highland maya polities

8/12/2019 Highland Maya Polities

1/5


2/5

46 GEoFT,REY Fl. iJRAswELLinterprets as a closecl corporatc grou;r denned by territo-rial concerns. Hill and Monaghan (r 9 87) elaborate onthis idea, and discuss rhe similarities between thc china-mit and Aztec cal1rol/l. ln this model, chinamita'werelargell' endogatrous communities that shared a groupidentity defined by localized settlemenr and the commor.rou'lrership of land and othcr resources (Hillr9 84:3 r4-3 r 6). Members of thc chinamit shared respon-sibilities such as the cost of marriage feasrs, the upkeep oftemples and shrines, and the maintenance of law and or-der. Certain individuals within the chinamit hcld titledoflices, sorne of which became fixed rvithin certain far.ni-Iies (Braswell zoora). Economic specialization coulcl focus on natural resoLrrces, such as salt (HillandMonaghan r987), located wirhin the chinamir's territory.Finallr', group membership could be expressed throughthe use of a common surname, borrowed from the lead-ing officehoider, but not deternined by kinship or mar-riage ties (Hill r 9 84).Hill (r996; Hill and Monaghan r987) further arguesthat Jarger social units, such as the aza4', were forgcdthrough alliances between chinamita'. Such alliancescould be formed through cxogamy practiced by chinamitleaders, but also through common economic or rnilitaryconcelns, often rclated to territorial contiguity. Capitalssuch as I(aqchikcl Iximche'and Chajoma' Saqikajol Ni-makaqajpek may have been established to furthcr cementeven larger confederacics comprised of distinct amaq'i'.Thus, in this model, K'iche'an polities were fr.agile al-liances betrveen factions and superfactions formcd ofcorporate groups.A NEW MODEL OF K'ICHE'AN SOCIAL STRUCTUREThese apparently contradictory perspectives have lessto do with K'iche'an society than wirh traditional taxo-nomic approaches to kinship and social structure. Manycontemporarl. scholars (e.g., Bourdieu r977; I(uperr982; Leach r 96r; Schneider r984) have argued tl.rat theunilincal descent group is an icleal analytical type thatdoes not, in fact, exist. Similarll others view the divisiorlol society into nurually exclusive economic units basedon residence or localized settlement ("corporate commu-nities")as an artificial construct of Angkr-Americananthfopoiogy (L6vi Strauss r987:r53-r54). Thus, thedichotomies of kinship vcrsus residence, and lineageversus territory may bc n-rore inportant to someanthropologists and ethnohistorians than they were toK'ichc'an peoples. Moleover, both theoretical positionstend to give priority to determinisric rules and normativebehavior at the expense of agency and practice.An afternarive approach to K'iche'an society is to consider indigenous terms for basic social units and ro try tounderstand thcir characteristics. Important structures of

highland Maya society include the rrolab, chinamit,amaq', and nimja. Molab, the Poqomam equivalent ofthe chinamit (Hill r 9 84), is derived from the commonhighland root , rvhich means "together." It doesnot imply anything more than a group or comnrunity ofpeople, though it may suggesr common residencc withina single territory. The rcmaining three terms, howcvcr, allshare one thing in common: they refer to physical struc-tures, buildings, or households. Ch inam it, botow edfrom Nahuatl, sccms to l.nean a "fenced-in place," lead,ing Carmack (r977:rz-r3) to interprct it as a feudal es-tate. But it also may refer to the com-stalk enclosuresbuilt around many highlard Maya houselots.In Kaqchitel, aza4', rnost often translated as "tribe,"has numerous meanings that corlbine ethnic connota-tions rvith a sense of othemess. Coto (r983:LXXXV)gives "place" as one definition, suggesting rhat it is akind of territorial unit. The morphenc can be cornbinedto form a vcrb meaning "to settle as a ncighbor," whichhas the sense of both place and otherness. It is often usedto describe something lasting or permanent. Most inrer-estingly, ir Colonial times arza4'could be combincd tofotm anaq'ib'iiL, meaning "old or former houschold. "Fitally, nimja has only one literal translation: " bighouse." I suggest, therefore, that the preclominantmetaphor used by the Postclassic Maya for social orderwas the housc (i.e., a physical structurc) and the household. Membership in a household is determined not onlyby kinship, but also b1' n.rarriage and alliancc, so it islikely that affiliation was as impoltanr as kinship in de-termining mcmbelship in K'iche'an social groups. In ad-drtiorL, molab and a,nrr4'suggest ncighborly residence,supporting the notion that social structure was der.ived atleast in part from a sense of community that was notrooted in kinship (Hill 1984; Hill and Monaghan r987).Despite Hill's (r99 6) cogent ar.guments, I remain unconvinced that the anTaq' alrvays differed in scale and kindirom the chjnamit. To me, the hicrarchical and qualita-tive distinctions between amaq' and chinarait/molab/ninja are not palticularly clear (Brasrvell zooob).Analysis of kinship terms cmpkryed by the Kaqchikcland K'icl,e' does indeed supporr the assetiorr rhar thebuilding blocks of social strLrcturc "sourd like lineages"(Tcdlock r 9 89:49 8). K'iche'an kinship is rveakly patrilin-eal, but it is difficult to sec horv a strucrure as fragilc andprone to conflict as thc patrilil-Ieal descent g(rup couldhave grown to be as large as some K'iche'an nimja or chi-namita', rvhich containcd thousands of membcrs. fhus,it is more likely that kinship provided the langudge tsedby large-scale social groups to interprer their integration.but did not serve as the sole principle de6ning groupmembership. In othcr words, kinship nav havc beenmore "practical" than "official" (Bourdicu r97737).The use of kinship as a meraphor rathcr than as a sociill


3/5

Hryhlan,l Mata l'oltns 1--: rrciple irlso resolves Carmack's ( r9 8 r ) seen-rilgly conrJictolv assertion that I('iche'an societ,v rvas both class:J kinship-bascd.:ocial units sr-ich as the chinamir did control property.' ,h property included terlitorl,, rcsources shrines anclrples, ancl the phvsical buildings {nimja) wherc leaders:he chinamit conductecl their affairs. The chinamit aiscr,ffolled irltangible possesslons, including tirles. Such

r. clcscrihed roles not onh'\arirhin the chinirmit itself,-.rlso in the greater political systerr. Hence, the,r.\\,cre.ubjects of conpetition both rvirhin and arnong chilltll .h ichc'an social units rrere both endogamous (Hill\+ irnd exoglrn-rous ((larr-nack r98 r). I argue that en--rnrous marliage r.as a srategy designccl to mirintilin

.r r.rlrh of the chinamir rvithin the group, and rhilr cx.:roLls nrarriage \\'as practiced in order to incrcase the:rr:rl of the social unit. In other r,r'ords, rnarri:rge.-:r.cs were praglnatic ratheI than nor.ll)ittivc, and' p1e.r rather than clenentan'. Finrllr., the basic unit\ r.hc'itn sociill structure per.sisted over tinte, a fact. -rcd in the tcrm azaq'. It existecl :rs an organic be-. .rnd engagecl r,r'ith similar.units in agency-based..qies designed to increase group propcrt,v and to,:rg group survival.j{cther, these characteristics satisfv L6r'i Stlauss's. - definition of rhe /rr7l,(olz (housc), an organiza-.:. rnstitution rhat he intended as a classificatory ryperireristic of certain societies. According to his for'iron. a social house is: "a mor:ll person holding an'- nrade rrp of both rrateri:rl and immater.ial q,ealth,-:r nerpetu.ltes itself through the transmission of its

. rts goods, and its titlcs dorvr.r a rcal or inaginarl-. ar line, considered legitimate :rs long as this conti--.rn cxpress itself in the language of desce[r or of:.c or, mosr ofren, of both" (t-6vi-Strauss r 987:r74).:;s,i rnaisons, or "house socicties," mav be com-

.1 ot jLlst onc sucl'r socirl house, bur their firll e


4/5

48 GrorrnEv E, Bnesv'errFourth, the notion that highland Maya groups such as

the Kaqchikel of Iximche' or the K'iche' of Q'umarkajcontrolled "kingdoms" with meaningful territorialboundaries is erroneous, These regions also were hometo other factions-including the Xpantzay, Tamub', andllokab'-that sometimes supporte d and sometimes strug-gled against the great houses centered at regional capi-tals, Again, thc meaning{ul territorial unit was not thepolity, but the land controlled by each great house or al-liance of houses (see chapter 4 for a discussion of the lackof territory-based principles in Postclassic Mesoamericanpolities).

Fifth, K'iche'an capitals are best interpreted as siteswhere allied great houses maintained important residen-tial and administrative buildings. They were little morethan palace complexes, whose locations were determinedmore by administrative and military necessity than bycentral-place economic concerns. Capitals also servedas defensive military strongholds (Borhegyi r9651andoffensive bastions from which punitive raids could belaunched (Braswell ry9 63 z9-i 3o\. Their locationschanged as alliances betweeu great houses or amongfactions coalesced and disintegrated, and as interestsin controlling particular resources shifted.

Sixth, given the desire of different great houses toincrease their wealth and the concomitant intensitv ofberween- and wirhin group competition. it is not surpris-ing that inheritance was based as much on capability ason kinship. K'iche'and Kaqchikel titles sometimes werepassed from father to son (especially if a father was astrong leader), but often went to more-able kinsmen,in-laws, or even rivals within the great house. Althoughkinship principles dld play a role in detcrmining who in-herited particular titles, affiliation and ability also wereimportant factors. Rigid models focused on lineage anddescent fail to account for the pragmatic manner inwhich power and position were negotiated in K'iche'ansocrety,

Seventh, factionalism often was manifested throughwarfare, Rebellions were not uncommon, and factionssometimes were expelled from alliances. The KaqchikelTuquche' faction, for example, was ousted from Iximche'and was "annihilated" in battle (Arana X. and Diaz X.r 5 7 3-r 60 5 | 49- 5 o). Constant factional struggle causedK'iche'an society to become militarized to a surprisingdegree. Occasionally, powerful rulers ernerged, such asKikab' of the K'iche'. Such rulers are accurately depictedas nilitary despots. But during most of l('iche'an history,power within the major polities was much more frag-mented, (/e may characterize such times as periods offactional balkanism. In Marcust (r993, r998) dynamicmodel, these are the "valleys" rather than the "peaks."

Eighth, the local resources that supported the powerbases of the K'iche'an great houses were augmented bygoods extracted from territories beyond their direct polit-

ical control. The desire to tap distant sources of wealthplayed a kcy role in the formation and maintenance of .rlIiance groups. In m(')t cases. di\tant Lerritories were nr,rdirectly integrated into K'iche'an polities, and access rolesources was maintained through the thrcat of force.Thus, beyond the immediate territory of the chinamit,K'iche'an great houses jointly comrnanded access to thc"means of destruction" (Goody r 97r) and did not directly control the means of production. Wealth acquiredby this piratical strategy could be received in the form ofgifts or tribute. Joint rulership and the complex systcm olaristocratic authority allowed equitable distribution ofrhese resources to individual factions and great houses.CONCLUSIONS: THE SMALL POLITIES OF THEK'ICHE'AN HIGHLANDSK'iche'an society was based as much on affiliation or al-liance as on kinship. As such, it cannot be described us-ing elementary terms of social structure. Moreover, thenotion that social units were closed corporate communi-ties seems somewhat in error. Instead, the best model iorK'iche'an social structure is L6vi-Strauss's house societr.The fact that terms for K'iche'an social units refer tohouses or households is strong evidence for this identi6-cation.

K'iche'an polities were formed of alliances ofgreathouses, where the pragmatic concerns of the mainte-nance and increase of great-house prestige and wealthwere the overriding factors determining membership.The factions formed even larger alliances out of whicircoalesced the various "kingdoms" of the K'iche',Kaqchikel, Tz'utujil, and Chajoma'. (ithin the polin',balance was maintained through elaborare strategies otpower sharing that, along with marriagc ties, served todiffuse rivalries betwen individualgreat houses andamong factions comprised of great houses.K'iche'an polities should not be considered as contrt,l-ling large territories of the sort that are easily represent,.Jon maps, because the basic territorial unit rvas the chin.r'mit or great house. Capitals were built at strategic, defensible locations and served as "power centers" out oiwhich punitive raids could be made on recalcitrant neigirbors. K'iche'an polities, therefore, were poorly integrarrJterritories held together by the threat of military destru.'tion.

The Late Postclassic K'iche'an polities-includingthose of the K'iche', Kaqchikel, Chajoma', and Tz'utu-jil-fit well with the definirion of small polities adoptedin this volume (chapter 4), though none are rightly call..:city-states. lnstead, they were networks of great houseslinked by alliance. At their largest, they were hierarchi-cally organized, and demanded services and extractedsurpluses from conquered (or at least intimidated) terntories. At their smallest, K'iche'an polities consisted ot


5/5

Ilighland Maya Polities 49'rr. rcrntories, resources, and titles controlled by one or a'- \ sre:1t houses. As the Postclassic period progressed,rffe was a rendency for these small polities to proliferate:. rival factions coalesccd in the central and western:rqhlands. \(hat is not clear is when this process of'rlkanization began. l,ittle is known about the Earlv',,stclassic period, largely because the methodological,ols needed to distinguish Early Postclassic occupations,rnr l.ate Classic and Late Postclassic components have:,rr bcen developed (Braswell r993, r996).In fact, settle-:rent hierarchy studics suggest thar the highlands west

of the Valley of Guatemala rnay havc been divided intosmall polities since thc beginning of thc ,arlv Classic pc-riod, whcn I('iche'an peoples first spread into the depart-ments of Solo16, Chimaltenango, and Sacatep6quez.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI thank Susan Gillespie and Rosemary Joyce for sharingcritical unpublishcd manuscr.ipts rvith me in r999, whenthis chapter was written.

highland maya polities

Documents