResearchand Publícatíons).Thc original version was presentedas IheFoorth Annoal l.,ecsurein í he serieso<Tbc Reconstruction of Past I~andscapes»sponsoredbySigma Chi and Ihe William P. Hoffman Scholar-in-ResidenceProgramat Miami Universitv inOxford. Ohio (26 March 987).

Revista E¿pczñola de Antropología Americana, a» xviíí. Ed. Unív. Compí. Madrid. 1988.

22 Marslíall JosephBecker

century audieneeto look back only a few hundredyearsat a civilizationwhich was as greatin its time as anythingthenknown in Europe.But how ithad survived for so long in that hostile tropical forest environ;nent,andprecisely when it had existed, and why it ceased to be, have been theforemost questionsaskedfor the past 150 years.Answersto almost alí ofthesequestionswereavailableinínmediatelyfor everyoneto seein the formof carved monumentsand other texts --— but no living person couldunderstandthem, until now.

For the fsrst hundredyears of Maya investigations—the Era of theGreat Explorers--- most of the efforts to know theseancient peopleweredirectedtoward thediscoveryof the templesandlarge stonemonumentsbywhich we tend to characterizetheín.‘Ube discoveryof the firsí seriesof diesearchaelogicalwonderssoon becamea vast number of identified sites asinterestin the explorationof this regiongrew. ‘[he numbersof knownsitescontinued to increase as the efforts to know more about theseancientpeople becamea concernof the academicworld, at the end of the l9thcentury (Maudsley 989, Maler 1901, etc.). Even today the discoveryof anew site of sorneimportanceis not impossible.The knowntownsandcitiesof theseClassicPeriodMaya (250-900A.C.) completelycoverdic mapsoftheir homeland.Throughoutthe highlandsof Chiapasin Mexico and therugged zone of western Guatemala:throughout Yucatan, Peten. alí ofBelize, and into Hondurasthe ancientMaya createdvast cities of stone.Without a single metal tool they crafted buge and complex buildings,worked jade and other gems, and carved monumentsproclaiming to alíliterate people Che deedsof their greatleaders.

1-or over a century scholars focused on gathering these data, andrecording (after a fashion) dic inscriptionsfound at many of theseredis-covered cities (e.g. Morley 1937; also see Becker 1985). These effortsgencratedbasicinformationabout thesebrilliant andartisticMaya, but theancienttextsremaineda sourceof baffled concern.Not only were Che stelae,erectedin front of the majorbuildingsandelsewhereat manyof thesesites,coveredwith eomplextexts, but at sitessuchas CopanChe doorjaínbswerefound to bear texts. At other sites inscriptions appearedon buildingssurfacesboth inside and out (e.g.. Tikal TemplesVI andCopánStr. l0-L-18), on woodendoor lintels (Tikal Temples1, IV, etc.), on stair risers(Str.26 at Copan),on Che backsof jadependantssuchas thatexcavatedby PeterHarrison(Tikal Burial 77 jade pendant),on bone splints such as found inTikal Burial 116), on tomb ‘walls (as in Tikal Burial 48) and painted orcarved on alí kinds of ceramievessels.

Iheseundecipheredtexts, as ihe presenceof immensetemplesas thesesites,signalledChe presenceof a greatcivilization. How Chis was inferred byl9th centery scholarsand what becameof theseancientpeopleare bothquestionswhich will now be considered.

Although Che written languageof the ClassicPeriodinhabitantsof thisregion was recognizedalmost immediatelyas texts, their decipherínentwas

Changing views ol ihe changing moya 23

a long and arduous íask. The deciphernient foilowed a course largelyindependentof the archaelogicalwork which continuesCo generatenewexamples.Evenbeforethe beginningsof real archaelogyin the area(Daníen1985), thesecarvings were recognizedas remnantsof a written language.Quite earlyscholarsrecognizedChe simplebaranddotcounting systemusedto recordMaya datesand Co measuretime andothercountables.Slowly anability to recognizethe maya calendricsystemcame into focus, with Cherealization that a vigecimal number systemwas employed. Even moreimpressivewasthe centralaspectof this system -- the use of a placeholdingzero. Long before Arabic ínathematiciansprovided barbaríanEuropewiththis concept the Maya had originated, perfected, and disseminatedafundamentaland major conceptof modern mathematics.

Soon after working out the Maya numbersystemthe early epigraphersrecognized patterns in these texts which reflected celestial happenings.Working with astronomersto verify their inferences,theseearly studentsofMaya epigraphy identified lunar, solar, and planetary commentaríesintheseancient texts. Soon these scholars realized that among the manyaccomplishmentsof Ihe ancient Maya were Cheir notable successesinunderstandinga heliocentrieuniverseandworking out methodsfor predict-ing solarand lunar eclipses.WiCh the recentvisil of Halley’s Comet fresh inour minds it is interestingCo note that Che Maya must haveobservedthisspectacularevent. Although at presentthe earliest written record of a cometsighting is locatedin the Babylonian diariesfor 234 B.C. (Stephenson1985:18). and many appearin Chineseaccounts,the Maya must haveseenandpredictedthc appearenceof this comet long before the production of Cheirearlicstknown carvedmonuments.and long before Edmund Halley (1656-1742> madeItis prediction br dic Europeanworld. Surely dic he 8 passíngsof I-lalley’s Cometduring the Classicperiod,at 76 year intervalstrom 306 lo846 A.C., as well ascarlier sightings,must be noted on somemonumentnrin anotherof the Maya rccords.

ProfessorHugh Harber (1973) has made an attempt to identifv theCross Legged glyph as a eomet glyph (visítor from the heavens),andcontínuesto work on this problem. Comet sightings, like the lunar andplanetarycycleswhich the Maya knew sowell. are importantas demonstra-tíonsof 2 Cliings. First, they reflect the continuedexpansionof the cognitivelandscape<o include more than just dic terrestrial sphere. Second,dic factthat people watch ihe sky and observe celestial events gains particularimportancein t 1w enurseof the developmentof political states.Someformof astrology appearsto be essentialin thesesystems.to prognosticateatídloretel 1 thc fatesof tioblesas well as to undcrstandtlíe workingsof tlie gods.Th=ítthe M aya recorde(l thesc events,as well as Che births ancí deathsofrulers(Kowalski 1985),reflectsihe developmentof a morecomplexpoliticalsystem, atid the risc of M aya states (as also happened ¡ ti Clii uía atidBabyionia).

Certain Maya buildíngs (and perhapsbuilding clusters. Becker 1971> in

24 Vlarshall Jc.sephBecher

conjunetion with monumentshave been suggestedto have been astron-omically oriented.Rus the E-Groupcomplexat Uaxactun.just north ofTikal, incorporateselementeslong believed Co have served such purposes(Ricketson 4937: Fíg. 68). ‘Ube west building in this group (E-VII) is asquareCemple-likestructure.On its right side (facing east)is a Iow platform,similar to Chosecommonlyassociatedwith the templesin Tikal PlazaPlan2(Becker 1971, in pressA). Across the Plazaon the East side are 3 temples(LI Chrough E-lll) on a low platform. with a seriesof monumcntsin frontof it. Together thesereflect astronomicalactivities aC Chis site, with thetransíationof Cheseeventsinto aíi architecturalalteration of the landscape.

‘Uhe deciphermentof Che non-calendricand non-astronomicalMayatexts took eonsiderablylonger. Aher nearly 50 yearsof efforts directed atthe calculaCion of datesand astrononjicalevents(e.g., Satterthwaite1951)sorneamazingbreakthroughswere¡nade in the understandingof aspectsofChese documentsneC directly associatedwith mathematicaldata. lii thel950’s H. Berlin (1958) recognized that the names of the Maya citiesChemselvesappearedon Chesestonemonunients.This ímportant observa-tion wasmade in the sanieyearKnorozov (1958)madehis first claims te acompletedeeiphermeni.Wc know that Knorozov (1967) simply did nolhaveChe corred interpretationof many of thesetexts (see Demarest1976),but more cautious scholarswere making true gains in this fleld. J. Eric S.Thompson (¡959), resisting the entire approachput forth by Knorozov(perhaps still fearing a «Communist insurrection»: see Becker 1979),suggestedsomepossiblemodes by which the problem could be attacked.But it was the brillíant Tatiana Proskouriakoffwho published the ideaswhich werete revolutionizethe studiesof thesetexts (Proskouriakoff4960.1963, 1964). Proskouriakoffrecognizedthe namesof rulers of specific sites,their datesof birth, wlien they accededte their respective«thrones»,andeven te identify human sacrificeswhich appearte be in associationwitliCheseevents. Suddenly, the vague figtíres appearingon thesestone ¡non-umentsbecameliving peoplefrorn out of Maya history: real peoplewith areal past (see iones 1985; Sharer 1985).

During Ihe period vvhen Proskouriakoffwas producingher most impor-(ant work, Thompson(1962) issued a fuJi catalogueof Maya glyphs. Ihisprovided a useful teol for alí scholars workíng with Che deciphermentproblem. Thompsonscontributions te Maya archaelogywere enormeus,and his efforts to organize and decipher Che growing body of writings beindiscoveredprovided order as wcll as insight Co theseproblenis. hut withPrekouriakofFswritings an entirely new phaseof researchin Maya epigra-phy had begun.

THE TIffORETICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM

The idea of evolution hadpermiatedChe intellectual atmosphereof thel9th century.andwith in Ihe entiredevelopmentof a notion of «progress».

(‘hanging views of the ehanging maja 25

In archaeologythe «ages of man» ideas of Che l7th century were beingconfirmed by direct archaeological investigation. As early as 1806 CheDanish governmentsponsoreda researchprogram to investigateChe shellmiddensand dolmenswithin thaC nation (Harris 1968: 146). The materialscollected by Chis program were deposited in the Museum of NorthernAntiquities in Copenhagen,where C. J. ‘Uhonisen was soonto study them.In 1836 ‘[honisen publishedbis famouswork on the «evolutionary»sequen-ces of stone-bronze-ironusing actualarchaeologicaldata to validatethem.Thomsen’sstudent,J. J. A. Worsaae(see 1849),confirmedtheseideasin thc1850’s using stratigraphieCechniquesaC other Danish sites. Evolutionarydiought was in Che air. With Che publication of CharlesDarwin’s Evoluriono,! Speciesin 1859 ideasabout evolution becameapplied Co alí realms ofnatural and social history. and even linked popularhistorical and philoso-phical ideasrelating Co Che conceptof «progress».

In dic 1840’s, while Worsaaewas decoding Che archaelogicalevidencefor culture change(evolution) in Europeanprehistory. Stephensand Cather.wood brought the long «lost»Maya cities Co publie attentionas well. Therein Che tropical heartof CentralAmerica a greatcivilization had developed

but had no! evolved! What had happenedCo Chis society becameChesubjectof greatinterest for over lOO years.and that study is what will nowbe discussed.

lIow did Europeans«know» that Che Maya were «civilized?» Thosecharacteristieswhich we takeas identifying Che Classicperiod of Che ancientMasa are evident to even the most casualobserver in Che form of buge«ritual» buildings with vaulted roofs, elaboratelycarvedstonemonuments,and a systemof writing which had its most clear representationon diesemonuments.lf we examinethe componentswe find that Che clues lo Chisevaluati o n are basíca11v:

1. Technologyin Architecture:Building sizeandvaultedconstructions.2. Technologyin Stone:Ability Co carveand Co erect (move Chem).3. Literacy: Technologyin Language.

The ideas of evolution and progress were here «verified» by Cheachievementsof diese anciení Maya. Philosophically, however, their«demise»disrupted our ideas concerning straight line evolution which,teleologically, should haveproduced«bigger and better»examplesof Chistechnology. Our understandingof the processesof ehangehave requiredthat wc, as observers,changeChe way in which we view Chese peopleandCheir society. The aceumulationof Che evidence has been esseníial Coachievinga new perspectiveon Chis problem. and to that processwe willnow turn our attention.

26 Marshall JosephBeeker

DECIPHERING TEXTS & UNDERSTANDING PIE PHYSICAL OR-GANIZATION OF SITES

PerhapsChe first obvious benefitsof understandingthe ancientMayatexts came in Che form of a more clear understandingof Classie Mayasociety (seeSharer1978). Although most scholarshad early recognizedCheClassic Period as one in which city states existed (Becker 1979), ourunderstandingof Che socio-political details of Maya society during Chisepochhad beenvague. Aside from the insightful efforts madeby O. O.Ricketson(1937: Fig. 2) to determineCheextentsof housesaroundChe ritualstructuresat Uaxactun,few people paid attention to Maya buildings inwhich Che majority of Che population lived. They were not enormousandChereforeprobably lackedritual artifaetsand rich burials.

Not until 1959 did aseriouseffort beginto studyChe residenCialareasofa majorMaya city (Becker1971; Haviland eta!. 1985); Che areasbeyondChesite center.With thatprojectwas Dr. PeterHarrison.With Chis evidenceforsettlementpatternatTikal we hadanew factor importantin demonstratingthat a city-state existed (or what we now cali «state level» politicalorganization).The heterogeneityamongthe many structuresat Tikal, suchas Che differencesbetweenpalaCial residencesand temples as was demon-strated by Dr. 1-larrison (1970), offered clear evidence [br complexity ofsocio-politicalorganization(Becker1973, 1986).The architecturaldifferen-Ciation among small structures at Tikal, coupled with the presenceofdifferencesin Che expressionof Che mortuary program, now were joinedwith Che obvioususeof a writing systemCo indicateChaC Chetraits associatedwith the Classic Period could be interpretedin new ways. Vaulted stonebuildings, carved monuments,and Che useof a writing system(«Classic»traits) now were seen as reflections of a eomplex society. This kind ofsociety,or political «state»,hasa designatedrulen socialclassstratification,trade, and even warfare intricately interrelatedin ways far removed fromChe simple chiefdomsfrom which Chey came.

By 1960,evenbeforewe could interpretmostof Chesetexts,scholarshadinferred that Che figures representedon thesehugecarvedmonumentsmustbe actual people —anó not Ihe gods or deitieswho were representedinpottery and elsewhereat Maya sites. Following Proskouriakoffsleadepigraphersbegan Co locate nameglyphs at varioussites (Mathews andSehele 1974). Then, in a major breakthrough,Christopheriones (1977)began Co find links between Chesenamedpeople at Tikal to recognizeaportion of the dynasticsequenceaC that site. Since then the lisC has beengreatlyCo inclusethe 13 kingswho ruledduring Che period 300 to 870 Al).iones (1977) hasshownthat Che dynasticsuccessionat Tikal generallyranfrom father to son. The inaugurationand marriagedaCa which iones haselicited not only shows that Chis inheritanceby sonsis Che mostconimon

C’hanging views of the changing maga 27

form, but also showsthat marriageCies betweencities werevery important.Ruling families tendedCo intermarry, soaccessionmonuments,witb the newruler’s genealogyon it, providesdataon Chesemarriagesand Che origins ofChe new ruler’s parents.Also on Chesemonumentsare importanthistoricalfacts and recountingsof political events (Miller 1986) which help us Coreconstructthe history of the entire region. Thus Tikal can be linked witJiciCles asdistantasMirador. Che hugeandfabulouscity aC Che northernedgeof modern Guatemala. Mirador, which has as enormous Early Classicfluorescence,may be better understoodthrough Che deciphermentof Chetestson monumentsfound throughoutChe Maya realm.

Tbesecities, like Italian city-statesof Che Renaissance,eachhadautor>omy, anddevelopedclearly markedboundarieswhieh representedthe limilsof thescrealíns.Wc now are in Che processofdeterminingChoseboundaries,and suspectthatcertain of Che monumentsat Copan may representmarkersdelineating Che edges of Chat ancient city. l-lowever, in most cases ficídarchaelogywill be Che only way in which we can verify our inferencesas Cohow Chesepolítieswere bounded.or demarcatedin space.We know thaCChedevelopmentof these states required Che establishmentof more elearlydefined borders. furíher changingChe conceptual landscapeof Che peoplenow partícipating in a true state. The results of studies on the wayboundariesaremarkedmay revealwich Cheselow level statesfailed Co resistmilitary incursionsfrom Che north during Che end of Che Classicperiod.

Carl Beetz(1980) hasrevealedsomeof Che links in the dynasticchain atCaracol, identifying Che rulersandCheir heirsby Cheir birth glyphs. Workingon Che linguistic clausesin Chesetexts (Kubler 1973) and other aspectsofChese written languages(such as dialectical and regional variations) hasgiven us an uncredibleability Co understandwhat Ls written in theseMayastatements(Kelley 1976; Sehele1982). Now site names,accessionCo poweraud humansacrilice,genealogicalconnections,and a host of olher detajísare emergingfrom Chis written record. This researchhas progressesso farthat Che spccialistscan now recognizedialectical differencesin Che writtentextsandcanidentify foreign influenceson Che Maya languageand its script(Justesonel al. 1985). The nutnbersof people now studying theseCexts isineredible. and guides br beginnersare increasinglypopular (cg., iones1985b). But what is of interestCo us hereis to understandChe meaningsofthesecategoriesof evidencewhich led us to understandChata greatcultureonceflourished in Chis area. Furthermore,we wish Co undersCandwhaC areChe intellectual factors which lead us Co be concernedwith what becameofChis ancientsociety.

The glyphic textshavealwaysshown us. by Cheir very presence,CInC wearedealing with un hisrorical populationrather Chan a prehistorieand Jessaccess¡blepeople.Our pasCinability Co read Chesetextsreducedpotential forunderstandingChe available evidence.and often inhibited Che developmentof íncaningful researchstrategies.Now we have moved far beyond Chesimple identification of nameglyphs and haveChe ability to determinefbr

28 Marshall JosephBecker

whom a specific funery temple-pyramidwasbuilt. Porexample,Tikal RulerA (AH-CA-CAO) died about 9.15.0.0.0. (781?) and is buried in Temple 1(iones 1977: 42-45). Now we can bujid on iones’ researchto understandmore complex interrelationshipsat sites such as Tikal. This allows us Coexplore Che processesof change over time within Maya society. Porexample,beginníngwith Ruler A at Tikal ceremonialarchitecturewasoftenoriented accordingCo political considerations(Becker 1983a; Miller 1986).‘Ubis relatesto the idea that Temple 1 at Tikal was orientedin a pattern(PlazaPlan2) which had long beenusedfor residentialshrinesaC the site, apoint which hasbeenmadeearlier(Becker1983a).The useof Chis plan for aking’s mortuarytemple,defyingor breakingwith ancienttraditions, reflectsChe elevated status of Chis particular ruler and changesin Che idea ofkingshipat Che site. Thus the reorganizationof space,by introducinga newpattern of locating buildings, signals change Caking place within thiscomplex socieCy. UndersCandingthe dynamicsof changeamong the Mayahelp us Co understandnot only what factors lcd Co Chesechangeswithin Cheperiod which we calI «Classic»(Willey 1974; Becker 1983a) but also mayallow us to determinatehow the Maya of the Post-classicPeriod maintainedcultural traditions up Co and beyondcontactwith Europeans(see Becker1986).

One of Che important excavationsaC Tikal provided a sequencefordevelopmentof Che huge ritual complex called Che North Acropolis (Coe1977). This major architeetural phenomenon,directly across Che newlyopenedplaza from Che «CentralAcropolís» elite residentialarea,enablesit

Co understandChe other aspeasof Che site through stylistic cross dating.Wheredirect archaeologicallinks can he demonstrated,Che combinationofinformation offers ideal círcumstancesfor understandingsome importanCaspectsof the past.

Excavation date show ChaC East Plaza and Great Plaza and NorthTerrace¿di were resurfacedaC one time. Also parCof Chis enormousprojectwas Che construction of Che earliest version of the causewaywhich leadsnorth out of the EasC Plazaand up Co Che «H» Group (Jones1985: 49).

Jonesalso has demonstratedthat ihe East PlazabalI court ~Strs. 5D-42and 5E-31) and Che «shrine» building aC Che south edgeof the East Plaza(SCr. 5D-43)werecontemporarywith Che major resurfacingdescribedaboye.Built at Che sametime was Che building identified at Str. 5D-32 on Chesoutheasternportion of Che North Acropolis. This mortuary templecoversBurial 195, an elaborateburial with many ornatevessels.‘Uexts found onChesevesselsin Tomb 195 almost certainly confirm Chat Che personburiedhere was «Animal Skulb>, believed to havebeen Che 22nd ruler of Tikal.Other inscriptions at Tikal place Che death date of Chis bali game lovingruler in Che middle of Che 7th century(iones 1977).

Thusan elaboratechainof archaeologicalandepigraphicfindingsallowus to date the East Plazabalí court in Che middle of Che seventhcentury.110w do we know thaI «Animal Skull» enjoyed Pok-ta-pok.as Che game

Changing viewsof the c:hanging mava 29

(Stern 1950) wascalleS?First, one can hardly doubt that only a very rareMaya would no! have liked this sport. However, by chance GeorgeGuillemin, when he excavatedStr. 5D-32 and Tomb 185 at Tikal, foundwithin ChaC tomb traces of a U-shapedwoodenyoke believed Co havebeenparCof bali gameequipment.With it, in Che samesilty Comb filí, Guilleminfound what may be Che remainsof a rubber balI 16 cm (ca. 6 inches)indiameter(Jones 1985a: 49).

Although equipmentandbalísfrom the gamemay havebeenpart of CheCombofferings interred with other elite (or anyone)aC Che siteof Tikal andelsewhereChroughoutChe region in which Chis bali game was played, weknow of no other similar evidence. But far more important Chan Cheseinterest¡ngfindings in Tomb 185 are Che Cexts written on the associatedvessels.‘Uhese textsperínit us Co identify Che personin the Combfwho?], andgive us Che date for Chis period of enormousconstructionactivity at Tikal.Coming at Che end of a long hiatus in monumenterection and buildingconstructionaC Tikal (ca. 550-640 A.C.: see Willey 1974) Chis programofrenovationanddevelopmentis extremelyimportant to Che history of Tikal.Since Chis period<Che Middle Classic)seemsCo haveexisted ChroughoutCheMaya area. and representsa period of political or «state»dcsintegrat¡on(Becker 1 983a). cur ability Co date it and Co describeactivities associatedwith Chese times help os to understandmore clearly Che cultural processesinvolved in changeswhich occurredat a later date.

After Che «hiatus», the revival of political power aC Tikal may havebegunwith Ihesemajor consCructionprojectsunder the aegis of Che kingnamed«Animal Skull». How Chis period of revival developedinto Clic LateClassicperiod at Tikal only now is beginning Co be understood.Wc alsoknow CInC ¡he Late Classic did not have a long and sustainedeconoinícdevelopment, but rather a rapid spurt aC the beginning Iollowed by agradualdevolution leading into the PostclassicPeriod.During Che Postclas-sic, when monumentswere no longer erectedand the ceremonialconstruc-Cions of 4w past gaye way Co elaboratebut decentralizedresidences,Chepolitícal organizationneeded Co sustaina «state»no longerexisted.

lnscriptionsshow us ChatTikal neverbecamedoíninantover othercity—states in the region (as Tenochtitlan came Co dominate the VaIIey ofMexico and beyond). PerhapsChe failure of Che Lowland Maya city-statesto develop more integrated political systemsleft Chem vulnerable Co [hemilitary efforts of Che more organizedpolities Co Che northwest.As RichardAdanis (Reí) had suggestedmany years ago. military incursions into dicLowland Maya region further destabilizedChose fragile polities which haddeveloped.

ChangingCechnologyin Che form of oceangoing transportcanoesled to[he developmentof new Crade routesbetweenlower Central America andChe Valley of Mexico. By 800 Al’.. Chese routes, skirtíng Che Yueatanpenínsula,fed Che wealth of Che Caribbeaninto the rapidly developingcity-statesol Mexico (see Hodge 1984).The risc of Chesedynamicand powerful

30 Mar.shall Joseph Becker

stateslcd Co furthereconomieexpansionand,ultimately, political develop-ment elsewherein Che region (cg., the Mixteca; see Spores 1985). By Chetime Chat Che Spanisharrived it wasChe AzteestatethaC occupiedChe centerof Che vast tribute-giving nctwork (but seealso Hassig 1985).

The Maya Lowlands,an economicallydeprcssedzone,continuedCo be a

source of exotie goods such as quetzal feathers and jaguar skins. ‘[heeconoiníesof Che region, likc cities in Che heartof plantationcountry, neverregainedCheir productivity. Maya Chiefdoms,suchasknown from Yucatan(see Chaseand Chase 1986: 26) were functioning right up into Che seven-teenth century, if not later. Thcsc polities, however, maintained onlyvestigesof Che power and Che glory of Chose statcs which producedChemonumcntsand other written recordsof Che high point of Maya politicalorganization.

An internationalconferencerecentlyheld in Spainfocusedon Che periodbetweenChe end of Che Classicperiod and Che arrival of Cortés(RiveraandCiudad 1986), revealing how cultural continuities were sustained whilepolitical powerwasreduced.Excitíng newethnohistoricresearchsuchas Cheaward winning Maya Socielv Under Colonial Rule by Nancy Farriss haveset new standardsof excellencein our use of written sourcesfor Chis areainlater periods.

Our Celeologicalevolutionary pcrspectiveshavebeen broadenedby Chisnew information. Wc now seethat Che chiefdomsof Che Maya areaevolvedinto low level political statessometimearound 100 A.C. By 250 A.C. Checity-statesof Chis region had developed their eomplex and interlockednetwork; andcontrolled a vast CradingsystemthroughoutChe region. Poweris reflected in eachcity by Che statementsof its king -——actually carvedinsConc---attestingCo his, or her, right Co rule by genealogicalinheritanceandcelestialconnections.Lists of Che king’s aneestorsand other kin throughmarriageaCCesCCo Che inherited rights to rule. ‘[heir control of wealth andpower harnessedlabour into Che construction of enormousbuildings, andoften in Che removalof greatnumbcrsof buildings Co createopenspacesforecremoniesandgatheringsto expressChesenew social forms.The clcaringofhugespaces-—-such as Che plazasaC Tikal andCopan,areanotheraspectbywhich alterationsin Che landscaperefleetedChe newly establishedpower ofChesekings.

But Crade routes change,and other powers grow, and Che políticalorganizationwhich createdCheseMaya cities declined.Monumentsbecamesmaller and more crudelycarved, as can be seenby SCela 18 aC Copan. By800 A.C. hugenew buildings could not be afforded, and small Cerracesandminor additionsCo existingstructuresbecameChe rule, ascanbe seenin theseriesof small CerracesaddedCo Structure 1 OL- 1 8 aC copanafter Che periodwhen Che building was erected(805 A.C.: see Becker and Chekk 1983).‘[hese limitations in monumenterectionas well as in buílding actívity reflectChe decliningwealthavailableCo Chesepeopleduring Chis period. ‘[he centralarcasof Maya cities becameas abandonedas Che downtown arcasof some

(hanging views of the changing mata 31

major American cities, such as Detroit or Philadclphia,had becomein Che1960’s. The Maya of Che Peten heartland, lacking Che river systems Coprovide transportation,sawtheír cities declineinto ghostCowns,replacedbydozensof small villages each ol’ whieh was lcd by a local chief. Thesechicfdoms were far reduced in power, and the chiefs could not createbuildings on Che samescale as Che Lords of Che ClassicsPeriod. Buildingswhich they could constructwere far less impressivcChan Choseof Che Classicperiod. ‘Uhe greal monumentswhich proclaimedChe POWER of Che kingsduring Che ClassicPeriod simply werenot neededby Cheselocal chiefs. whoknew (and were related Co) alí Che people in their villages. The oíd wavscontinued - Che powcr has moved Co other peoplein other places.

REFERENCES

Br:c& un, MarshaII Joseph:1 97 1 The idealii/caí ion <4 c, seco,íd ¡taza plan a¡ 711< al, Gua temcsla , aucí its bnplicat‘ons jor

,lncic,;t Ma vn Social (oniplexúy. Ann Arbor: U niversity M icrofilms.

972 PlazaPtans at Quirigué. Guatemala:fle useof a specíticÉheory regardingculturalbehaviorin predíctingthecontigor=ttionof groop arrangementsand buríal patternsina vei ontestedcornínuníty scttlernentpattern. Katí¿nob,VIII (2): 47—62.

973 Archacologicalevidencefor occupationalspecíalízationamong the ClassícalperiodMaya at Tikal, (joatemala. American Aníiquiíy 38: 396-406.

979 Priests. peasanis.and ceremonialcenters: The intellectual hístory of a model. In,Muíc, A rctzc¡colog.í unid Echnolíisrorv. Edited bv Normaí, 1-1 ammondand Gordoíi R.WiIIev. L’níversiív of Texas Press,Austio. Chapter 1: 3-20. (Papersuf tbe SecondCambridgc Symposíumon Recent Researchin MesoamerícanArchaelogy.)

1 983a Kings and Classicísm:Polilical Changein the Maya Lowlands during the ClassícPeriod. 1 n, Highland—Lowland Interaction Pi Mesoaníerica: Interdisciplinarv Approa-e/íes.lidited by Arthur G. Miller. DumbartonOaksResearcb[.ibrary andCollection:Washington.D.C. Pp. 59-200.

1 983b «Excavacionesen El Corte de la Acrópolis». Inlroducción a la Arqueologíade (opón.Honduras. Vol. Ii. Instituto Hondureñode Antropología e II istoría: Tegocigalpa.Capitulo 9: 349-379.

1986 The abandonedheartof Copán,Honduras:Reconstructionof a classtcperiod mayacity in roíns Uy thesixteenthcentury.In. Los Mayas de los TiemposTardíos, edited UyMiguel Rivera and Andrés Ciudad. Publicacionesde la Sociedad EspañoladeEstudios Mayas..Madrid, Pages31-61.

In press Plaza Pinas and settiemení paileras: Regional ¿aid temporal clisíríbotíons asindicat¿.rsof cultural interactíonsin the Maya area.XLIII InternationalCongressofAmericanist (Vancouver,BU.).

BIXKER, Marshall Josephaud Coánr±sO. Cheek:1983 la EstructuralOL-IS. Introducción, a la Arqueología de Copón, Honduras.Vol. II.

Tegucigalpa: Instituto Hondureñode Antropologíae Historia.Capitulo lO: 381-500.

32 Marshall Joseph&cker

BELTz. Carl P.:1980 Caracol Thírty YearsLater: A PreliminaryAccountof Two Rulers.Expeshílan22(3):

4- II.

BeRLíN, Heinrich:1958 El glifo «emblema»en las inscripcionesmayas.Joarnalde la Sociétédc’s Arnericanisies

ns, 42: 111-119.

CAIHERWOOO, Fredrick:1844 Views of Ancient Monumenís in Central America. Chiapas and Yucatan. London:

Vizetelly.

Cnsss,Diana Z. and ARLEN E. Chase:1986 Arcbaeologícalinsightson the contad period lowland maya. In. Los Mayasde los

TiemposTardios, edited by M. Rivera and A. Ciudad. Publicacionesde la SociedadEspañolade Estudios Mayas. Madrid. Fages13-30.

Cor. William R.1922 A Handhook of che Ruin,s of Tikal. Philadelphia:The Uníversity Museum.

DANIEN, Rin:1985 Send Me Mr. Burkítt.., Sorne Whisky and Wine!: Early Archaeology in Central

Ameríca. Expedition 27(3): 26 ---33.

DARWIN, Charles:1859 On ihe Origin of Species.

DFMARE5T, Arthur Andrew:1976 A Critical Analysis of Yuri Knorozov’s Decíphermentof dic Maya Híeroglypbics.

Midále American Réwearch Institute Publiccajon 22: 63-23. New Orleans: TujaneUniversity.

FARRISs. Nancy:1984 Maya Societv Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Suri/sal. Prínceton:

PríncetonUniversity Press.

FLELEY-HARNIK. Gillan:1985 lssues ir Divine King.ship. .4nnual Rcn’ieí’í cf .4nthropology 14: 273-313.

HARBEr<, Hubert E.:1973 «An Investigation of tbe Crossed Legs Glyph’s. Paper presentedat the annoal

meesíngsof theAmerican Assocíationbr Ihe Advancementof Scíence(June).MexicoCity.

HARRis. Marvin:1968 TIte Risc of .4ntlíropologieal Theorv. New York: ThomasY. Crowell.

HARRIsON, Peter D.:970 The CentralAcropolis,Tikal, Guatemala:A prelírninarystudy of the functíonsof íts

structural components during the Late Classic Period. Doctoral Díssertatíon inAnthropology. Universíty of Peíinsylvania.Philadelphia.

HAssiC, Ross:1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportatiun: The Sixteeníh—Ce,íturv Political Econosne of che

Valley of Mex/co. Norman: The Universítyof OklahomaPress.

Changing victos of tIte changing maya 33

FIAVILANO. William A. (wit}í M. J. BEcRER, el al,):t985 Excavations in Small Residential (iroups of Tikal: Groups 4F-l and 4F-2. Tikal

Rcp<írt No. /9. Universíty Museum Monograph 58. Philadelphia:The LiniversityMoseum.

H <it w; 1~, Mary Ce>984 AsIc (it s-Stcírc,s-. Memoirs of Ihe Moseun, of Andiropology. L/níversíty of Mii-

chigan. No. 18. Síodiesin Latín American Fthnoshistory and Arcbaelogy.

JONES, (bristoplier:1972 1 na oguratíoí: Dates of Three Late Classic R olers at Tikal, Guatentala. A cner,can

Aniicjuitv 42: 28-60.

1984 Dcc-¡phcring Ma va Ílicroglrphs. Philadelphía:The Uníversíty Museuni.

1985a Ibe Rubher Hall tiame: A Universal Meso-americanSport. Expeclition27 t2): 44-52.

1 985b M aya Hieroglyphics:A Hissory of dic Decipherment. Lcpedition 27 (3): 20-25.

ji.!STLSON John 5.. William M. N<>RMAN. Lyle CAMPBELE and T. KAUFMAN:1985 TIte 1oreign Impcíc-í <a, f.owland Masan Language unU Scri,ín. Publícation53. New

Orleans: Tulanc 1.)ni tersitt’ Press.

Kí.í.í.t.x, David II.:1926 i)ecipheringFue Moya Ser ipn Austín: Universíty of Texas Press.

KNRO/c,v. Yori V.:1958 ¡lic Problem of ihe Studyof ihe Maya HieroglyphicWritíng. AmericanAníiqaitv. 23:

284-’9l

1 9 (í7 ,Scle< ud chap 1 ces ¡roní dic oriting o/ ilíe Mcsya Indicsn.s-. R ussí an Tra n sía tio n Serios.Veabock M ose¿¡nr Harvard ti niversity. Vol time 4.

KOwA i SR t .jeff Karl:1985 L,ords of tite Northern Maya: Dynastíc History i n the Inscríptionsof Uxmal and

Chichén 1 ‘ti. t~.vpcchtiouí 27 (3): 50—60.

• uí.t-:i< George:1973 ihe Claasesof Classic Maya Inscriptions.In, Mcsoan,ericaui Writing Sixvienís. edíled

hy E. 1>. Benson- Washington. D.C.: 1 )umbarton Oaks. Pages 145-164.

MALIR. Icoherí:1 90 t Re,í arr líes 1,1 tIte (en ural Pon 1<>,, of u/se Usuníacint/a Va/lcr. Mcmoí rs of the Peabody

Nl iisc¿iín. v<>l 2 no. l

Msiti í~ws. Peter md Linda SsoELE:

>974 I.on/s o! PaI¿’oqí¡e: 1/ir Clip/ile Evicíccíce. Iírrst Mesa Redouídade Palcnqoc. Edí ted byNlcríe Ci reen Robenison.part 1: pages 63—76.

MAtasí AN ,Alfrccl 1>.:1 889 Rio/opir, ti ~n¡rulé .4nienicana. 4 vols. London: Po rter and l)ol au.190’

34 MarsItalí Joseph Becker

MiLLER, Arthur G.:1986 Alava Ru/cts of Tune: A 51w/y of Architectural Sealpiure al Tikal, Guatemala.

Phíladelphia:Tite University Museuní.

MoRI LY. Sxlvanus Gríswold:1937 TIte híscriptions of Peten. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington.

Two Parts.

PRosKoIuRIAKoFE, Tatíana:

1961) 1 listorical lmplícatíonsof a Pattcrnof DatesatPiedrasNegras,Guatemala.AmericanAntiquitv 25: 454-475.

1963 1 ¡ istoríal Data iii tite lnscriptionsof Yaxchílan, Estudios dr, Cultura Mava .3: 149-167.

1964 1iistorical Data in Ihe lnscriptionsof Vaxehilan.(Pan11). Estudios de Cultura Mata.

4: 177-202.

RicKtsTsoN. Oliver O. ir.:1937 L1axacíun, Guatemala: Group Ei926~ir/3]. (Pan 1). Washington D.C.: (arnegie

Instítution of Washington.Pubí. 477.

RiveRA, Miguel and Andrés Ciudad (editors):1986 Los Muvas de Los Tiempos luídio,s-. Publicacionesdc la Sociedad Españolade

Estudios Mayas. Madrid.

SÁírvRiowÁírL, Linton ir.:1951 SeoIptored Mon umentsfrom Caracol.En tish Honduras. L}niversity Museton Bul/etin

18 (1-2): 1—45.

Sy¡írLu, Linda:1982 Alava Glyphs: TIte Verás. Austín: Uníversítyof TexasPress.

SItARER. RobertJ.:[978 Archaelogyand llistory ¿it Quirigoa, Guatemala.irjurnal <4 JYeld .4rchac/ogt 5: Sl -

70.

1985 Archaelogy and EpígraphyRevisíted. Espedition27 (3): 16-19.

SPORE,S,Ronald:1985 TIte Minees in Anciení atid Colonial Tinmrs. N ornían:Uníversíry of OklahomaPress.

STU’neNsoN. F, Richard:1985 Tite BabyloniansSaw That Coniet. loo. Natural hlisuory 94 t 2): 40.

SrePIíí¿Ns, John Lloyd:1949 Incidenís cf Travel Pi Central Aunrrica, Chiapas, and Yac-atan. New Brunswick. New

Jersey:Rotgers University Press.

THoMPsoN. 3. Erie 5,:1959 Systemsof hieroglyphíc wríting in Middle Aníerica and Mediods of Deciphering

Them. American Antiquity 24: 349-364.

962 A Caíalog ol Maya Hieroglvphs. Norman: Uníversítyof OklahomaPress.

Changing yiews of the changing mayo 35

TLIOMSLN. Citrístian J -:[836 le cicuruací hl norrhs/c old/¿ynrhghed, rngiíe rs/ del Kongelige norcliskr oldskrifé seLrka/’.

Capenhagen5 Mollers.

WíLLEV, Gordon:1974 Tite Classic Maya híasus: a «rehearsal»fur tite collapse? In, Mesoamerican Ar-

r/íaelugj.’ Vea .lpproaches. Edited by N. Hammoncl. A ostín: U niversíty of TexasPress. Pages 4l7-430.

WORSAAL. Jens Y A.:1849 T/íc PrP>íeír¿l Anuiquides of Denmark. Transíatedby William J. Tlíoms. London: .1 - II.

P;írker.