1759387679.unidad 5. changing perspectives on maya civilization. fash

7/30/2019 1759387679.Unidad 5. Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Fash.

1/30


2/30

182 FASHEARLIER VIEWS OF MAYACIVILIZATIONNoculture of the pre-Columbian mericaseft a richer legacy of native historyand word-view carved in stone than did the Maya, the name used by somenatives of the Yucatfin Peninsula to describe themselves o the sixteJmth cen-tury Spanish explorers, conquistadores, and chroniclers (288:7). Occupyingarea of roughly 325,000 sq km in southern Mexico and northern CentralAmerica hat ranges from tropical lowlands to volcanic highlands, the Mayacreated a cultural tradition that is daunting n its diversity and intoxicating inits creativity. During he final centuries of the Formative r Preclassic period(2,000 8.C.-A.D. 250), throughout he Classic period (A.D. 250-900), and atbeginningof the Postclassic period (A.rJ. 900--1519), thousandsof stone monu-ments and buildings were carved with hieroglyphic inscriptions, in addition tocountless other texts and images painted or carved on more perishable media(e.g. cloth, wood,stucco, or bark-paperbooks).Although the Classic period was the heyday of the Mayawriting systemand its creative scribes, the Maya f previous and subsequent periods were noless resourceful in their architectural achievementsand their adornmentofsacred objects with carved and painted decoration. Moreover, he passing onof oral history, religious lore, and prognostications both presagedand outlivedthe Classic period. The combination f pictorial imagery,hieroglyphic writing,and oral tradition allows for a truly remarkable understanding of Maya on-ceptions of themselves, the world, and their relationship to it. Indeed, recentefforts have shown hat controlled historical analysis of imagery and writingfrom Classic Period stone monuments,Postclassic bark-paper books, and Co-lonial Spanish accounts can explain rituals and behaviors among he livingMaya or which traditional ethnographic methods cannot account (34). Con-versely, analogy with adaptations and lifeways of living Mayapeoples pro-vides the archaeologist with insights that no amountof digging or surveyingcould ever provide (14, 239, 266, 299, 311,312).

In the early nineteenth century, a series of publications sparked nterest inancient Mayaculture. Fray Diego de Landas Relacirn de las Cosas de Yu-catrn (30), three Mayabark-paper books, and a series of superb photographsand drawings of inscriptions on stone monuments198) spurred a great dealinterest in the deciphermentof the Maya cript (63,275). What esulted wasflurry of readings of Maya alendric and astronomical hieroglyphs during thelate nineteenth and early twentieth century, including the correlation of theMaya nd Christian calendars (127). Scholars began to speculate about thenature of ancient Maya ociety, based on information available at that time:decipherable aspects of Mayawritings, somepreliminary surveys of the cen-ters of a handful of archaeological sites, and some potty knowledge f thepeasant lifeways that characterized Maya illages at the turn of the century.

www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews

Annu.Rev.Anthropol.1994.23:181-208.Downloadedfromarjournals.annualreviews.org

byUniversityofMontanaon09/12/07.Forpersonaluseonly

.
http://www.annualreviews.org/aronlinehttp://www.annualreviews.org/aronlinehttp://www.annualreviews.org/aronline


3/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 183Eventually, the view became established that ancient Mayasociety was atheocracy, run by devoted calendar priests whoresided in the temples at theheart of each "vacant ceremonial center," supported by maize-farming peas-ants, scattered in villages about the countryside, whocame o the center onlyfor important calendric and other religious rituals. Respectedand importantscholars like S. Morley and J.E.S. Thompson iewed the ancient Maya s soobsessed with marking the passage of time and the movements f the stars,that they never wouldhave stooped so low as to go to war or record the doingsof vainglorious kings. This mythof the Classic Mayabecame o pervasive thatthe civilization came o be thought of as unique n the annals of human istory:flourishing in the jungle, with intelligentsia devoted to the arts and sciences(including fantastically accurate calculations of astronomical cycles and thepassage of time), all the while removed rom the plights of war, over-crowdedcities, and despotic rulers, as the commoneople devoted themselves to thecult of their rain gods and peacefully tilled their fields (milpa) with corn,beans, and squash.Revisionism and Realism in Recent ResearchThis misguided, albeit well-meaning, vision of the ancient Mayabegan to bedismantled in the middle of this century. Whenhe Lacand6nMayaof Chiapastook photographer G. Healy to see the painted murals, including an explicitbattle scene, at the ruins of Bonampakn 1946, the view that the Classic Mayadid not engage in warfare was shattered forever. Subsequentdiscoveries ofdefensive features associated with the major Classic period centers of Tikal(224), Becan (301,302), Muralla de Lern (229), and in Yueat~a (175,provided independent evidence for Proskouriakoffs (218,219) deciphermentsthat rulers of Yaxchilgtn named he captives they had taken in war and evenboasted of the number f captives secured.

One of the greatest contributions ever made to Maya studies wasProskouriakoffs discovery that the stone monumentswere not devoid ofhistorical information, as was previously thought. Quite the contrary, theyrecorded he important events in the lives of Mayaulers, such as their birth,inauguration, conquests, and death (216-220). Berlins equally illuminatingdecipherments showed that each Classic Mayakingdom had its ownname oremblem lyph, and that the royal houses were concerned with couching theirachievements in mythological terms (25-27). It is nowpossible to decipherdynastic histories and royal genealogies from most of the major cities of theClassic Period.

Equally revolutionary developments in field archaeology produced datarefuting manyof the earlier ideas about ancient Maya ulture. Inspired byStewards (267a) and Whites (308a) cultural ecological and evolutionarymodels, and by Willeys (313a) breakthrough n settlement pattern methodol-


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D

ownloadedfromarjournals.annu

alreviews.org

byUniversityofMontanaon

09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


4/30

184 FASHogy, several generations of archaeologists engaged n important field researchthat also provided illuminating information about the structure of ancientMayasocieties and their change through time and space. Beginning in the1950s n the Belize River Valley (318), and continuing at Altar de Sacrificios(315), Seibal (321,287), and the Copfin Valley (319, 320), Willey openedvistas onto the size, structure, and growth of ancient Maya ural and urbancommunities, hrough the application of the settlement analysis that he hadpioneered in the Viruac Valley of Peru (313a). In this type of research, thearchaeologist documents he size and distribution of human ettlements andother landscapemodifications s a springboardor inferring land-use, societal com-plexity and organization, defensive features and measures, and in larger termsthe relations of people to their regional physical and cultural environment.

Settlement densities around the major Maya enters were demonstrated tobe quite high--they were hardly vacant--and showed considerable evidencefor social differentiation beyond he simple two tiers (priests and peasantry)previously envisioned (53, 111, 112, 145, 174, 223, 277, 285, 319). Excava-tions of the urban sectors of these centers confirmed he existence of socialranking if not stratification (11, 55, 111,137, 144, 173,246, 248,320). Studiesof drained marshes nd swamps, nd of agricultural relics such as raised fields,terraces, and other related I~atures showed hat the ancient Maya ad practicedagricultural intensification on a significant scale (109, 142, 191,195,222,264,289-291). Ecological studies also showed here was more variability withinthe different environmentalzones than was previously thought (244), and thatthe Maya xploited a variety of tree crops and other cultigens besides maize,beans, and squash (36, 221,322).

Long-term excavation programs throughout the Mayaarea showed hat thesimplistic picture of sociopolitical developmentadumbratedby earlier re-searchers (humblePreclassic origins, Classic apogee, and Postclassic decline)neededdrastic revision. Archaeologists proved that the Preelassic period wasmuchmore significant than was previously thought, with someof the largestconstruction projects ever undertaken in Mesoamericaarried out at such hugecenters as E1 Mirador (193-196)and Nakbe 141) during the latter part ofMiddle Preclassic and throughout the Late Preclassic. A fascinating develop-ment has been the demonstration of ancient and diverse occupations (138)different parts of the Mayaworld, a subject so controversial and important hatit merits a review of its own. Regarding he origins of Maya ivilization andstatehood, abundant videnceof religious, artistic, and architectural sophisti-cation at E1 Mirador and Nakbe s bolstered by similar if less grandioseexamples of the same at lowland sites such as Tikal (64, 65), Cerros (118,120), Becfin (20), Lamanai 210, 211), Komchen233), Edzn~i (194),tun (293, 294), and in areas outside the lowlands, as well (61, 84:153, 130,132, 143,261,262).




.


5/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYACIVILIZATION 185Studies of the origins of Maya ivilization have also debated the importanceof Olmec ulture, and Teotihuacan, in the genesis and developmentof com-

plex culture and the state. The presenceof scattered finds of caches, jades, andceramicswith strong similarities to those of Gulf Coast Olmec ites originallywasperceived as indicating a central role for the latter as a donor o incipientcomplex ocieties in the Maya rea. This view has been revised, as archaeolo-gists have become ware hat such finds, nearly always n elite contexts, signalstatus-reinforcing strategies by local elites to enhance heir prestige by show-ing their understanding of pan-Mesoamerican eligious ideology and theirparticipation in long-distance exchange networks (84, 133, 258; cf. 106).Comparativestudies from the entire Maya rea have shown hat there is nodirect evidence for Teotihuacanpopulations, or for direct political and eco-nomiccontrol, in any of the Maya ites where such phenomenaad previouslybeen posited (84). Instead, these phenomenare nowviewed as the resultlocal emulations of foreign elites (84, 253). Archaeologicalevidence demon-strating that the Maya eveloped arge, complex olities that fit mostcriteriafor statehood (194) long before Teotihuacan ose to prominence as disproventhe idea that Maya ivilization represented a secondary tate formed s a resultof political control or influence exerted from Central Mexico.

Likewise, he Postclassic period, far frombeing viewed s a time of univer-sal decline or decadence,has emerged s a vigorous time of cultural change nwhich obust highland and lowland Maya ocieties responded o the thilure ofthe Classic Maya ociopolitical order in the southern Mayaowlands 8, 9, 56,116, 242).

The variability in timing of the developmentof the major Maya enters(316) led to the realization that the rise and fall of a particular kingdom asrelated to the fortunes of its neighbors, with the ascension of one polity oftencorresponding o the decline of one of its rivals (55, 76, 82, 253,256). Thus,the records of captures of rival rulers and conquestsof sites are of more hanpassing historical interest; they can be engaged n the anthropologicalanalysisof the rise and fall of Maya ingdoms.

Other advances n archaeological method nd theory allowed or the elucida-tion of stone age economics,Maya tyle. Theories about the origins and trans-formation of Maya ivilization based on trade and sea-faring merchants, andthe control of raw materials and finished products, were elaborated and tested(7, 8, 10, 29, 124, 125, 135, 136, 149, 199, 225, 232, 255, 286), resultinguseful data on resource acquisition, specialized production, and trade net-works. A consensus s emerging hat the control of exotic goods and their ex-changewas an important tool of poweramonghe aristocratic elites of ancientMaya ociety, but that the majority of trade took the form of local exchangeofutilitarian products and food resources among he commoners82, 140).


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


6/30

186 FASHEnormous trides have been made in ethnography and ethnohistory duringthe past 30 years. In addition to a number f classic ethnographies 45, 68, 97,

134, 205, 226, 297, 300), studies of a more specialized nature have beenundertaken with great success. Bricker (31, 34) and Hunt (161) demonstratedthe benefits of a historical approach o the analysis of living Maya itual andbelief systems. Invaluable analyses of social and economic hange during thepast century have been made in a numberof Mayacommunities 113, 35, 46,47, 70, 71,152, 227). There has been an increasing interest in documentinghenon-Maya ontext in which the Maya ive (47). As in archaeology, there alsohas been a change from a characterization of communities/cultures as rela-tively homogeneous hole, to a focus on internal differences. Vogt (298) andFreidel (122, 123) contributed structuralist approaches o the understandingMaya itual, while Tedlock (282) and Colby & Colby (69) provided excellentstudies of living Maya ime-reckoning and concepts. A numberof outstandingethnohistoric studies have been madeof the remarkable enacity and resilienceof Maya ulture during the Colonial and post-Colonial periods (59, 98, 150,151,164, 165,265).Gossenprovided compellinganalyses of oral tradition and its use in shap-ing culture (128, 129), with important implications for the understandingMaya exts in general. Such textual studies have been offered as an inde-pendent exercise (114), as part of historical and other analyses of Maya raltradition (31, 34), and as part of the complex ask of translating native Mayatexts, of which a numberof important newefforts have appeared (73, 92, 94,95,284). The publication of several outstanding dictionaries (22, 93, 177, 178)and grammars 96) also represents a tremendous advancement of knowledge.Linguistic studies have flourished, with important implications for historicalstudies (38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 170, 171,323), for the deciphermentof the Mayawriting system (32, 43,166, 167, 169; NAHopkins, tmpublished dam), and forthe deciphermentof an even older script, nowbelieved to have been developedby the neighboring Mixe-Zoque 168).A remarkable development s the beginning of Maya nthropology, carriedout and written by the Maya hemselves (208,283:168). As a result of recentconfrontations in Guatemala, t is estimated that 50,000-70,000Guatemalanswere killed (most of them Maya), 500,000 became nternal refugees, 150,000escaped to Mexico,and over 200,000 led to other nation-states (50, 185,283).Insurgent takeovers of rural communities triggered massive attacks by thestate, and both outside observers and Maya eaders have accused the Guate-malan government of those bleak days of using its counterinsurgency cam-paign as a pretext for genocide. Tedlockspeculated that this violent uprootingand dispersion could lead to "a cultural and political regrouping nto an ethnicnation that transcends the boundaries of established nation-states" (1283:168).The Mayahave developed their ownalphabets for recording their languages




09/12/07.Forpersonaluseonly.


7/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 187(6); they are encouraging he use of the Maya alendar, dress, art forms andlifeways; and they are writing down heir biographies, thoughts, and folk tales(200, 204; see 283:168-169). Thus, the living Maya rc nowactive playersin the anthropological study-of past and present aspects of their ownculture.Equally mportant, they are taking Maya ivilization into the future.As a result of the efforts of both Western cholars and the Maya,many ldnotions have been discredited, and manyproductive new ones developed andcriticized. Oneoften problematic by-product of the revision of the older mod-els of Maya ivilization has been the effort by someNorth American cholarsto compete or the attentions of the popular press (283:156). Earlier Westernacademics had put the Mayaon a cultural pedestal; some publicity seekersseem to delight in knocking them from it. Sensationalist accounts of goryblood sacrifices, sexual mutilation, and the fall of the Maya ased on their"bloodlust" and "penchant for warfare" have been commonn the mass media.This reviewer had to vehemently nsist that these very wordsbe struck from apopular bookhe wassent for pre-publication review last year.

Granted, f an educator is presented with the chance o share the insights ofyears of thoughtful, hard work with millions of people rather than a fewhundred, one would n a sense be tmtn~e to his/her calling not to do so. Aserious problem arises, however, when scholars are reduced to playing thegame ccording to the needs of the mediaand the tastes of Westemonsumers.Sadly, the quest for public recognition on the part of someresearchers hasresulted in further polarization of entrenched ositions, and considerable rrita-tion about those publications where raditional standards of hypothesis esting,proof, and scholarship are conspicuously absent. Worse, someof the sensa-tionalist popular treatments can provide certain sectors of the Ladinoelite--whohave been the dominant political force in the Mayaworld since theSpanish conquest--with he perfect excuse for further repression of the livingMaya.After all, if the information comes rom such a prestigious source, andis known round the world, it must be true that the Mayahave a "bloodlust"and "penchant for warfare." Let us hope that the popularization of Mayaculture does not continue to flourish at the expenseof the living Maya,addingto a shameful legacy of Westernexploitation that we as scholars should beworking o redress, not contribute to.CURRENT VIEWS ON THE NATURE OF MAYACIVILIZATIONSettlement Patterns, Household Archaeology, andEthnoarchaeologyMaya nthropologywas forever changed or the better by the advent of settle-mentpattern research. Willeys lead was followed quickly by major research


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


8/30

188 FASHinto settlement patterns throughout the Maya egion. Over he years, studieshave extended beyondWilleys original emphasison rural settlement, to moreholistic treatments of entire communities e.g. 23, 55, 101, 243, 2,46, 248,255), to even more nclusive regional settlement studies (85-88, 113, :180, 181,296, 307), and to a single, amazingexampleof a macro-regionalsurvey (126).Insights into manyquestions and problems have resulted. The critical use ofethnohistoric and ethnographic analogy (311) for the interpretation of thesearchaeological remains, and the recognition of the importance of analyzingvariation in settlement patterns through ime and space, have greatly strength-ened he field.

Amonghe more important findings was the discovery that not all Mayasettlements are archaeologically visible. Somedid not endure the ravages ofthe tropics well after their abandonment,hus, leaving no surface traces in thejungle. Initial work on defining invisible structures (37) and the invisibleuniverse (a term that elicited many okes) was viewed with great skepticism,but further archaeological research confirmed that some remains of humansettlements of varying densities are not visible on the modemandscape (16,57, 101,163,309). Jones has shown hat major Colonial period lowl~mdMayasettlements--which are recent, in relative terms--are archaeologically invis-ible in the jungle (165). The important implication of Jones findings for theso-called collapse at the end of the Classic period is that very large, relativelywell-organized populations could have continued to thrive in the forest, andyet are not readily visible with present archaeological echnology.The most significant force in strengthening the study of settlement patternsand human daptation has been the field of household archaeology, brought tothe forefront in Mesoamerica y Flannery (108) and gaining increasing mo-mentumn the Maya rea (312, 313). This approach represents the oppositeend of the spectrum from regional studies, and for a variety of reasons hasbecomea growing concern throughout the Mayaarea. As Wilk has pointedout, "The household unit has becomerecognized as the most important andinformative level of analysis for understanding how ndividual and groupaction does lead to structural transformation on a larger scale" (310:91).exciting corollary development s ethnoarchaeology 147, 148,266, 1310, 312),with its unique potential for developing middle-range theory that can be ap-pried to archaeological sites. Household rchaeology mayhelp resolve how odate residential sites, a key question in the ongoing debate about how ocalculate pre-Columbian opulation size in the Maya rea (78).Demography and Agricultural IntensificationPopulation pressure is regarded by manyanthropologists as a prime mover nthe development of larger, more complex societies. The evidence for thegrowth of individual sites and humanpopulations throughout the Maya rea




.


9/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 189during the Preclassic period (1) was taken to mean hat population growth,together with circumscription (whether ecological or social; 52, 302), was thedriving force behind the nucleation of large numbersof peoples into urbanorganizationalcenters (316). The increasing evidence or agricultural intensifi-cation techniques was thought to represent either a response to increasingpopulation, or even the impetus behind the developmentof large urban cen-ters. This population curve was thought to have peaked at the end of theClassic period, with the resultant over-crowdingcreating huge problemsforthe lowland Maya, ncluding the proliferation of communicableiseases (251,263, 268), depletion of natural resources (particularly soil loss througherosionand insufficient fallow cycles), and other systemic stresses, resulting in thecatastrophic demographic nd ecological disaster referred to as the ClassicMaya ollapse (74, 75).Noone questions that human opulations and social pressures did grow tounmanageable izes by the end of the Classic period, but many esearchershave reservations about just howovercrowdedhings really were, and whetherthe agricultural works by themselves could have supported someof the num-bers that are being bandied about. In Santleys words, "it is difficult to haveany confidence in theories of state development mployingpopulation pres-sure as a causal agent, because there is no theoretical calculus specifying theconditions that select for complexitygiven agricultural intensification, thedynamic linkages between variables assigned explanatory import, and theform emergent complex systems take" (250:339). The whole question of theClassic collapse is also being rethought (81,236, 242, 257, 271,306, 307),with most researchers seeing the process as muchmore protracted, complex,and full of regional variation than was previously believed. In the case ofLamanai, here apparently was no collapse (212).

The field of subsistence studies has seen enormous dvances, both in theo-retical formulations and in the quality and quantity of fieldwork (109, 142,213, 214, 267, 291). Investigations have producedevidence for draining ofswamps nd raised fields (191, 214, 222, 264, 289, 291), hillside terracing(290), and other agricultural intensification strategies. Clearly, Maya ing-domswere directing the construction and maintenanceof agricultural works,including hydraulic engineering projects, in someparts of the lowlands. Suchdirect control wasoften attributed to large polities in the heartlandor core areaof the Petrn, based on initial reports of extensive raised fields and otheragricultural worksseen via satellite imagery 2, 3, 79). However,more ecenton-the-ground checks have shown hat most of these latter features were notcultural in origin (80, 215, 237), and the setting in which hey were foundwasinappropriate for extensive raised field agriculture. Although here was a de-gree of capital investment n someareas that indicates short-fallow (rather thanswidden) systems, most specialists nowconsider such artificial econiches as


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


10/30

190 FASHcomplementaryo, rather than a substitution for, milpa farming. Most: scholarsagree that, in general, agricultural management as weakly developed amongthe indigenous city-states of the Maya. Comparative data corroborate thethesis that agricultural worksbeganas local, small-scale operations that wereonly later, if at all, incorporated nto larger, state-managed ystems 4, 40, 54,82).The picture that is emerging s one of a series of localized adaptations andagricultural strategies, varying in scope and complexitybased on the ecologi-cal setting and the degree of population pressure. This set of systems probablyincluded an infield-outfield type (207), using garden plots near the houselot,including root crops as well as other cultigens, and arboriculture, in tandemwith moredistant plots dedicated to swidden griculture, all (theoretically)harmonywith the potential of the local ecosystems into which they wereimplanted.Above ll, an appreciationof the diversity of the rainforest, and of aconscious attempt by the Maya o mimic that bio-divcrsity under optimalconditions, is setting in (206, 237, 238, 322). This finding is of enormousimportance for attempts to determine what is wrong with modem-dayMeso-american agriculture and agronomy (230; NP Dunning, E Secaira, AADe-marest, & unpublished data), and how o correct those problems.Sociopolitical EvolutionArchaeological excavations have shown hat socioeconomicelites and eliteinteraction began before the start of the Classic period and continued nto thePostclassic (139). Sabloff (240) proposed a radical departure from previousperiodization schemesby defining the entire span from 300B.C. to A.D. 1250asa single, Middle Phase of pre-ColumbianMaya ivilization. Although signifi-cant variations in localized material culture and sociopolitical evolution arewell appreciated, a strong degree of unity and interdependence by the eliteswho rose to power in each of the lowland Mayapolities continues to be afundamental enet of studies of Maya ulture change(139). As archaeologistshave become roader in their anthropological perspectives, they have begun osee that the interaction (including intense competition)betweenelites and thecenters they built up is a key to ancient Maya olitics and is a fruitful basis formodel-building and comparisonwith other societies at similar levels of so-ciopolitical complexity 81, 92, 120, 140, 228, 241).

Analogies are being madewith patron-client systems in sub-SaharanAfrica(89, 245, 247); theater states or "galactic polities" of Southeast Asia (60,82, 140, 263); and poleis (city-states) and nomes(departments) of ancientGreece and Egypt (140), third millenium Mesopotamia 325), and ZhouChina(72, 140). The theater states of Southeast Asia seemparticularly relevant, sinceTambiah 279:86) posits that the resources to underwrite independent actionon the part of a ruler camenot from the pyramid f politico-economic elations




.


11/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 191within the polity, but from control of the supply of nonsubsistencegoods fromoutside the system. Farriss reachedsuch a conclusion in her compellinganaly-sis of the Colonial Maya 98:178). The integration of communitiesnto statesdependson elite relations of trade as well as alliance and warfare, all madewithout reference to the massof the population. These alliances, and the limitsof the area that they could effectively control, created a highly fluid politicallandscape.

Thus, polities of numerous izes and degrees of complexity, from large andpowerfulstates such as Tikal and Calakmul, hroughsmaller yet still powerfulurban entities, down o minor centers and towns, existed side by side incomplementary nd often conflicting ways, from the Late Preclassic onward.Marcushas developed this view the most thoroughly (189, 190). Her dynamicmodelwas inspired by analysis of ethnohistoric, archaeological, and epi-graphic materials. Marcus bllows Roys (235) division of Maya ociopoliticalentities into three types and encouragesus to look at the kinds of interactionand degrees of inclusivity of the parties involved, throughboth time and space.Her nsistence on the importanceof secondarycenters in Maya olitical evolu-tion is a major contribution that will be pursued with vigor in ongoing andfuture studies.Substantial progress has been achieved in disceming he degree of rankingor stratification in ancient Maya olities. The Chaseshave argued hat there isevidence for a middle class in Caracol, (personal communication).Settlementpattern studies have shown ank-ordering in the size of site centers (292),secondary and tertiary centers, and of the populations makingup the urbanwardsof a single center (246, 248, 319, 320). In the hieroglyphic inscriptions,nanles of people and/or the offices they occupiedor professions they held arebeing decipheredwith increasing rapidity and specificity (157, 252, 253, 269,270, 304), giving us clear indications of the level of complexityof the uppertier. Recent work at a Classic Maya ouncil house (100) shows that itpossible to identify the buildings where ruling councils were held, and thenamesand locations of the lineage compoundsr wards that were representedin those deliberations (12, 99). Farriss (98) has shownhat in colonial Yucat~inthere were wo tiers of elites and the offices they occupied, and that ColonialMaya ociety was an effective oligarchy.As Marcus 189, 190) noted, a vital area for future research is to seearchaeological investigations can determine the shifting allegiances of thesecondaryelites and supporting populations that werepulled this wayand thatas the fortunes of individual kingdomsnd their rulers rose and fell. Develop-ing middle-range heory and methodologies o do so will be an exciting chal-lenge for archaeologists and will give themmuch o discuss with their ethnolo-gist colleagues. Sucha conjoined approach has already been applied success-fully to the analysis of the evolution of the Quich6 capital (48, 49, 51,


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


12/30

192 FASH115-117),with significant contributions to our understandingof the :mechan-ics of segmentary ineage fission (cf. 89) and the on-the-groundarchitecturalmanifestations of successful unification strategies. Likewise, research at EkBalam s also following an ethnohistorically enlightened approach to settle-mentdynamics, ouncil houses, social structure, and political evolution (233).

Both the theater states and dynamicmodels of ancient Maya ociety enableresearchers to focus on specific aspects of the archaeological and historicalrecords that will illuminate the direction, duration, and results of elite interac-tion, and its impact, if any, on the supporting populations, through time andspace. In the Petexbat~n region of Guatemala,a multidisciplinary project istackling the problemof the origins, development,and decline of a series ofinterrelated kingdoms uring the closing centuries of the Classic perod (82,85-88, 296). Ecological investigations of carrying capacity and land use (179,237) serve as the baseline for evaluating the density and distribution of settle-menton a regional level (172), and at the larger centers (162, 209, 324).political trajectories of the centers are measured y architectural energetics andcomplexity (209) and relevant historical records (157, 158), and theirnomicpolicies and trading patterns are traced throughneutron activation stud-ies of ceramics (110) and trace element analysis of other nonperishable tradegoods. All of this work is being carried out within a comparative model ofsociopolitical evolution that seeks to explain the Mayacollapse through acritical naanipulationof the role of warfare n the late eighth centuryA.D.Causes and Consequences of Warfare in Ancient Maya SocietyOpinions vary widely as to the origins and consequencesof warfare in ancienttimes amonghe Maya,a nonissue for the old modelof the Maya ut literally aburning issue for modemnvestigators and the living Maya hemselves. Web-ster s original path-breakingwork ed to the development f a robust material-ist model 301,302) that saw population pressure and elite competition drivingthe ancient Maya o warfare and to the evolution of still more complex ormsof societal organization. Demarest(81) hypothesized two patterns of Mayawarfare: 1. an open or unlimited type that is highly destructive and in whichthe participants do not hold to conventions nd rules, and 2. a situational ethicstype of warfare in which the participants agree on the conventions of ritualbellicose encounters designed primarily with political purposes in mind. Thissecond, conventionalized ype of warfare provided the opportunity for captive-taking by the ruler, whowould hen haul off the captive(s) to his owncenterfor subsequentexploitation (in the case of sculptors or craftsmen), or humili-ation and sacrifice (in the case of high-status captives, such as nobles or rivalrulers). Similarly, Freidel (121:107) views Mayawarfare as "a prerogativethe elite and fought primarily by the elite, (and) the bulk of the population wasneither affected by, nor participated in, violent conflict."




.


13/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 193Mathews197) sees Classic Mayawarfare as the raiding of marginal terri-tory. But there are a few very well-publicized exceptions such as the purporteddefeat of Tikal, twice, by Caracot(55, 58, 154; for other examples ee 24, 102,

104, 146, 157, 186, 256, 269). Thevariation in cause and effect seen in thesecases means that we cannot presently say which one of the most recentlyproposed models of Mayawarfare is most generally applicable. Demarest(83:101) posits that Rulers 2 and 3 of DosPilas changed he rules of ClassicMayawarfare (from ritualized wars to conquest warfare) in A.D. 771 in thePetexbatuacn. Yet Schele & Freidel (253:145-149) make the same claim forTikal, which they believe conquered and absorbed Uaxactun n A.D. 326 (cf196), emulating costumes and concepts of Tlaloc-Venus conquest war fromTeotihuacan. (For an alternative view on the Tikal-Uaxactun encounter, see156, 220:7-9, 270). Obviously, much emains to be done before this importantissue is resolved, and the problemwill surely be muchmorecomplex han werealize currently. Websters ecent review (305) underscores he need to inves-tigate and discriminate between en separate issues in our attempts at under-standing and building models about Mayawarfare, and emphasizes he need toexaminemultiple fines of evidence in doing so.

Literacy and Its CriticsThe hieroglyphic decipherments and iconographic analyses that have rockedMaya tudies for the past 30 years have revolutionized our understanding ofelite history, political structure, royal symbolism,mic terminology e.g. 160,273), ritual behaviors, and worldview.The historical and phonetic approachesto deciphermenthave combined o make t possible for cpigraphers to under-stand in broad outline--and occasionally, in glyph-by-glyph decipherment--virtually every Classic Maya ext that has been discovered (63). Many rchae-ologists have aided and abetted the cause by discovering significant new exts,and carefully documentingheir archaeological contexts (12, 15, 55, 100, 105,158, 211,132, 261,274, 276). Special recognition should go to Graham 131),whoseCorpus of MayaHieroglyphic Writing Project is of fundamental mpor-tance to all epigraphers, and whosecourageous efforts to that end often gounheralded.

Sadly, the epigraphic revolution also has strengthened the divide bctwccnthe ideationists and the materialists, despite Flannerys 107) pleas that the twocamps ee their perspectives and data as complementaryather than in conflict.Many mportant critiques have been madeby archaeologists of both the pro-cessualist and post-processualist persuasions. The processualists rightly pointout that the hieroglyphs can only tell the history of a tiny segmentof thepopulation in Classic Maya imes. Further, they contend (as do manyothersocial scientists) that social changecame rom below, not from above, and that


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


14/30

194 FASHthe emphasison elite culture history is severely biased at best. It is alsoimportant to rememberHammondsbservation that "we must not ignore thesobering reality that they [the epigraphers] have brought the Maya rom themargins of prehistory into merely liminal history. A dozen royal man:iages, ascore of battles or royal visits, and the genealogiesof a handful of dynasties donot give us a broad historical foundation on which o build, in the ab~enceofeconomic nformation or any documentationof Maya ociety below the upper-most elite" (140:256). The post-processualists, meanwhile,believe that thesetexts are not objective sources of information, and that what s presently beingpublished s as much n attempt at reinforcing the social position of the writeras it is a detached valuation of events that purportedly ook place in the past.The lack of extant economic ecords is used by many cholars to nfinimizethe achievements ot only of the Maya cribes and their writing system, but ofthe civilization itself (249). However, tuart recently (271) deciphereda glyphfor tribute and showed hat Late Classic inscriptions at Naranjocite not onlythis glyph, but the goods given in tribute to that kingdomfter its successfulconquest of a neighboring polity. This deciphermentmeans hat booty was, insomecases, obtained from war (which Stuart notes is recorded as involving theburning of structures; 271, manuscript ubmitted or publication; cf. 1.2, 203),and that such accounts of tribute were sometimes important enough to berecorded on stone monuments. he latter datum s in striking contrast to thesituation in Mesopotamia, for example, where economic ransactions werealways recorded on portable clay tablets and never displayed publicly. Weshould now reconsider why no economic codices have survived. Only fourancient Maya ooks remain of the hundreds that still existed in Postclassictimes (versus the thousands that probably existed earlier). These four weredevoted to religious and astronomical data, and are considered in more thanone case to have been copies of earlier, Classic Period originals. Whywouldlater Maya cribes and rulers want to recopy codices containing royal genealo-gies, or tribute records, of kingdoms hat had long since perished? Suchrecords maywell have gone up in smokewith the fires that consumedhe verycities they chronicled. Alas, unlike at Ebla, the Maya oyal archives were madeof paper, not clay.Anothermajor critique leveled at Mayanscriptions is that they were usedas political propaganda nd, therefore, are unreliable. Indeed, some cholarshave taken an extreme postmodern/deconstructionist view that these texts arenot only untrustworthy, but intrinsically deceptive, and unlikely to yield datathat might be archaeologically demonstrable. Marcushas a more enlightenedapproach (188), noting that the Mayadid not distinguish between history,myth, and propaganda. Indeed, Bricker (31) showed hat there is no dividingline betweenhistory and myth n the oral traditions and rituals of the livingMaya. However,Marcus does not go to the extreme of claiming "that Meso-






15/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 195american nscriptions are all lies or pure propaganda," nor does she "em-brace the deconstructionist view hat history does not exist" (188:8). Instead,Marcus ightly cautions Mayanistsnot to take the claims of the Classic Mayakings and other Mesoamericanulers at face value, given their intertwining ofpropaganda,myth,and history, particularly with respect to the lengths of theirreigns and the conquests they claim to have made.

All goodsocial scientists know hat one needs more han one source for anytext to be considered valid, in a historiographic sense. Manyof the mostimportant events in the lifetimes of rulers and in the history of their kingdomsweredoubtless ephemeral ffairs, difficult if not impossible o determine n thearchaeological record alone. But others were of a nature and a magnitude hatthey can either be corroborated, or fail to be corroborated, by archaeologicalevidence and/or by other written records from independent sources. Whentexts at both Cop~ nd Quirigu~i refer to the death of the thirteenth Cop~inking in A.D. 738 (at the hands of his Quirigu~i rival), we can take thatevidence hat the historical veracity of this event and its perceived mportanceto the dynasties of both centers are corroborated. Whenhe archaeologicalrecord shows hat this event did not result in the absorption of the CopS_nkingdom nto that of Quirigu~, we can adjudge the socioeconomic conse-quencesof Cop~.ns oss to have been less than devastating. The Petexbatuacnregion has provided quite compelling, independentarchaeological data verify-ing the presence and importance of fortification features and weaponry, nassociation with sites whosehieroglyphic records insist on the frequencyandimportanceof bellicose encounters. Epigraphic data regarding rulers ages andactions can be used to archaeologically cross-check the dates of constructionof buildings, the placementand reentry of tombs, and the ages of their occu-pants(e.g. 5).

Sucha "cross-cutting, self-corrective strategy," as Sharer calls it, for theevaluation of the evolution, degree, and forms of sociopolitical complexity--whetheror not one cares to call it a conjunctive approach---has been appliedproductively throughout the Maya owlands (12, 15, 55, 77, 83, 99, 100, 103,105, 155, 176, 182, 210, 212, 253, 256, 259, 260, 269, 295). Obviously, whenindependentarchaeological lines of evidence fall to corroborate a particulartext or set of texts, weare faced with a challengeboth to the official history oftheir commissioner nd to our own nterpretive abilities and limitations. Tocavalierly dismiss the records as completely untrustworthy, or worse, unwor-thy of attention or unusable n the interpretation of the archaeological record,is to bury ones head in the sand. Rather, the richness and complementarity fthe data sets available to the Maya rchaeologist (187) is an inviting challengethat we most certainly can and should live up to.


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


16/30


17/30

PERSPECTIVESON MAYA IVILIZATION 197control over land, labor, and produce was weakly developed among he low-land Maya ingdoms, nd that the mlers chief source of powerwas his controlover nonsubsistence lite goodsand, especially, ritual, public displays of hischarismatic leadership and religious authority. These data support Farrissfindings (98) for the Colonial Maya,as well as studies of trade in the Mayaarea. Besides being firmly grounded n comparativeanthropology, his elegantmodelaccountsfor the interrelated rises and falls of rival kingdoms. t alsoshows he value of documenting nd analyzing historical records (which clar-ify whowas in alliance against whom,when), and why he study of religiousand political ideology is vitally important for model-building nd analysis ofthe cultural evolution of civilization in the Mayaworld.Many rchaeologists worry that with the growing emphasis on segmentarylineages and theater states, the pendulum s swinging too far back in thedirection of the old modelof Maya ivilization: theocratic elites with noeconomicor coercive powers drawing corn-farming peasants to their centersfor ceremonies hat highlighted astrological knowledge nd the dispatching ofcaptives taken in occasional raids. Indeed, even the term ceremonialcenter ismakinga comeback.But a shift to a theater states or dynamicmodeldoes notimply that we are merely reverting to the schemaused decades ago. The trulyamazing advances seen during the last three decades in the realms reviewedhere are not going to be dispensed with. The greatest strength of currentstudies of Maya ivilization rests precisely in the fact that all of these realmsand manymore are under intense scrutiny and subject to lively debate bydedicated scholars, and that the lifeways and concerns of all segmentsof theancient, colonial, and modernMaya eople are being illuminated as a result.PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTUREObviously, Maya tudies are stronger than ever, with a greater time depth andanthropological breadth than even an optimist like Willey (317) could havehoped for, only a decade and a half ago. The prospects for multidisciplinarystudies of Maya ivilization are better than ever, given our increasing theoreti-cal, methodological,and technological sophistication, and our burgeoningdatabase. In Willeys words, "there is a progression in this coordination of datathat is almost geometric" (personal communication).Particularly encouragingis the manner n which he ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and ethnoarchaeologi-cal materials are enlightening our vistas of modern, olonial, and ancient Mayacultural ecology, economic tructures, householdorganization, settlement andland-use patterns, power elations, religion, myth, and ritual. Indeed, the needis ever greater for archaeologists and ethnologists to engage in active ex-change, so that both can proceedon a stronger footing.


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


18/30

198 FASHI think the greatest need for change in the anthropological study of Mayacivilization is in the ethical, rather than the theoretical realm. At this point,

Maya tudies should be pursued from an enlightened anthropological perspec-tive, dedicated aboveall to the conservationof the human, ultural, and bioticresources of the Mayaworld. Rather than just talking to each other, Mayaarchaeologists should emulate the participant observer example provided byour ethnographer olleagues. All of us should be talking with, and listening to,the people in the Mayaworld: fellow researchers, educators, students, conser-vation specialists, leaders, and just plain folk (278, 310:92). Researchers nter-ested in makinga contribution to fieldwork in the Maya rea should cease tothink of what hey do as merelyan intellectual exercise and start to regard it asa wayof contributing to the preservation of a priceless cultural and biologicallegacy. Archaeologists nterested in stopping the wantondestruction caused bythe looting of archaeological sites should view this not simply as a way ofsaving the archaeological remains for scientific purposes, but more impor-tantly as a wayof securing the cultural heritage of the Mayapeople for thefuture.With the signing of the Declaration of Copgn n May1993, the govern-ments of the five countries with Maya rchaeological sites have committedthemselves to ecological conservation and cultural resource managementntheir plans for the economic development of the MundoMaya. This is asignificant, positive step in the right direction, but scholars need o be sure thatthe terms of this historic accord are respected in all five nations, and they mustengage themselves, and the govermnents f those countries, in an active dia-logue with the Maya eople whowill take their civilization into the future.

After the Crusades, Westerncivilization flowered during the Rennaissance,aided by archaeological, historical, and religious studies. Could t be that withthe end of the Colonial, Independent, and Cold Warperiods--together form-ing the Dark Ages of the Mayaworld--Mayacivilization will nowundergo asimilar rebirth, aided by the samekinds of studies? Or do recent events in thehighlandsof Chiapaspresage continuingcycles of ethnic corfflict, with signifi-cant roles played by foreign peoples and ideologies, as so often chronicled/prophesied in Mayahistory, myth, and ritual? The ancient Mayaprophesiedthat at the ti~ne of the completionof the 13th baktunor "Great Cycle." of theirLongCountcalendar (falling in our year A.o. 2012), this world wouldcomean end, and another wouldpresumably ake its place. Perhaps by then we willhave an answer o these questions.

AnyAnnualReviewchapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Reviewchapter,may be purchased from the AnnualReviewsPreprints and Reprints service.1-800-347-8007; 415-259.5017; email: [email protected]






19/30

PERSPECTIVES ON MAYA CIVILIZATION 199Literature Cited

1. Adams REW,ed, 197Z The Origins ofMayaCivilization. Albuquerque:Univ. N.Mex. Press2. AdamsREW. 983. Ancient land use andculture history in the Pasi6n River region.See Ref. 299a, pp. 319-363. Adams REW,Brown WEJr, Culbert TP.1981. Radarmapping,archaeology, and an-cient Maya and use. Science 213:1457434. Adams RM, Nissen HJ. 1972. The UrukCountryside.Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPress5. Agurcia R, Fash WL.1989. A royal Mayatombdiscovered. Natl. Geogr.176(4):480-876. ALMGAcademia de las Lenguas Mayasde Guatemala). Lenguas mayas de Guate-mala: documento e referencia para lu pro-nunicacidn de los nuevos alfabetos ofi-ciales. GuatemalaCity: Inst. IndigenistaNacional7. AndrewsAP. 1983. Ancient Maya alt Pro-duction and Trade. Tucson: Univ. Ariz.Press8. Andrews AE 1990. The fall of ChichenItza: a preliminary hypothesis. Latin Am.Antiq. 1 (3):258~579. AudrewsAP. 1993. Late Postclassic low-land Maya rchaeology. J. WorldPrehist.7(1):35~6910. AndrewsAP, Gallareta Negr6n T, RoblesCastellanos E Cohos Palma R, CerveraRiveroP. 1988. sla Cerritos:an Itz~i tradingport on the north coast of Yucatfin,Mexico.Natl. Geogr. Res 4:196-20711. Andrews EW V, Andrews EWV. 1980.Excavations at Dzibilchaltuacn, Yucatdn,Mexico. Publ. No. 48. NewOrleans: Mid-dle Am.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.12. Andrews EWV, Fash BW. 1992. Continuity and change in a royal Maya esidentialcomplex at Copan. Ancient Mesoamerica3(1):634813. Annis S. 1987. God and Production in aGuatemalan Town. Austin: Univ. TexasPress14. Ashrnore W, ed. 1981. LowlandMayaSet-tlement Patterns. Albuquerque:Univ. N.Mex. Press15. AshmoreW. 1984. Quirigu~i archaeologyand history revisited. 3. Field Arch. 11:365-8616. Ashmore W. 1990. Ode to a dragline:demographic econstructions at Quirigua,Guatemala. See Ref. 79, pp. 63-82

17. Aveni AF. 1980. Skywatchers of AncientMexico.Austin: Univ. Texas Press18. Aveni AF. 1991. WorldArchaeoastronomy.Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press19. Aveni AF. 1992. The Sky in MayaLitera-ture. NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press20. Ball JW, AndrewsEWV. 1978. Preclassic

Architecture at Becan, Campeche,Mexico.Occas. Pap. No. 3. NewOrleans: MiddleAm.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.21. Barrera V~squezA. 1980.Diccionario Cor-demex: Maya-Espa~ol, Espa~ol-Maya.Mtrida, Yucatan, Mexico: Cordemex22. Bassie-Sweet K. 1991. From he Mouth ofthe Dark Cave. Norman:Univ. Okla. Press23. BaudezCF, ed. 1983. lntroducci6n a laarqueologfa de Copdn,Vols. 1-3. Teguci-galpa: Seer. Estado DespachoCultura Tur-ismo24. Baudez CF, Mathews P. 1979. Captureand sacrifice at Palenque. In TerceraMesa Redonda de Palenque, ed. MGRobertson, DC effers, pp. 31-40. Palen-quefMonterey, CA:PrecolumbianArt Res./Herald Printers25. Berlin HB.1958. E1 glifo "emblema"n lasinscripciones Mayas. . Soc. Amdricanistes(NS) 47:111-1926. Berlin HB. 1959. Gllfos nominales in elscarc6fago de Palenque. Humanidades2(10):1-8. Guatemala:Univ. San Carlos27. Berlin HB. 1963. The Palenque Triad. J.Soc. Amdricanistes53:91-9928. Bitflord LR. 1968. Some omments n his-torical versus processual archaeology.Southwest. J. Anthropol.24(3):267-7529. Bishop RL, Rands RL. 1982. Maya finepaste ceramics: a compositional perspec-tive. In Excavationsat Seibal: AnalysesofFine Past Ceramics, cd. JA Sabloff. Mem-oirs PeabodyMus. Arehaeol. Ethnol., Vol.15(2)30. Brasseur de BourbourgCE. 1864. Relationdes choses de Yucatdn. Pads31. Bricker VR.1981. The Indian Christ, theIndian King: The Historical Substrate ofMayaMythand Ritual. Austin: Univ. TexasPress

32. Bricker VR. 1986. A Grammar f MayanHieroglyphs. NewOrleans: Middle Am.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.33. Ftricker VR. 1988. A phonetic glyph forzenith: reply to Closs. Am. Antiq. 53:394-40034. Bricker VR. 1989. The calendric meaningof ritual among he Maya. n EthnographicEncounters in Southern Mesoamerica,ed.VRBricker, GHGossen, pp. 231-50. Al-bany, NY: Inst. Mesoamerican tud.35. Brintnall DE. 1979. Revolt Against theDeaa~ The Modernization of a MayaCom-munity in the Highlands of Guatemala.NewYork: Gordon & Breach36. Bronson B. 1966. Roots and the subsis-tence of the ancient Maya.Southwest. J.AnthropoL 22:251-7937. BronsonB. 1968. VacantTerrain. Philadel-phia: Univ. Mus., Univ. Penn.


Annu.

Rev.

Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


20/30

200 FASH38. Brown CH. 1991. Hieroglyphic literacyin ancient Mayaland: inferences fromlinguistic data. Curr. AnthropoL32(4):489-9639. BrownCH, Witkowski SR. 1979. Aspectsof the phonological history of Mayan-Zo-quean. Int. J. Am. Ling. 45:34-4740. Butzer K. 1982. Hydraulic Agriculture andthe Origins of EgyptianCivilization. Clfl-cago: Univ. Chicago Press41. CampbellLR. 1976. The linguistic prehis-tory of the southern Mesoamericaneriph-ery. XIV Mesa Redonda, Soc. MeaicanaAntropol.1 : 157-8342. Campbell LR. 1977. Quichean LinguisticPrehistory. Univ.Calif. Pnbls. Linguistics,No. 8. Berkeley:Univ. Calif.43. Campbell LR. 1984. The implications of

Mayanistorical linguistics for glyphicre-search. See Ref. 167, pp. 1-1644. Campbell LR, Kaufman T. 1985. Mayanlinguistics: where are we now~Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 14:187-9845. Cancian F. 1965. Economicsand Prestigein a MayaCommunity.Stanford, CA: Stan-ford Univ. Press46. Cancian F. 1972. Changeand Uncertaintyin a Peasant Economy: The Maya CornFarmers f Zinacatdn. Stanford, CA:Stan-ford Univ. Press47. Cancian E 1992, The Decline of Commu-nity in Zinacantdn.Stanford, CA:StanfordUniv. Press48. Carmack RM. 1973. Quichean Civiliza-tion: The Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic,andArchaeological Sources. Berkeley/Los An-geles: Univ.Calif. Press49. Cannack RM. 1981. The Quich~ Mayas ofUtatldn. Norman:Univ. Okla. Press50. CarmackRM.1988, Harvest of Violence:The Maya Indians and the GuatemalanCrisis. Norman:Univ. Okla. Press51. Carmack RM,Fox J, Stewart R. 1975. Laformacirn del reino quich~: Seguacn laarqueolog[a etnolog[a. Inst. Nacl. Antro-pol. Hisk Guatemala,Publ. Espec. 752. Carneiro RL. 1970. A heory of the originof the state. Science 169:733-3853. Carr RE, Hazard JE. /961. Map of theRuins of Tikal, E1 Pet~n, Guatemala. ikalRep. 11. Philadelphia: Univ. Mus., Univ.Penn54. Chang KC. 1976. Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives. Cam-bridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press55. Chase AF, Chase DZ. 1987. Investigationsat the Classic Maya ity of Caracol, Belize:1985-1987. Monogr.No. 3. San Francisco:Pre-ColumbianArt Res. Inst.56. Chase AF, Rice PM. 1985. The lowlandMaya Postclassic. Austin: Univ. TexasPress57. Chase DZ. 1990. The invisible Maya:population history and archaeology at

Santa Rita Corozal,Belize. See Ref. 79, pp.199-21458. Chase DZ, Chase AZ. 1991. Warfare andthe classic Maya ollapse: the perspectivefrom Coracol, Belize. Presented at Int.Congr. Americanists, 47th, NewOrleans59. Clendinnen I. 1987. Ambivalent Con-quests: Mayaand Spaniard in Yucatrn,1517-1570~Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press60. Coe MD.1957. The Kmersettlement pat-tern: a possible analogy with that of theMaya. Am. Antiq. 22:409-1061. Coe MD. 1957. Cycle 7 monuments inMiddle America: a reconsideration. Am.Anthropol. 59(4):597-61162. Coe MD.1981. Religion and the rise ofMesoamericantates. In The Transition toStatehood in the NewWorld,ed. GD ones,RR Kautz, pp. 155 79. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ. Press63, Coe MD.1992. Breaking the Maya Code.London: Thames & Hudson64, Coe WR. 1965. Tikal, Guatemala, andemergent Maya civilization, Science147:1401-1965. Coe WR.1990. Excavations in the GreatPlaza, North Terrace and North Acropolisof Tikal. Tikal Report 14. Philadelphia:Univ. Mus., Univ. Penn.66. Coggins CC, 1975. Painting and drawingstyles at Tikal: an historical and icono-graphic reconstruction. PhD hesis. Har-vard Univ.67. Coggins CC. 1983. The Stucco Decorationand Arehiteetural Assemblage f Structure1-sub, Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico.Publ. No. 49. NewOrleans: Middle Am.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.68, Colby BJ, vandertBurghe PL. 1969. lxilCountry: A Plural Society in HighlandGuatemala. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ,Calif. PressColby BN, Colby LM. 1981. The Day-keeper: The Life and Discourse of an IxilDiviner. Cambridge:Harvard Univ. PressCollier GA.1975.Fields of the Tzotzil: TheEcological Bases for Tradition in HighlandChiapas.Austin: Univ. Texas PressCollier J. 1973. Lawand Social Change nZinacantan. Stanford, CA:Stanford Univ.PressCowgill GL. 1979. Teotihuacan, internalmilitaristic competition, nd the fall of theClassic Maya. In MayaArchaeology andEthnohistory, ed, N Hammond,p. 51-62.Austin: Univ. TexasPressCralne ER, Reindorp RC. 1979. The CodexPerez and the Book of Chilam Balam ofMani. Norman:Univ. Okla. PressCulbert TP. 1973. The Classic MayaCol-lapse. Albuquerque:Univ, N. Mex.PrcssCulbert TP. 1977. Mayadevelopment andcollapse: an economicperspective. In So-

69.70.71.72.

73.74.75.


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


21/30

PERSPECTIVES ON MAYA CIVILIZATION 201cial Process in MayaPrehistory, ed. NHammond, p. 510-31. London: Academic76. Cnlbert TP. 1990. Mayapolitical historyand elite interaction: a summary iew. SeeRef. 79, pp. 311-4677. Culbert TP. 1991. Classic MayaPoliticalHistory. Albuquerque:Univ. N. Mex.Press78. Culbert TP, Magers P, Spencer M. 1978.Regionalvariability in Mayaowland agri-culture. See Ref. 142, pp. 157-6779. Culbert TP, Rice DS, eds. 1990. Precolum-bian Population History in the MayaLow-laads. Albuquerque:Univ. N. Mex. Press80. D~hlin BH, Foss JE, ChambersME. 1980.ProjectAlcaches.See Ref. 192, pp. 138-6981. Demarest AA.1978. Interegional conflictand "situational ethics" in Classic Mayawarfare. In Codex Wauchope, d. MGiar-dino, MEdmonson,WCrearmer, pp. 101-I 1. NewOrleans: Tulane Univ. Press82. Demarest AA. 1992. Ideology in ancientMaya ultural evolution: the dynamics ofgalactic politics. In Ideologyand Pre-Co-lumbian Civilizations, ed. AADemarest,GWConrad, pp. 135-58. Santa Fe, NM:Sct~ool Am.Res.83. DemarestAA.1993. The violent saga of aMayakingdom. Notl. Geogr 183(2):95-11184. Demarest AA, Foias AE. 1993. Meso-oa~aericanhorizons and the cultural trans-formations of Maya ivilization. In LatinAmericanHorizons, ed. DSRice, pp. 147-91. Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks85. Demarest AA, Houston SD, eds. 1989. ElProyecto Arqueoldgico Regional Petex-batun, lnforme Preliminar 1, Primera Tem-porada1989. Nashville, TN: Dept. Anthro-pol., VandcrbiltUniv.86. Demarest AA, Houston SD, eds. 1990.Proyecto Arqueoldgico Regional Petex-batun, lnforme Preliminar 2, SegundaTem-porada1990. Nashville, TN: Dept. Anthro-pol., VanderbiltUniv.

87. Demarest AA, Inomata T, Escobedo H,Palka J. 1991. Proyecto Arqueologico Re-gional Petexbatun, lnfo~me Preliminar 3,Tercera Temporada 991, Vols. 1-2. Nash-ville, TN: Dept. Anthropol., VanderbiltUniv.88. Demarest AA, Inomata T, Escobedo H.1992. Proyecto Arqueolrgico RegionalPetexbatun, lnforme Preliminar 4, CuartoTemporada1992.89. deMontmollin O. 1989. The Archaeologyof Political Structure. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ. Press90. Deleted in proof91. Deleted in proof92. EdmonsonMS. 1971. The Book of Coun-sel: The Popol Vuh of the Quich~ MayaofGuatemala. Publ. No. 35. NewOrleans:MiddleAm.Res. Inst., Ttdane Univ.93. EdmonsonMS. 1976. Quichd-English Dic-

tionary. Publ. No. 30. NewOrleans: MiddleAm.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.94 EdmonsonMS. 1982. The Ancient Futureof the ltza: The Book of Chilam Balamof7~zimin.Austin: Univ. TexasPress95. Edmonson MS. 1986. Heaven BornM~rida and its Destiny: The Book ofChilam Balamof Chumayel.Austin: Univ.Texas Press96. England NC. 1983. A Grammar f Mam,AMayan Language Austin: Univ. TexasPress97. Fabrega H, Silver DB. 1973. lllness andShamanistic Curing in Zinacantan.Stan- ford, CA:Stanford Univ. Press98. Farriss N. 1984. MayaSociety under Colo-nial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Sur-vival Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press99. Fash BW. 992. Late Classic architecturalsculpture themes in Copan.Ancient Meso-america 3(1):89-104100.Fash BW, Fash WL, Lane S, Larios R,Schele L, et al. 1992. Investigations of aClassic Mayacouncil house at Cop~in,Honduras.J. FieldArchaeol. 19(4):419-42101.Fash WL.1986. History and characteristicsof settlement in the Cop~nValley, and somecomparisonswith Quirigufi. In The South-east MayaPeriphery, ed. PA Urban, EMSchortman,pp. 72-93. Austin: Univ. TexasPress102.Fash VCL.1991. Scribes, Warriors" andKings. London: Thames & Hudson103.Fash WL,Sharer RJ. 1991. Sociopoliticaldevelopments nd methodological ssues atCopfin, Honduras:a conjunctive perspec-tive. Latin Am.Antiq. 2(2): 166-87llM. Fash WL,Stuart DS. 1991. Dynastic history and cultural evolution at Copfin,Hon-duras. See Ref. 76, pp. 147-79105.Fash WL,WilliamsonRV,Larios CR, PalkaJ. 1992. Thehieroglyphic stairway and itsancestors. AncientMesoamerica( 1): 105-16106.Flannery KV. 1968. The Olmec and theValley of Oaxaca: a modelfor inter-re-gional interaction in formative times. InDumbarton Oaks Conference on the Ol-mec, ed. B Benson,pp. 79--110. Waslting-ton, DC: DumbartonOaks107.Flannery KV.1972. The cultural evolutionof civilizations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3:33%46108. Flannery KV.1976. The Early Mesoameri-can VHlage. NewYork: Academic109.Flannery KV. 1982. MayaSubsistence.NewYork: Academicll0. Foias A, Bishop R, Hagstrum M, Ver-hagen I. 1991. Artifacts, chronolgy andexchange ystems in the Petexbatun:a pre-liminary laboratory analysis. Presented atInt. Congr. Americanists, 47th, NewOr-leans111. Folan WJ, Kintz ER, Fletcher LA. 1983.


Annu.

Rev.

Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


22/30

202 FASHCobd, a Classic Maya Metropolis. NewYork: Academic112.Folan WJ, MayHau J. 1984. Proyecto Ca-lakmul, 1982-1984: El Mapa. lnformacirn8:1-14. Campeche: ent. Estud. Hist. Sot.,Univ. AutrnomaSudeste113.Ford A. 1986. Population Growthand So-cial Complexity. Anthropol. Res. Pap. No.35. Tempe:Ariz. State Univ114.Fought JG. 1972. Chorti (Mayan) Texts.Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press115.Fox JW. 1978. Quichd Conquest. Albu-querque: Univ. N. Mex. Press116.Fox JW. 1987. MayaPostclassic State For-mation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press117.FoxJW.1989.On he rise and fall of Tul~insand Maya egmentary states. Am. Anthro-pol. 91:656~81118.Freidel DA.1979. Culture areas and inter-action spheres: contrasting approaches othe emergence f civilization in the Mayalowlands. Am. Antiq. 44:36--54119.Freidel DA. 981. Civilization as a state ofmind: the cultural evolution of the lowlandMaya. n The Transition to Statehood n theNewWorld, ed. GDJones, RR Kautz, pp.188-227. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press120.Freidel DA. 1986. The monumental rchi-tecture. In Archaeology t Cerros, Belize,CentralAmerica.Vol. 1 : An htterim Report,ed. RARobertson, DAFreidel, pp. 1-22.Dallas: S. MethodistUniv. Press121.Freidel DA.1986. Mayawarfare: an exam-ple of peer polity interaction. See Ref. 228,pp. 93-108122.Freidel DA. 1992. The trees of life: Ahauas idea and artifact in lowland ClassicMaya ivilization. In Ideology and Pre-Co-lumbian Civilizations, ed. AADemarest,GWConrad, pp. 115-34. Santa Fe, NM:School Am.Res.123.Freidel DA,Schele L, Parker J. 1993.MayaCosmos. NewYork: Morrow124.Fry RE. 1979. The economicsof pottery atTikal, Guatemala: Modelsof Exchange orServing Vessels. Am. Antiq. 44:494--512125.Fry RE. 1980. Models and Methods in Re-gional Exchange.Pap. Soc. Am.Archaeol.No. 1. Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Ar-chaeol.126.Garza S, Kurjack EB. 1980. Atlas ar-queolrgicodel estado de Yucatrn,Vol. 1-2.Mexico,D.E: Inst. Nacl. Antropol. Hist.127.Goodman T. 1905. Mayadates. Am. An-thropol. 7:642-47128.Gossen GI-I. 1974. Chamulas n the Wormof the Sun. Cambridge,MA:Harvard Univ.Press129.Gossen GH, ed. 1986. Symbol and Mean-ing Beyond the Closed Corporate Commu-nity. Albany,NY: nst. Mesoamericantud.130.Graham I. 1967. Archaeological Re-

searches in El Petgn, Guatemala. ubl. No.33. NewOrleans: Middle Am.Res. Inst.,Tulanc Univ.131.Graham. 1975. Introduction to the Cot--pus. In Corpus of MayaHieroglyphic In-scriptions, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA:Pea-body Mus. Press132.Graham JA. 1977. Discoveries at AbajTakalik, Guatemala.Archaeology"30:196-97133.GroveDC. 1989. Olmec:whats in a name?In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec,ed.DCGrove, RJ Sharer, pp. 8 16. Cam-bridge: CambridgeUniv. Press134.Guiteras-Hohnes C. 1961. Perils of theSoul: The Worm/iew of a Tzotzil Indian.NewYork: Free Press135. Hammond. 1972. Obsidian trade routesin the Mayan rea. Science 178:1092-93136.Hammond N. 1973. Models for Mayatrade. In The Explanation af CultureChange,ed. C Renfrew, pp. 601-7. Pitts-burgh: Pittsburgh Univ. Press137.Hammond . 1975. Lubaantun: A ClassicMaya Realm. Monogr. No. 2. Cambridge,MA: eabodyMus.Archaeol. F, thnol.138.Hammond . 1991. Cuello, An Early MayaCommunity n Belize. Cambridge: Cam-bridge Univ. Press139.Hammond. 1991. Introduction. See Ref,76, pp. 1-18

140.Hammond. 1991. Inside the black box:defining Maya olity. See Ref. 76, pp. 253-84141.HansenR. 1991. On he road to Nakbe.Nat.Hist. May:9-14142.Harrison PD, Turner BL1I. 1978. Pre-His-panic Maya Agriculture. Albuquerque:Univ. N. Mex. Press143.Hatch MP, 1987. La importancia de lacer~imicautilitaria en la arqueologia, conobservaciones obre la prehistoria de Gt~a-temala. Anal. Acad. Geogr. 14ist. Guate-mala61 : 151-84144.Haviland WA. 1968. Ancient lowlandMaya ocial organization. In Archaeologi-cal Studies in Middle America. Publ. No.26. NewOrleans: Middle Am.Res. In,t.,Tulane Univ.145.Haviland WA. 970. Tikal, Guatemala, andMesoamerican urbanism. WorMArchaeoL2:186-98146.Haviland W. 1991. Star Wars at Tikal, ordid Caracol do what the glyphs say theydid? Presented at Annu. Meet. Am.Anthro-pol. Assoc., 90th, Chicago147.HaydenB. 1987. Lithic Studies AmongheContemporary Highland Maya. Tucson:Univ. Ariz. Press148.HaydenB, CannonA. 1984. The Structureof Material Systems: Ethnoarchaeology nthe MayaHighlands. Pap. No. 3. Washing-ton, DC:Soc. Am.Archaeol.149.Hester TR, Shafer HJ. 1994. The ancient


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


23/30

PERSPECTIVES ON MAYA CWILIZATION 203Maya raft commu~fity t Colha, Belize.and its external relationships. In V~llageCommunities n Early ComplexSocieties,ed. S Falconer, G Falconer. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press. Inpress150.Hill RM I. 1992. Colonial Cakchiquels:Highland Maya Adaptation to SpanishRule, 1600-1700. Fort Worth, TX: Har-court Brace Jovanovitch151.Hill RMI, Monaghan. 1987.Continuitiesin Highland Maya Social Organization:Ethnohistory in Sacapulas, Guatemala.Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press152.HinshawRE. 1975. Panajachel: A Guate-malan Town n Thirty Year Perspective.Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Univ. Press153.Deleted in proof

154.HoustonSD. 1987. Notes on Caracol epi-graphy and its significance. See Ref. 55,Appendix I, pp. 85 100155.Houston SD. 1989. Archaeology and Mayawriting..L WorldPrehist. 3(1): 1-32156.HoustonSD. 1992. Telling about the Maya.Science 256:1062-63157.Houston SD. 1993. Hieroglyphs and His-tory at DosPilas. Austin: Univ.TexasPress158.HoustonSD, MathewsP. 1985. The Dynas-tic Sequence of Dos Pilas, Guatemala.Monogr.No. 1. San Francisco: Pre-Colum-bian Art Res. Inst.159.Houston SD, Stuart DS. 1989. The WayGlyph: Evidence for "Co-essences"among he Classic Maya.Res. Rep. onMayaWriting, No. 30. Washington, DC:Cent. MayaRes.160.Houston SD, Stuart DS, Taube KA. 1989.Folk classification of Mayapottery. Am.A nthropol. 91:720-26161.Hunt E. 1977. The Transformation of theHummingbird."Cultural Roots of a Zina-catecz~n Mythical Poem. thaca, NY:Cot-nell Univ. Press162.Inomata T. 1991. Excavations and survey

of the Petexbatun fortress capital ofAguateca.Presented at Int. Congr. Americanists, 47th, NewOrleans163.JohnstonK. 1990. Invisible structures inthe Petexbatun. Paper presented at Annu.Meet. Soc. Am.Arch.164. Jones GD.1987. Anthropologyand Historyin Yucatdn.Austin: Univ. TexasPress165.Jones GD.1989. MayaResistance to Span-ish Rule: Time and History on a ColonialFrontier. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex.Press166.Josserand K. 1990. The narrative structureof hieroglyphic texts at Palenque. n SixthPalenque Round Table, 1986, ed. MGRobertson. Norman:Univ. Okla. Press167.Justeson JS, Campbell L, eds. 1984.Phoneticism in MayanHieroglyphic Writ-ing. Publ. No. 9. Albany, NY: nst. Meso-american Stud.

168.Justeson JS, Kaufman . 1993. A decipher-ment of Epi-Olmechieroglyphic writing.Science 259:1703-10169.Justeson JS, Norman WM,Campbell L,KaufmanTS. 1985. The Foreign Impact onLowland Mayan Language and Script.Publ. No. 53. NewOrleans: Middle Am.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.170.Kaufman TS. 1976. Archaeological andlinguistic correlations in Mayalandnd as-sociated areas of Mesoamerica.WorldAr-chaeol. 8:101-18171.Kaufman TS, NormanWN.1984. An out-line of Proto-Cholan phonologyand mor-phology. See Ref. 167, 77-166172.Killion T, Triadan D, Van Tuereni~out,Chatham . 199 l. Brokenheartland of cit-ies: intersite settlementsurvey n the Petex-batun region. Presented at Int. Congr.Americanists, 47th, NewOrleans173.Kurjack EB. 1974. Prehistoric LowlandMaya Community and Social Organiza-tion: A CaseStudy at Dzibilchaltuacn, Yu-catdn, Mexico.Publ. No. 38. NewOrleans:MiddleAm.Res. Inst., Tnlane Univ.174.Kurjack EB. 1979. Introduction to the Mapof the Ruins of Dzibilchaltuacn, Yucatdn,Mexico. Publ. No. 47. NewOrleans: Mid-dle Am.Res. Inst., TulaneUniv.175.Kurjack EB, Andrews EWV. 1976. Earlyboundary maintenance in northwest Yu-catan, Mexico.Am. Antiq. 41:318-25176.LaPorte JP, Fialko V. 1990. Newperspec-tives on old problems:dynastic referencesfor the Early Classic at Tikal. In Vision andRevision in MayaStudies, ed. F Clancy, PHarrison, pp. 33~6. Albuquerque: Univ.N. Mex. Press177.Laughlin RB. 1975. The Great TzotzilDictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan.Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropol.19178.Lauglflin RB (with JB Haviland). 1988.The Great Tzotzil Dictionary of SantoDomingo Zinacantdn, with GrammaticalAnalysis and Historical Commentary.Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropol.31179.Lentz D, EmeryK. 1991. Prehistoric sub-sistence systems in the Petexbatunregion:palaeobotanical and zooarchaeologicaldata. Presentedat Int. Congr.Americanists,47th, NewOrleans180.Leventhal RM.1990. Southern Belize: anancient Maya egion. In Vision and Revi-sion in Maya tudies, ed. F Clancy, P Har-rison, pp. 125-42. Albuquerque:Univ. N.Mex. Press181.Leventhal RM, Ashmore W, LeCount L,Hetrick V, Jamison T. 1992. Xunantunicharchaeological project. Research paperpresented at Annu. Meet. Am.Anthropol.Assoc., 91st, San Francisco182. Lincoln CE. 1986. The chronology of


Annu.

Rev.

Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


24/30

204 FASHChichentz~i: a reviewof the literature. SeeRef. 242, pp. 141-96183.Lounsbury FG. 1978. Maya numeration,computation, and calendfic astronomy. InDictionary, of Scientific Biography,ed. CCGillispie, 15(Suppl. 1):759-818184.Lounsbury FG. 1991. A Palenque king andthe planet Jupiter. See Ref. 18, pp. 246-59185.ManzB. 1988. Refugees of a Hidden War:The Aftermath of Counterinsurgency inGuatemala.Albany: State Univ. NYPress186.MarcusJ. 1976. Emblem nd State in theClassic MayaLowlands. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks187.Marcus J. 1983. Lowland Maya rchaeol-ogy at the crossroads. Am. Antiq. 48:454-88188.Marcus J. 1992. Mesoamerican WritingSystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.Press189.MarcusJ. 1992. Dynamic ycles of Meso-~uncric~m tates. Natl. Geogr. Res. 8(4):392-411190.Marcus J. 1993. Ancient Mayapoliticalorganization. In LowlandMayaCiviliza-tion in the Eighth Century A.D., ed. JASabloff, JS Henderson, pp. 111-83. Wash-ington, DC: DumbartonOaks191.MathenyRT. 1976. Maya owland hydrau-lic systems. Science 193:639-46192.Matheny RT. 1980. El Mirador, Peten,Guatemala: An Interim Report. Pap. NewWorldArchaeol. Found. No. 45. Provo, UT:NewWorld Archaeol. Found.193.MathenyRT. 1986. Investigations at El Mi-rador, Petrn, Guatemala.Natl. Geogr. Res.2:332-53194.MathenyRT. 1987. Early states in the Mayalowlandsduring the late Preclassic period:Edznaand E1 Mirador. In The MayaState,ed. B Benson, pp. 144. Denver, CO:RockyMtn, Inst. PrecolumhianStud.195.MathenyRT, Gurr DL. Forsyth DW,HauckFR. 1983. Investigations at Edzn6, Cam-peche, Mexico.Vol. 1, Part 1: The Hydrau-lic System. Pap. NewWorld Archaeol.Found. No. 46196.Mathews P. 1985. Maya early classicmonuments nd inscriptions. In A Consid-eration of the Early Classic Period n theMaya Lowlands, ed. GR Willey, PMathews, pp. 5-54. Albany, NY: Inst.MesoamericanStud.197.Mathews P. 1991. Classic Maya emblemglyphs. See Ref. 76, pp. 19-29198.Maudslay AP. 1889-1902. Biologia Cen-trali-Americana: Archaeology. London:Porter & Dulau199.McAnany P. 1989. Economic oundationsof prehistoric Maya ociety: paradigms ndconcepts. In Res. Econ. Anthropol. Suppl.4: Prehistoric MayaEconomiesof Belize,ed. PA McAnany,BL saac, pp. 347 72.Greenwich: JAI

200.Menchuac R. 1984. 1, Rigoberta Men-chuac, an Indian Womann Guatemala,ed.E Burgos-Debray.London:British Library201.Miller AG. 1986. MayaRuler,; of Ttme.Philadelphia: Univ. Mus., Univ. Penn.202.Miller ME,TaubeK. 1993. God,: and Sym-bols of Ancient Mexicoand the Maya.Lon-don: Thames & Hudson203.Millon R. 1981. Teotihuacan: City, State,and Civilization. In Supplement to theHandbookof Middle American Indians.Vol. l: Archaeology, ed. JA Sabloff, pp.198-243. Austin: Univ. TexasPress204.MontejoV. 1991. The Bird WhoCleans theWorld and Other MayaFables. Willimantic, CT: Curbstone205.Morris WF r. 1987. Living Maya. NewYork: Abrams206.Nations JD, Nigh RB. 1980. The evolution-ary potential of LacandonMaya ustained-yield tropical forest agriculture. J. Anthro-pol. Res. 83:28-56207.Netting RM.1977. Maya ubsistence: my-thologies, analogies, possibilities. See Ref.1, pp. 299-333208.Otzoy I, SamColop LE. 1988. Mayan th-nicity and modernization. Presented atAnnu. Meet. Am.Anthropol. Assoc., 67th,Phoenix209.Palka J, EscobedoH, Chinchilla O. 1991.Settlement and architecture at the Petex-

batun capital center of Dos Pilas. Pre-sented at Int. Congr. Americanists, 47th,NewOrleans210.Pendergast DM. 1981. Lamanai, Belize:summary f excavation results 1974-1980.J. FieldArchaeol. 8:29-53211.Pendergast DM. 1988. Lamanai Stela 9:TheArehaeologicalContext. Res. Rep. An-cient MayaWriting, No. 20. Washington,DC: Cent. MayaRes.212.Pendergast DM. 1986. Stability throughchange: Lamanai,Belize, from the ninth tothe seventeenth century. See Ref. 242, pp.223-49213.Pohl M. 1985. The Economic Basis forMayaCivilization. Pap. PeabodyMus. Ar-chaeol. Ethnol., No. 77. Cambridge,MA214.Pohl MD, d. 1990. Ancient MayaWetlandAgriculture: Excavationson Albion Island,Northern Belize. Boulder, CO: Westview215.Pope KA, Dahlin B. 1989. Ancient Mayawetlandagriculture: new nsights fromeco-logical and remote sensing research. J.Field Archaeol. 16:87-106216.ProskouriakoffT.1960. Historical implica-tions of a pattern of dates at PiodrasNegras.Am, Antiq. 25:454-75217.Proskouriakoff T. 1961. The lords of theMaya ealm. Expedition 4( 1): 14-21218.ProskouriakoffT. 1963. Historical data inthe inscriptions of Yaxchilan, art I. Estud.Cult. Maya3:169-67219.ProskouriakoffT. 1964. Historical data in


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


25/30

PERSPECTIVES ON MAYA CIVILIZATION 205the inscriptionsof Yaxchilan, art II. Estud.Cult. Maya4:17%201220.Proskouriakoff T. 1993. MayaHistory.Austin: Univ. TexasPress221.Puleston DE. 1968. Brosimumalicastrumas a subsistencealternative for the cla~sicMayaof the central south lowlands. MAthesis. Univ.Penn.222.Puleston DE. 1977. The art and archaeology of hydraulic agriculture in the Mayalowlands. In Social Process in MayaPre-history, ed. N Hammond,p. 449~9. Lon-don: Academic223.Puleston DE. 1983. The Settlement Surveyof 7~kal. Tikal Rep. No. 13. Philadelphia:Univ. Mus., Univ. Penn.224.Puleston DE, Callender DW.1967. Defen-sive earthworksat Tikal. Expedition9:40-48225.Rathje WL.1971. The origin and develop-mentof Classic Maya ivilization. Am. An-tiq. 36:275-85226.Reina RE. 1966. The Law of the Saints: APokomam ueblo and its CommunityCul-ture. NewYork: BobbsMerrill227.Reina RE, Hill R. 1973. The TraditionalPottery of Highland Guatemala. Austin:Univ. Texas Press228.Renfrew C, Cherry JE 1986. Peer Poli~Interaction and the Development f Socio-Political Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press229.Rice DS, Rice PM. 1981. Muralla de Leon:a lowland Maya ortification. J. FieldAr-chaeol. 8:271-88230.Rice DS, Rice PM. 1984. Lessons from theMaya.Latin Am. Res. Rev. 19:7-34231.Rice PM. 1987. Economic change in thelowland MayaLate Classic period. In Spe-cialisation, Exchange,and Complex ocie-ties, ed. E Brumfiel, T Earle, pp. 128-45.Cambridge: CambridgeUniv. Press232.Rice PM, Michel HV, Asaro E Stross E1985. Provenience analysis of obsidiansfrom he central Peten akes region, Guate-mala. Am. Antiq. 50(3):591-604233.Ringle WM,Andrews EWV. 1988. Forma-tive residences at Komchen, ucatfin, Mex-ico. See Ref. 313, pp. 171-97234.Ringle WM,Bey G J, HansonCA. 1991. EkBalamand the Dilemma f Kingship. Pre-sented at Annu.Meet. Soc. Am.Archaeol.,90th, Chicago235.Roys RL. 1957. The Political Geographyof the YucatdnMaya. ubl. No. 548. Wash-ington, DC:Carnegie Inst. Washington236.Rue DJ. 1987. Early agriculture and EarlyPostclassic Mayaoccupation in westernHonduras. Nature 326:6110237.Rue DJ, DunningN, BeachT. Secaira E,Beckman . 1991. Ecology and settlementin the Petexbatun: a preliminary assess-ment. Presented at Int. Congr. American-ists, 47th, NewOrleans

238. RuthernbergH. 1981. FarmingSystems inthe Tropics. Oxford: OxfordUniv. Press239.Sabloff JA. 1983. Classic Maya ettlementstudies: past problems, future prospects.See Ref. 299a, pp. 413-22240.Sabloff JA. 1985. Ancient Maya iviliza-tion: an overview. n Maya,Treasuresof anAncient Civilization, ed. C Gallenkamp, EJohnson, pp. 3z~46. NewYork/Albuquer-que: Abrams/AlbuquerqueMus.241.Sabloff JA. 1986. Interaction amongClas-sic Maya olities: a preliminary examina-tion. See Ref. 228, pp. 109-16242.Sabloff JA, Andrews EWV. 1986. LateLowland MayaCivilization: Classic toPostclassic. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex.Press243.Sabloff JA, Tourtellot G, FahmelBeyerB,

McAnanyA, Christensen D, et al. 1985.Settlement and Community Patterns atSayil, Yucatan, Mexico: The 1984 Season.Latin Am.Inst. Res. Pap. Ser., No. 17.Albuquerque: Univ. NewMexico244.Sanders WT.1977. Environmental hetero-geneity and the evolution of lowland Mayacivilization. See Ref. 1, pp. 287-97245.Sanders WT.1981. Classic Mayasettle-ment patterns and ethnographic analogy.See Ref. 14, pp. 351q59246.Sanders WT.1986. Introducci6n. In Ex-cavaciones en el drea urbana de Copdn,Vol. 1, ed. WT anders, pp. 11-25. Teguci-galpa: Inst. Hondurenaco ntropol. Hist.247.Sanders WT. 1989. Household, lineage,and state in eighth-century Copan, Hondu-ras. See Ref. 304, pp. 89-105248.Sanders WT,Webster DL. 1988. The Meso-american urban tradition. Am. Anthropol.90:521-46249.Sanders WT,Webster DL, Evans S. 1992.Out of the Past. NewYork: Holt Rinehart250.Santley RS. 1990. Demographic rchaeol-ogy in the Mayaowlands. See Ref. 79, pp.325-44251.Saul FP. 1973. Disease in the Maya rea:the pre-Columbian vidence. See Ref. 74,pp. 301-24252.Schele L. 1990. The demotion of Chac-Zutz: lineage compounds nd subsidiarylords at Palenque. In Sixth PalenqueRoundTable, 1986, ed. MG obertson, pp. 48-67.Norman:Univ. Okla. Press253.Schele L, Freidel DA. 1991. A Forest ofKings. NewYork: Morrow254.Schele L, Miller ME.The Blood of Kings.Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Mus.255.Shafer HJ, Hester TR. 1983. Ancient MayaChert workshops n Northern Belize, Cen-tra! America.Am. Antiq. 48:519~43256.Sharer RJ. 1978. Archaeologyand historyat Quirigufi. J. FieldArchaeol.5:51-70257.Sharer RJ. 1982. Did the Maya ollapse? ANewWorld perspective on the demise ofHarappan ivilization. In Harappan ivili-


Annu.

Rev

.Anthropol.1994.2

3:181-208.D


alreviews.org


09/12/07.

Forpersonaluseonly.


26/30

206 FASHzation: A ContemporaryPerspective, ed.GAPossehl, pp. 327-54. Oxford/IBH: Am.Inst. Indian Stud.258.Sharer ILl. 1989. The Olmec nd the south-east periphery of Mesoamerica. In Re-gional Perspectives on the Ohnec,ed. ILlSharer, DCGrove, pp. 247-74. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press259.Sharer ILl. 1990.Quirigur: A Classic MayaCenter and its Sculptures. Durham, NC:Carolina Acad. Press260.Sharer RJ, Miller JC, Traxler LP. 1992.Evolutionof Classic period architecture inthe eastern acropolis, Cop(tn. AncientMesoamerica (1): 145~50261.Sharer ILl, Sedat DW.1973. Monument,E1 Port6n, Guatemala,and the developmentof Maya alendrical and writing systems.In Contributionsof the University of Cali-fornia Archaeological Research Facility,No. 18, pp. 177-94. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.Press262. Sharer RJ, Sedat DW.1987. Archaeologi-cal Investigations i

1759387679.unidad 5. changing perspectives on maya civilization. fash

Documents