classic lowland maya political organization- a review

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999

Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization:A Review

Lisa J. Lucero1

This paper reviews recent archaeological research concerning Classic Mayalowland political systems (ca. A.D. 250-1000). It focuses specifically on (1)subsistence practices revealed through the analysis of prehistoric climate,available resources, agricultural technologies, and diet; (2) population distri-bution, density, and size revealed through the analysis of settlement practicesand architectural function; (3) social differentiation and interaction revealedthrough the analysis of burial practices, diet and health, architecture, andproduction, consumption, and exchange patterns; and (4) ancient Maya polit-ical economy (how it was funded) revealed through the analysis of communityorganization, ritual activities, the Classic Maya collapse, and warfare. Itfinally ends with a brief discussion of the future of Maya archaeology. Akey factor that recurs throughout this review is the noticeable amount ofvariability that existed—varied resources, subsistence strategies, settlementpractices, and social and political systems. An understanding of this variabil-ity is the key to appreciate fully the Classic Maya.

INTRODUCTION

This paper complements recent summaries including Grove (1997),who focuses on the origins and legacy of the Olmec, and those by Fash(1994), Marcus (1983, 1995), and Sabloff (1990), who each discuss thehistory of Maya archaeology. Fash (1994) and Marcus (1995; see Willey,1997) also emphasize the trend of using multiple lines of evidence in Maya

1Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Box 30001, MSC3BV, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8001. e-mail: [email protected]

211

0892-7537/99/06100-0211$16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

KEY WORDS: Maya lowlands; political organization; Classic period; Maya archaeology.

archaeology (e.g., articulating archaeological and epigraphic records, inte-grating household and settlement archaeology, and using ethnoarchaeologyand ethnographic analogy). Marcus (1995) provides an excellent synthesisof Maya prehistory, beginning with the Archaic period and ending withthe Postclassic. Andrews (1993) synthesizes recent research on the Postclas-sic Maya through a focus on trade, architecture, settlement history, andpolitical and community organization. In this paper, my goal is to reviewtopics that bear on elucidating Classic Maya political organization (ca. A.D.250-1000) (Table I). I begin with a summary of current views on ancientMaya political organization and follow this with sections on subsistencepractices, population distribution, density, and size, social differentiationand interaction, and political economy.

CLASSIC MAYA POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The varied natural landscape of the Maya lowlands has resulted in whatwe see today in the archaeological record—evidence for diverse subsistencestrategies, techniques, and settlement patterns (e.g., Demarest, 1996; Dun-ning et al, 1998a; Fedick, 1996a; Pyburn, 1998; Sanders, 1977). Conse-quently, several models have arisen that attempt to explain Classic Mayapolitical organization, not all necessarily mutually exclusive. The two majorcategories of models typically either propose strongly centralized or weaklycentralized polities. The former type includes regional states (e.g., A. Chaseand D. Chase, 1996a; Clark et al., 1999; Culbert 1997a; Folan, 1992; Folanet al., 1995a, b; Marcus, 1976) and superstates (e.g., Martin and Grube,1994, 1995). The latter type includes galactic polities [theater-states (e.g.,Demarest, 1992,1996)] segmentary states (e.g., de Montmollin, 1995,1997;Fox and Cook, 1996; Fox et al., 1996; Houston, 1997; McAnany, 1995; Pohland Pohl, 1994), city-states (e.g., Abrams, 1995; Webster, 1997a), and feudalstates (e.g., Adams, 1995, 1996). There are also archaeologists who positthat ancient Maya polities went through cycles of centralization and decen-tralization (Marcus, 1993, 1998). Most of the proponents of these various

Table I. Lowland Maya Chronology

Middle Preclassic, ca. 1000-400 B.C.Late Preclassic, ca. 400 B.C.-A.D. 250

Protoclassic, ca. 50 B.C.-A.D. 250Early Classic, ca. A.D. 250-550Late Classic, ca. A.D. 550-850Terminal Classic, ca. A.D. 850-1000Postclassic, ca. A.D. 1000-conquest

212 Lucero

models make general statements about political power that either empha-size the importance of controlling and/or managing critical resources (e.g.,Culbert, 1997a; Ford, 1986) or the inability to control such resources (e.g.,Demarest, 1996; Pyburn, 1997). The issue is not that any single model takesprecedence but that the varied landscape resulted in diverse organizationalneeds and responses. Subsequently, different models may apply to specificlocal and/or regional areas. The difference was a matter of scale—differentMaya polities are located on a spectrum from small local polities to largeregional ones. Shared features, however, include kin-based systems andinvolvement in intercenter marriage alliances, visits, and warfare, and theexchange of prestige goods (cf. Marcus, 1973,1976). The inability to applya single model to the Maya lowlands has led some archaeologists to suggestClassic Maya political systems were unstable (Demarest, 1996; Pohl andPohl, 1994). Was it really unstable, in view of the fact that some form ofit survived for over a millennium? What might appear to reflect instabilityinstead might indicate the diverse political systems that actually existed inthe Maya area.

Fox and others present the historical background of how Maya "states"have been interpreted. "For decentralists, key theoretical issues are de-termining (1) the way in which centripetal kingship interacted with centrifu-gal-tending kinship and (2) the extent of organic solidarity . . . versusmechanical solidarity . . ." (Fox et al., 1996, p. 798). They emphasize com-mon features of the Maya, including, for example, how Maya kings pro-moted unity as ritual specialists, politicians, and marriage brokers in regal-ritual centers, the existence of ranked communities (and likely rankedlineages), and the fact that texts make no mention of a bureaucracy, standingarmy, or formal code of laws. When lineages ally with others, they beginto grow and their power increases, the ultimate result being a segmentarystate. In this lineage-based system, "[T]he Maya community was made upof intermarrying patrilineages that shared a patron deity and replicatedthis pattern within successively larger aggregations" (Fox and Cook, 1996,p. 811; see McAnany, 1995, pp. 113, 116). Because these systems had lesspower over areas farther from core areas, peripheral centers could easilychange allegiances; it is for this reason that segmentary states can remainflexible and can fluctuate in size. Similarly, Demarest (1992,1996) proposesthat ritual and ideology (theater state) played a major role in maintainingpolitical power, especially since economic control was not an option.

Adams (1995) believes that regional states existed in the Maya lowlandsby the Early Classic based on rank size, where 1-5 courtyards make up acountry estate, 5-10 a local and regional administrative center, and 10-40political/economic capitals. For example, Rio Azul may have been con-quered by Tikal ca. A.D. 385. The Rio Azul area, located at the northern

Maya Political Organization 213

boundaries of Tikal's influence, served as a "buffer zone" with Calakmul,as well as a conduit for trade with Yucatan and coastal areas (and Teotihua-can). Rio Azul was destroyed ca. A.D. 530 and was not occupied for 150years. It recovered in ca. A.D. 650 and reached a florescence (until ca.A.D. 840). This time, it was not due to Tikal's support, but due to localcircumstances, where Adams suggests a feudal system arose. "Feudal socie-ties of Europe developed in the context of decentralization and loss ofpower of the Roman Empire. In the Maya lowlands, the development ofa feudal type society is in the context of the disintegration of the centralizedstates of the Early Classic" (Adams, 1996, p. 9, original italics; see alsoAdams, 1997). Rio Azul was burned again in ca. A.D. 840 and the newregime could not survive stresses caused by ecological problems anddrought.

Webster (1997a; see also Abrams, 1995) argues against large regionalpolities and, instead, posits that Maya polities were a specific type of citystate: " . . . a polity organized around a single, large autonomous centralplace that is differentiated from lesser places in its hinterland, over whichit extends political, economic, and cultural dominance" (Webster, 1997a,p. 136, original italics). These polities themselves varied because of thediverse landscapes, which, according to Webster, resulted in a more segmen-tary system with centers serving a regal-ritual function (i.e., lacking a largenucleated population). Pyburn (1997) states that a city-state typology canbe useful if used with caution; the lack of economically based power onlyhighlights the fact that Maya political economy is still poorly understood.

A. Chase and D. Chase (1996a) critique the segmentary model, claim-ing that its oversimplified and overgeneralized use detracts from issues ofvariability and process. They also mention the challenges of applying non-Maya models to the Maya. Based on their work at Caracol, Belize (Fig.1), they argue for more centralized political systems and suggest that a"typical" Maya polity consisted of approximately 8000 km2 within which"hierarchically ordered centers" were integrated (A. Chase and D. Chase,1996a, p. 805; see also Folan et al, 1995a; Marcus, 1973).

According to Clark and others (1999), this type of political systemoriginated in the Peten, centered at El Mirador, which they propose aroseca. 300 B.C. They argue for a four-tiered settlement system based on MiddlePreclassic and Late Preclassic settlement in the surrounding area, whichincluded Calakmul, Nakbe, Tintal, and Wakna as secondary centers. Recentevidence from Calakmul, however, suggests that it, too, was a major centerat this time (Pincemin et al., 1998).

Culbert (1997a) strongly supports the existence of large regional poli-ties using archaeological and epigraphic data to assess interactions amongTikal, Caracol, and Calakmul. Weak state models are not adequate to

214 Lucero


Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text.

explain the large construction projects that would have required more thanjust a ruler who could inspire "piety and awe." Further, population wasmuch too high and subsistence stress too great not to require managementfrom the top. Finally, Culbert states that most of the major issues archaeolo-gists require to reveal the true nature of Classic Maya power are currentlyunknown and/or untestable (e.g., charismatic leaders, control of rituals,degree of coercion available to ruler, taxation, and land tenure).

Martin and Grube (1994) develop a model using ancient hieroglyphicinscriptions. They suggest that it is not so simple for Mayanists to define

Classic Maya polities as "weak," or "strong," or "segmentary," or "galac-tic." Rather, they propose that there were two dominant and rival politicalspheres centered at Tikal (especially during the Early Classic) and Calakmul(especially during the Late Classic), a view first proposed by Marcus (1973,1976). Their reading of the inscriptions also supports what Marcus earlierproposed—a more "overarching" arrangement of Maya polities throughmarriages, alliances, visits, and warfare. Patronage and allegiance werecreated and maintained "through both coercive threat and kinship ties, toconstruct political spheres of an imperial magnitude" (Martin and Grube,1994, p. 14). The major difference is that Martin and Grube (1995) labelthese polities "superstates," while Marcus (1973, 1976, 1983, 1993, 1998)calls them "states."

A key characteristic of lowland Classic Maya polities is synchronicand diachronic variability. Consequently, our major concern should be tounderstand this variability including subsistence practices, population, so-cial organization, and political economy, topics to which I now turn.

SUBSISTENCE PRACTICES

The fact that the ancient Maya achieved their many feats in a tropicalenvironment has resulted in their being labeled as unique or mysterious.For example, the Maya had to deal with tropical diseases, parasites, andthe absence of draft animals in the New World (Graham, 1999). To demys-tify the Maya, it is necessary to understand this setting. In this section, Idescribe recent advances regarding prehistoric climate, resources, agricul-tural techniques, and diet.

Prehistoric Climate

To assess ancient climatic patterns, Leyden et at. (1996) sample lakesediments to analyze geochemistry, stable isotopes, diatoms, phytoliths,and pollen from Cenote San Jose Chulchaca in northwestern Yucatan.Their results show that after about 1100 B.C., a drying trend began; pollendata indicate that there were wetter conditions from about A.D. 600 untilthe beginning of the Late Postclassic. Similarly, stable isotope data indicate"that greater seasonality may have contributed to these wetter conditionsduring the Early and Late Classic. Nevertheless, this climatic oscillationwas relatively minor, for it occurred within a general drying trend thatbegan during the Early Preclassic" (Leyden et al, 1996, p. 46; cf. Byrne,1996; Curtis and Hodell, 1993; Curtis et al., 1996; Dunning et al., 1997; Gunn

216 Lucero

et al, 1995; Hodell et al, 1995; Messenger, 1990). To summarize climatepatterns throughout the Maya lowlands, evidence suggests that there wasa gradual drying trend beginning about 1800 B.C. Slightly wetter conditionsand perhaps more seasonal conditions interrupted this drying during theLate Preclassic and lasted until the Early Postclassic. This seasonality influ-enced agricultural practices, especially in rainfall-dependent areas (likemost of the Peten), as well as perennial and seasonal wetlands.

Resources

Recent evidence indicates that farming began in the Maya lowlandsby at least 3000 B.C. For example, Pohl et al. (1996), using pollen datafrom several swamps in northern Belize, suggest that maize and maniocwere present before 3000 B.C., perhaps as early as 3400 B.C. (i.e., contempo-rary with highland areas suggesting parallel development) (see also Fedick,1995a; Piperno and Pearsall, 1998; Smith, 1997; Voorhies, 1996).

Ancient Maya farmers used several subsistence strategies includingintensive house gardening, short-fallow infield (intensive) and long-fallowoutfield (extensive) farming, terraces, dams, canals, raised fields, and drain-age systems (e.g., Dunning et al., 1998a; Fedick, 1994; Flannery, 1982; Kil-lion, 1990,1992; Pohl et al, 1996; Pyburn, 1998; Turner and Harrison, 1978).In addition to climate patterns (seasonality), this variability relates to soilparent material, soil fertility, workability, root zone, drainage, slope, erosionfactors, and so on (Fedick, 1995b). Combinations of these factors result inresource diversity in terms of type and scale (e.g., Alexander, 1997; Dunninget al., 1997, 1998a; Fedick, 1996a, b, 1998; Levi, 1996; Pyburn, 1996, 1998;Rice, 1996; Sanders, 1977). For example, Dunning (1996) found evidencefor the use of different agricultural strategies at Sayil and other Puuccommunities (e.g., infield gardens in open spaces of Sayil, outfields justbeyond site margins) based on settlement and soil analysis [as well as inthe Petexbatiin area (Dunning et al, 1997)]. Conyers (1995) used GroundPenetrating Radar at Ceren to search for structures and map prehistorictopography under 5-6 m of volcanic ash. He identified 26 buried structuresand drainage channels, and further noted that each household group wasseparated by gardens and agricultural fields. However, before archaeolo-gists interpret past lifeways based on assessing current environmental condi-tions, Graham (1994, pp. 331-333) cautions archaeologists when evaluatingmodern soils since some types might actually be the result of ancient activi-ties, and not vice versa.

The concept of environmental heterogeneity has existed for decades(e.g., Sanders 1977) and arose in response to the lowland-highland


dichotomy view earlier held (e.g., Rathje, 1971). It is only relativelyrecently, however, that archaeologists have considered this diversity whenattempting to explain the rise of complexity in the Maya lowlands. Forexample, Dunning et al. (1998a; Dunning, 1995) divide the Maya lowlandsinto 27 zones based on climate, drainage, and calcareous parent material.Because of the variability, it is not possible to apply a single adaptivemodel; more reasonable is a nonlinear model that takes into accountthe diversity. Similarly, Fedick (1995b, 1996a) asks the question of howagricultural production was organized in different resource zones. Toaddress this question, he uses a land-capability classification system basedon soil type, effective root zone, susceptibility to erosion, workability,drainage, and fertility in the upper Belize River area resulting in fivesoil classes ("I" being the best and "V" being the worst). He foundthe highest prehistoric residential unit (RU) density in Class II soils(208 RU per km2), followed by Class I alluvial soils (98 RU per km2).He suggests that the ancient Maya practiced a "strategy of mixed landuse" (Fedick, 1996a, p. 129).

Before one assumes that ancient Maya society may be completelyunderstood in material, ecological, and economic terms, however, an addi-tional outcome of Fedick's (1996a, p. 130) analysis of soils and settlementis that ". . . the location of centers does not seem to have had as great aninfluence on residential settlement pattern as one might expect." While hedid find noticeable settlement near minor and major centers in areas withgood agricultural land, he also found high settlement densities in areas withgood agricultural land, but without centers (see also Lucero, 1997a; Luceroand Fedick, 1998). In contrast, Houston (1997) notes that Piedras Negrasis located in a resource-poor zone but is also equidistant between two fertilevalleys. Levi (1996) and Pyburn (1996) both suggest that noneconomicfactors must be considered, especially social factors, when evaluating house-hold and community agricultural strategies (e.g., belief systems, individualhousehold risk management choices, varying interhousehold and inter-community relationships).

The Maya, in turn, had a major impact on the environment. For exam-ple, Dunning et al. (1997) focus on agriculture and environmental changeusing lake core data from the Petexbatiin area. They note two major epi-sodes of deforestation and environmental disturbance—one in the Preclas-sic (extensive agriculture) and one in the Late Classic (intensive agriculture)periods. There was a regrowth of high forest species in the Early Classicperiod (Dunning et al., 1998b). Pollen data from the lakes region in thePeten slightly differ and indicate that deforestation occurred in the EarlyClassic and continued through the Late Classic (Rice, 1993,1996; e.g., Paineet al., 1996).

218 Lucero

Agricultural Technology

Local resource diversity is also reflected in the variety of agriculturaltechniques used throughout the lowlands. For example, Maya farmers usedterraces, especially in well-drained upland areas, including the Petexbatiinarea (Beach and Dunning, 1997; Dunning, 1996; Dunning et al, 1997), theBelize River area (Fedick, 1994), the "thousands of miles" of terracesaround Caracol (A. Chase and D. Chase, 1996b), and the Three Riversarea (Adams, 1994). They also used different kinds of terraces, includingfootslope, box, and contour terraces (e.g., Dunning and Beach, 1994; Fedick,1994). Fedick (1994) proposes that box terraces found in direct associationwith presumed residential structures may represent intensive home-garden-ing. Footslope box terraces, however, likely served as erosion check dams(e.g., Dunning et al, 1997). The Maya also used canals, dams, dikes, andwells [e.g., at Chau Hiix on Albion Island (Pyburn, 1998)]. Archaeologistshave been quick to point out that little evidence suggests that large-scaletechniques were consistently used at large centers (Demarest, 1997; Pohlet al., 1996; Tourtellot, 1993).

Swamps and wetlands comprise more than 30% of the southern Mayalowlands (Scarborough et al., 1995). One of the most contentious debatesin prehistoric subsistence studies concerns the nature of wetland agriculture,especially the extent and construction techniques of raised fields. Whensuch fields were used, what was planted, how they were constructed, andhow extensively they were used throughout the lowlands are debated issues.Pohl and others argue that raised fields in northern Belize were used mostextensively in the Preclassic period until the Late Preclassic, when sealevels rose (cf. McKillop, 1996a) and raised fields were flooded or becamesubmerged, resulting in their abandonment (Pohl and Bloom, 1996; Pohlet al., 1996; Pope et al., 1996). Furthermore, they argue that canal systemsare not as prevalent in northern Belize as previously believed and thatraised fields may have been composed of naturally elevated hummocksinvolving much less labor expenditure (some ditch/canal digging). Canalsthemselves, they argue, are rare (e.g., Rio Hondo).

In contrast, other scholars such as Turner and Harrison (1978, 1983;e.g., Harrison, 1993, 1996) propose that raised fields were constructed innorthern Belize in the Late Preclassic period, continuing through the LateClassic in response to population growth and subsistence demands. Basedon the distribution of Late Classic artifacts from settlements and raisedfields, they posit that the area had its highest population density duringthis period. Jacob (1995) addresses the claims of both camps at CobwebSwamp in northern Belize (at Colha) to evaluate the issue of natural featuresversus human modification or hummocks with some canal building (digging


ditches; Pohl and others) versus building up raised fields using upland soils(Turner, Harrison). Jacob concludes that natural and human elements mayhave been involved. Whatever the case, archaeologists must take theseissues into account when evaluating the significance of raised fields wheninterpreting ancient Maya lifeways.

Ground checking has shown much less evidence for wetland agriculturein the Maya lowlands than previously believed (much of it based on aerial/remote sensing data), as Dunning (1996) demonstrates in the Puuc and Riode la Pasion regions, as well as the Petexbatiin area (Dunning et al, 1997).In fact, the ancient Maya likely did not farm perennial wetlands. Seasonalwetlands with fertile soils (calciaquolls), however, may have been used foragriculture and silviculture. In the Peten area, the water table drops toolow for dry season planting, which may also explain why there is littleevidence for wetland farming (Pohl and Bloom, 1996; cf. Dunning, 1995).Finally, whether or not bajos (seasonally inundated swamps) were used forwetland agriculture is still a topic of debate. Since most bajos contain clayeysoils, they were not likely candidates for raised fields (e.g., Dunning, 1996;Pohl et al, 1996). Culbert et al. (1997) note, however, that Vilma Fialko'sNakum-Yaxha intersite survey found settlement along edges of bajos andin raised areas within bajos. Based on the presence of settlement, theyargue that this indirectly indicates the agricultural use/modification of bajos(e.g., Bajo La Justa). In addition, there is evidence for canal cutting in thebajo about 2 km north of Yaxha. Present-day milperos indicate that palmbajos are particularly good for milpas (comprising 35% of Bajo La Justa).They also argue that the high moisture content of these bajos would allowdry season planting. Culbert (1997b) proposes that this may have been thecase in other bajos, like those near El Mirador and Calakmul. In future,archaeologists will need to avoid considering all bajos either as ideal forraised fields and/or dry season farming or as too clayey and unusable forsustainable agriculture.

There are other types of wetland agricultural techniques, such as therecently discovered systems on the northeastern tip of the Yucatan Penin-sula (Fedick, 1998; Fedick and Taube, 1995). This area is unique in thatwater is plentiful (ca. 2000 mm/year) and there are several wetland areas,some of which are perennial. Settlement is found in higher areas at wetlandmargins, as well as rock alignments, perhaps to retain moisture and soil.In addition, some rock alignments are perpendicular to wetlands, whichmay relate to two possible cultivation strategies: (1) "intensive form ofwater-recession cultivation. . . . Under these cultivation systems, farmersplant in the moist soils that are exposed as waters recede along the marginsof rivers or wetlands during the dry season" (Fedick, 1998, p. 121); and (2)a "fertilizer factory" method. Chemical analysis of wetland "muck" shows

220 Lucero

it to be quite fertile with a high content of phosphorous and nitrogen.Finally, other possible uses of wetlands include edible resources such asapple snails, blue-green algae, and cattails.

Increasing evidence on diverse subsistence strategies continues to cometo light. For example, Kepecs and Boucher (1996) propose that rejolladasin northeastern Yucatan (the sinkholes with year-round moist soil at thebottom) may have been used to grow tree crops such as cacao. They alsopropose that chich (rubble) mounds were used as tree supports, as theMaya use them today. Dunning (1996; cf. Smyth et al, 1995) also proposesa similar use of rejolladas at Sayil and other Puuc communities, suggestingthat they could have been used for dry season farming. In the Petexbatunregion, Dunning et al. (1997) suggest that the rejolladas may have beenprivately owned, based on the presence of surrounding walls. A similarsituation may have existed on Isla Cilvituk, Campeche, where the largestarchitecture is located next to rejolladas (Alexander, 1997).

The use of indirect techniques to assess agricultural production prac-tices is increasing, especially phosphate analysis. For example, Dunning(1996; see also Smyth et al., 1995) tested areas in the Puuc region (e.g.,Sayil and modern milpas and residences) and notes that " . . . high phos-phate areas found on residential platform surfaces revealed probable areasof maize processing, also marked by high pH or Ca values and occurring inethnoarchaeologically documented 'likely' areas of the residential complex. . ." (Dunning, 1996, p. 60). Robin (1998) also noted high levels of phos-phates in vacant spaces surrounding residential structures in the Xunantun-ich hinterlands of Belize, indicating planting and food preparation activities.Many other projects are incorporating phosphate testing because of itsusefulness in evaluating different types of prehistoric activities [e.g., Es-cobedo and Houston, 1997; Houston, 1998; Houston et al. (1998) for PiedrasNegras]. The use of this method can reveal the intensity of agriculturalproduction, which can then be evaluated in light of settlement patterns andsociopolitical organization.

Diet

To reveal ancient Maya diet, some of the most promising evidenceconsists of paleobotanical and osteological data. For example, Crane(1996) found carbonized plant remains in 238 flotation samples fromsubplaza midden deposits at Cerros, representing at least 23 economicplant species (e.g., maize, squash, bean, nance, coyol palm, mamey,copal, and cattails). More rare in the archaeological record are seeds[e.g., Crane found one cotton seed and two chile pepper seeds; see also


Hammond et al. (1995) for Cuello; cf. Pearsall (1995)]. Because Ceren,El Salvador, is covered by 5 m of ash as the result of the Loma Calderaeruption in ca. A.D. 600, archaeologists have been able to recovernumerous casts, impressions, rinds, and seeds including cacao, gourds,maize, squash, chile, cotton seeds, beans, maguey, calabash (or morrofruit) rind, grass, palm, nance, avocado, guava fruit casts, and maniocroot casts (Lentz et al, 1996). McKillop (1996b) uses archaeobotanicaland ethnobotanical data to explore Maya utilization of palms for food,building materials, fuel, medicine, and fiber.

White (1999) describes the multiple lines of evidence used to illumi-nate ancient Maya diet, including faunal and floral analysis, chemicalanalysis, and paleopathology. Not surprisingly, local ecology had a signifi-cant impact on diet (e.g., Gerry and Krueger, 1997; cf. Whittington andReed, 1997; Webster, 1997b). While maize undoubtedly was the majorstaple, the extent of diet diversity was based on local available resources.For example, Wright (1997a) uses isotopic analysis on skeletal remainsfrom the Pasion area, Altar de Sacrificios, Seibal, Dos Pilas, Aguateca,and Itzan to assess meat and maize consumption. Interestingly, isotopicand faunal analyses indicate not only the consumption of meat throughoutthe Late Classic period in some areas (e.g., Pasion area), but also theconsumption of primary forest fauna, a fact that needs to be consideredwhen discussing the issue of ecological stress and deforestation (cf.Carr, 1996).

Prehistoric climate, resources, agricultural technologies, and diet indi-cate that ancient Maya farmers had several subsistence options given thevaried landscape. This diversity affected how people settled throughout thelowlands, which in turn influenced the character of sociopolitical develop-ment. Consequently, an understanding of population distribution, density,and size is key to define and explain ancient Maya political organization.While the role of population as a prime factor in the development ofcomplex society is still debated (e.g., Fox et al, 1996), few archaeologistswould question the fact that a certain critical mass of people is requiredfor any complex polity to function.

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, DENSITY, AND SIZE

In the Maya lowlands, large centers and relatively dense hinterlandsettlement generally are located on or near large tracts of prime agriculturalland or major bajos in the Peten (Fedick, 1996a; Folan et al, 1995a; Ford,1986, 1996; Gonlin, 1994; Rice, 1993). However, because of the variednatural landscape and concomitant subsistence practices, many, if not most,

222 Lucero

ancient Maya farmers lived dispersed in homesteads across the hinterland(e.g., de Montmollin, 1995; Fedick, 1988,1995b, 1996a; Ford, 1986; Lucero,1994, 1999a; Lucero and Fedick, 1998; Puleston, 1983; Robin, 1997, 1998).Consequently, hinterland settlement largely consists of solitary mounds andpatio groups (farmsteads) (e.g., Ashmore, 1995; Gonlin, 1994; Lucero, 1994;Robin, 1997). How do settlement patterns translate into population esti-mates (not to mention how political leaders centralized the dispersed popu-lace for political purposes)?

As a recent edited volume devoted to prehistoric population demon-strates (Culbert and Rice, 1990), understanding ancient Maya populationis key to understanding sociopolitical complexity and organization. Beforediscussing the debated issues in population studies, I mention the fewgenerally accepted notions (at least two). Whatever the population size,there is little doubt that the highest population density was attained duringthe Late Classic period (e.g., Ford, 1986; Freter, 1994; Gonlin, 1994) andthat it was the culmination of a steadily growing population from thePreclassic period onward (Culbert, 1997b; Rice, 1996).

The question is, How high is high? Prehistoric population densityis important because the number and distribution of people across thelandscape have played a major role in how Maya archaeologists perceiveancient Maya political organization, as illustrated in the political modelsearlier mentioned. Centralized, regional polities require high populationdensities (e.g., Adams, 1994, 1996; A. Chase and D. Chase, 1996a, b;Culbert, 1997a, b; Culbert et al, 1997; Folan, 1992; Folan et al., 1995a;Scarborough et al., 1995). For example, Culbert (1998) proposes thatLate Classic density reached 200 people per km2 in the Peten, which iscomparable to densely settled rural areas in China today (cf. Scarboroughet al., 1995). At the height of Calakmul's power in the Late Classic,Folan et al. (1995a) estimate that 50,000 people alone lived in Calakmuland its immediate environs [70 km2, or 714 people per km2 (see alsoFolan, 1992)]. A. Chase and D. Chase (1996a) estimate that at least115,000 people lived within the 177 km2 around Caracol (650 peopleper km2). Were populations this high, particularly in complex polities?To address this question, it is necessary to take into account a numberof factors that can affect population size and distribution, includingseasonal demands of agriculture, seasonal and residential mobility, andpopulation movement and migration. Further, archaeologists need totake into account structure function and labor costs when generatingpopulation estimates. Finally, improved chronological frameworks arealso necessary, which I discuss below in another section. The 200- to400-year ceramic periods obviously have a significant impact on howarchaeologists estimate prehistoric population figures.

223Maya Political Organization

Settlement Practices

As noted, ancient Maya farmers used several subsistence strategies,depending on local economic and social conditions. Furthermore, currentevidence suggests that large-scale agricultural techniques were not consis-tently used at large centers (e.g., Tikal). Evidence for agricultural technolo-gies is not uniform across the lowlands because each strategy requiredspecific conditions (e.g., raised fields). The lack of obvious widespreadintensive agricultural techniques would, thus, seem to indicate four possibleexplanations: (1) local conditions did not allow the use of specific agricul-tural technologies; (2) local populations were able to subsist without suchtechnologies and practiced milpa farming in combination with other strate-gies currently invisible in the archaeological record, either in areas withdirected labor projects to grow specific items working in large corporategroups or in areas not controlled by elites where farmers worked in smallergroups; (3) both; and (4) certain types of agricultural techniques did notleave obvious traces in the archaeological record such as shortening thefallow cycle and double cropping. For example, Drennan (1988) and Killion(1990) both argue that hinterland settlement patterns may provide indirectevidence for intensive agriculture. They posit that farmsteads were dis-persed because they were separated by intensively utilized fields. Increaseduse of phosphate testing can assist in evaluating this hypothesis. Based onwhat data are currently available, however, the uneven evidence for inten-sive agricultural techniques may suggest that extensive techniques may stillhave been viable, particularly in areas consisting of large tracts of primeagricultural land (e.g., the Peten). One reason is the type of agriculturalsoils. Mollisols, the dominant soil type in the Maya lowlands, are ". . .considered by agronomists to be among the world's most important, natu-rally productive soils, with yields unsurpassed by other unirrigated areas"(Fedick, 1988, p. 106).

How does the use of multiple strategies relate to the population ques-tion? It has to do with how subsistence demands translated into settlementpatterns, especially residential and seasonal mobility (de Montmollin, 1995,p. 189; Ford, 1996; Lucero, 1999b; Webster, 1997a; Webster and Kirker,1995). Ethnographically, residential mobility consists of abandoning resi-dences every 3 to 4 years to find fertile soils (e.g., Reina, 1967). Prehistori-cally, evaluating residential mobility is challenging due to chronologicaland preservation issues. It might be possible, however, to posit that someareas of the Maya lowlands may have required farmers to move to newplots to find more fertile land or to find new land in the face of growingpopulation (e.g., Ford, 1989, 1991; Tourtellot, 1983, 1993). Other reasonsfor abandonment may have been the death of a family head or insect or

224 Lucero

other pest infestation (Santley, 1990). Seasonal mobility consists of usingtemporary field houses if milpas are located too far from permanent resi-dences, especially during the agricultural season when labor demands arehigh. Agriculture requires different activities at different times of the year(Killion, 1990; Ford, 1991), especially during the rainy season when cropsare growing [e.g., weeding, protection from pests, harvesting, storage prepa-ration (Atran, 1993)]. For example, in a recent ethnographic account ofthe Maya villagers of Pich in southeastern Yucatan, Mexico, Faust (1998,pp. 56-57; see also Redfield and Villa Rojas, 1934, p. 24) discusses howeach family group has rights to two or three rancherias, which are locatedat milpa fields. Farmers use milpa fields cyclically (planted for about 2 yearsand left fallow for about 15-20 years). As a consequence, each householdhead could build or maintain at least three field houses during his lifetime.During the agricultural season in San Jose, Lake Peten Itza, Guatemala,the size of fields and distance to fields determine whether milperos commutedaily (39%; n = 31), stay at their fields during the week (49%; n = 39), ormove their entire families to the field (11%; n = 9) (Reina, 1967). Seasonaland residential mobility were also common during the Colonial period (e.g.,Farriss, 1984, pp. 199-223; Graham, 1994, p. 325; Tozzer 1941, p. 90).

While it is not possible to extrapolate directly ethnographic and historiccase studies to the prehistoric record, the question of multiple residencesmust be considered for the prehistoric Maya as well. For example, takinginto account several field houses per household, Faust (1998, p. 56) proposesan ancient population estimate of 45 people per km2 rather than the 180people per km2 proposed by Rice and Culbert (1990) based on moundcounts, a density more in line with swidden farming (under ideal soil,drainage, and climate conditions) but not necessarily with intensive agricul-ture. Hinterland settlement maps show a dispersed patterning of solitarystructures and patio groups, as well as clustered around centers [e.g., seesurvey transects by Fedick (1988), Ford (1986), and Puleston (1983)]. Thelatter residences, however, might not have been inhabited year-round, espe-cially if many occupants had fields elsewhere. For example, Webster et al.(1992; Webster, 1997a; Webster and Kirker, 1995) suggest that during mostof the Acbi phase (ca. A.D. 400-700) in the Copan Valley, only some ofthe peripheral sites were permanently occupied, and the rest may indicatefield houses for seasonal occupation by Copan farmers (see also Web-ster, 1999).

In addition to subsistence related population movement, there likelyalso were population movements caused by political and social factors (e.g.,Adams, 1997; Graham, 1994). For example, ethnohistorically, migrationwas an effective strategy to escape Spanish demands (Fox and Cook, 1996).Prehistorically, Adams (1997) accounts for the dramatic increase of building


activities in the Late Classic at Rio Azul and its hinterlands as a result ofmigration, likely from the Tikal area. Olivier de Montmollin (1995) suggeststhat some lowland Maya people spread into the greater Rosario Valleyalong the Grijalva River in the highlands of Chiapas by the Late Preclassicand, again, in the Late/Terminal Classic. At Colha, Mock (1994) positsthat after a 50-year time span when the site was abandoned in the TerminalClassic (c. A.D. 770), other groups of Maya may have migrated to Colhafrom the northern Yucatan, based on the fact that the side-notched pointsfrom Colha are identical to those from Chichen Itza.

Architecture

Since population estimates are generated from structure counts, subsis-tence demands, residential mobility, and population movements could arti-ficially inflate such estimates (Ford, 1991; Santley, 1990). Furthermore, thegrowing body of evidence on structure function adds another concern asto how archaeologists generate population estimates. For example, Smythet al. (1995), based on their research at Sayil in northern Yucatan, cautionabout designating structure function based on unexcavated formal charac-teristics alone, since they do not always signify their function (e.g., resi-dential).

One of the most promising aspects of research conducted in the lastfew decades has been the increased excavation of nonmonumental struc-tures (i.e., small mounds) in centers and in the hinterlands. Recent informa-tion about structure function can be used to evaluate Haviland's (1966,1970, 1981) estimate that 16% of structures in any given residential settle-ment pattern represents ancillary structures such as storage, kitchen, reli-gious, and workshop facilities. What percentage actually reflects habitationstructures? Recently, Santley (1990) has proposed that as many as 40-50%of structures did not function as domiciles (sleeping/eating areas).

Evidence from the Belize River Archaeological Settlement Survey(BRASS) suggests an even more complicated picture. For Phase I of theBRASS project, Ford and her crew completely mapped all cultural featuresin three transects (one 10 km in length, two 5 km in length) 250 m widein a 225 km2 research area located in west-central Belize (Fedick, 1988;Fedick and Ford, 1990; Ford, 1991; Ford and Fedick, 1992). Of the 348residential units mapped (RU; consisting of from one to four structures),every eighth RU was selected for test excavation of midden areas outsideof the structures (based on pesthole testing), resulting in 52 tested RUs(12.5%). Based on location (valley, foothills, and uplands), size (small,medium, and large determined according to height, area, and number of

226 Lucero

structures), and artifact assemblage, Ford and her team selected representa-tive sites for extensive excavation (Phase II). Of the seven "representative"sites excavated, only the two valley sites appear to represent full-time orpermanent residences (29%, or 22% incorporating the two additional sitesselected as production loci) (Lucero, 1994, pp. 197-245,1999a). The other"representative" sites, although all show some evidence for domestic activi-ties, functioned predominantly as a biface chert tool workshop, a fieldhouse, a flake tool/unknown workshop, a ceremonial structure, and, finally,a civic/public/administrative site (see also Ford and Wernecke, 1998). Thetwo excavated production sites also demonstrate evidence for domesticactivities, as well as obsidian blade production and possible ceramic pro-duction.

This proportion is similar to what archaeologists are finding at Ceren,where of the 11 structures completely exposed, only 2 were domiciles (18%);the remainder functioned as storage huts (n = 2), a workshop, kitchens(n = 2), a sweatbath, religious structures (n = 2), and a community/civicbuilding (Sheets, 1992; Webster et al, 1997; see also Freter, 1996; Gonlin,1994; Inomata and Stiver, 1998; Lentz et al, 1996; Marcus, 1983). In theircomparison of structures at Copan and Ceren, Webster et al. (1997, p. 50)conclude that the Maya in these areas ". . . built multistructure householdfacilities consisting of buildings with different functions," even taking intoaccount their different settlement patterns (Ceren was a village whereasthe Copan valley had dispersed farmsteads). The diversity in structurefunction has obvious implications for prehistoric population estimates.

Another measure used to generate population size and density is laborexpenditure. Since large construction projects require much labor, largemonumental buildings can translate as large numbers of people. Recently,however, Abrams (1994, pp. 106-108; see also Webster and Kirker, 1995),based on labor cost analysis at Copan in terms of number of years ofconstruction, construction techniques, and labor costs, concludes that largenumbers of people were not necessary to construct large buildings, espe-cially since most were built in stages over long periods of time during thenonagricultural dry season (Abrams, 1994, pp. 43,109). This should notcome as a surprise since one of the hallmarks of Maya buildings is their"onion-skin" stratigraphy that represents multiple construction stagesrather than the much rarer single-construction phase or large scale projects(e.g., Agurcia, 1997; G. Stuart, 1997).

Before leaving the subject of prehistoric population, it is important tomention an aspect of the archaeological record that might, in future, supportsome of the higher population estimates. This issue concerns "invisiblemounds," or nonplatform mounds that in some cases are barely perceptibleon the ground. Because of their "invisible" nature, the actual number of


prehistoric "houses" awaits future discovery and excavation (e.g., Pyburn,1997). To address this problem, Larralde (1994) recommends shovel testpitting and the evaluation of surface artifacts (which she did at Colha,Cuello, and Pulltrouser Swamp). Further, Pyburn et al. (1998), based ontheir work at Albion Island just west of Cuello, Belize, suggest that sincemost of the chich mounds contain utilitarian artifacts, they might haveserved a domestic function [although for Yucatan, Kepecs and Boucher(1996) suggest that these mounds were used to support tree crops, asmentioned earlier]. Finally, a greater understanding of the distribution ofinvisible mounds also will yield information about seasonal (field houses)and residential (brief occupation histories) mobility. Clearly, Maya archae-ologists need to understand the formation processes that result in thecreation of the archaeological record.

This discussion of factors that can affect population estimates (seasonaland residential mobility, population movement and migration, diverse struc-ture functions, and structure labor costs, as well as long ceramic periods,discussed below) illustrates why it is important for archaeologists to takethem into consideration when estimating population distribution, size, anddensity. As Marcus suggests (personal communication, 1999), a more mean-ingful measure might consist of using contemporary structure counts tocompare within and between regions. No matter what the theoretical lean-ings are of individual archaeologists, settlement patterns and size undoubt-edly relate to how the ancient Maya were organized socially and politically.

SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION AND INTERACTION

In the previous two sections, I presented recent archaeological evidencedemonstrating that the varied natural landscape affected ancient Mayasubsistence and settlement practices. As implied in the discussion aboutsubsistence practices, there are indications that elite Maya owned or con-trolled some of the primary resources (e.g., Gonlin, 1994; Lucero, 1999a).Leadership/hereditary position translates into having the ability to makedecisions that affect the broader community, to acquire surplus goods, andto summon labor from outside the family group (Earle, 1997, p. 67; Johnsonand Earle, 1987). The extent of "wealth" differences and "political clout/economic control" requires an understanding of the nature and degree ofsocial differentiation and interaction. To assess social differentiation, Idiscuss burial practices, diet and health, and labor and architecture. Toassess social interaction, I discuss production, consumption, and ex-change patterns.

228 Lucero

Social Differentiation

Burial practices are a key indicator of achieved and hereditary status.Accordingly, any difference in practices through space and time providesclues about prehistoric status differences. Some of the best evidence comesfrom the Preclassic site of Cuello. Hammond (1995), in assessing ritualbehavior at Cuello, notes that during the Middle Preclassic (1000-700 B.C.),most burials are located beneath house floors and have grave goods (mostlyshell and ceramics, with occasional jade pieces). A different patternemerged in the Late Middle Preclassic (700-400 B.C.) in that the little jaderecovered is associated with males and that a few male burials are foundin the patio area or ancillary structure. There were also more varied prac-tices (e.g., decapitation). Hammond suggests that such variability signifiessocial differentiation. This differentiation continued in the Late Preclassic(400 B.C.-A.D. 250) when possible elite burials are found in Platform 34,the focus of community ceremonial activities [mostly male; (cf. Saul andSaul, 1997)]. In addition, mass burials occur, perhaps signifying sacrificialvictims. Individuals were still buried in houses, but burials are simpler.Regarding grave goods, jades are now most often found with males, green-stone with females and juveniles, and exotics mostly with males in public/ceremonial burials.

Similarly, Krejci and Culbert (1995; cf. Culbert, 1994) assess burialand caching practices in the Pasion region, northeastern Peten, and Belizefrom the Middle Preclassic through the Early Classic periods. There waslittle change in ritual behavior for 1000 years up through the Middle Preclas-sic. The first elite tombs appeared in the Late Preclassic and became moreelaborate in the Early Classic. Burial and caches were much more elaborateby the fourth and fifth centuries (e.g., when Curl Nose ruled at Tikal).They suggest that number of vessels and the amount and form of jade,shell, and obsidian are better indicators of "wealth" than the presence ofmodification (e.g., inlaid teeth and cranial shaping) or burial type [simple,cist, crypt, tomb; (e.g., Healy et al, 1998)]. At Caracol, Early Classic eliteswere buried in tombs, while nonelites began to use tombs in the Late Classic.Differences in tomb volume indicate "wealth" differences (D. Chase, 1997).Diane and Arlen Chase suggest that the increased number of tombs duringthe Late Classic signifies a decreasing gap between elites and commoners[i.e., the existence of a "middle class" (D. Chase, 1994; D. Chase and A.Chase, 1996)].

Haviland (1997), in his assessment of 208 burials from the Tikal area,addresses the issue of gender inequality; few women are depicted in theiconography, and fewer women are found in burials, and when they are,they have fewer grave goods. Additionally, Haviland notes that men more


often had alterations (e.g., inlays and cranial deformation) and a longerlife expectancy. This gender difference exists independent of status (e.g.,men were buried beneath house floors more frequently than women).

Some of the most interesting recent burial data come from excavatedchultunes (chambers dug into the limestone bedrock). Evidence indicatesthat in addition to serving as dry storage or water cisterns, chultunes alsowere used for secondary burials (e.g., Gray, 1997; Pyburn et al, 1998),refuse, and ritual activities (the latter subject is discussed in the followingsection). For example, chultunes at Caracol were reused primarily for burials(Hunter-Tate, 1994). Interestingly, most of these burials are of Preclassicand Early Classic date, yet they are associated with Late Classic architec-ture. Clark and Bryant (1997), based on their work at the Early Classicsite of Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, suggest that when chultunes were no longeruseful as water cisterns, they were used for burials and refuse [the sameat Chac in the Puuc region (Smyth, 1998)].

Assessing social differentiation through the study of skeletal remainsis a promising realm of study, especially pertaining to differences in dietand health (Whittington and Reed, 1997; e.g., Webster, 1997b). Analyticaltechniques include chemical analysis and paleopathology (e.g., White,1999), as well as faunal studies (e.g., Pohl, 1994). Not surprisingly, someof the differences relate to local resource variability. Diet also differedbased on gender and socioeconomic status (e.g., White, 1999). Elites hadgreater access to diverse foods, as well as more regular access to foods(White, 1997). In her isotopic analysis of skeletal remains from Petexbatiinsites Altar de Sacrificios, Seibal, Dos Pilas, Tamarindito, Aguateca, andItzan, Wright (1997a, b) found that socioeconomic status accounted fordifferences in maize and meat consumption in the Late Classic but thatgender alone accounted for differences in the Terminal Classic. Healthdifferences also related to wealth and local resource variability (Wright,1997b). Actually, Late and Terminal Classic health is similar to other agrar-ian societies (Wright and White, 1996). Danforth (1997, p. 137) does notethat "residents at larger sites had incurred more health disruptions duringchildhood compared to their more rural counterparts" (cf. D. Chase, 1997;Danforth, 1994; Storey, 1997).

Regarding labor and architecture, Webster et al. (1998) provide a usefulsummary of recent research on Maya elites (e.g., material evidence forelites). Based on their analysis of Group 8N-11 in the Copan core (a subroyalresidential compound), they argue that architecture and sculpture are betterindicators of wealth differences than burials or artifacts. Other researchshows that labor is an effective measure of social differentiation (e.g.,Abrams, 1994, 1995; Lucero, 1999a; Palka, 1997). In addition, increasinglyarchaeologists are assessing architecture not just as structures representing

230 Lucero

specific functions, but as lived space (Ashmore, 1992; J. G. Fox, 1996; e.g.,Sanchez, 1997), symbolic metaphors (Houston, 1996), and as part of thesacred landscape (D. Stuart, 1997). As such, architectural differences couldbe useful indicators of social differentiation and interaction (e.g., Scheleand Mathews, 1998). In sum, archaeologists can analyze architecture toascertain function and, in addition, can view architecture as reflecting cul-ture and representing labor and social control (de Montmollin, 1995, p. 63;e.g., Morrison, 1996; Webster and Kirker, 1995).

Burial practices, diet, health, and architecture type and labor costclearly demonstrate socioeconomic differences. As to the scale and degreeof this differentiation, it, too, varied depending on local conditions. In areassuch as Tikal where there are large tracts of prime agricultural land andthe means to control a critical resource (water), wealth differences weremore apparent. In regions without the means to control a critical resource,such as in areas with dispersed resources and plentiful water, or with concen-trated tracts of agricultural soils but with plenty of water (e.g., BartonRamie), there was much less differentiation.

Social Interaction

Despite the varied landscape, there are common features among theMaya, especially having to do with how Maya elites distinguished them-selves from commoners [e.g., architecture, clothing, jewelry, exotics, etc. (A.Chase and D. Chase, 1992, 1995; Demarest, 1996; Pyburn, 1997; Webster,1997a)]. Assessing elite interaction alone, however, can sometimes obfus-cate the actual variability that existed. To assess other types of interaction,then, it is important to look elsewhere. Production, consumption, and ex-change patterns can reveal diverse economic transactions that bear on socialinteractions. To begin, we can consider recent research on the origins ofproduction technologies and how their spread promoted intercommunityinteraction. For example, Hester and his colleagues are beginning to closethe gap between Preceramic and ceramic villages in the lowlands based ontheir work in the vicinity of Colha (e.g., Hester, 1995; Hester et al, 1996;Iceland and Hester, 1996). Chipped stone data, wetland pollen, and radio-carbon dates indicate Preceramic quarrying and production activities, landclearing, and maize and manioc production at ca. 3000 B.C. (cf. Pohl etal., 1996). Currently there is no evidence to suggest discontinuity fromPreceramic to ceramic periods. While we do not have language data for3000 B.C. (Marcus, personal communication, 1999), it is assumed that thesame peoples (proto-Maya and Maya) inhabited Belize. Interaction amongnorthern Belize communities may have started quite early; unfortunately,


Preceramic studies are rare (see Zeitlin, 1984). Studies in other Mesoameri-can areas may elucidate the scale and nature of early interaction.

Clark and Gosser (1995) present correlations between radiocarbondates and ceramic sequences in highland Tehuacan and the Pacific coastof Chiapas (Soconusco area), which seem to indicate that both regionsadopted the use of ceramics contemporaneously (ca. 1900-1400 B.C.). Thiswould mean that ceramic technology did not necessarily spread from thehighlands of Mexico to the Maya area. Further, Kosakowsky and Pring(1998) suggest that the origins of the earliest known lowland Maya ceramiccomplex, the Swasey complex at Cuello (ca. 1000-900 B.C.), remain amystery. They base this claim on the fact that forms are not similar to earlyhighland wares. Perhaps their origins lie in the Soconusco area? Whateverthe case may have been, what is clear is that widespread interaction/commu-nication was taking place quite early in Maya prehistory. Even more distantinteraction is implied later in Maya prehistory. For example, Garber (per-sonal communication, 1998) recovered a ceramic roller stamp at BlackmanEddy, central Belize, in a deposit dating to ca. 750-650 B.C. The iconogra-phy is non-Maya and resembles that found in lower Central America. Upthrough the Classic period, long-distance interaction intensified and becamemore common, as evident in the distribution of certain goods, especiallyceramics and chipped stone (and keeping in mind the elite interactionsphere involving perishables).

A frustrating aspect of assessing ceramic production, more so thanits origins, is that while millions of ancient ceramic vessels and sherdshave been recovered in the Maya lowlands, direct evidence of theirproduction is rare (e.g., Ciudad R., 1995) because of open-air firingtechniques and the tempers used [mostly limestone and volcanic ash(Ford and Lucero, 1998; see also Reents-Budet, 1994, p. 216)]. As aresult, archaeologists have reverted to using indirect methods to exploreprehistoric ceramic production including assessing standardization [e.g.,using coefficient of variation of wall thickness and rim diameter (e.g.,Foias and Bishop, 1997; Lucero, 1999a)], INAA analysis (summarizedby Bishop, 1994), stylistic analysis (e.g., Reents-Budet, 1994), the presenceof high densities of specific ceramic forms, wasters, and possible burnishingtools (e.g., Freter, 1996; cf. Deal, 1998, pp. 23-77), and the distributionof specific tempers (e.g., volcanic ash from highland Guatemala; Fordand Rose, 1995).

No matter the method, however, current evidence indicates the localproduction and consumption of pottery, especially of utilitarian forms (e.g.,Foias and Bishop, 1997; Freter, 1996; Lucero, 1994; Potter and King, 1995).There is little evidence at present to suggest that markets provided a forumfor exchange [although Jones (1996) suggests that there was likely a market-

232 Lucero

place in Tikal's epicenter]. For the production of more specialized vessels,particularly Late Classic polychrome pottery (e.g., codex style vases), indi-rect evidence implies attached specialization based on distribution, quality,and signed pieces. Direct evidence, however, has not yet been recovered(Ball, 1993a; Reents-Budet, 1994).

The same pattern of local production and consumption of utilitariangoods and the regional or long-distance exchange of specialized goods holdstrue for chipped stone as well. For example, Hester and Shafer (1994; seealso Hester, 1994; Hester et al, 1994; Santone, 1997; Tobey et al., 1994)estimate primary and peripheral consumer areas for Colha chert. The pri-mary consumers of Colha chert (mostly utilitarian) lived within 60 km ofColha; secondary consumers of Colha chert (mostly eccentrics and stemmedmacroblades) lived farther away in Mexico (Chiapas) and Guatemala (e.g.,Tikal, El Mirador). While the forms varied through time (Late Preclassicthrough Late Classic), smaller blades and points had a wider distributionthan larger utilitarian forms. Elites did not appear to control the productionand distribution of chert products.

Another major lithic type found in the lowlands is obsidian, an im-ported material from highland areas. Ford et al. (1997), in an analysis ofobsidian from the Tikal-Yaxha intersite area (residential middens), supportearlier studies of procurement patterns in the Maya lowlands. In the Preclas-sic before ca. A.D. 250, the principal source of obsidian came from the SanMartin Jilotepeque-Rio Pixcaya area (see Braswell and Glascock, 1998);in the Classic, the dominant source was El Chayal (with some Pachucaobsidian appearing in the Early Classic). In the Terminal Classic, El Chayalobsidian was less common. The presence of Pachuca or green obsidianfrom central Mexico, based on its distribution and context, also serves as anindicator of elite exchange/interaction, especially during the Early Classic(Spence, 1996). There are limited amounts in the Maya lowlands of obsidianfrom the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro area in Michoacan, central Mexico [e.g.,Early Classic Tikal, Early/Middle Classic at El Mirador, Classic/Early Post-classic at Wild Cane Cay, Late Classic/Terminal Classic at Ambergris Cay,and Late Classic at Edzna, Lubaantun, and a few other sites; (Healan,1997)].

Evidence for obsidian production loci is rare in the Maya lowlands,but the few known loci suggest household-attached specialists [e.g., Ceren(Lentz et al., 1996; Sheets, 1992, p. 56), west-central Belize (Olson, 1994;Olson and Lucero, 1995; cf. Clark, 1997), Ojo de Agua, Chiapas]. For themost part, archaeologists use indirect evidence to assess obsidian productionand exchange patterns (e.g., Aoyama, 1994; Awe and Healy, 1994; Clarkand Bryant, 1997; Inomata and Aoyama, 1996; cf. Rovner and Lowenstein,1997). In addition, Moholy-Nagy (1997; cf. Clark and Bryant, 1997), in her


study of the organization of Classic period craft production at Tikal, suggeststhat the numerous special or ritual deposits consisting of large numbersof chert and obsidian pieces actually could represent secondary debitagedisposal and that archaeologists should not discount these "ritual offerings"in elucidating production patterns.

Other evidence for production activities includes salt production insouthern Belize (McKillop, 1995), shell production at Copan (Aoyama,1995), possible slate production at Pacbitun ca. 15 km east of Xunantunich(Healy et al, 1995), and lime-plaster production at Copan (Abrams andFreter, 1996). While the sourcing of non-Motagua Valley jade is stillproblematic (Hauff, 1993), recent research in the Maya Mountains ofBelize shows promising results, if not for finding another source of jade,at least for locating other mineral sources such as pyrite, hematite,granite (see also Pritchard-Parker, 1995), slate, nonjade greenstone, highquality clays, quartz, and mica, as well as a variety of flora and fauna(Dunham, 1996).

Recent data on maritime trade highlight two features: (1) maritimetrade was not just for the long-distance movement of elite goods; and (2)such trade was not just a Postclassic phenomenon. For example, Late andTerminal Classic evidence from Stingray Lagoon, located on the coast westof Wild Cane Cay, indicates not only the local production and exchange(inland) of subsistence goods and the long-distance exchange of elite/exoticgoods, but also the coastal exchange of inland goods for seafood (McKillop,1995). On Ambergris Cay, evidence suggests extensive Late and TerminalClassic exchange networks based on the presence of basalt, obsidian, andjade from highland Guatemala, green obsidian from central Mexico, andcotton, textiles, and henequen from the Yucatan (Guderjan, 1993; Guderjanand Garber, 1995; see also Andrews and Corletta, 1990). The southernBelize port at Wild Cane Cay also may have served as a conduit to tradesalt, perhaps throughout the southern Maya lowlands. Consequently, thelarge-scale importation of salt from the Yucatan was unlikely (McKillop,1996a). Trade between the southern lowlands and northern Yucatan be-came noticeable only in the Postclassic (see also Graham, 1994). As Marcusstated over a decade ago (1983), local exchange of staples and other perish-ables was quite significant and has too long been ignored because of ourfocus on the long-distance exchange of elite goods.

There can be little doubt that many types of interaction existedthroughout the Maya area. It is also clear that the degree of social differenti-ation related to local conditions. Long-distance interaction was an eliteactivity, especially for the exchange of prestige or exotic goods, whereaslocal economic and social interaction involved all sectors of society andthe exchange of food and other goods.

234 Lucero

CLASSIC MAYA POLITICAL ECONOMY

Sources of political power (e.g., ideology, economy, and the military)and how they articulate in the rise of polities vary in different societies re-sulting in a variety of trajectories and histories. The general processes, how-ever, of increasing complexity are universal (Earle, 1997; Mann, 1986). Fur-thermore, the maintenance of any political system requires the input of goodsand labor by participating members of society (the political economy). Thekinds of goods and amount of labor contributed depend on local economic,social, and political conditions. Several models on the ancient Maya explorethe relationship of the varied landscape, dispersed population, and the chal-lenges emerging elites faced in acquiring goods, land, and access to labor.Maya leaders used centripetal strategies, such as ceremonies and other publicevents, to bring people together (e.g., Demarest, 1996; Freidel, 1981). Forexample, Lucero (1999b) and Scarborough (1998) have recently proposedmodels of the rise of political power that take into account the control of acritical resource, artificial reservoirs located next to monumental architec-ture, and the control of rituals having to do with water itself (cf. Ford 1996).Water management and ritual were key, especially in areas without lakes andrivers during the annual 4-month drought. For example, Scarborough (1993)proposes that a major reason El Mirador was abandoned in the Late Preclas-sic might have been due to a failure in the water management system, perhapsas a result of the build-up of silt in the reservoirs. The resulting power vacuumallowed other polities to grow, especially Calakmul and Tikal (Folan et al,1995a). The largest Classic polities developed in areas with the landscapehydraulically engineered to provision the population with water, includingpolities centered at Tikal, Calakmul, and Caracol (Dunning et al, 1998c; Fo-lan, 1992; Folan et al., 1995a; Kunen, 1996; Scarborough, 1996). For example,the Maya built hundreds of reservoirs in and around Caracol (A. Chase andD. Chase, 1996b). Such models can also account for the typically smaller riv-erine centers (e.g., Piedras Negras, Yaxchilan, Altar de Sacrificios, Pa-lenque), where water management was less of an issue (Lucero, 1999b). Ifwe are going to understand fully the nature, development, and maintenanceof Classic Maya polities, we must understand how the economy and ideologyarticulated within various political systems. I discuss below some key topicsthat can help to illuminate this articulation: community organization, ritualand politics, the Classic Maya collapse, and warfare.

Community Organization

The apparent economic and social self-sufficiency at the communitylevel (e.g., Freter, 1994; Hayden, 1994; Lucero, 1997b, c, 1999a) has to be


considered in attempting to explain the development of complex polities.Archaeologists need to explain why members of independent communitiescontributed to the political economy of nonlocal or local (e.g., center) elites.On a day-to-day basis, ancient Maya farmers interacted locally to poollabor in the field (Levi, 1996), to build each other's houses, and to preparefor communal events such as feasts, ceremonies, and weddings (Abrams,1994, pp. 97-99). However, Pyburn et al. (1998; Pyburn, 1997) point outthat more local analysis is needed to address fully the issue of communityself-sufficiency, especially since we may be missing "invisible" architecturaldata (nonelevated platforms). Archaeologists can address this concernthrough a greater focus on minor centers or middle level settlements, asMarcus suggested (1983). "If we are to press forward with our understandingof Maya politics, we need to know more about the functions of these lessercenters, their relationships to each other, and their relationships to themajor centers" (Willey, 1997, p. 8; see also lannone, 1998). This focus hasalready begun, particularly in Belize, including work at Cahal Pech (Awe,1992; Ball, 1993b) and its nearby smaller centers, X-ual-canil (Cayo Y) andZubin (lannone, 1996,1997,1998; lannone and Conlon, 1995), Baking Potwest on the river from Blackman Eddy (Conlon and Awe, 1997), BlackmanEddy (Garber and Classman, 1996; Garber et al., 1993, 1997), Blue Creek(Guderjan, 1996; Guderjan et al., 1996), the La Milpa area (Tourtellot etal, 1993, 1996; Valdez, 1999), and Saturday Creek (Lucero, 1999c), tomention a few.

Ritual and Politics

What factors resulted in the majority of the Maya contributing theirlabor and goods outside their communities, especially to center elites?Maya archaeologists have always realized the importance of ritual in thedaily lives of the Maya, today and in the past. Archaeologists also knowthat ritual plays a major role in political systems (e.g., D. Chase and A.Chase 1998). Recent research provides a much more dynamic understandingof the role of ritual, together with economic factors, in the rise of Mayapolitical power (e.g., Demarest, 1992, 1996; Dunning, 1995; Dunning et al.,1998c; Kocyba, 1994; Lucero 1999b). Evidence indicates that early Mayaleaders replicated and expanded traditional rituals to suit a political agenda(e.g., Lucero, 1999b; McAnany, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Walker and Luc-ero, 1999), particularly ancestor veneration, termination, dedication, andrenewal rites. Only once rulers had power did they institute new practices,such as incorporating stelae as center pieces in royal performances signifyingtheir tie to royal ancestors (Stuart, 1996; e.g., Clancy, 1999; Culbert, 1994),

236 Lucero

as well as using emblem glyphs and place names (Stuart and Houston,1994). While much of our evidence comes from the archaeological record,much of it also conies from what we know about current Maya ritualpractices. The major criticism of using ethnographic accounts, however,concerns the effects of change (Spanish conquest, disease, depopulation,etc.). Responding to this criticism, Fash (1997) calls for a greater acceptanceof the continuity of a "Maya ethos," especially because increasing evidencedemonstrates continuity [e.g., Popol Vuh; also in the decipherment of hiero-glyphs; (Bonor V., 1994)].

Identifying ritual appropriation through time and the emergence offull-time leaders (see Marcus, 1992) requires detailed and accurate chronol-ogies, and recent advances in this field are making this more of a reality.For example, several excavated tombs at Caracol have yielded ceramictypes associated with calendrical dates painted on walls (A. Chase, 1994).Similarly, Houston et al. (1998, p. 49) note "rough correlations that seemto exist between rulers and ceramic phases. . . . " Another chronologicalissue concerns obsidian hydration dating, a topic that recently has beenbeset with controversy due to archaeologists questioning hydration dates(discussed by Webster et al., 1993; see Braswell, 1992). Freter (1993; Websteret al., 1993) responds to the criticisms raised regarding factors affectinghydration rates (e.g., altitude, deposit depth, soil temperature or effectivehydration temperature, soil relative humidity, and soil pH) and presents afield protocol that should be implemented when collecting obsidian fordating purposes. Archaeologists are also beginning to recommend the useof better definitions of chronological terms. For example, Brady et al. (1998)note that there are at least three uses for the term Protoclassic—as aceramic horizon, as a transition between Preclassic and Classic periods,and as the time span between ca. 50 B.C.-A.D. 250. They argue that itshould be used to signify a ceramic horizon.

Better chronological frameworks allow us to assess better the relation-ship between ritual and the development of full-time leadership. For exam-ple, since ancestor worship pervaded Maya life, it also provided a perfectforum for emerging leaders to integrate dispersed farmers, as evidenced inthe increasing scale and magnitude of ancestral shrines from the LatePreclassic through the Classic periods [from the house to the temple(McAnany, 1995; e.g., D. Chase and A. Chase 1998; Freter, 1994; Guderjan,1996; Houston, 1997; Walker and Lucero, 1999)]. Dedication, termination,and renewal ceremonies also increased in scale and grandeur (e.g., Freidel,1998; Hammond, 1995; Mock, 1998a). When these rituals became too largefor residences, other, more public and larger arenas were needed (e.g.,Lesure, 1997), not only to promote specific interests, but also to competewith other emerging leaders. For example, in her study of Classic Xunantun-


ich public architecture, LeCount (1996) discusses two types of feastingactivities, those between rival elites [factionalism (e.g., Aoyama, 1995)] andthose to promote community consolidation (e.g., J. G. Fox, 1996). Ballcourtsalso provided political forums. For example, J. G. Fox (1996) demonstrateshow evidence from excavated Late Preclassic ballcourts in the Cuyumapadrainage in northwestern Honduras indicates, in addition to ballgames,feasting activities, likely as a means for emerging leaders to display publiclytheir growing prestige and power (see also de Montmollin, 1995, 1997).

The significance of ritual in the development of Maya political poweris obvious, especially in conjunction with economic factors. Thus, it is vitalthat archaeologists assess how Maya rites changed through time, especiallyin relation to the development of political leaders and, hence, the politicaleconomy. By doing so, it will bring us closer in explaining how Maya leaderswere able to control people, or at least their goods and labor. The expansionof Maya archaeology into previously unemphasized areas is slowly closingthis gap, particularly with the focus on excavating chultunes and exploringcaves and underwater sites, all sacred places to the Maya and, thus, locifor ritual activities. The emphasis on chultunes for understanding Mayaritual is important because present evidence indicates that some of theearliest ceremonial activities may have taken place in these undergroundchambers. For example, Bladen (ca. 900-650 B.C.) ceramic forms (smallbowls and cups) from a chultun at Cuello are not present elsewhere at thesite, leading Kosakowsky and Pring (1998) to suggest that this might indicateearly evidence for ceremonial activities (see also Hammond et al., 1995).

Another sacred opening in the earth is caves. Given that about 70%of the Maya area consists of karstic terrain, it is not surprising that cavesare not only a common feature of the landscape, but also a feature of thesacred landscape (Bassie-Sweet, 1996; Stone, 1995, 1997). Both Brady(1995) and McNatt (1996) note that the earliest and longest-lasting Mayaritual practices took place in caves. For example, the majority of ceramicsfrom Gordon's Cave 3 near Copan are from the Middle Preclassic [followedin number by Early Classic and Late Classic ceramics (Brady, 1995)]. Stone(1997) presents evidence of caves being used by the Proto-Maya in ca. 2400B.C. in the Yucatan, up through the Late Postclassic. "[CJaves were aconduit into the bowels of the earth, a dangerous but supernaturally chargedrealm, often referred to as the 'underworld' in current literature or bythe Quiche term, Xibalba. Herein dwelt the ancestors, rain gods, various'owners' of the earth, culture heroes, nefarious death demons, animal andwind spirits. The Maya made pilgrimages to caves to propitiate these beings. . ." (Stone, 1997, p. 202; see also Brady and Scott, 1997). Elites madesuch pilgrimages [e.g., to Naj Tunich (cf. Brady, 1997)], even though theyhad their own artificial caves (temple doorways). The numerous cave burials

238 Lucero

also signify their importance as ancestral shrines (e.g., Awe, 1998; Moyesand Awe, 1998), as well as for rain-making ceremonies (e.g., Graham, 1997).Cave features, such as speleothems, were also considered sacred and cachedin houses (e.g., Brady et al., 1997a). Caves also could influence the locationof temples. For example, the Maya built the main temple at Dos Pilas, ElDuende, directly over an extensive cave system (Brady, 1997, Brady et al,1997b). Interestingly, natural caves near Caracol apparently lack any cul-tural remains (Feld, 1994), evidently a rare occurrence.

Another arena for ritual activities consists of bodies of water, excel-lently summarized by Andrews and Corletta (1995). Openings in the earthwere and are considered by the Maya as portals to the underworld (Bassie-Sweet, 1996; Thompson, 1970). The ancient Maya often made offerings tothese portals. Explorations of this underwater world have mostly focusedin lakes and cenotes (sinkholes exposing the water table). We know little,however, about natural pools (fed by underwater rivers) typically found atthe base of cliffs (themselves riddled with caves). Recently, I directed adiving expedition at Cara Blanca, ca. 15 km northwest of Saturday Creek,central Belize, an area with numerous pools (over 20) at the base of a steepcliff (80-100 m). Although the one pool (100 X 60 m) explored was toodeep for regular scuba diving (ca. 40 m), it is likely that the Maya conductedceremonies because of the apparent specialized structures located on itsedges, the only settlement in the area (Lucero, 1999c),

To assess how ritual and politics translate into political change, Mayaarchaeologists focus on the transition from the Late Preclassic to EarlyClassic periods (e.g., founding of royal dynasties, dynastic accounts,appearance of large temples) (Grube, 1995; see Pincemin et al., 1998).During the Early Classic, there was an increase in warfare and sacrifice[i.e., increasing competition between emerging leaders (Marcus, 1995)].Evidence from throughout the lowlands indicates less hinterland occupationduring the Early Classic compared with Middle Preclassic and Late Classicoccupation. Were hinterland inhabitants moving to centers? For example,at Rio Azul, Adams (1994) notes that hinterlands were abandoned duringthe Early Classic, probably because of ecological problems and politicalfactors. The political factors resulted in the need to nucleate at centers[whether forcibly or voluntarily (Tourtellot et al., 1996)]. Tourtellot et al.(1996) note that Early Classic nucleation also occurred at Cerros, Uaxactiin,Colha, Tikal (see Laporte and Fialko, 1995), and Seibal (where Early Classicmaterials are found only in "great plazas"). A. Chase and D. Chase (1995)also argue for increasing centralization in the transition from the LatePreclassic to the Early Classic. They base this claim on the appearance anddistribution of the "E Group Assemblage," which might signify increasinginteraction and the formalization of social hierarchy, culminating in Late


Classic Maya regional polities. If resources are dispersed, however, whatfactors resulted in nucleation? Does Early Classic hinterland occupationneed to be identified using factors other than ceramic chronologies? Mightelites have used ritual events to attract hinterland farmers for part of theyear, that is, during the nonagricultural dry season when they participated inlarge-scale ceremonies and feasts, not to mention constructing monumentalarchitecture? Whatever the answers might be, it is clear that plentiful criticalresources combined with ritual provided the basis for the development andmaintenance of Classic Maya power.

The Maya Collapse

There have been many explanations for the Maya collapse (ca. A.D.850-1000). When viewed in light of the above discussion of variability, it isapparent that a single model cannot explain what happened in the TerminalClassic in the Maya lowlands (cf. Pyburn, 1996,1998). Archaeologists haveproposed models that incorporate internal and/or external and monocausalor multicausal factors. These include climate change (Adams, 1994, 1996;Curtis et al., 1996; Dahlin, 1983; Folan et al., 1983,1995a; Gunn et al., 1995;Hodell et al., 1995; Lowe, 1985; Lucero, 1997d), unstable seasonal patterns(Byrne, 1996; Rice, 1996), commercial agriculture (Atran, 1993), environ-mental and ecological causes combined with increasing population (Abramsand Rue, 1988; Adams, 1994,1996; Culbert, 1977; Freter, 1994; Hosier et al.,1977; Paine and Freter, 1996; Sabloff and Willey, 1967; Tourtellot et al., 1996;Wingard, 1996), foreign intrusion (Cowgill, 1964), internal warfare (Demar-est, 1997), increasing militarism (Cowgill, 1979) and/or competition (Bove,1981), peasant revolt (Thompson, 1966,1970; Hamblin and Pitcher, 1980),managerial/adaptation failure (Pyburn, 1996; Willey and Shimkin, 1973),trade failure (Rathje, 1973; Webb, 1973), subsistence failure (Culbert, 1977,1988; Lowe, 1985; Turner, 1974), yellow fever (Wilkinson, 1995; cf. Bianchineand Russo, 1995), and diminishing subsistence returns (Tainter, 1988).

Some Maya archaeologists argue that a collapse did not actually occur(see Marcus, 1995). Rather, population shifted north as evidenced in theflorescence of centers such as Chichen Itza and the Island of Cozumel.Sabloff (1992) labels this the "northern view." In a similar vein, usingethnohistoric accounts of Postclassic and Colonial Maya political institu-tions, Marcus (1993,1998) proposes that there were neither "golden ages"nor "collapses" in Maya prehistory but, rather, a series of cyclic "peaks" and"troughs" (cf. Blanton et al., 1996). There are also centers that experienced aflorescence when other centers were collapsing, including Seibal [due tothe loss of power at Dos Pilas (Demarest, 1997; see Sabloff and Willey,

240 Lucero

1967)] and Xunantunich [perhaps due to the loss of power at Naranjo(Ashmore, 1995; see also Connell, 1997; Leventhal, 1994, 1995; Leventhaland Ashmore, 1997)].

Some of the best evidence for collapse comes from the VanderbiltPetexbatiin Regional Archaeological project, which clearly demonstratesthat warfare played a major role in the region's collapse (see also Foias,1997). The goals of the Petexbatiin project were to assess collapse models,including climate change (Dunning et al., 1997), ecological change (Dunninget al., 1997; Wright, 1997b), foreign invasion (Foias and Bishop, 1997), andeconomic conditions (Foias and Bishop, 1997). Evidence does not supportthese other models but does support the predominant role warfare played.Demarest et al. (1997) describe defensive systems, spear point caches, decap-itated individuals, palisades (stone foundations), and the defensible loca-tions of centers (e.g., hilltops, near gorges, escarpments). In brief, betweenabout A.D. 760 and A.D. 830, a period of endemic warfare ensued whenrulers from other centers attempted to wrest power from Dos Pilas[Demarest, 1997; Demarest et al., 1997); e.g., Tamarindito (Valdes, 1997)],resulting in the destruction of several centers [e.g., Aguateca (Inomata,1997; Inomata and Stiver, 1998)]. While warfare wreaked havoc in thePetexbatiin area, Seibal experienced a florescence. Between about A.D.830 and A.D. 1800, several centers in this region were abandoned [e.g.,Arroyo de Piedra (Escobedo, 1997)], and only a remnant population onthe island fortress site of Punta de Chimino persisted (abandoned ca. A.D.950). While direct evidence for warfare exists in the Petexbatiin region,this situation appears to be unique.

Improved chronological data and a better understanding of northernlowland regional dynamics in the Terminal and Postclassic periods are alsoelucidating the Maya collapse. For example, Bey et al. (1997, 1998), basedon their work at Ek Balam north of Chichen Itza and Coba, assess architec-tural and ceramic evidence to address the transition from Classic to Postclas-sic. While C-shaped structures are typically defined as Postclassic in thenorthern lowlands, ceramics from these structures indicate Terminal Classicconstruction. If this new evidence is accepted, it would modify the datesof Terminal Classic in the northern lowlands to ca. A.D. 925-1100. Bey etal. (1997, p. 249) conclude that the term Terminal Classic "is a term bestused to define the final postmonumental Classic occupation of Maya centers,rather than as a single pan-lowland time period" (cf. Kepecs, 1998). Conse-quently, "collapse" should not be seen as a complete "abandonment"but, rather, as a transitional period to Postclassic organization. C-shapedstructures in the Terminal Classic replaced monumental architecture of theLate Classic, but likely still served similar purposes at a smaller scale inface of some depopulation and reorganization as a result of the "collapse."


Similar chronological results come from the Chichen Itza area (e.g., Ander-son, 1998) and elsewhere. For example, Dunning and Kowalski (1994) arguethat Uxmal arose as the capital of a Terminal Classic regional polity in theeastern Puuc area between ca. A.D. 850 and A.D. 950, possibly at the sametime as Chichen Itza and Coba. Suhler et al. (1998), based on their workat Yaxuna, propose that there may have been an alliance between Cobaand the Puuc area in opposition to Chichen Itza during the Terminal Classicperiod (cf. Andrews and Robles, 1985). Eventually, Yaxuna was conqueredby Chichen Itza later in the Terminal Classic. Because of its incorporationinto the Chichen Itza polity, it too was abandoned in the Postclassic, perhapsby the same forces that affected Chichen Itza. Carmean and Sabloff (1996;cf. Carmean, 1998) propose that the usually decentralized Puuc area, atleast at Sayil, may have temporally joined "forces" in an attempt to fendoff the threat posed by Chichen Itza. Smyth (1998; Smyth et al., 1998)explores Puuc origins through his study at Chac, a Maya center occupiedsince the Early Classic period; Smyth also asks what role the Puuc Mayacould have played in the southern lowland collapse, especially in view ofthe indicated Mexican/foreign contacts ca. A.D. 500-700.

This discussion of northern lowland chronological and regional issueshighlights how recent advances in these areas need be evaluated whenattempting to grasp Classic Maya politics. Another topic that will furtherelucidate political systems consists of recent archaeological evidence con-cerning other postcollapse events. Each area has its own specific story totell; however, there are some general issues that need mentioning.

Even though evidence may, at first glance, indicate massive populationloss during and after the collapse, increasing evidence from hinterlandstudies suggests alternative explanations. Some postcollapse communitiesmay have reverted to using nonplatform houses or "invisible" mounds (cf.Rice, 1996). Ford (1986, Table 5.2) recorded a notable presence of TerminalClassic occupation in the intercenter area between Tikal and Yaxha (85%of tested sites). Also, the Maya inhabited the central Peten lakes regionfrom the Postclassic until the conquest (Rice, 1996), as well as Lamanai innorthern Belize (Pendergast, 1981,1985). In the Belize River area, occupa-tion continued, where the Maya abandoned upland areas without centersfor areas near the river (Fedick, 1996a). On Wild Cane Cay and othercayes, McKillop (1996a) notes a population increase, in contrast to thedepopulation witnessed in southern inland Belize sites such as Uxbenka,Lubaantun, Nim li Punit, and Pusilha. Another diagnostic often used toargue for massive abandonment of lowland areas after the collapse is thedramatic decrease in ceramics recovered from this period. However, it ispossible that the Maya began using more decorated gourds rather thanceramics (Hayden 1994), as recorded among Postclassic and modern Maya

242 Lucero

groups (Bunzel 1952, p. 42; Hayden and Cannon, 1984, p. 172; Redfieldand Villa Rojas, 1934, pp. 75,128; Tozzer, 1907, p. 122, 1941, p. 90; Vogt,1970, p. 54). They also could have started to use plainwares, which would bemore difficult to distinguish from earlier, similar wares. Fewer monumentalbuilding projects and the increased use of ceramic plainwares and/or perish-able goods would leave less telling evidence in the archaeological record andmight be misinterpreted as massive population loss rather than populationdispersal and migration. These issues await further study with the continuingrecent trend in Maya archaeology of focusing research in hinterland areas.

It is too simplistic, however, to say that postcollapse Maya revertedto Preclassic community organization; too much history had passed (Alex-ander, 1998). What might have happened instead is a reorganization ofpopulation such as migration and center abandonment rather than completepopulation loss (Rice, 1988; cf. Alexander, 1999; Alexander and Canche,1999; Masson, 1997). In areas with plentiful resources, the disruption thatoccurred in land-locked areas (e.g., Tikal) did not automatically result indramatic change, just restructuring. A similar scenario explains communitybased or localized political organization in peripheral areas such as theBelize River region, where the means to support the scale of polities foundin the core areas did not exist in the first place (Lucero and Kinkella, 1999).Masson (1997), based on her work at Laguna de On near Colha in northernBelize, provides an example of this postcollapse restructuring and demon-strates that Postclassic villages (i.e., communities) became the focal pointfor social, political and economic organization rather than regional centersthat were the focal point in the Classic period.

Warfare

Warfare relates to political organization in that the more complex asystem is, the larger the scale and scope of warfare. Groups conduct warfareto gain territory and access to labor (economic gain) or to capture sacrificialvictims to gain prestige. In the Maya lowlands, Culbert (1997a) argues that,as a result of high population and subsistence stress, the Maya conductedwarfare for territorial and economic gain (cf. Martin and Grube, 1994,1995;Webster, 1993,1998). In general, however, evidence indicates that the majortype of warfare conducted was small-scale and involved largely elites. Thegoal was to capture high-status individuals for sacrifice, another centripetalritual event.

Other than in the Petexbatiin region, most evidence for warfare else-where in the lowlands is indirect, which would seem to indicate a lesserrole for warfare than some archaeologists have proposed (e.g., Webster,


1993,1998). For example, Suhler and Freidel (1998) claim to have uncoveredthe tomb of a "slaughtered royal family" at Yaxuna in northern Yucatanbased on the disarray of skeletal remains. Violence is also posited at Termi-nal Classic Colha, where the Skull Pit, a pit with 30 human skulls, mayindicate the presence of captives and, thus, warfare (Hester, 1995; Masseyand Steele, 1997; Mock, 1998b). Another indirect indicator is the locationof centers in naturally defensible locations including swamps, gorges, andridges. The presence of linear features, perhaps serving as foundations forpalisades, ditches, and moats, has also been proposed to indicate warfare(e.g., Webster, 1993). Hester and Shafer (1994) propose that in the TerminalClassic, the "mass production" of stemmed blade points may have resultedfrom the increasing need for weapons. A final line of indirect evidence,which I mention only briefly here, is inscriptions and iconography. Mayacaptives and other military themes appear in the iconography particularlybeginning in the Early Classic period (ca. A.D. 250-350) (e.g., Marcus,1974; Stuart, 1993). By A.D. 750-800, rulers are carrying weapons (Marcus,1974, 1976). Even though direct evidence for warfare does indeed exist,claims for large-scale warfare based solely on indirect evidence may needto be modified.

The ancient Maya political economy was funded by the surroundingpopulace. A key strategy center and local elites used to attract followers(dispersed farmers) was ritual and, when possible, economic means (e.g.,water management). Coercive force was not an option because of the abilityfor farmers to flee to hinterland areas or to other centers. Consequently,large-scale warfare never became a strategy for elites to acquire power.The Classic Maya collapse—how it is defined, whom it affected, when itoccurred—varied and depended upon local circumstances.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this paper, I have presented current archaeological evidence relatingto Classic Maya political organization. Clearly, the varied natural (seasonal-ity, local resources) and social (subsistence technology, settlement patterns)landscapes resulted in a multitude of political histories throughout thelowlands, including how they arose and collapsed. As such, it is not possibleto apply one model to all areas. As many Maya archaeologists emphasize,however, there are several shared features that link the Maya, especiallyelite paraphernalia and interaction (e.g., long-distance access to exotics,labor to build public and private monumental architecture). Recent researchis increasingly revealing how nonelites lived, including how they subsisted

244 Lucero

and interacted locally (production, consumption, and distribution of utilitar-ian goods) and with elites (ritual events, labor projects, feasting).

Understanding the entire spectrum of ancient Maya society along withgrasping the local resource availability leads us closer to elucidating howdifferent political systems worked and articulated with one another throughspace and time. Regional comparisons are vital to this endeavor, particularlyin terms of site chronology, size and configuration, available resources,subsistence practices, and ritual activities. Data are becoming more easilyavailable to accomplish this goal, for example, through the Internet. Projectand general Maya websites provide updated research information. In addi-tion, advances in tropical archaeology are continuing to improve data collec-tion methods (e.g., Stahl, 1995).

Out of our control, however, are urban (or village) sprawl (e.g., Garberet al, 1997) and outright site destruction. Recently in Belize (summer,1998), the archaeology community was stunned to discover that most ofthe core of Nohmul was bulldozed under the auspices of a governmentministry. Archaeologists are doing what they can to help prevent furtherdestruction of the archaeological record. For example, Fedick (1996c) useshis soil classification system (mentioned above) as a means to assist in thecultural resource management of ancient Maya sites to identify risk areas,especially smaller residential sites. He notes that much of prehistoric settle-ment is located in areas not suitable for mechanical cultivation because itis too rocky. Alluvial settlements, however, are in danger since these areascan be mechanically plowed.

Looting, of course, is an ever-present problem. One only has to readrecent press releases to know that this is a major problem (e.g., News andNotes, 1995). For example, Hansen (1997) discusses the challenges theGuatemalan government faces in fighting to keep its patrimony, especiallywhen estimates are that more than 10,000 objects are looted each year inGuatemala alone (see also Prensa Libre, IDAEH, 1995). Looting occursin both isolated and protected areas. For example, while Caracol is a populartourist destination in Belize, has full-time caretakers, and is located withina protected reserve, looting still occurs regularly. Reents-Budet (1994)presents a history of the "collecting" of Pre-Columbian "art" and presentsboth sides of the collecting/looting issue. Public education, especially high-lighting the destruction and loss of information through looting, is the onlyway to lessen the value of Maya artifacts. She also notes that some museumsare slow to enact 1983 UNESCO guidelines regarding the agreement oncultural property. On a relatively minor note, I think that the field ofarchaeology might be served better if we use the term "iconography"in publications and lectures rather than "art." Art is a relatively recentphenomenon (we have yet to excavate an ancient art museum) and largely


a modern Western concept. On the other hand, iconography is a conceptualterm that reflects the fact that symbols can reflect an ancient belief system.The use of this term rather than art will provide a basis to differentiateartifact from art when we are attempting to educate potential buyers ofblack-market artifacts.

Another way to reach the public is through the growing field of ecotour-ism, such as that seen at Xunantunich (Leventhal, 1995) and El Pilar (Ford,1998a, b; see also Wernecke, 1994). The El Pilar Archaeological Reservefor Maya Flora and Fauna in Belize and Guatemala promotes biodiversitythrough its forest gardens, community involvement through a grassroots-based organization, Amigos de El Pilar, local investment, and stewardship.Ironically, increased ecotourism and education, in conjunction with recentpolitical activism tied to the past (especially in Mexico and Guatemala),might result in an increasing difficulty in excavating certain classes of prehis-toric features (e.g., burials).

In conclusion, the field of Maya archaeology has come a long way inilluminating Classic lowland Maya political organization. While certainfactors are out of our control (e.g., looting), the archaeological record isrich and continues to reveal new insights on the ancient Maya.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to T. Patrick Culbert, Joyce Marcus, Scott Rushforth,David Stuart, William H. Walker, and anonymous reviewers for their help-ful suggestions. Of course, I take full responsibility for the final result. Iespecially want to thank colleagues who sent me reprints, books, unpub-lished papers, and information. I also apologize for any misrepresentationsof anyone's work, as well as for any inadvertent omissions.

REFERENCES

Abrams, E. M. (1994). How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture,University of Texas Press, Austin.

Abrams, E. M. (1995). A model of fluctuating labor value and the establishment of statepower: An application to the prehispanic Maya. Latin American Antiquity 6: 196-213.

Abrams, E. M., and Freter, A. (1996). A Late Classic lime-plaster kiln from the Maya centreof Copdn, Honduras. Antiquity 70: 422-428.

Abrams, E. M., and Rue, D. J. (1988). The causes and consequences of deforestation amongthe prehistoric Maya. Human Ecology 16: 377-395.

Adams, R. E. W. (1994). Introduction. In Adams, R. E. W. (ed.), The Programme for BelizeArchaeological Project: 1993 Interim Report, University of Texas, San Antonio, pp. 1-5.

Adams, R. E. W. (1995). Early Classic Maya civilization: A view from Rio Azul. In N. Grube

246 Lucero

(ed.), The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization, Acta Mesoamericana 8, Verlag vonFlemming, Mockmuhl, pp. 35-48.

Adams, R. E. W. (1996). Introduction. In Adams, R. E. W., and Valdez, F., Jr. (eds.), TheProgramme for Belize Regional Archaeological Project: 1994 Interim Report, Universityof Texas, San Antonio, pp. 1-12.

Adams, R. E. W. (1997). Transformations, periodicity and urban development in the RioAzul/La Milpa region. Paper presented at the Biennial Complex Society Group Meetings,Oct. 31-Nov. 2, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Agurcia, R. (1997). Rosalila, an Early Classic Maya cosmogram from Copan. SymbolsSpring: 32-37.

Alexander, R. T. (1997). Changes in political-economic integration at Isla Cilvituk, Campeche,Mexico, from the Postclassic to the Early Colonial period. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting for the Society of Historical Archaeology, Jan. 8-12, Corpus Christi.

Alexander, R. T. (1998). Community organization in the Parroquia de Yaxcaba, Yucatan,Mexico, 1750-1847: Implications for household adaptation within a changing colonialeconomy. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 39-54.

Alexander, R. T. (1999). La comunidad Postclasica en La Isla Cilvituk, Campeche: una fronterainterna? In Harada, T. O., and Williams-Beck, L. (eds.), Revisando la Geografia Politicode Yucatan, Centro de Estudios Mayas, UNAM, Mexico (in press).

Alexander, R. T., and Canche M. E. (1999). Archaeology and the Cehache: A view from IslaCilvituk, Campeche, Mexico. Ms. on file, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Anderson, P. K. (1998). Yula, Yucatan, Mexico: Terminal Classic Maya ceramic chronologyfor the Chichen Itza area. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 151-165.

Andrews, A. P. (1993). Late Postclassic lowland Maya archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory7: 35-69.

Andrews, A. P., and Codetta, R. (1990). The role of trading ports in Maya civilization. InClancy, F. S., and Harrison, P. D. (eds.), Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 159-167.

Andrews, A. P., and Corletta, R. (1995). A brief history of underwater archaeology in theMaya area. Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 101-117.

Andrews, A. P., and Robles, F. (1985). Chichen Itza and Coba: An Itza-Maya standoff inEarly Postclassic Yucatan. In Chase, A. F., and Rice, P. M. (eds.), The Lowland MayaPostclassic, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 62-72.

Aoyama, K. (1994). Socioeconomic implications of chipped stone from the La Entrada region,western Honduras. Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 133-146.

Aoyama, K. (1995). Microwear analysis in the southeast Maya lowlands: Two case studies atCopan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 6: 129-144.

Ashmore, W. (1992). Deciphering Maya architectural plans. In Danien, E. C, and Sharer,R. J. (eds.), New Theories on the Ancient Maya, University Museum, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 173-184.

Ashmore, W. (1995). Settlement archaeology at Xunantunich, 1995. In Leventhal, R. M.(ed.), Xunantunich Archaeological Report: The 1995 Field Season, Los Angeles, CA, andBelmopan, Belize, pp. 11-25.

Atran, S. (1993). Itza Maya tropical agro-forestry. Current Anthropology 34: 633-700.Awe, J. (1992). Dawn in the Land Between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech,

Belize and Its Implications for Preclassic Development in the Maya Lowlands, UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University of London, London.

Awe, J. (ed.) (1998). The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 1997 FieldSeason. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper 1, University of New Hamp-shire, Durham.

Awe, J., and Healy, P. F. (1994). Flakes to blades? Middle Formative development of obsidianartifacts in the upper Belize River valley. Latin American Antiquity S: 193-205.

Ball, J. (1993a). Pottery, potters, palaces, and politics: Some socioeconomic and politicalimplications of Late Classic Maya ceramic industries. In Sabloff, J. A., and Henderson,


J. S. (eds.), Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC, pp. 243-272.

Ball,J. (1993b). CahalPech, the Ancient Maya, and Modern Belize: The Story of an Archaeologi-cal Park, San Diego State University Press, San Diego.

Bassie-Sweet, K. (1996). At the Edge of the World: Caves and Late Classic Maya World View,University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Beach, T., and Dunning, N. P. (1997). An ancient Maya reservoir and dam at Tamarindito,El Peten, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 8: 20-29.

Bey, G. J., Hanson, C. A., and Ringle, W. M. (1997). Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam,Yucatan: Architectural and ceramic evidence for defining the transition. Latin AmericanAntiquity 8: 237-254.

Bey, G. J., Bond, T. M., Ringle, W. M., Hanson, C. A., Houck, C. W., and Lope, C. P. (1998).The ceramic chronology of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:101-120.

Bianchine, P. J., and Russo, T. A. (1995). The role of epidemic diseases in the discovery ofAmerica. In Settipane, G. A. (ed.), Columbus in the New World: Medical Implications,OceanSide, Providence, RI, pp. 11-18.

Bishop, R. L. (1994). Pre-Columbian pottery: Research in the Maya region. In Scott, D. A.,and Meyers, P. (eds.), Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts, The GettyConservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 15-65.

Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A., and Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology37: 1-14.

Bonor V., J. L. (1994). El dios del sol entre los Mayas: Auna nueva vision? In Memorias delPrimer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, pp. 361-373.

Bove, F. J. (1981). Trend surface analysis and the lowland Classic Maya collapse. AmericanAntiquity 46: 93-112.

Brady, J. (1995). A reassessment of the chronology and function of Gordon's Cave #3, Copan,Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 29-38.

Brady, J. (1997). Settlement configuration and cosmology: The role of caves at Dos Pilas.American Anthropologist 99: 602-618.

Brady, J. E., and Scott, A. (1997). Excavations in buried cave deposits: Implications forinterpretation. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59: 15-21.

Brady, J. E., Scott, A., Neff, H., and Glascock, M. D. (1997a). Speleothem breakage, movement,removal, and caching: An aspect of ancient Maya cave modification. Geoarchaeology12: 725-750.

Brady, J. E., Scott, A., Cobb, A., Rodas, I., Fogarty, J., and Urquizii S. M. (1997b). Glimpsesof the dark side of the Petexbatiin project: The Petexbatun regional cave survey. AncientMesoamerica 8: 353-364.

Brady, J. E., Ball, J. W., Bishop, R. L., Pring, D. C., Hammond, N., and Housely, R. A.(1998). The lowland Maya "Protoclassic": A reconsideration of its nature and significance.Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 17-38.

Braswell, G. E. (1992). Obsidian-hydration dating, the Coner phase, and revisionist chronologyat Copa'n, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 3: 130-147.

Braswell, G. E., and Glascock, M. D. (1998). Interpreting intrasource variation in the composi-tion of obsidian: The geoarchaeology of San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala. Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 9: 353-369.

Bunzel, R. (1952). Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. Publications of the AmericanEthnological Society XXII, J. J. Augustin, Locust Valley, NY.

Byrne, R. (1996). New evidence for climatic change in Mesoamerica during the Formative,Classic, and Postclassic. Paper presented at University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.

Carmean, K. (1998). Leadership at Sayil: A study of political and religious decentralization.Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 259-270.

Carmean, K., and Sabloff, J. A. (1996). Political decentralization in the Puuc Region, Yucat&n,Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Research 52: 317-330.

Carr, H. S. (1996). Precolumbian Maya exploitation and management of deer populations.

248 Lucero

In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic; Ancient Maya Agriculture and ResourceUse, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 251-261.

Chase, A. F. (1994). A contextual approach to the ceramics of Caracol, Belize. In Chase,D. Z., and Chase, A. F., (eds.), Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7, San Francisco, pp. 157-182.

Chase, A. F., and Chase, D. Z. (eds.) (1992). Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assess-ment, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Chase, A. F., and Chase, D. Z. (1995). External impetus, internal synthesis, and standardization:E Group assemblages and the crystallization of Classic Maya society in the southernlowlands. In Grube, N. (ed.), The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization, Acta Mesoam-ericana 8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl, pp. 87-101.

Chase, A. F., and Chase, D. Z. (1996a). More than kin and king: Centralized political organiza-tion among the Late Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 37: 803-810.

Chase, A. F., and Chase, D. Z. (1996b). A mighty Maya nation: How Caracol built an empireby cultivating its middle class. Archaeology 49(5): 66-72.

Chase, D. Z. (1994). Human osteology, pathology, and demography as represented in theburials of Caracol, Belize. In Chase, D. Z., and Chase, A. F. (eds.), Studies in theArchaeology of Caracol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7, SanFrancisco, pp. 123-138.

Chase, D. Z. (1997). Southern lowland Maya archaeology and human skeletal remains: Inter-pretations from Caracol (Belize), Santa Rita Corozal (Belize), and Tayasal (Guatemala).In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 15-27.

Chase, D. Z., and Chase, A. F. (1996). Maya multiples: Individuals, entries, and tombs instructure A34 of Caracol, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 7: 61-79.

Chase, D. Z., and Chase, A. F. (1998). The architectural context of caches, burials, and otherritual activities for the Classic period Maya (as reflected at Caracol, Belize). In Houston,S. D. (ed.), Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, Dumbarton Oaks, Wash-ington, DC, pp. 299-332.

Ciudad R. A. (1995). La tradition popular y la continuidad de la cultura campesina en el Vallede Totonicapan, V Encuentro: Los Investigadores de la Cultura Maya, Campeche, Mexico.

Clancy, F. S. (1999). Sculpture in the Ancient Maya Plaza: The Early Classic Period, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Clark, J. E. (1997). Prismatic blademaking, craftsmanship, and production: An analysis ofobsidian refuse from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 137-159.

Clark, J. E., and Bryant, D. D. (1997). A technological typology of prismatic blades anddebitage from Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 111-136.

Clark, J. E., and Gosser, D. (1995). Reinventing Mesoamerica's first pottery. In Barnett,W. K., and Hoopes, J. W. (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovationin Ancient Societies, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, and London, pp.209-221.

Clark, J. E., Hansen, R. D., and Perez S. T. (1999). La zona en el Preclasico. In Manzanilla,L., and Lopez, L. (eds.), Historia Antigua de Mexico, UNAM, Mexico D.F., Mexico(in press).

Conlon, J., and Awe, J. (eds.) (1997). Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project:Progress Report of the 1997 Field Season, Institute of Archaeology, London.

Connell, S. V. (1997). Regional and community integration during the Maya collapse: Investiga-tions at Chaa Creek. Paper presented at the Third Belize Interdisciplinary Conference,Mar. 6-8, Belize City, Belize.

Conyers, L. B. (1995). The use of ground-penetrating radar to map the buried structures andlandscape of the Ceren site, El Salvador. Geoarchaeology 10: 275-299.

Cowgill, G. L. (1964). The end of Classic Maya culture: A review of recent evidence. Southwest-ern Journal of Anthropology 20: 145-159.

Cowgill, G. L. (1979). Teotihuacan, internal militaristic competition, and the fall of the ClassicMaya. In Hammond, N., and Willey, G. R. (eds.), Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory,University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 51-62.


Crane, C. J. (1996). Archaeobotanical and palynological research at a Late Preclassic commu-nity, Cerros, Belize. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agricultureand Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 262-277.

Culbert,T. P. (1977). Maya development and collapse: An economic perspective. In Hammond,N. (ed.), Social Process in Maya Prehistory, Academic Press, London, pp. 509-530.

Culbert, T. P. (1988). The collapse of Classic Maya civilization. In Yoffee, N., and Cowgill,G. L. (eds.), The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, University of Arizona Press,Tucson, pp. 69-101.

Culbert, T. P. (1994). Cambios sociopoliticos in las tierras bajas Mayas en los siglos cuatroy cinco D. C. VII Simposio de Investigations Arqueologicas en Guatemala, InstitutoNacional de Antropologia, pp. 391-396.

Culbert, T. P. (1997a). Warfare and the segmentary state. Ms. on file, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Culbert, T. P. (1997b). Agricultura Maya en los humedales de las tierras bajas Mayas. LosInvestigadores de la Cultura Maya V: 14-19. Universidad Autonoma de Campeche,Campeche, Mexico.

Culbert, T. P. (1998). The new Maya. Archaeology 51(5): 48-51.Culbert, T. P., and Rice, D. S. (eds.) (1990). Precolumbian Population History in the Maya

Lowlands, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Culbert, T. P., Fialko, V., McKee, B., Grazioso, L., and Kunen, J. (1997). Investigacion

arqueologica en bajo la Justa: La Temporada de 1996. X Simposio de InvestigacionesArqueologicas en Guatemala, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia.

Curtis, J. H., and Hodell, D. A. (1993). An isotopic and trace element study of ostracodsfrom Lake Miragoane, Haiti: A 10,500 year record of paleosalinity and paleotemperaturechanges in the Caribbean. In Swart, P. K., Lohmann, K. C., McKenzie, J., and Savin, S.(eds.), Continental Isotopic Records. Geophysical Monograph 78, American GeophysicalUnion, Washington, DC, pp. 135-152.

Curtis, J. H., Hodell, D. A., and Brenner, M. (1996). Climate variability on the Yucatanpeninsula (Mexico) during the past 3500 years, and implications for Maya cultural evolu-tion. Quaternary Research 46: 37-47.

Dahlin, B. H. (1983). Climate and prehistory on the Yucatan peninsula. Climatic Change5: 245-263.

Danforth, M. E. (1994). Stature change in prehistoric Maya of the southern lowlands. LatinAmerican Antiquity 5: 193-205.

Danforth, M. E. (1997). Late Classic Maya health patterns: evidence from enamel microdefects.In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 127-137.

Deal, M. (1998). Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Lowlands, Foundations ofArchaeological Inquiry, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Demarest, A. (1992). Ideology in ancient Maya cultural evolution: The dynamics of galacticpolities. In Demarest, A. A., and Conrad, G. W. (eds.), Ideology and Pre-ColumbianCivilizations, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 135-157.

Demarest, A. A. (1996). Closing comment: the Maya state: Centralized or segmentary? CurrentAnthropology 37: 821-824.

Demarest, A. A. (1997). The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project 1989-1994: overview, history, and major results of a multidisciplinary study of the Classic Mayacollapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 209-227.

Demarest, A. A., O'Mansky, M., Wolley, C., Van Tuerenhout, D., Inomata, T., Palka, J., andEscobedo, H. (1997). Classic Maya defensive systems and warfare in the Petexbatunregion: Archaeological evidence and interpretations. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 229-253.

de Montmollin, O. (1995). Settlement and Politics in Three Classic Maya Polities. Monographsin World Archaeology 24, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

de Montmollin, O. (1997). A regional study of Classic Maya ballcourts from the upper GrijalvaBasin, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 23-41.

Drennan, R. D. (1988). Household location and compact versus dispersed settlement inprehispanic Mesoamerica. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. A. (eds.), Household and

250 Lucero

Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 273-293.

Dunham, P. S. (1996). Resource exploitation and exchange among the Classic Maya: Someinitial findings of the Maya Mountains Archaeological Project. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), TheManaged Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, pp. 315-334.

Dunning, N. P. (1995). Coming together at the temple mountain: Environment, subsistenceand the emergence of lowland Maya segmentary states. In Grube, N. (ed.), The Emergenceof Classic Maya Civilization, Acta Mesoamericana 8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl,pp. 61-69.

Dunning, N. P. (1996). A reexamination of regional variability in the prehistoric agriculturallandscape. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture andResource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 53-68.

Dunning, N. P., and Beach, T. (1994). Soil erosion, slope management, and ancient terracingin the Maya lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 5: 51-69.

Dunning, N. P., and Kowalski, J. K. (1994). Lords of the hills: Classic Maya settlement patternsand political iconography in the Puuc region, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 63-95.

Dunning, N. P., Beach, T., and Rue, D. (1997). The paleoecology and ancient settlement ofthe Petexbatun region, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 255-266.

Dunning, N. P., Beach, T., Farrell, P., and Luzzadder-Beach, S. (1998a). Prehispanic agrosys-tems and adaptive regions in the Maya lowlands. Culture and Agriculture 20: 87-101.

Dunning, N. P., Rue, D. J., Beach, T., Covich, A., andTravers, A. (1998b). Human-environmentinteractions in a tropical watershed: the paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Peten,Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 139-151.

Dunning, N. P., Scarborough, V., and Valdez, F., Jr. (1998c). Temple mountains, sacred lakes,and fertile fields: ancient Maya landscapes in northwestern Belize. Paper presented atthe 63rd Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Mar. 25-29, Seattle.

Earle, T. K. (1997). How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford.

Escobedo, H. L. (1997). Arroyo de Piedra: Sociopolitical dynamics of a secondary center inthe Petexbatun region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 307-320.

Escobedo, H. L., and Houston, S. D. (eds.) (1997). Proyecto Arqueologico Piedras Negras:Informe Preliminar No. 1, Primera Temporada 1997, Informe Entregado al Instituto deAntropologia e Historia de Guatemala. Guatemala.

Farriss, N. (1984). Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival,Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Fash, W. L. (1994). Changing perspectives on Maya civilization. Annual Review of Anthropol-ogy 23: 181-208.

Fash, W. L. (1997). Unearthing an ethos: Maya archaeology and Maya myth. Symbols Spring:22-27, 40.

Faust, B. B. (1998). Mexican Rural Development and the Plumed Serpent: Technology andMaya Cosmology in the Tropical Forest of Campeche, Mexico (Forward by Betty Meggers),Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.

Fedick, S. L. (1988). Prehistoric Maya Settlement and Land Use Patterns in the Upper BelizeRiver Area, Belize, Central America, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State Uni-versity, Tempe.

Fedick, S. L. (1994). Ancient Maya agricultural terracing in the upper Belize River area:computer-aided modeling and the results of initial field investigations. Ancient Mesoamer-ica 5: 107-127.

Fedick, S. L. (1995a). Indigenous agriculture in the Americas. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 3: 257-303.

Fedick, S. L. (1995b). Land evaluation and ancient Maya land use in the upper Belize Riverarea, Belize, Central America. Latin American Antiquity 6: 16-34.

Fedick, S. L. (1996a). An interpretive kaleidoscope: Alternative perspectives on ancientagricultural landscapes of the Maya lowlands. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic:


Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 107-131.

Fedick, S. L. (1996b). Introduction: New perspectives on ancient Maya agricultural and re-source use. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture andResource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 1-14.

Fedick, S. L. (1996c). Predicting the past and preserving it for the future: Modeling andmanagement of ancient Maya residential sites. In Phillips, M. D. (ed.), Belize: SelectedProceedings from the Second Interdisciplinary Conference, University Press of America,Lanham, MD, pp. 1-22.

Fedick, S. L. (1998). Ancient Maya use of wetlands in northern Quintana Roo, Mexico. InBernick, K. (ed.), Hidden Dimensions: The Cultural Significance of Wetland Archaeology,University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 107-129.

Fedick, S. L., and Ford, A. (1990). The prehistoric agricultural landscape of the central Mayalowlands: An examination of local variability in a regional context. World Archaeology22: 18-33.

Fedick, S. L., and Taube, K. A. (eds.) (1995). The View from Yalahau: 1993 ArchaeologicalInvestigations in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico. Latin American Studies Program FieldReport Series 2, University of California, Riverside.

Feld, W. A. (1994). The caves of Caracol: Initial impressions. In Chase, D. Z. and Chase,A. F. (eds.), Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art ResearchInstitute Monograph 7, San Francisco, pp. 76-82.

Flannery, K. V. (ed.) (1982). Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. Puleston,Academic Press, New York.

Foias, A. E. (1997). La Amelia Archaeological Project: Final Report, 1997 Field Season,Williams College, Williamstown.

Foias, A. E., and Bishop, R. L. (1997). Changing ceramic production and exchange in thePetexbatun region, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 275-291.

Folan, W. J. (1992). Calakmul, Campeche: A centralized urban administrative center in thenorthern Peten. World Archaeology 24: 158-168.

Folan, W. J., Gunn, J., Eaton, J. D., and Patch, R. W. (1983). Paleoclimatological patterningin southern Mesoamerica. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 453-468.

Folan, W. J., Marcus, J., Pincemin, S., del R. Domi'nguez C., M., Fletcher, L., and MoralesL., A. (1995a). Calakmul: new data from an ancient Maya capital in Campeche, Mexico.Latin American Antiquity 6: 310-334.

Folan, W. J., Marcus, J., and Miller, W. F. (1995b). Verification of a Maya settlement modelthrough remote sensing. Cambridge Archaeological Journal S: 277-301.

Ford, A. (1986). Population Growth and Social Complexity: An Examination of Settlementand Environment in the Central Maya Lowlands. Anthropological Research Papers 35,Arizona State University, Tempe.

Ford, A. (1989). Settlement patterns and residential dynamics: A reevaluation of populationestimates for the central Maya lowlands. Ms. in possession of author.

Ford, A. (1991). Problems with evaluation of population from settlement data: Examinationof ancient Maya residential patterns in the Tikal-Yaxha intersite area. Estudios de CulturaMaya 18: 157-186.

Ford, A. (1996). Critical resource control and the rise of the Classic period Maya. In Fedick,S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 297-303.

Ford, A. (1998a). Investigations at El Pilar: Cultural-natural resource conservation and devel-opment in the Maya forest. American Anthropological Association Newsletter 39(1): 43.

Ford, A. (1998b) (ed.) The Future of El Pilar: The Integrated Research and DevelopmentPlan for the El Pilar Archaeological Reserve for Flora and Fauna, Belize-Guatemala,Department of State Publication 10507, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmen-tal and Scientific Affairs, Washington, DC.

Ford, A., and Fedick, S. L. (1992). Prehistoric Maya settlement patterns in the upper BelizeRiver area: Initial results of the Belize River Archaeological Settlement Survey. Journalof Field Archaeology 19: 35-49.

252 Lucero

Ford, A., and Lucero, L. J. (1998). The malevolent demons of ceramic production: Wherehave all the failures gone? Esiudios de Cultura Maya (in press).

Ford, A., and Rose, W. I. (1995). Volcanic ash in ancient Maya ceramics of the limestonelowlands: Implications for prehistoric volcanic activity in the Guatemalan highlands.Journal of Volcanology and Ceothermal Research 66: 149-162.

Ford, A., and Wernecke, C. (1998). The history behind El Pilar. In Ford, A. (ed.), The Futureof El Pilar: The Integrated Research and Development Plan for the El Pilar ArchaeologicalReserve for Flora and Fauna, Belize-Guatemala, Department of State Publication 10507.Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Washington,DC, pp. 9-24.

Ford, A., Stross, F., Asaro, F., and Michel, H. V. (1997). Obsidian procurement and distributionin the Tikal-Yaxha intersite area of the central Maya lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica8: 101-110.

Fox, J. G. (1996). Playing with power: Ballcourts and political ritual in southern Mesoamerica.Current Anthropology 37: 493-509.

Fox, J. W., and Cook, G. W. (1996). Constructing Maya communities: Ethnography forarchaeology. Current Anthropology 37: 811-821.

Fox, J. W., Cook, G. W., Chase, A. F., and Chase, D. Z. (1996). Questions of political andeconomic integration: Segmentary versus centralized states among the ancient Maya.Current Anthropology 37: 795-801.

Freidel, D. (1981). The political economics of residential dispersion among the lowland Maya.In Ashmore, W. (ed.), Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 371-382.

Freidel, D. (1998). Sacred work: Dedication and termination in Mesoamerica. In Mock, S. B.(ed.), The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in theArchaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica, University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 189-193.

Freter, A. (1993). Obsidian-hydration dating: Its past, present, and future application inMesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 4: 285-303.

Freter, A. (1994). The Classic Maya collapse at Copan, Honduras: An analysis of Maya ruralsettlement trends. In Schwartz, G. M. and Falconer, S. E. (eds.), Archaeological Viewsfrom the Countryside: Village Communities in Complex Society, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 160-176.

Freter, A. (1996). Rural utilitarian ceramic production in the Late Classic period Copan Mayastate. In Mastache, G. M., Parsons, J. R., Santley, R. S., and Serra, M. C., P. (eds.),Arqueologia Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders, Vol. II, Instituto Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia, Arqueologia Mexicana, Mexico, pp. 209-229.

Garber, J. F., and Glassman, D. M. (eds.) (1996). The Belize Valley Archaeology Project:Results of the 1995 Field Season. Texas State University, San Marcos.

Garber, J. F., Driver, W. D., and Sullivan, L. A. (eds.) (1993). The Blackman Eddy Archaeologi-cal Project: Results of the 1992 Field Season, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos.

Garber, J. F., Brown, M. K., and Hartman, C. J. (1997). Excavations on structure Bl atBlackman Eddy: Results of the 1996 field season. In Garber, J. F. (ed.). The Belize ValleyArchaeology Project: Results of the 1996 Field Season, Texas State University, San Marcos,pp. 6-33.

Gerry, J. P., and Krueger, H. W. (1997). Regional diversity in Classic Maya diets. In Whitting-ton, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC, pp. 196-207.

Gonlin, N. (1994). Rural household diversity in Late Classic Copan, Honduras. In Schwartz,G. M., and Falconer, S. E. (eds.). Archaeological Views from the Countryside: VillageCommunities in Early Complex Societies, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC,pp. 177-197.

Graham, E. (1994). The Highlands of the Lowlands: Environment and Archaeology in theStann Creek District, Belize, Central America. Monographs in World Archaeology 19,Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Graham, E. (1999). Stone cities, green cities. In Bacus, E. A., and Lucero, L. J. (eds.), Complex


Polities in the Ancient Tropical World. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropologi-cal Association 9, American Anthrological Association, Arlington, VA, pp. 185-194.

Graham, I. (1997). Discovery of a Maya ritual cave in Peten, Guatemala, Symbols Spring:28-31.

Gray, N. (1997). Friendly spiders and the time underground: Excavations of chultunob atX-ual-canil, Belize. In lannone G. (ed.), The Social Archaeology Research Program:Progress Report of the Third (1997) Season, Trent University, Peterborough, pp. 78-94.

Grove, D. C. (1997). Olmec archaeology: A half century of research and its accomplishments.Journal of World Prehistory 11: 51-101.

Grube, N. (ed.). (1995). The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization, Acta Mesoamericana8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl.

Guderjan, T. H. (1993). Ancient Maya Traders of Ambergris Caye, Cupola Productions, BenqueViejo del Carmen, Belize.

Guderjan, T. H. (1996). Summary of research at Blue Creek. In Guderjan, T. H., Driver,W. D., and Haines, H. R. (eds.), Archaeological Research at Blue Creek, Belize: ProgressReport of the Fourth (1995) Field Season, Maya Research Program, San Antonio, pp. 5-23.

Guderjan, T. H., and Garber, J. F. (eds.) (1995). Maya Maritime Trade, Settlement, andPopulations on Ambergris Caye, Belize, Maya Research Program and Labyrinthos,San Antonio.

Guderjan, T. H., Driver, W. D., and Haines, H. R. (1996). Archaeological Research at BlueCreek, Belize: Progress Report of the Fourth (1995) Field Season, Maya Research Program,San Antonio.

Gunn, J. D., Folan, W. J., and Robichaux, H. R. (1995). A landscape analysis of the Candeleriawatershed in Mexico: Insights into paleoclimate affecting upland horticulture in thesouthern Yucatan Peninsula semi-karst. Geoarchaeology 10: 3-42.

Hamblin, R. L., and Pitcher, B. L. (1980). The Classic Maya collapse: Testing class conflicthypotheses. American Antiquity 45: 246-267.

Hammond, N. (1995). Ceremony and society at Cuello: Preclassic ritual behavior and socialdifferentiation. In Grube, N. (ed.), The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization, ActaMesoamericana 8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl, pp. 49-60.

Hammond, N., Clarke, A., and Donaghy, S. (1995). The long goodbye: Middle PreclassicMaya archaeology. Latin American Antiquity 6: 120-128.

Hansen, R. D. (1997). Plundering the Peten. Archaeology 50(5): 48-49.Harrison, P. D. (1993). Aspects of water management in the southern Maya lowlands. Research

in Economic Anthropology 7: 71-119.Harrison, P. D. (1996). Settlement and land use in the Pulltrouser swamp archaeological zone,

northern Belize. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agricultureand Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 177-190.

Hauff, P. L. (1993). The enigma of jade, with mineralogical reference to Central Americansource materials. In Lange, F. W. (ed.), Precolumbian Jade: New Geological and CulturalInterpretations, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 82-103.

Haviland, W. A. (1966). Maya settlement patterns: A critical review. Middle American ResearchInstitute 26: 21-47. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Haviland, W. A. (1970). Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican urbanism. World Archaeology2: 186-198.

Haviland, W. A. (1981). Dower houses and minor centers at Tikal, Guatemala: An investigationinto the identification of valid units in settlement hierarchies. In Ashmore, W. A. (ed.),Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns, School of American Research, University New Mex-ico, Albuquerque, pp. 89-117.

Haviland, W. A. (1997). The rise and fall of sexual inequality: death and gender at Tikal,Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 1-12.

Hayden, B. (1994). Village approaches to complex society. In Schwartz, G. M., and Falconer,S. E. (eds.), Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in ComplexSociety, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 198-206.

Hayden, B., and Cannon, A. (1984). The Structure of Material Systems: Ethnoarchaeologyin the Maya Highlands. Society for American Archaeology Papers 3, Washington, DC.

254 Lucero

Healan, D. M. (1997). Pre-hispanic quarrying in the Ucareo-Zinapecuaro obsidian sourcearea. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 77-100.

Healy, P. F., Awe, J. J., and Helmulh, N. (1998). An ancient Maya multiple burial at Caledonia,Cayo District, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 25: 261-274.

Healy, P. F., Awe, J. J., lannone, G., and Bill, C. (1995). Pacbitun (Belize) and ancient Mayause of slate. Antiquity 69: 337-348.

Hester, T. R. (1994). Prehistory of Colha, Belize: Studies of an ancient Maya community oflithic craft specialists. In Andrews, E. W. V, and Mozzillo, E. O. (eds.). Five HundredYears After Columbus: Proceedings of the 47th International Congress of Americanists.Middle American Research Institute Publication 63, Tulane University, New Orleans,pp. 59-65.

Hester, T. R. (1995). The Colha Project, Preceramic to Preclassic: A survey of major results,1979-1994. Paper present at the 1st International Symposium on the Maya, San Ig-nacio Belize.

Hester, T. R., and Shafer, H. J. (1994). The ancient Maya craft community at Colha, Belize,and its external relationships. In Schwartz, G. M., and Falconer, S. E. (eds.), ArchaeologicalViews from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 48-63.

Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., and Eaton, J. D. (eds.) (1994). Continuing Archaeology at Colha,Belize. Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, Universityof Texas, Austin.

Hester, T. R., Iceland, H. B., Hudler, D. B., and Shafer, H. J. (1996). The Colha PreceramicProject: Preliminary results from the 1993-1995 field seasons. Mexican 18: 45-50.

Hodell, D. A., Curtis, J. H., and Brenner, M. (1995). Possible role of climate in the collapseof Classic Maya civilization. Science 375: 391-394.

Hosier, D., Sabloff, J. A., and Runge, D. (1977). Simulation model development: A case studyof the Classic Maya collapse. In Hammond, N. (ed.), Social Process in Maya Prehistory,Academic Press, London, pp. 553-590.

Houston, S. (1996). Symbolic sweatbaths of the Maya: Architectural meaning in the CrossGroup at Palenque, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 7: 132-151.

Houston, S. (1997). Big is beautiful: Piedras Negras and lowland Maya urbanism. Paperpresented at the Biennial Complex Society Group Meetings, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, Universityof Arizona, Tucson.

Houston, S. (1998), On the river of ruins: Explorations at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, 1997.Mexican 20: 16-22.

Houston, S., Escobedo, H., Child, M., Golden, C., Munoz, R., and Urquizu, M. (1998).Monumental architecture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala: time, history, and meaning.Mayab 11: 40-56.

Hunter-Tate, C. C. (1994). The chultuns of Caracol. In Chase, D. Z., and Chase, A. F. (eds.),Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research InstituteMonograph 7, San Francisco, pp. 64-75.

lannone, G. (1998). A multiplicity of integrative strategies: Toward an understanding of middlelevel settlement variability exhibited by sites of this size and complexity. Paper presented atthe 63rd Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Mar. 25-29, Seattle,

lannone, G. (ed.) (1996). The Social Archaeology Research Program: Progress Report of theSecond (1996) Season, Trent University, Peterborough,

lannone, G. (ed.) (1997). The Social Archaeology Research Program: Progress Report of theThird (1997) Season, Trent University, Peterborough,

lannone, G., and Conlon, J. M. (eds.) (1995). Belize Valley Archaeological ReconnaissanceProject: Progress Report of the 1994 Field Season, Vol. 1, Institute of Archaeology,University College London, London.

Iceland, H. B., and Hester, T. R. (1996). The earliest Maya? Origins of sedentism and agricul-ture in the Maya lowlands. International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences,Sept., Forli, Italy.

Inomata, T. (1997). The last day of a fortified Classic Maya center: Archaeological investiga-tions at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 337-351.


Inomata.T., and Aoyama, K. (1996). Central-place analyses in the La Entrada region, Hondu-ras: Implications for understanding the Classic Maya political and economic systems.Latin American Antiquity 7: 291-312.

Inomata, T., and Stiver, L. R. (1998). Floor assemblages from burned structures at Aguateca,Guatemala: A study of Classic Maya households. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:431-452.

Jacob, J. S. (1995). ancient Maya wetland agricultural fields in Cobweb swamp, Belize: construc-tion, chronology, and function. Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 175-190.

Johnson, A. W., and Earle, T. (1987). The Evolution of Human Societies: From ForagingGroup to Agrarian State, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Jones, C. (1996). Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal. Tikal Reports 16, (Vols. I and II).University Museum Monograph 92, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Kepecs, S. (1998). Diachronic ceramic evidence and its social implications in the Chikinchelregion, northeast Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 121-135.

Kepecs, S., and Boucher, S. (1996). The pre-hispanic cultivation of rejolladas and stone-lands:New evidence from northeast Yucatan. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic:Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 69-91.

Killion, T. W. (1990). Cultivation intensity and residential site structure: An ethnoarchaeologi-cal examination of peasant agriculture in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico.Latin American Antiquity 1: 191-215.

Killion, T. W. (ed.) (1992). Gardens of Prehistory, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Kocyba, H. K. (1994). Deidad suprema en la religion Maya prehispanica. In Memorias del

Primer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, Centra de Estudios Mayas, UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, pp. 384-436.

Kosakowsky, L. J., and Pring, D. C. (1998). The ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A new evaluation.Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 55-66.

Krejci, E., and Culbert, T. P. (1995). Preclassic and Classic burials and caches in the Mayalowlands. In Grube, N. (ed.), The Emergence of Classic Maya Civilization, Acta Mesoam-ericana 8, Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl, pp. 103-116.

Kunen, J. L. (1996). The ritual technology of water management. Paper presented at the 95thAnnual Meeting of the American Anthropology Association, Nov. 20-24, San Francisco.

Laporte, J. P., and Fialko, C. V. (1995). Un reencuentrocon Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala.Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 41-94.

Larralde, S. (1994). Off-mound testing programs in northern Belize: An assessment of equivo-cal results. In Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., and Eaton, J. D. (eds.), Continuing Archaeologyat Colha, Belize, Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory,University of Texas, Austin, pp. 91-97.

LeCount, L. (1996). Pottery and Power: Feasting, Gifting, and Displaying Wealth Amongthe Late and Terminal Classic Lowland Maya, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

Lentz, D. L, Beaudry-Corbett, M. P., de Aguilar, M. L. R., and Kaplan, L. (1996). Foodstuffs,forests, fields, and shelter: A paleobotanical analysis of vessel contents from the Cerensite, El Salvador. Latin American Antiquity 1: 247-262.

Lesure, R. G. (1997). Early Formative platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. LatinAmerican Antiquity 8: 217-235.

Leventhal, R. M. (ed.) (1994). Xunantunich Archaeological Report: The 1994 Field Season,Los Angeles, CA, and Belmopan, Belize.

Leventhal, R. M. (1995). 1995 Research in the Xunantunich center. In Leventhal, R. M.(ed.), Xunantunich Archaeological Report: The 1995 Field Season, Los Angeles, CA, andBelmopan, Belize, pp. 1-10.

Leventhal, R. M., and Ashmore, W. (1997). Xunantunich: An ancient and modern city. Paperpresented at the Third Belize Interdisciplinary Conference, Mar. 6-8, Belize City, Belize.

Levi, L. J. (1996). Sustainable production and residential variation: A historical perspectiveon pre-hispanic domestic economies in the Maya lowlands. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The

256 Lucero

Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, pp. 92-106.

Leyden, B. W., Brenner, M., Whitmore, T., Curtis, J. H., Piperno, D. R., and Dahlin, B. H.(1996). A record of long- and short-term climatic variation from northwest Yucatan:Cenote San Jose Chulchaca. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient MayaAgriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 30-50.

Lowe, J. W. G. (1985). The Dynamics of Apocalypse: A Systems Simulation of the ClassicMaya Collapse, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Lucero, L. J. (1994). Household and Community Integration among Hinterland Elites andCommoners: Maya Residential Ceramic Assemblages of the Belize River Area, Ph.D.dissertation, UCLA, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Lucero, L. J. (1997a). 1997 field season of the Valley of Peace Archaeological (VOPA) Project.Report submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Tourism and theEnvironment, Belize.

Lucero, L. J. (1997b). Self-sufficient communities in complex society: The ancient Maya. Paperpresented at the 62nd Annual Meetings for the Society for American Archaeology, Apr.2-6, Nashville, TN.

Lucero, L. J. (1997c). Hinterland community integration in the Belize River valley. Paperpresented at the 3rd Interdisciplinary Conference, Mar. 6-9, Belize City, Belize.

Lucero, L. J. (1997d). Too much water and ritual: The Classic Maya collapse. Paper presentedat the Biennial Complex Society Group Meetings, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, University of Ari-zona, Tucson.

Lucero, L. J. (1999a). Residing in the Ancient Maya Hinterlands: Settlement and CeramicVariability in the Belize River Area. Anthropological Research Papers 53, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe (in press).

Lucero, L. J. (1999b). Water control and Maya politics in the southern Maya lowlands. InBacus, E. A., and Lucero, L. J. (eds.), Complex Polities in the Ancient Tropical World.Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 9, American Anthro-pological Association, Arlington, VA, pp. 35-49.

Lucero, L. J. (1999c). The second (1998) field season of the Valley of Peace Archaeological(VOPA) Project. Report submitted to the Department of Archaeology, Ministry ofTourism Belize.

Lucero, L. J., and Fedick, S. L. (1998). Mosaic soils, mosaic landscape: Ancient Maya settlementin the Valley of Peace, Belize. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meetings of theSociety for American Archaeology, Mar. 25-29, Seattle.

Lucero, L. J., and Kinkella, A. (1999). The role of minor ceremonial centers in regionalpolitics: The Valley of Peace, Belize. In lannone, G., and Connell, S. V. (eds.). The SocialImplications of Ancient Maya Rural Complexity, Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, LosAngeles (submitted for publication).

Mann, M. (1986). The Sources of Social Power, Volume 1: A History of Power from theBeginning to A.D. 1760, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marcus, J. (1973). Territorial organization of the lowland Classic Maya. Science 180:911-916.Marcus, J. (1974). The iconography of power among the Classic Maya. World Archaeology

6: 83-94.Marcus, J. (1976). Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach

to Territorial Organization. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.Marcus, J. (1983). Lowland Maya archaeology at the crossroads. American Antiquity 48:

454-488.Marcus, J. (1992). Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four

Ancient Civilizations, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Marcus, J. (1993). Ancient Maya political organization. In Sabloff, J. A., and Henderson,

J. S. (eds.), Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC, pp. 111-183.

Marcus, J. (1995). Where is lowland Maya archaeology headed? Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 3: 3-53.

Marcus, J. (1998). The peaks and valleys of ancient states: An extension of the dynamic model.


In Feinman, G. M., and Marcus, J. (eds.), Archaic States, School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 59-94.

Martin, S., and Grube, N. (1994). Evidence for macro-political organization amongst ClassicMaya lowland states. Ms. on file, University College of London, London, and Universityof Bonn, Bonn.

Martin, S., and Grube, N. (1995). Maya superstates. Archaeology 48(6): 41-46.Massey, V. K., and Steele, D. G. (1997). A Maya skull pit from the Terminal Classic period,

Colha, Belize. In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies ofAncient Skeletons, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 62-77.

Masson, M. A. (1997). Cultural transformation at the Maya Postclassic community of Lagunade On, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 8: 293-316.

McAnany, P. A. (1995). Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient MayaSociety, University of Texas Press, Austin.

McKillop, H. (1995). Underwater archaeology, salt production, and coastal Maya trade atStingray Lagoon, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 6: 214-228.

McKillop, H. (1996a). Ancient Maya trading ports and the integration of long-distance andregional economies. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 49-62.

McKillop, H. (1996b). Prehistoric Maya use of native palms: Archaeobotanical and ethnobotan-ical evidence. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture andResource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 278-294.

McNatt, L. (1996). Cave archaeology of Belize. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 58: 81-99.Messenger, L. C, Jr. (1990). Ancient winds of change: Climatic settings and prehistoric social

complexity in Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 21-40.Mock, S. B. (1994). Yucatecan presence in northern Belize as seen in the Postclassic ceramics

at Colha. In Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., and Eaton, J. D. (eds.), Continuing Archaeologyat Colha, Belize. Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory,University of Texas, Austin, pp. 233-243.

Mock, S. B. (1998a). Prelude. In Mock, S. B. (ed.), The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination,Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mes-oamerica, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 3-18.

Mock, S. B. (1998b). The defaced and the forgotten: Decapitation and flaying/mutilation asa termination event at Colha, Belize. In Mock, S. B. (ed.), The Sowing and the Dawning:Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeological and EthnographicRecord of Mesoamerica, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 113-123.

Moholy-Nagy, H. (1997). Middens, construction fill, and offerings: Evidence for the organiza-tion of the Classic period craft production at Tikal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeol-ogy 24: 293-314.

Morrison, B. A. (1996). Home improvement: Ancient Maya residential labor investment andclass estimates. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting for the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Apr. 10-14, New Orleans.

Moyes, H., and Awe, J. (1998). Spatial analysis of artifacts in the main chamber of ActunTunichil Muknal, Belize: Preliminary results. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meetingsof the Society for American Archaeology, Mar. 25-29, Seattle.

News and Notes (1995). Looting and Milpa fires in the Caracol Archaeological Reserve,Belize. Mexican 17: 43-44.

Olson, K. A. (1994). Inclusive and Exclusive Mechanisms of Power: Obsidian Blade Productionand Distribution Among the Ancient Maya of the Belize River Area, M.A. thesis, UCLA,Los Angeles.

Olson, K. A., and Lucero, L. J. (1995). Control of surplus labor and the distribution of wealthand power in Late Classic Maya society. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meetingfor the Society for American Archaeology, May 3-7, Minneapolis.

Paine, R. R., and Freter, A. (1996). Environmental degradation and the Classic Maya collapseat Copan, Honduras (A.D. 600-1250): Evidence from Studies of Household Survival.Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 37-47.

Paine, R. R., Freter, A., and Webster, D. L. (1996). A mathematical projection of populationgrowth in the Copan Valley, Honduras, A.D. 400-800. Latin American Antiquity 1:51-60.

258 Lucero

Palka, J. (1997). Reconstructing Classic Maya socioeconomic differentiation and the collapseat Dos Pilas, Pete'n, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 293-306.

Pearsall, D. M. (1995). "Doing" paleoethnobotany in the tropical lowlands: Adaptation andinnovation in methodology. In Stahl, P. W. (ed.), Archaeology in the Lowland AmericanTropics: Current Analytical Methods and Research Applications, Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, pp. 113-129.

Pendergast, D. M. (1981). Lamanai, Belize: Summary of excavation results, 1974-1980. Journalof Field Archaeology 8: 29-53.

Pendergast, D. M. (1985). Lamanai, Belize: An updated view. In Chase, A. F., and Rice,P. M. (eds.), The Lowland Maya Postclassic, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 91-103.

Pincemin, S., Marcus, J., Folan, L. F., Folan, W. J., del R. Dominguez, C. M., and Morales,L. A. (1998). Extending the Calakmul dynasty back in time: A new stela from a Mayacapital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 9: 310-327.

Piperno, D. R., and Pearsall, D. M. (1998). The Origins of Agriculture in the Lowland Neotrop-ics. Academic Press, San Diego.

Pohl, M. D. (1994). The economics and politics of Maya meat eating. In Brumfiel, E. M. (ed.),The Economic Anthropology of the State, University Press of America, Lanham, MD,pp. 119-148.

Pohl, M. D., and Bloom, P. (1996). Prehistoric Maya farming in the wetlands of northernBelize: More data from Albion Island and beyond. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The ManagedMosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, pp. 145-164.

Pohl, M. D., and Pohl, J. D. (1994). Cycles of conflict: Political factionalism in the Mayalowlands. In Brumfiel, E. M., and Fox, J. W. (eds.), Factional Competition and PoliticalDevelopment in the New World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 138-157.

Pohl, M. D., Pope, K. O., Jones, J. G., Jacob, J. S., Piperno, D. R., deFrance, S. D., Lentz,J., Gifford, A., Danforth, M. E., and Josserand, J. K. (1996). Early agriculture in theMaya lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7: 355-372.

Pope, K. O., Pohl, M. D., and Jacob, J. S. (1996). Formation of ancient Maya wetland fields:Natural and anthropogenic processes. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: AncientMaya Agriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 165-176.

Potter, D. R., and King, E. M. (1995). A heterarchical approach to lowland Maya socioeconom-ics. In Ehrenreich, R. M., Crumley, C. L., and Levy, J. E. (eds.), Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Society. Archeological Papers of the American AnthropologicalAssociation 6, Arlington, pp. 17-32.

Prensa Libre, IDAEH (1995). News and notes: Increased looting of Maya sites in the Peten,Guatemala. Mexican 17: 84.

Pritchard-Parker, M. A. (1995). Milling Implements as Indicators of Household Economicsand Social Differentiation Among the Rural Ancient Maya: An Analysis of Data from theBRASS Archaeological Survey, M.S. thesis, University of California, Riverside.

Puleston, D. E. (1983). The Settlement Survey of Tikal. Tikal Report No. 13, UniversityMuseum Monograph 48, The University Museum, Philadelphia.

Pyburn, A. K. (1996). The political economy of ancient Maya land use: The road to ruin. InFedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use,University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 236-247.

Pyburn, A. K. (1997). The archaeological signature of complexity in the Maya lowlands. InNichols, D. L., and Charlton, T. H. (eds.), The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-CulturalApproaches, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, and London, pp. 155-168.

Pyburn, A. K. (1998). Smallholders in the Maya lowlands: Homage to a garden varietyethnographer. Human Ecology 26: 267-286.

Pyburn, A. K., Dixon, B., Cook, P., and McNair, A. (1998). The Albion Island SettlementPattern Project: Domination and resistance in Early Classic northern Belize. Journal ofField Archaeology 25: 37-62.

Rathje, W. L. (1971). The origin and development of lowland Classic Maya civilization.American Antiquity 36: 275-285.

Rathje, W. L. (1973). Classic Maya development and denouement: A research design. In


Culbert, T. P. (ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse, University of New Mexico Press, Albu-querque, pp. 405-454.

Redfield, R., and Villa Rojas, A. (1934). Chan Kom: A Maya Village, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Reents-Budet, D. (1994). Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period,Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Reina, R. E. (1967). Milpas and milperos: Implications for prehistoric times. American Anthro-pologist 69: 1-20.

Rice, D. S. (1988). Classic to Postclassic Maya household transitions in the central Peten,Guatemala. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. A. (eds.). Household and Community inthe Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 227-247.

Rice, D. S. (1993). Eighth-century physical geography, environment, and natural resourcesin the Maya lowlands. In Sabloff, J. A., and Henderson, J. S. (eds.). Lowland MayaCivilization in the Eighth Century A.D., Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 11-63.

Rice, D. S. (1996). Paleolimnological analysis in the central Peten, Guatemala. In Fedick,S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 193-206.

Rice, D. S., and Culbert, T. P. (1990). Historical contexts for population reconstructions inthe Maya lowlands. In Culbert, T. P., and Rice, D. S. (eds.), Precolumbian PopulationHistory in the Maya Lowlands, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 1-36.

Robin, C. (1997). Rural household and community flux at Classic Maya Xunantunich. Paperpresented at 62nd Annual Meetings of the Society of American Archaeology, Apr.2-6, Nashville.

Robin, C. (1998). Where people really live: Methods for the identification of household spacesand activities. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meetings of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Mar. 25-29, Seattle.

Rovner, I., and Lewenstein, S. M. (1997). Maya Stone Tools of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, andBecan and Chicanna, Campeche, Middle American Research Institute Publication 65,Tulane University, New Orleans.

Sabloff, J. A. (1990). The New Archaeology and the Ancient Maya, Scientific American Library,HPHLP, New York.

Sabloff, J. A. (1992). Interpreting the collapse of Classic Maya civilization: A case study ofchanging archaeological perspectives. In Embree, L. (ed.), Mela-Archaeology: Reflectionsby Archaeologists and Philosophers, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,pp. 99-119.

Sabloff, J. A., and Willey, G. R. (1967). The collapse of Maya civilization in the southernlowlands: A consideration of history and process. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology23:311-336.

Sanchez, J. L. (1997). Royal Strategies and Audience: An Analysis of Classic Maya MonumentalArt, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Sanders, W. T. (1977). Environmental heterogeneity and the evolution of lowland Mayacivilization. In Adams, R. E. W. (ed.), The Origins of Maya Civilization, University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 287-297.

Santley, R. S. (1990). Demographic archaeology in the Maya lowlands. In Culbert, T. P., andRice, D. S. (eds.), Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 325-343.

Santone, L. (1997). Transport costs, consumer demand, and patterns of intraregional exchange:A perspective on commodity production and distribution from northern Belize. LatinAmerican Antiquity 8: 71-88.

Saul, J. M., and Saul, F. P. (1997). The Preclassic skeletons from Cuello. In Whittington, S.,and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC, pp. 28-50.

Scarborough, V. L. (1993). Water management in the southern Maya lowlands: An accretivemodel for the engineered landscape. Research in Economic Anthropology 7: 17-69.

Scarborough, V. L. (1996). Reservoirs and watersheds in the central Maya lowlands. In Fedick,

260 Lucero

S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use, Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 304-314.

Scarborough, V. L. (1998). Ecology and ritual: Water management and the Maya. LatinAmerican Antiquity 9: 135-159.

Scarborough, V. L., Becher, M. E., Baker, J. L., Harris, G., and Valdez, F., Jr. (1995). Waterand land at the ancient Maya community of La Milpa. Latin American Antiquity 6:98-119.

Schele, L., and Mathews, P. (1998). The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred MayaTemples and Tombs, Scribner, New York.

Sheets, P. (1992). The Ceren Site, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York.Smith, B. D. (1997). Reconsidering the Ocampo caves and the era of incipient cultivation in

Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 8: 342-383.Smyth, M. P. (1998). Before the florescence: Chronological reconstructions at Chac II, Yucatan,

Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 137-150.Smyth, M. P., Dore, C. D., and Dunning, N. P. (1995). Interpreting prehistoric settlement

patterns: Lessons from the Maya center of Sayil, Yucatan. Journal of Field Archaeology22: 321-346.

Smyth, M. P., Ligorred, P. J., Ortegon, Z. D., and Farrell, P. (1998). An Early Classic centerin the Puuc region: New data from Chac II, Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica9-. 233-257.

Spence, M. W. (1996). Commodity or gift: Teotihuacan obsidian in the Maya region. LatinAmerican Antiquity 7: 21-39.

Stahl, P. W. (ed.). (1995). Archaeology in the Lowland American Tropics: Current AnalyticalMethods and Research Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Stone, A. (1995). Images from the Underworld: Naj Tunich and the Tradition of Maya CavePainting, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Stone, A. (1997). Precolumbian cave utilization in the Maya area. In Bosnall, C., and Tolan-Smith, C. (eds.), Human Use of Caves. BAR International Series 667, British Archaeologi-cal Reports, Oxford, pp. 201-206.

Storey, R. (1997). Individual frailty, children of privilege, and stress in Late Classic Copan.In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient SkeletonsSmithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 116-126.

Stuart, D. (1993). Historical inscriptions and the Maya collapse. In Sabloff, J. A., and Hender-son, J. S. (eds.), Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., DumbartonOaks, Washington, DC, pp. 321-54.

Stuart, D. (1996). Kings of stone: A consideration of stelae in ancient Maya ritual andrepresentation. Res 29/30: 148-171.

Stuart, D. (1997). The hills are alive: Sacred mountains in the Maya cosmos. SymbolsSpring: 13-17.

Stuart, D., and Houston, S. (1994). Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in Pre-Columbian Artand Archaeology 33, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Stuart, G. E. (1997). The royal crypts of Copan. National Geographic 192(6): 68-93.Suhler, C., and Freidel, D. (1998). Life and death in a Maya war zone. Archaeology 51(3): 28-34.Suhler, C., Ardren, T., and Johnstone, D. (1998). The chronology of Yaxuna: Evidence from

excavation and ceramics. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 167-182.Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cam-

bridge.Thompson, J. E. S. (1966). The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, 2nd ed., University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman.Thompson, J. E. S. (1970). Maya History and Religion, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Tobey, M. H., Shafer, H. J., and Rowe, M. W. (1994). Trace element investigations of chert

from northern Belize. In Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., and Eaton, J. D. (eds.), ContinuingArchaeology at Colha, Belize. Studies in Archaeology 16, Texas Archaeological ResearchLaboratory, University of Texas, Austin, pp. 267-275.

Tourtellot, G. (1983). An assessment of Classic Maya household composition. In Vogt, E. Z.,and Leventhal, R. M. (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of GordonR. Willey, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 35-54.


Tourtellot, G. (1993). A view of ancient Maya settlements in the eighth century. In Sabloff,J. A., and Henderson, J. S. (eds.), Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.,Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 219-241.

Tourtellot, G., Clarke, A., Ill, and Hammond, N. (1993). Mapping La Milpa: A Maya cityin northwestern Belize. Antiquity 67: 96-108.

Tourtellot, G., Rose, J. R., and Hammond, N. (1996). Maya settlement survey at La Milpa,Belize, 1994. Mexican 18: 8-11.

Tozzer, A. M. (1907). A Comparative Study of the Mayas and the Lacandones, Macmillan,New York.

Tozzer, A. M. (1941). Landa's Relation de Los Cosas de Yucatan. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum American Archaeology and Ethnology 28, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Turner, B. L., II (1974). Prehistoric intensive agriculture in the Mayan lowlands. Science185: 118-124.

Turner, B. L., II, and Harrison, P. (eds.) (1978). Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, Universityof New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Turner, B. L., II, and Harrison, P. (eds.) (1983). Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Maya Habitat,Agriculture, and Settlement in Nor/hern Belize, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Valdes, J. A. (1997). Tamarindito: Archaeology and regional politics in the Petexbatun region.Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 321-335.

Valdez, F., Jr. (ed.) (1999). The Programme for Belize Archaeological Project: The 1995Season, Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas Press, Austin (in press).

Vogt, E. Z. (1970). The Zinacantecos of Mexico: A Modern Maya Way of Life, Holt, Rinehartand Winston, New York.

Voorhies, B. (1996). The transformation from foraging to farming in lowland Mesoamerica.In Fedick, S. L. (ed.), The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture and ResourceUse, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 17-29.

Walker, W. H., and Lucero, L. J. (1999). The depositional history of ritual and power.In Dobres, M., and Robb, J. (eds.), Agency in Archaeology, Routledge Press, London(in press).

Webb, M. C. (1973). The Peten Maya decline viewed in the perspective of state formation.In Culbert, T. P. (ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, pp. 367-404.

Webster, D. L. (1993). The study of Maya warfare: What it tells us about the Maya and whatit tells us about Maya archaeology. In Sabloff, J. A., and Henderson, J. S. (eds.), LowlandMaya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp.415-444.

Webster, D. L. (1997a). City-states of the Maya. In Nichols, D. L., and Charlton, T. H. (eds.),The Archaeology of city-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, and London, pp. 135-154.

Webster, D. L. (1997b). Studying Maya burials. In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bonesof the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,pp. 3-12.

Webster, D. L. (1998). Warfare and status rivalry: Lowland Maya and Polynesian comparisons.In Feinman, G. M., and Marcus, J. (eds.), Archaic States, School of American ResearchPress, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 311-351.

Webster, D. L. (1999). The archaeology of Copan, Honduras. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 7: 1-53.

Webster, D., and Kirker, J. (1995). Too many Maya, too few buildings: Investigating construc-tion potential at Copan, Honduras. Journal of Anthropological Research 51: 363-387.

Webster, D., Sanders, W. T., and van Rossum, P. (1992). A simulation of Copan populationhistory and its implications. Ancient Mesoamerica 3: 185-197.

Webster, D., Freter, A., and Rue, D. (1993). The obsidian hydration dating project at Copan:A regional approach and why it works. Latin American Antiquity 4: 303-324.

Webster, D., Gonlin, N., and Sheets, P. (1997). Copan and Ceren: Two perspectives on ancientMesoamerican households. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 43-61.

Webster, D., Fash, B., Widmer, R., and Zeleznik, S. (1998). The Skyband Group: investigation

262 Lucero

of a Classic Maya elite residential compound at Copan, Honduras. Journal of FieldArchaeology 25: 319-343.

Wernecke, D. C. (1994). Aspects of Urban Design in an Ancient Maya Center: El Pilar, Belize,M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University.

White, C. D. (1997). Ancient diet at Lamanai and Pacbitun: Implications for the ecologicalmodel of the collapse. In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studiesof Ancient Skeletons, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 171-180.

White, C. D. (1999). Ancient Maya diet: Perspectives and prospects. In White, C. D. (ed.),Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City (in press).

Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.) (1997). Bones of the Maya: Studies of Ancient Skeletons,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Wilkinson, R. L. (1995). Yellow fever: Ecology, epidemiology, and role in the collapse of theClassic lowland Maya civilization. Medical Anthropology 16: 269-294.

Willey, G. R. (1997). Copan: Settlement, politics, and ideology. Symbols Spring: 5-8, 37.Willey, G. R., and Shimkin, D. B. (1973). The Maya collapse: A summary view. In Culbert,

T. P. (ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,pp. 457-501.

Wingard, J. D. (1996). Interactions between demographic processes and soil resources in theCopan Valley, Honduras. In Fedick, S. L. (ed.). The Managed Mosaic: Ancient MayaAgriculture and Resource Use, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 207-235.

Wright, L. E. (1997a). Ecology or society? Paleodiet and the collapse of the Pasion Mayalowlands. In Whittington, S., and Reed, D. (eds.), Bones of the Maya: Studies of AncientSkeletons Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 181-194.

Wright, L. E. (1997b). Biological perspectives on the collapse of the Pasion Maya. AncientMesoamerica 8: 267-273.

Wright, L. E., and White, C. D. (1996). Human biology in the Classic Maya collapse: Evidencefrom paleopathology and paleodiet. Journal of World Prehistory 10: 147-198.

Zeitlin, R. N. (1984). A summary report on three seasons of field investigations into theArchaic period prehistory of lowland Belize. American Anthropologist 86: 358-369.


classic lowland maya political organization- a review

Documents

classic maya collapse

future of maya archaeology

thehistory of maya archaeology

political economy

settlement archaeology

community organization

settlement patterns

recent research