The City-States of the Maya

Nikolai Grube

(Respondent: Peter Mathews)

The Maya are a unique case for a city-state culture in that dated hieroglyphic inscriptions are widely used a tropical lowland environment. Maya states flour­ for recording the history and personal biographies of ished in an area corresponding to the territory of Maya kings. present day southern Mexico (Chiapas, Tabasco, The institution of statehood was in no way limited Campeche, Yucatan and Quintana Roo), Belize, to the Classic period. Even though the majority of the northern Guatemala (Peten) and a small area of city-states disappeared after what is known as the eastern Honduras. In contrast to most of the city-states Classic Maya collapse in the 9th century, a few states discussed and compared in this symposium, many on the periphery of the lowland Maya area survived, facets of Maya states are still unknown and contro­ and other states and cities were newly founded and versial. The systematic study of Maya states has flourished in the Postclassic period on the Yucatan begun only recently as a result of the decipherment of peninsula, the highlands of Guatemala and the central Maya hieroglyphic writing and in-depth settlement lowlands of northern Guatemala until the arrival of studies in the rural areas around and between the the Spaniards in the 16th century. The states of the Itza urban centers. The present paper attempts to sum­ Maya resisted all attempts at conquest until 1697. The marize what we know about Maya states and what we Postclassic states are almost as unknown as their Pre­ still do not know, and especially how archaeologists classic precursors because the tradition of monu­ and specialists of Maya writing use their data to mental hieroglyphic inscriptions was discontinued. develop more sophisticated models of the political The principal media for recording writing in the Post­ geography of the Maya lowlands. The basic outlines classic seems to have been barkpaper books, of which of the picture I am going to draw most probably will only four survived decay and the Spanish destruction. not change, but much of the detail will be revised. Because of the scarcity of written documents, I will Classic Maya culture, characterized by a multitude focus on the city-states of the Classic period lowlands of cities with monumental architecture, hieroglyphic and touch on the Middle and Late Postclassic states of writing and a complex hierarchy of settlement, flour­ ca. 1100-1550 A.D. only briefly. ished between 250 A.D. and 900 A.D. For a long time, the Classic period has been seen as an isolated phe­ nomenon without a long preceding development. The Identification of Maya States Recent excavations and discoveries have brought to Approaches to the reconstruction of Maya political light evidence for the existence of enormous cities organization have been drawn from a variety of with monumental architecture, and hence for complex sources: archaeological data, the hieroglyphic record, administrative structures, as early as the 6th century ethnohistorical analogies, and external models applied B.C. Unfortunately, our knowledge about the growth from anthropological theory. In nearly all a recurrent and organization of late Preclassic cities such as division in thinking can be noted: one favors a large- Nakbe, El Mirador, Cerros and Uaxactun is severely scale view of multi-center polities that can be char­ handicapped due to the scarcity, if not complete acterized as a “regional state” model; the other absence, of written texts from this period. Even though conversely sees polities of limited size, a population Maya hieroglyphic writing, our principal source for center surrounded by its immediate sustaining area, the investigation of the Maya states, probably was often termed a “city-state” model. developed already centuries before the start of the Early researchers, though hardly explicit in their Classic period, it is not before the third century A.D. interpretation of Maya socio-political structure, 548 Nikolai Grube

Figure 1 : Map of the Maya area (drawing by U. Lohoff-Erlen- bach after a draft by the author).

alluded either to the idea of small city-states that were factors were used to assess a polity’s resource base variously compared to Greek poleis and the states of and thus to reconstruct its total “realm” (1972, 1975). Renaissance Italy (Morley [1946] 50; Thompson Hammond later used a similar approach to cover [1950] 7; [1954] 81) or larger regional groupings much of the Maya lowlands, introducing Thiessen often called “Empire” (Morley [1947] 160). The first polygons as a schematic way with which to express empirical attempt to derive political implications from potential polity boundaries and territories controlled material remains can largely be attributed to William by major centers (1974). His definition of a “major R. Bullard Jr. (1960). His localized analysis of settle­ center”, and hence a polity capital, was a general ment distribution in the northeast Peten produced a judgement based on building mass and typology and, size-based hierarchy of sites and probable territories like Bullard before him, his study did not (while under their administration. Formal geographical noting the issue) address the great disparity in size modeling, derived from central-place theory between such centers. (Christaller [1933]; Haggert [1965]), was introduced This last point was taken up by Richard E. W. by Kent Flannery to reconstruct the site hierarchy of a Adams, who, together with several collaborators, as­ single polity, Calakmul (1972); while in Norman sessed the construction mass and typological make-up Hammond’s study of Lubaantun environmental of a great many sites in an attempt to produce an The City-States of the Maya 549 objective method for their rank-ordering (Adams & recently, Marcus has revised the model to include Jones [1981]; Turner, Turner & Adams [1981]). His a more dynamic quality and has argued from an ethno- work proposed a hierarchy of four tiers and a map of historical perspective that the cyclical unification and the Maya area that delimited eight regional states: fragmentation of polities in Postclassic northern Tikal, Calakmul, Palenque, Copán, Yaxchilan, Río lowlands provides a close parallel for the Classic Bec, Cobá, and “Puuc-Chenes”. period (1993, 1998). The celebrated discovery of historicism in the The decipherment of the key ahaw “lord, ruler” ele­ inscriptions, heralded in the work of Heinrich Berlin ment of Emblem Glyphs (Lounsbury [1973]) allowed (1958) and Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1960), led to the Peter Mathews to identify such compounds as the per­ collapse of the old view of Maya civilization as a sonal titles of Maya kings (Mathews & Justeson theocracy guided by a priestly elite without interest in [1984] 216; Mathews [1985] 32). His analysis demon­ politics. Now it became clear that Maya states were strated that Emblems refer to the sovereignty of a headed by divine rulers (k’ ul ahaw) who succeded to ruler over a particular center or territory, and that the their office through patrilineal descent. These rulers title does not in itself make any differentiation in rank used written texts to record their deeds and to legit­ between the various office-holders. Based on this imize their rule through divine sanction. In this new interpretation and the spatial distribution of Emblem environment of dynastic succession and endemic Glyphs, he produced his own reconstruction of the “raiding”, political organization became one of the layout of Classic Maya polities in which, by the Late main concerns of research for the first time. Classic (A.D. 600-900), the southern lowlands were Heinrich Berlin noted that a particular class of politically divided into some thirty or more inde­ hieroglyphs - linked by a common formula - had ver­ pendent states (Mathews [1985], [1988], [1991]). sions specific to each of the major sites. He called With each ruler claiming the same title of “divine these compounds “Emblem Glyphs” and speculated king”, it became clear that Maya polities were struc­ that they referred to ruling lineages, patron deities or turally autonomous, with no sign that their basic com­ even named the centers themselves. His article attrib­ position altered in any fundamental way from their uted eight Emblems, while almost forty can now be inception to dissolution (Mathews [1991] 29). recognized. This more dispersed scenario was very much in line The first person to make real use of the Emblem with theoretical approaches gaining ground among Glyph, and so to approach the topic from an epi­ archaeologists (e.g. Sanders [1981]) and accorded graphic viewpoint, was Thomas Barthel (1968a, closely with the descriptive models of “peer-polity 1968b). Following one of Berlin’s observations, he interaction” developed by Renfrew ([1982]; Renfrew examined a text on the Copan monument Stela A & Cherry [1986]) after Price (1977) and Wesson’s naming four Emblem Glyphs in succession: those of “state system” (1978) (Freidel [1986]; Sabloff [1986]; Copan, Tikal, Palenque and Calakmul; each one is Hammond [1991]). Both describe culturally homo­ associated with the number “four”, a “sky” glyph and geneous landscapes made up of densely clustered, a sign for one of the four cardinal directions. Barthel autonomous polities, in which none achieves a interpreted this as a reference to a conceptual political measure of dominance. universe aligned on the four cardinal points. Strong More recently these have been joined by a number analogies for this kind of arrangement can be found in of related and highly influential analytical models: the Maya ethnography and ethnohistory, where this four­ “segmentary state” of Southall (1956) and Fox way division of space is a fundamental and pervasive (1977), “theater state” of Geertz (1980), and “galactic idea. polity” of Tambiah (1976, 1977) (Carmack [1981]; These ideas were taken up by Joyce Marcus (1973, Hammond [1991]; Demarest [1992]). These “weak 1976, 1983), who combined them with central-place state” constructs (Houston [1992a]) have provided analysis and an interpretation of wider Emblem Glyph comparative frameworks for the decentralized, small distribution to propose a ranking between a large polity view that has emerged as a wide consensus both number of lowland centers. In her model the four of archaeologists (Fox [1987]; Sanders & Webster “primary centers” cited at Copan headed large reg­ [1988]; de Montmollin [1989]; Ball & Taschek ional states whose domains incorporated strata of [1991]; Ball [1993]) and epigraphers (Houston secondary, tertiary and quaternary sites (adding to [1992a], [1992b], [1993]; Stuart [1993]). Broadly Barthel’s schema two shifting “confederacies”, speaking, these authors characterize Maya states as those of Yaxchilan and the “Petexbatún”). More fragile structures with weak control over people and 550 Nikolai Grube territory, centered on the rule of charismatic kings The new picture that emerges is that of a few pow­ who use personal ties, rather than a formal bureau­ erful kingdoms that held lesser ones in their sway. cracy, to exercise their authority. Conquests made by the dominant states were not con­ Yet, all reconstructions of the political system of solidated by military occupation or centrally adminis­ the Maya have always failed to explain why some tered. Local lords were usually restored to their of­ cities are vastly larger than others. Were such dis­ fices and allowed to rule their states without further parate units really equals? The idea that central hindrance. Thus, the state, or the city-state remained authority within larger kingdoms was ineffectual is the principal unit of lowland Maya politics. Large undermined by the scale of their public works - mas­ states came to dominate the weak, but at no time in sive pyramids, defensive earthworks miles in length, Maya history was a real empire with unified territories and great networks of internal roadways - which consolidated. City-states usually preserved a large would have required centralized planning and the con­ degree of autonomy even when they became vassals trol of substantial manpower (Folan et al [1983]; Fo­ or allies of other centers. This scenario should not lan [1985]; Culbert [1988], [1991]; Chase, Chase & bother us since it is very similar to classical Greece, Haviland [1990]; Chase & Chase [1992]). where small, fiercely individualistic states engaged in The most compelling explanation for the difference a long and inconclusive struggle for dominance of in size comes from the recent discovery of a higher their cultural realm (Hansen, supra 141-87). Most order of political organization beyond the level of the importantly for us, this was no peer polity landscape, individual state (Martin & Grube [1994], [1995]; but one dominated by the hegemonic states - Athens, Martin [1996]; Grube [1996]; Grube & Martin Sparta and Thebes - which headed wider groupings [1998]). Epigraphic information for political subordi­ not of allies, but of subject-allies, subordinated nation and the existence of political confederations in polities which had become their political dependents. the Maya lowlands has been studied only recently. Hieroglyphs have been found which define a domi­ nant-subordinate relationship between kings of dif­ The Territory of Maya City-States ferent states, where the highest rank of ahaw (“lord, The city-state model as initially developed by Ma­ ruler”) comes into play. By adding the possessive thews (1985, 1988, 1991) is based on the hypothesis prefix y-, ahaw becomes y-ahaw, “the lord of’, or in that all centers with their own Emblem Glyph and the effect “his vassal”. Further evidence for the hierarchy presence of a divine king represent capitals of city- between states is found in passages recording the states. This produces a map of approximately 30 units accession of kings. Some of these statements contain in the lowlands during the Late Classic period. Ap­ a secondary phrase giving the name and emblem of a plying geographical models of ideal boundaries such foreign ruler. This phrase is introduced by a verb as Thiessen polygons to these capitals, a hypothetical clause that epigraphers now translate as u kabhiy, “it map of lowland Maya city-states has been recon­ was done by him”. structed (Mathews [1991]). This reconstruction has If we combine the appearance of the y-ahaw and u- many drawbacks, however, as has been pointed out by kabhiy phrases with Classic period texts documenting Joyce Marcus (1993), as it is only appropriate for other forms of interaction between states, such as egalitarian societies where all polities are of equal size royal visits, gift-giving, joint ritual activity, and mar­ and power. In the Maya case, however, size differ­ riage, we find the hierarchical contacts are part of ences are obvious and are accompanied by widely relationships spanning several generations. Some varying numbers of inscribed public monuments, and kingdoms are consistently more dominant than others even more important, with notable differences of and seem to be manipulating the affairs of weaker political power. Politically less important states are ones. This analysis is supported by inscriptions des­ not mentioned as often in the written record of other cribing conflicts. Wars are only rarely recorded be­ polities as influential states. Marcus noted that, tween states that usually share political ties, and polit­ ignoring the inscriptional evidence and applying ically allied kingdoms tend to share the same adver­ Thiessen polygons only, Tikal which certainly ranks saries. Together, such patterns suggest that there were as one of the largest Maya cities receives an absurdly groupings of states during the Late Classic period tiny area (Marcus [1989] 38). headed by the most powerful states such as Calakmul The investigation of the size of ancient Maya poli­ and Tikal, characterized by their size and the richness ties is handicapped by the absence of identifiable of their architecture. boundaries, be they natural features or man-made The City-States of the Maya 551

Figure 2. The capitals of Maya city-states in the southern lowlands in approximately A.D. 750 (drawing by U. Lohoff- Erlenbach after a draft by the author).

demarcations. Even where archaeologists have found surveyed center where certain settlement limits have evidence of limits of settlement areas around centers, been defined but the question of political boundaries it is not at all obvious whether these correlate with has not been settled. Tikal is one of the few lowland political boundaries. The relationship between the Maya sites for which we can speak of settlement change of settlement patterns and density, on the one limits determined by archaeological evidence (Pule- hand, and political boundaries on the other has not ston & Callender [1983]). Structure density drops off yet been a major research issue, probably because it sharply a few kms from the site center. On the east and would involve survey programs that go beyond the west the decline correlates with the start of large bajos logistic capacities even of more ambitious archaeo­ (seasonally flooded swamps) but the fall in density to logical projects. Even where extensive mapping has north and south occurs in areas where high ground taken place and has gone far into the hinterland (Tikal, was still available for habitation. Here, defensive Copan, Caracol, Seibal, La Milpa, Körnchen, Sayil), earthworks seem to mark a border (Puleston & Cal­ the actual limits of states have not been identified with lender [1983]). The area thus defined by most archae­ any degree of certainty (Tourtellot [1993]). ologists as the “site of Tikal” consists of 120 km2. One Tikal is a good example of a carefully mapped and of the principal questions that still remain and have 552 Nikolai Grube not yet been discussed satisfactorily is whether this is rulers’ claim to a form of “divine kingship”. These the area of the Tikal state, or whether the true limits of were not competing clains to a singular authority the state are much wider. Indeed, small centers, of since each drew his power from, and was specific to, a which a few display inscriptions recording members given seat or locality, better seen as a central source of the Tikal royal dynasty, are located outside these rather than a bounded and demarcated territory. The confines, such as Jimbal, El Encanto, Corozal, legitimacy of “place-specific” systems such as this Uolantun, El Zapote, Ixlu and Sakpeten (Puleston & declines over distance, restricting their territorial Callender [1983]; Jones & Orrego [1987]; Martin extent to the kind of modest radius we find around [1998]; Rice, Rice & Pugh [1998]). These secondary polity capitals (Renfrew [1982] 282; Freidel & Scheie centers all have in common that they mention the k’ul [1983]; Hammond [1991] 273, 277; Demarest [1992]; ahaw of Tikal as their patron, while at the same time Freidel, Scheie & Parker [1993] 138-172). their own lord is not of equal rank. This suggests that Historically, Maya city-states grew around the seats these centers, all about 30 km from Tikal, were at of divine kings legitimated through a long line of some time in history not only within the area con- ancestors that ultimately go back to place-specific troled by the Tikal king but were actually part of a dynastic “founders” (Mathews [1985]; Grube [1988]; Tikal state. Scheie [1992]). These progenitor kings became, in Mathews’ ([1991] 21) calculation of an average due course, the focus of ancestor worship, their area of 2,500 km2 for the territory of an ancient Maya tombs and mortuary complexes dynastic shrines that state is based on the assumption of largely equalsized formed the heart of place-specific legitimation polities. Differences in size of the sites that were the (Sanders [1981] 359; McAnany [1995] 161). While capitals of these states are obvious, however. Dos the canon of patrilineal descent could on occasion be Pilas, with its 492 mapped structures over a 3 km2 subverted by a usurper or schismatic faction, this central area (Houston [1993] 36), can hardly compete basic conception of “polity” seems to have held true with Tikal (2,151 structures mapped in the central 9 for the duration of the Classic, and possibly also for km2, Puleston & Callender [1983]) and Calakmul the Postclassic period. (6,250 structures mapped in 30 km2, Folan [1994]). In such an environment, political expansion Unequal size is (usually, but not necessarily al­ achieved through wars of conquest, requiring the ways) mirrored by differences in political influence. A removal of a rival “divine” king and the imposition of closer inspection of the written record speaks of hier­ direct control by a foreign power, would represent an archies of power and large centers that held sway over illegitimate and, in the long-term, unworkable system lesser clients (Martin & Grube [1994], [1995]; Grube of governance. Continued influence over a defeated, & Martin [1998]). Physical size and political clout are or otherwise subdued, polity would therefore rely on also tied to access to land, resources and manpower. coopting its traditional elite. Expansionist states In any case, it is important to keep in mind that even would strive not to appropriate foreign territory per­ the most powerful states such as Tikal and Calakmul manently but to extend a client network. The ortho­ never expanded to become real, consolidated empires. doxy of divine kingship could thus be preserved, Lesser states that were formerly independent retained though now overlaid by a more pragmatic level in a large degree of autonomy even after they had been which rulers acknowledged their varying rank. integrated into the political sphere of a larger state. In fact, such principles and styles of organization This Mesoamerican format of hegemonic rule, with a are far from unfamiliar, since they were common to powerful state dominating client rulers of smaller much of Postclassic Mesoamerica and extensively kingdoms, is best documented in the Valley of Mexico documented by sixteenth-century chroniclers (Spores (see Smith, infra 590-3), but also has other Mesoamer­ [1965], [1993] 172; Bray [1972] 162-170; Carmack ican analogies (Grube & Martin [1998]). Conquests [1981] 141; Calnek [1982] 54, 56-58; Carrasco probably had no effect at all on boundaries; the prin­ [1984], [1996]; Hodge [1984]; Hassig [1985] 93; cipal aim of military exploits was to establish loyal [1988] 19-20; Smith [1986]; Berdan et al. [1996]). vassals and access to tribute. Polities throughout the region were consistently of To explain why this system might have developed small scale and structurally autonomous, though in in the Maya area we should examine a variety of practice such independence was rarely maintained and sources revealing the Classic Maya’s concern for they usually fell within broader organizations and the concepts of “place” and the rights of kings to govern. orbit of more powerful states. The system of multiple The reading of the Emblem Glyph title shows the city-states, or even micro-states in the Valley of The City-States of the Maya 553

Mexico, continued to exist even after some degree of ited evidence for the existence of hieroglyphs pro­ Aztec imperial consolidation and modification. In the viding names for the territorial unit as opposed to its 15th century, there were 50-60 of them, averaging capital. The capital was the state; it was the seat and 5,000-50,000 people and 80-200 km2 (Bray [1972]; origin of divinely legitimized power and therefore Hodge [1984]; Berdan et al. [1996]; Smith [1996]; provided the name for the entire unit. In those cases Gillespie [1998]). Although the average size of states where the Emblem Glyph is distinct from the place in the Maya lowlands may have been considerably name of the capital, such as at Dos Pilas, Palenque, larger, it is very likely that a similar mosaic of Caracol and Calakmul, there are specific historical unequally sized polities covered the area. reasons for this variation. In most cases these capitals originated at other places: Dos Pilas claims power over Tikal and thus takes the same mutai name for its Why the Term “City-States” is Useful state; the capital of the kanul state is called oxte tun, in the Maya Case but it seems that in the early Classic period the capital Contrary to some critiques (Marcus [1989]; Marcus & was at a different place; and finally, the capital of the Feinman [1998] 9), I believe that the concept of “city- state of Palenque (or bak, as the Maya called) moved state” is highly appropriate and should be applied in to lakamha’ (the name of the site now known as analyzing ancient Maya states. Even though there Palenque) not before the first half of the 6th century was considerable variation in the size of their ter­ (Martin & Grube [n.d.]). In general we can say, there­ ritories, their wealth and political power, even the fore, that the name of a city-state is identical with the largest Maya states seem small if compared to name of its major urban center. regional states in other parts of the world. The term The conceptual identity of the state with the capital, “city-state” is especially helpful in order to shift and more specifically with the seat of a divine king, attention from the discussion about whether Maya manifests itself in the use of the word ahawlel for states were “peer polities” or “regional states” to both. Ahawlel is the word for “kingship”, and kings emphasize the dominant role of their core, the center accede to power by “seating themselves in ahawlel”. of these states. Talk of states and kingdoms tends to At the same time, colonial documents and dictionaries bring to mind borders and territories, but these were use ahawlel as a word for the territorial unit ruled by not the emic concepts in which Maya polities defined an ahaw (Lacadena & Ruiz [1998] 40). themselves. Much more important was the dynastic seat at their core, their administrative, ceremonial and commercial focus and the hub from which ties Were Maya Capitals Real Cities? radiated outward, connecting the central court to Another Look at Maya Urbanism lesser lordships on its periphery (Hammond [1991]; One of the prerequisites of city-states is the existence Martin & Grube [1994]). At the heart of Maya states of urbanism. It does not seem to be necessary to make is the divinely sanctioned royal dynasty. Divine kings this statement since it is so obvious. However, early were the ultimate authority who patronized client scholars who introduced the concept of “city-states” lords and claimed loyalty from all sectors of the into Maya research often described Maya cities, society. Bonds to the king were highly personalized the capitals of these states, as “vacant ceremonial cen­ and tended to continue “posthumously” even after the ters”. Sir Eric Thompson, one of the influential death of the actual king, as expressions of sub­ scholars of the first half of the 20th century, states, ordination to deceased kings from Copan and else­ “What was a Maya city, and how did it function? where show (Houston & Mathews [1985]). First, as I have already said, it was not a city at all in The role of the city, the seat of the royal court, was our sense of the word, because it was a ceremonial, so dominant that the city - or, more precisely, the not an urban, centre, to which the people repaired for place of the royal court - was equated with the entire religious ceremonies, civic functions, and markets. state. Consequently, Maya states (like their central The stone buildings were quite unsuited for per­ Mexican counterparts) were known only by the name manent habitation...” (Thompson [1954] 66). The of their capital. The main element of Emblem Glyphs, particular layout of Maya “centers” and their open still the best indicator for the existence of a Maya character still continues to fuel discussions about the state, is almost always indentical with the toponym of nature of urbanism in the Maya area. the capital (Stuart & Houston [1994]). It is true that there is a stark contrast between the In Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions there is only lim­ Maya lowlands and the civilizations of highland 554 Nikolai Grube

Mexico such as Teotihuacan and the Aztec, which from true cities, at least some of the capitals of Maya developed cities that conform more closely to our states will have to be elevated to this category. The European understanding of urban centers with a sub­ city of Caracol - the area defined by the causeways stantial resident population. Some scholars have radiating from the center - may have had a total asserted that the tropical lowlands would have been population of 180,000 (Chase [1996a]). Its population unfit for the development of cities, while the tem­ was engaged in a variety of economic activities as can perate Central Mexican highlands with fertile soils, be shown by specific workshop areas that have been hard stone and bodies of surface water permitted the uncovered by archaeologists (Chase [1996b]). The rise of pre-industrial cities with nucleated population intrasite causeways, such as those found at Caracol, and centralized government (Erasmus [1968]; San­ Yaxha and Coba connect more than just ritual areas or ders & Santley [1983]; Sanders & Webster [1988]). elite groups and show that they must have been used These views have been altered dramatically with the to facilitate communication and integration of the start of systematic settlement studies in the Maya area urban area. and with a more sophisticated understanding of the Even though it is difficult if not impossible to architecture in Maya cities. The mapping of Tikal and define sharp edges of settlement, Maya cities are dis­ of other Maya cities brought into question the old tinct from their surrounding countryside. This distinc­ view of the non-urban ceremonial center. About tion in many cases was made manifest by boundary­ 10,000 to 11,000 people must have lived in the 16 km2 marking features such as the great earthworks around around the site core. Maya cities were not vacant but Tikal (Puleston & Callender [1967]), the defensive had considerable populations, even though they were moat of Becan, the walls around Calakmul, Oxpemul, clearly not as densely packed as most European cities. Ek Balam, Yaxuna and Uxmal (cf. Webster [1977]). The open character of Maya cities - the fact that the Often, these features are difficult to detect because population density in the cities was not markedly they are located at great distance from the core of the higher than in the countryside - has been taken by cities. We can expect to find many more of these researchers such as William Sanders as an argument demarcations in the future when large-scale settle­ against the application of the word “city” (Sanders ment studies are carried out. Whether all the walls dis­ [1981]). Indeed, V. Gordon Childe in his famous covered so far served defensive purposes is still a article “The Urban Revolution” lists ten criteria for matter of debate; it does not actually matter here the city and includes a large and dense population as because whatever their primary function was, they one. Arguments over Childe’s or other scholars’ also served to mark a visible boundary between an criteria have been raised for various reasons, not only urban center and the settlement area around it. because it was difficult if not impossible to recognize Other population centers within Maya states could certain items in the archaeological record, but also have different, but intertwined functions, as is seen in because it soon became clear that “...no single def­ the archaeological record in communities that are inition will apply to all its manifestations and no commodity-specific, such as the lithic production site single description will cover all its transformations” of Colha (Shafer & Hester [1983]; Hester & Shafer (Mumford [1961] 3). [1984]), areas such as Pulltrouser Swamp (Harrison & In recent years, anthropologists have offered new Turner [1978]) likely were functioning as food pro­ definitions of cities that emphasize the relatedness of duction centers; still other areas, like the northern a series of trends or processes which they exhibit, in coast of the Yucatan peninsula, were specialized loci order to avoid some of the objections that the trait-list for salt procurement (Andrews [ 1983]). approach generated. Regardless of demographic Differences in size and morphology between dif­ factors, the capitals of Maya states were “functionally ferent Maya capital centers cannot be overempha­ urban” in nature (Adams [1977]; Adams & Culbert sized. Clearly, such sites as Tikal, Naranjo, Calakmul [1977]). At issue here are the number and variety of and Caracol represent true cities, dramatically dif­ activities performed at a given center, not merely the ferent kinds of places than for example Dos Pilas, presence of a large, dense population. The different Sacul and Motul de San José, which we can identify variables of central places (size, social role, prestige, as capitals of Maya states, but which certainly tended power and economic role) are all met by the capitals to be closer to functionally urban centers and not to of Maya states. But even if one employs a large, dense dense cities. These differences, among other factors, and socioeconomically diverse resident population as can account for the development of hierarchies a criterion to distinguish functionally urban centers between Maya states described further below. The Ci ty-State s of the M aya 555

Figure 3. A part of the map of central Tikal, which covers in all 16 km2 (after Carr & Hazard [1961]).

The question whether it is possible to determine is our lack of knowledge regarding the number how many people actually lived in a Maya city-state is of habitants per household. Numbers are usually almost impossible to answer. It is closely linked to extrapolated from contemporary ethnographic determining of the precise scale of Maya states. It is analogies, despite great variation in the ethnographic clear from the abundance of sites of all sizes that record (Haviland [1969]; Tourtellot [1988]). Maya states were densely populated and that, from a However, Culbert & Rice (1990) have been able to comparative perspective, they would count as too present approximate density figures for a number of large to be city-states. However, the calculating of ancient Maya population centers and surrounding approximate population totals presents manifold regions based on a large number of systematic survey problems and is often not more than an educated projects. These figures suggest that lowland states had guess. The Maya population is estimated on the basis densities of over 600 people/km2 in the urban and of remains of masonry residential platforms and semi-urban nuclei and 200 people/km2 in the rural superstructures (“house mounds”) of varying size and areas. elaboration (Ashmore [1981]) which are mapped and Certainly the most severe obstacle to population counted. Many problems affect the extrapolation of estimates for Maya states is our lack of knowledge population figures, such as the existence of hidden concerning the territory controlled by them. Only in a structures, structures which were not used for resid­ few cases can the area pertaining to a city-state be ential purposes, and of course the problem of delimited because of the natural setting. This is the chronology and contemporaneity (Pybum [1988], case of Copan, whose area is easily surveyed and Haviland [1965], [1969], [1989]). Even more severe whose population was confined to naturally bounded 556 Nikolai Grube alluvial pockets. The population of the Copan urban ritual bailgame, gatherings of people, places for eco­ core is estimated at 5797 to 9214 and that of the entire nomic exchange, for the storage of goods, palaces for Copan valley as 18,417 to 24,828 (Webster & Fréter the royal family, buildings with administrative func­ [1990]). This estimate is limited to the area im­ tions, and residences for the various strata of the elite. mediately around Copan. We must take into con­ Except for royal palaces, these features can also be sideration that the actual territory under immediate found in secondary centers, but in smaller format. control of the £’m/ ahaw of Copan was much larger. It Lower-order urban centers also can have hiero­ is known that other, smaller and more distant cities glyphic inscriptions; where this is the case, they such as Los Higos were within the realm of Copan, record subordination of local nobles under the domi­ suggesting that the population figure given in many nance of the center. Certain specific titles are known publications has to be revised upwards. which document a hierarchy of power within Maya Tikal is another case of a city whose immediate hin­ states. The title sahal is used exclusively for subordi­ terland is limited naturally through the existence of nate figures who were rulers of small dependent sites bajos, or seasonally flooded swamps, and defensive within the larger polities of the lowlands (Stuart earthworks. Behind these earthworks, mound density [1993a]; Mathews [1998]). Especially in the western drops drastically. Tikal, so defined, covers 120 km2. region of the Maya lowlands, individuals carrying the The total population of the central 9 km2 is calculated sahal title are shown in connection with the principal as 8,300 during the Late Classic. The remaining 111 rulers; in a few cases status differences are visually km2 of more rural areas within the “Tikal area” may indicated in the smaller size of the sahals. Sahals have had a population of 50,695, resulting in a total of acceded to their office under the auspices of the k’ul 62,000 within this area (Haviland [1969]; Puleston & ahaw; in several instances the texts explicitly state Callender [1983]). However, the Tikal state certainly that a certain subordinate is “the sahal of’ the ruler. included other areas beyond the bajos and at some These relationships document the highly personal time may even have included the smaller neigh­ character of affiliations, but they also permit us to bouring city of Uaxactun. Taking this size of the Tikal define the rôle of small, secondary centers. Sahals are state into account, there would have been 425,000 often engaged in warfare, suggesting that one of their inhabitants in the Classic period (Culbert et al. functions was to recruit people and soldiers for war­ [1990]). The same numbers are calculated by de fare among the peasants associated with their center. Montmollin. His population guesstimate for a polity Unfortunately, lower-order dependencies - al­ of 2,000 km2 is 400,000, with 50,000-80,000 in the though more numerous than primary centers - are 60-100 km2 “urban core” (de Montmollin [1995] 255, underrepresented in many excavation reports and set­ see also Hammond [1991] 258-259). Such figures tlement pattern studies. Some secondary centers may dwarf those of most other early city-states such as the have been economically specialized; a good case is Hellenic poleis, which could have population figures probably the site of Colha, which produced flint tools between 1,000 and 50,000 people in territories of only for the Altun Ha region (Hester, Shafer & Eaton 25 km2 and rarely exceeding 500 km2 (Hansen, supra [1982]). Other secondary centers may have been 155), or Sumerian Lagash with 80-100,000 people located at strategically important places, such as El around 2400 BC. Cayo, which is situated at one of the few places along the Usumacinta River where canoes could anchor, or Quim Chi Hilan, located on an easily defendable Settlement Patterns Within City-States peninsula in the Petexbatun lagoon. As expected with city-states, Maya states are centered To start at the bottom, the basic settlement unit in on a city which is the central place of the state, the the Maya lowlands is the single house, usually a seat of power, prestige and administration. Maya cap­ wooden structure covered with a thatched roof itals are always the largest urban centres within their erected on an earthen platform. Between two and six territory. Other urban settlements are second-order houses are usually grouped together in a residential settlements. They differ from capitals principally in group around a central patio (Ashmore [1981] 49). the absence of a ruling dynasty claiming divine origin. Large residential groupings are typical of the Maya Capitals are characterized by monumental architec­ lowlands. In current thinking, these units are seen as ture and specific public, residential and administrative the organizational nexus of agricultural production buildings. Specialized architecture provided the con­ and are assumed to have been occupied by an text for religious activities, public celebrations, the extended family. Specialized non-residential struc- The City-States of the Maya 557

Figure 4. The site core of La Milpa, Orange Walk, Belize, showing topography and drainage. La Milpa was the capital of a Maya city-state in the Late Classic period. Drawing by Gair Tourtellot (after Hammond, Tourtellot, Everson, Thomas & Wolf [1999]). 558 Nikolai Grube tures for craft production or storage have also been areas outside the urban centers (Turner & Harrison found within such patio groups. In some cases, a more [1983]). Where intensive agriculture takes place, the elaborate structure within a group indicates the exis­ labour investment in land is twice as high as in areas tence of a leader or headman of an extended family. of traditional farming, increasing the value of land Two or more patio groups may form a cluster and therefore the territory controlled by a state. The (Bullard [I960]). Open space separates these clusters complex network of regular hillside terraces around from each other. Here again, one of the groups or one Caracol, which extends several kilometers in all direc­ structure is clearly more elaborate and dominant. tions, shows a high degree of centralized planning Often this is a small vaulted stone structure. If these (Jaeger Liepins [1994]). larger residential clusters were occupied by large kin Subsistence goods were consumed locally and groups or lineages, we assume that the lineage head moved vertically through taxation or tribute collection and his extended family lived within the largest resi­ to support the elite stratum of Maya society. Craft dential group. A couple of these clusters may be production also took place at the household level. arranged around a small urban center with administra­ Pottery and stone tools for daily use were probably tive, ritual and residential functions. In a few cases, produced and exchanged locally. Whether these these centers have hieroglyphic inscriptions identi­ products were ever exchanged in markets is still a fying their rulers as subsidiary lords. These local lords matter of debate. Even though archaeologists claim to also employ the ahaw title, but in contrast to the have identified specific market areas at a few sites, supreme king residing in the capital they were never final proof is lacking in all cases. addressed as k’ul ahaw, or “divine lord”. Between the At a higher level, craft production of elite goods heads of extended families, the lineage heads, the such as jade jewelry, polychrome ceramics and stone secondary lords and finally the supreme ruler were sculpture was confined to urban centers. Some pro­ networks based on kinship, but also on economic, duction activities were so restricted that they took political and religious connections. place only in the royal palace (Ball [1993]). Sculptors and scribes were often members of elite lineages and clients of the king. Lacking their own scribes, sec­ Economy ondary lords had to rely on the scribes of the royal The economy of Maya city-states was a complex, court if they wanted their own monuments carved. multi-layered fabric of production and exchange. It Palace artists and palace schools produced power combined agrarian production for subsistence with symbols, many of them exchanged as royal gifts craft production on the intrapolity level, with long­ between states and within states in order to confirm distance trade and tribute collection on the interpolity the loyalty of clients. The function of preciously level. Many segments of Maya economic production painted ceramic as social currency is well attested in and exchange are only poorly known. Unfortunately, hieroglyphic inscriptions (Reents-Budet [1994]). written documents provide only rare glimpses into Systems of long-distance trade in raw materials this aspect of Maya society so that our understanding such as jade may have been linked more directly to of the Maya economy has to rest solely on archae­ the maintenance of social power rather than to the ological evidence, ethnoarchaeological analogies and accumulation of economic wealth. Items acquired comparison with the better-documented economies of from exotic places - jade, shell, feathers of the the central Mexican highlands. Quetzal bird, obsidian and stingray spine - were The core of Maya economy was subsistence pro­ low-bulk items of prime, symbolic value that were duction based on maize, beans, squash, root crops, badges of prestige. fruit trees combined with hunting, fishing and occa­ Exchange, particularly at the “external” or inter­ sional exploitation of forest products (Harrison and polity level, was characterized by the unequal relation­ Turner [1978]; Fedick [1996]). Production took place ships between vassal states and their patrons. close to the settlements. The organizational nexus of Throughout Mesoamerica expansionist states had as a agricultural production was residential groups of two primary goal the control of exchange systems, trade or more households. Increasing evidence for intensive routes and especially tribute networks, as was the case agriculture such as hillside terracing and wetland among the Postclassic Maya (Carmack [1981] 141; drained fields with a productivity several times higher Fox [1994]; Roys [1957]). While such activity has than traditional slash-and-burn agriculture implies the always been difficult to isolate archaeologically in the existence of planning and administration in the rural Maya area, signs are emerging (despite much The City-States of the Maya 559 earlier pessimism on the subject) that an active tribute (Puleston & Callender [1967]) may have been a system can be detected in Classic Maya writing and response to this weakening in its strategic position. iconography (Le Fort & Wald [1995] after a sugges­ The strong pattern of aggression between Tikal and its tion by Houston; McAnany [1995] 133-136; Scheie & immediate neighbors might yet prove to be part of a Miller [1986] 153, 218). At present, such activity is process in which areas formerly under Tikal influence poorly understood and we cannot yet say whether this shared a special enmity toward their former master. was “gift-giving” of a predominantly symbolic value, Calakmul may have been a particular beneficiary of or the traces of “tribute empires” in which extortion this, continuing to gain affiliates and clients through­ had a major sustaining role. One source of tribute pay­ out the transition from early to Late Classic, a period ment seems to be as a consequence of war. At several that corresponds almost exactly to the absence of sites, booming construction activity is associated with surviving monuments at Tikal. By the beginning of glyphic records of military success, suggesting the 7th century its extensive web of personal and sudden enrichment of some kind, perhaps the supply military ties had made it the single most influential of tribute labor (Chase & Chase [1989] 16; Martin force in Maya geo-politics. [1996b]; Sharer [1978] 67). Other major states, such as Caracol and Naranjo, appear to have been drawn into the on-going power­ play and neither seems to have been able to pursue its own rivalry without reference to the central powers. Macro-Political Structures Amongst Supporting one or another antagonist in a regional Maya States contest, or capitalizing on any instability arising from A city-state is a self-governing community, but not such conflicts, may have been an important means by necessarily an independent and autonomous state. which patron states built up their influence. On other External sovereignty is not considered to be a neces­ occasions it may have been the desire to secede from sary requirement for a city-state (Hansen: supra 18). patron relationships that brought central forces into Epigraphical data clearly demonstrate that the this region. southern lowlands were politically divided into Apart from direct military confrontation and sup­ numerous, territorially small states, which maintained porting the defection of Tikal’s affiliates, Calakmul’s their structural autonomy throughout the Classic strategy also appears to have exploited divisions period. A few powerful states held lesser ones in their within the Tikal dynasty. The emergence of the Dos sway, a system not unlike others seen throughout Pilas state, an intrusive presence in the Petexbatun, ancient Mesoamerica (Smith, infra 590-3; Lind: infra might be viewed as a Calakmul-sponsored attempt to 576). Glyphic structures that define hierarchical promote a rival claim to the title of Tikal, with the ranking can be identified at the macro-political scale, recent interpretation of true fratricidal conflict only providing strong evidence for an over-arching and enhancing this scenario. Calakmul’s direct support structurally complex system of political patronage might explain how this minor center managed to that was headed especially by two states, Calakmul survive and even triumph over its vastly more popu­ and Tikal. lous adversary. If the ultimate goal was to usurp the By the middle of the sixth century at least, Tikal incumbent Tikal line and replace it by a pro-Calakmul and Calakmul, both large survivors of late Preclassic faction, the attempt clearly failed, leading to the culture, were acting over considerable distances to permanent establishment of a “state-in-exile” in the intervene in the affairs of other states. If, as seems Petexbatun. most likely, this represents competition between the Calakmul’s ascendancy, though successfully main­ two, then Calakmul soon had the upper hand and was tained for over 130 years, circa A.D. 562 to 695, was seen to gain an associate at the expense of Tikal. This not to last. The Late Classic resurgence of Tikal is event coincides with both a known defeat of the Tikal closely associated with the reversal of its military for­ state and with the onset of its hiatus period. Although tunes and a victory over Calakmul that brought down Tikal remained a functioning state during at least one of this center’s most powerful kings. Despite some of this time, its near encirclement by hostile some defeats at the hands of clients or associates of associates of Calakmul, first noted by Linda Scheie & Calakmul at about this time, Tikal survived the atten­ David Freidel ([1990] 175, 211), gives the impression tions of its many enemies and emerged with its ruling of a resistant and embattled pocket. Extensive forti­ dynasty and independence intact. By contrast, the fications erected at Tikal during the Early Classic highpoint of Calakmul power had passed and its 560 Nikolai Grube foreign citations, especially hierarchical ties, fell Classic Maya attempt to build a stable pan-regional sharply. After what seems to be a further victory network would most likely founder on their inability against its great rival, Tikal was able to record to forge more effective and institutionalized authority decisive success against two of Calakmul’s closest over their vassals and affiliates. affiliates, El Peru and Naranjo, creating a prolonged The degree to which warfare represents cause or disturbance in their public records after A.D. 744, and effect in the process of collapse has still to be fully perhaps even placing them under Tikal’s supervision determined. George Cowgill (1979) draws a number for a time. It is recognized that the great mass of the of interesting comparisons between the Classic Maya Tikal metropolis visible today, virtually all the tall and societies engaged in “militaristic” competition for pyramids and final phases of other major architecture, regional dominance. His basic theme is that societies is the product of a relatively short period of less than a can evolve from a form of peer-polity competition to a century following the accession of Ruler Yik’in Chan new level of warfare, in which the strategic aim has K’awil in A.D. 734 (Culbert [1973] 72-73; Jones shifted to the “prize” of complete mastery over all [1991] 120). Here too, the shifting political fortunes other states in the region. Success for one party leads of the great centers may have left their mark, as to unification and stability, failure to a protracted and this impressive remodeling corresponds to the enfeebling conflict with potentially dire social conse­ reestablishment of Tikal power in the region (Martin quences. It is not yet possible to assess whether the [1996b]). wider organization of Late Classic states had a role in Not long thereafter, evidence for long-range inter­ intensifying warfare. Indeed, the opposite case can be action between states, subordination and joint activi­ argued, one which sees the patronage system as a fea­ ties, all but evaporates. These thematic changes seem ture of Classic period order, one whose undoing led to to mark a genuine diminution of such contacts well more chaotic and destabilizing patterns of conflict. before the start of the Terminal Classic. The 9th What can be said is that the decline of inter-polity century, long thought to be a time of increasing insta­ hierarchy probably represents the earliest sign yet of bility and conflict leading towards final collapse, is a the onset of political breakdown within the Late period in which Maya city-states seem more inde­ Classic, the phenomenon known as the collapse of the pendent, but also more isolated. A widening of the Classic Maya Civilization and the end of the Classic Emblem Glyph franchise to include non-regnal lords, period. together with the greater prominence given to sec­ ondary figures more generally, speaks of a weakening of the monopolistic power of kings and the need to Summary appease a more assertive generation of subordinates The ongoing decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs (Chase, Grube & Chase [1991] 7, 13; Fash & Stuart demonstrates that the southern lowlands were politi­ [1991] 171, 175; Scheie & Freidel [1990] 385-392; cally divided into numerous, territorially small states, Stuart [1993a] 332). Indeed, the concomitant increase which maintained their structural autonomy through­ in centers raising monuments for the first time, an out the Classic period. These states were autonomous apparent “balkanization” that has been commented on in internal affairs but were embedded in larger and by a number of scholars (Marcus [1976] 192-193; extremely stable political networks headed by a few Willey [1977]; Culbert [1988] 149; Hammond [1991] powerful hegemonic states. None of the states became 282), seems likely to be a further progression of this powerful enough to transform the region permanently process. Although some states briefly profited during into one political unit. Even though large states such this era - Caracol and then Seibal experienced as Tikal and Calakmul managed to establish long­ renewed vigor - the character of the Classic period term “mini-empires”, the city-state structure persisted had changed irrevocably and the overall trajectory as the principal political unit. The patron states pro­ was toward ever greater dissolution. vided prestige, protection and probably also participa­ Although it may seem particularistic, a single tion in economic wealth from war booty to their defeat, such as Calakmul’s in A.D. 695, could fatally clients. In return, patron states amassed considerable undermine a hegemonic system, which is overly power and profited from tribute collection. Diplo­ reliant on the perception of strength at its dominant macy, interdynastic and interpolity marriage, a com­ core and vulnerable to a sudden desertion by its affili­ plex web of kinship ties and economic interaction on ates (whether to assert their own independence or to various social levels connected the multi-layered seek more advantageous connections elsewhere). Any fabric of Maya states (Martin & Grube [1994]). The City-States of the Maya 561

Maya states shared a common culture. Although it These city-states were encountered by the Spaniards is not known which languages were actually spoken in the 16th century. Because there was no central, over­ by the majority of the population in the Maya low­ arching government it took the Spaniards a long time lands, it is clear that the written language of the hiero­ to conquer Yucatan. The eastern part of the peninsula glyphic inscriptions was a lingua franca for the lit­ was only formally taken over by the Spaniards but erary elite. Southern Classic Maya was the prestigous never really integrated into the colonial empire. Fur­ written language employed by Maya scribes all over ther south in the lowlands of the Peten, the same place the Maya lowlands, and there is not a single state where Maya civilization flourished in the Classic whose royal dynasty was excluded from Maya lit­ period, the aggressive polities of the Itza-Maya - per­ eracy (Stuart, Houston & Robertson [1999]). Besides haps also city-states - became valiant enemies of the writing, Maya states shared a common ideology and Spaniards and managed to resist conquest and Chris­ the same religious beliefs. Even though each city-state tianity until 1697 (Jones [1998]). In the highlands of and its rulers had its own set of patron gods, there was Guatemala the expansionist states of the K’iche’, the a common religious symbol system and shared opin­ Kaqchikel, the Tz’utujiil and the Mam controlled vast ions about the creation of the universe, the origins of areas; since the territories of these states tended to gods, the birth of maize - the principal crop - and correspond to linguistic boundaries, and because of many other features of religious ideology (Freidel, their size these states do not qualify as city-states as Scheie & Parker [1993]). The existence of a common outlined by Hansen, supra 16-19. The small, Late lowland Maya culture is supported by recurrent pat­ Postclassic states of Yucatan, however, are a good terns in the architecture of temples and elite resi­ case for city-states that emerged out of a pre-existing dences across all parts of the lowlands. Regional macro-state. In the Middle Postclassic period (ca. styles often reflect the presence or absence of certain A.D. 1150-1450), the city of Mayapan controlled the material conditions (such as the use of hard limestone entire north of the Yucatan peninsula and subsumed a at Palenque and adobe bricks at Comalcalco), but the whole series of provinces, each with its head town symbol system was not affected by stylistic variation. (Relaciones de Yucatan Vol. 11:18). It is possible, Classic Maya civilization is only one of several though hard to prove, that these provinces originally city-state cultures in Mesoamerica and resembles in were autonomous city-states. After the collapse of many aspects those better-documented city-state cul­ Mayapan (traditionally dated to A.D. 1446), its tures of the Postclassic period, such as the Mixtec “macro-state” broke up into sixteen small states, the (Lind, infra 567-80) and the Aztec (Smith, infra 581- smallest of them covering a territory of 1,000-2,000 95). With these the Maya states also share the km2, and the largest (Uaymil) covered an area of about multiple-level hierarchies of states and the hegemonic 11,000 km2 (Roys [1957]). As in the Classic period, control of lesser states by more powerful ones, where the name of the capital was identical with that of the vassal lords retained their power but were obliged to state, and in some cases also with that of the ruling pay tribute (Grube & Martin [ 1998]). lineage. The city-states of the Maya lowlands collapsed in The Maya therefore provide an interesting case for the 9th and 10th century A.D. There is not enough space a city-state culture which went through processes of here to describe the numerous theories that have been collapse, centralization and again decentralization. At developed to explain this collapse. No single explana­ least twice in its history, the Maya created a city-state tion can account for the variety of processes that led to culture. Joyce Marcus has described the different the accelerating abandonment of the entire lowlands. degrees of centralization as a feature of her “dynamic Ecological pressure and economic failures combined model” of Maya political organization (Marcus with escalating warfare and competition amongst city- [1993], [1998]). She argues that during the periods of states (probably fueled by the disappearance of Calak- major unity the territorial size of Maya states in­ mul as a powerful hegemon) all played a leading rôle creased until, in the case of Mayapan, only one large in the disappearance of lowland Maya city-state cul­ regional state survived. A more sophisticated under­ ture. standing of colonial sources on Postclassic Yucatan as The collapse of the Classic period city-states did well as of the archaeological record now confirms, not result in the disappearance of Maya city-states for­ however, that the city-states never completely disap­ ever. In the Late Postclassic period new city-states peared. Instead, during the predominance of Maya­ emerged in other parts of the Maya lowlands, espe­ pan, they continued as autonomous entities in a cially in the northern half of the Yucatan peninsula. “micro-empire” not unlike the altepetl states of Cen- 562 Nikolai Grube tral Mexico in the Aztec empire. The more we know Chase, A.F. & Diane Z. Chase. 1989. “The Investigation of Classic about Maya states, the more they become truly period Maya Warfare at Caracol,” Mayab 5: 5-18. “Mesoamerican”, having grown out of the same roots Chase, A.F. 1996a. “Mighty Maya Nation: How Caracol Built an Empire by Cultivating its ‘Middle Class’,” Archaeology 49(5): as their neighbors. 66-72. Chase, A.F. 1996b. “More than Kin and King: Centralized Political Organization Among the Ancient Maya,” Current Anthropology Acknowledgements 37(5): 803-10. This article has benefitted greatly from discussions Chase, A.F., Grube, N. & Chase, D.Z. 1991. Three Terminal Classic Monuments from Caracol, Belize. Research Reports on Ancient with Simon Martin and Peter Mathews. I also wish to Maya Writing 36. Center for Maya Research (Washington, D.C.). thank Michael Smith for his valuable critique, as well Chase, D.Z. & Chase, A.F. 1992. “An Archaeological Assessment as Mogens Herman Hansen and the staff of the of Mesoamerican Elites,” in D.Z. Chase & A.F. Chase (eds.), Copenhagen Polis Center for their input of ideas. Mesoamerican Elites: an Archaeological Assessment (Norman and London) 303-317. Chase, D.Z., Chase, A.F & Haviland, W.A. 1990. “The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering ‘The Mesoamerican Urban Tradi­ Bibliography tion’,” American Anthropologist 92(2):499-506. Adams, R.E.W. (ed.) 1977. The Origins of Maya Civilization (Albu­ Christaller, W. 1933. Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland (Jena). querque). Cowgill, G. 1979. “Teotihuacan, Internal Militaristic Competition, Adams, R.E.W. & Culbert T.P. 1977. “The Origins of Civilization in and the Fall of the Classic Maya,” in N. Hammond & G.R. the Maya Lowlands,” in Adams (ed.) 3-24. Willey (eds.), Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory (Austin) 51- Adams, R.E.W. & Jones R.C. 1981. “Spatial Patterns and Regional 62. Growth Among Maya Cities,” American Antiquity 46(2): 301-22. Culbert, T. P. 1973. “The Maya Downfall at Tikal,” in T. Patrick Andrews, A.P. 1983. Maya Salt Production and Trade (Tucson). Culbert (ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse. School of American Ashmore, W. (ed.). 1981. Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns Research. (Albuquerque) 63-92. (Albuquerque). Culbert, T.P. 1988. “Political History and the Decipherment of Ball, Joseph W. 1993. “Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities,” in Maya Glyphs,” Antiquity 62: 135-52. Sabloff & Henderson (eds.) 243-72. Culbert, T.P. 1991. “Polities in the northeast Peten,” in T.P. Culbert Ball, J.W. & Taschek, J.T. 1991. “Late Classic lowland Maya Polit­ (ed.), Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archae­ ical Organization and Central-Place Analysis,” Ancient Meso­ ological Evidence. School of American Research Advanced america 2(2): 149-65. Seminar Series. (Cambridge) 128-46. Barthel, T.S. 1968a. “El complejo ‘emblema’,” Estudios de Cultura Culbert, T. P. & Rice, D.S. 1990. Precolumbian Population History Maya 7: 159-93. in the Maya Lowlands (Albuquerque). Barthel, T.S. 1968b “Historisches in den klassischen Mayain­ Culbert, T. P., Kosakowsky, L.J., Fry R.E. & Haviland W.A. 1990. schriften,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 93: 119-156. “The Population of Tikal, Guatemala,” in T.P. Culbert & D.S. Berdan, F.F., Blanton, R.E., Boone, E.H., Hodge, M.G., Smith M.E. Rice (eds.), Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Low­ & Umberger, E. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton lands (Mbuqaerque) 103-21. Oaks, (Washington, D.C.). Demarest, A. 1992. “Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: Berlin, H. 1958. “El glifo ‘emblema’ en las inscripciones mayas,” The Dynamics of Galactic Polities,” in A.A. Demarest & G.W. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 47: 111-19. Conrad (eds.), Ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations (Santa Bray, W.M. 1972. “The City-State in Central Mexico at the Time of Fe, New Mexico) 135-57. the Spanish Conquest,” Journal of Latin American Studies de Montmollin, O. 1989. The Archaeology of Political Structure: 4(2):161-185. Settlement Analysis in a Classic Maya Polity (Cambridge). Bullard, W.R. Jr. 1960. “Maya settlement pattern in northeastern de Montmollin, O. 1995. Settlement and Politics in Three Classic Peten, Guatemala,” American Antiquity 25: 355-72. Maya Polities (Madison). Calnek, E.E. 1982. “Patterns of empire formation in the Valley of Erasmus, Ch.J. 1968. “Thoughts on Upward Collapse: An Essay on Mexico, late Post-Classic period, 1200-1521,” in G. Collier, R. Explanation in Archaeology,” Southwestern Journal of Anthro­ Rosaldo, & J. Wirth (eds.), The Inca and Aztec States 1400-1800: pology'll. 170-94. Anthropology and History (New York) 43-62 Fash, William L, & David S. Stuart. 1991. “Dynastic History and Carmack. R.M. 1981. The Quiché Mayas ofUtatlán: The Evolution Cultural Evolution at Copan,” in T.P. Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya of a highland Guatemala Kingdom (Norman). Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. Carr, R.F. & Hazard, J.E. 1961. Tikal report No. 11: Map of the School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series (Cam­ Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala (Philadelphia). bridge) 147-79. Carrasco, P. 1984. “Royal Marriages in Ancient Mexico,” in H.J. Fedick, Scott L. 1996. 77ie Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agri­ Prem & H.R. Harvey (eds.), Explorations in Ethnohistory: culture and Resource Use (Salt Lake City). Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century (Albu­ Flannery, K.V. 1972. “The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations,” An­ querque) 41-81. nual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426. Carrasco, P. 1996. Estructura politico-territorial del imperio Folan, W.J. 1985. “Calakmul, Campeche: su centro urbano, estado tenochca: La triple alianza de Tenochtitlan, Tetzcocoy Tlacopan. y región en relación al concepto del resto de la Gran Meso­ Fondo de Cultura Económica y El Colegio de México (Mexico, america,” Información 9: 161-85. D.F.). Folan, W.J. 1994. “Calakmul, Campeche, México: Una mega- The City-States of the Maya 563

lópolis maya en el petén del norte,” in W. Folan (ed.), Campeche Haviland, W. 1989. Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Non­ Maya Colonial (Campeche) 55-83. elite Groups Without Shrines. Tikal Reports, No. 20. University Folan, W.J., Kintz, E.R. & Fletcher, L.A. 1983. Coba, A Classic Museum Monograph, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). Maya Metropolis (London, New York). Hester, Th.R. & Shafer, H.J. 1984. “Exploitation of Chert Re­ Fox, J.W. 1987. Maya Post-Classic State Formation: Segmentary sources by the Ancient Maya of Northern Belize,” World Archae­ Lineage Migration in Advancing Frontiers (Cambridge). ology 16,2: 157-73. Fox, J.W. 1994. “Political Cosmology among the Quiché Maya,” in Hester, Th.R., Shafer, H.J. & Jack D. Eaton. J.D. 1982. Archaeology E.M. Brumfiel & J.W. Fo (eds.), Factional Competition and at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report. Center for Archaeo­ Political Development in the New World (Cambridge) 158-70. logical Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Fox, R.G. 1977. Urban Anthropology: Cities in their Cultural Set­ Hodge, M.G. 1984. Aztec City-States. Memoirs of the Museum of tings. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Anthropology, University of Michigan 18 (Ann Arbor). Freidel, D. 1986. “Maya Warfare: An Example of Peer Polity Inter­ Houston, S.D. 1992a. “Weak States and Segmentary Structure: The action,” in Renfrew & Cherry (eds.) 93-108. Internal Organization of Classic Maya Polities,” Draft prepared Freidel, D. & Scheie L. 1983. “Symbol and Power: A History of the for the symposium The Segmentary State and the Classic Low­ Lowland Maya Cosmogram.” Paper presented at the Conference land Maya, October 14-18, 1992, Cleveland State University. on the Origins of Classic Maya Iconography, Princeton Univer­ Houston, S.D. 1992b. “Classic Maya Politics,” in E.C. Danien & R. sity. Sharer (eds.), New Theories on the Ancient Maya. Unversity Freidel, D., Scheie, L. & Parker, J. 1993. Maya Cosmos: Three Museum, University of Philadelphia (Philadelphia) 65-9. Thousand Years on the Shamans Path (New York). Houston, S.D. 1993. Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Geertz, C. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya (Austin). Bali. (Princeton). Houston, S.D. & Mathews, PL. 1985. The Dynastic Sequence of Gillespie, S.D. 1998. “The Aztec Triple Alliance: A Postconquest Dos Pilas. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Monograph 1 Tradition,” in E.H. Boone & T. Cummins (eds.), Native Tradi­ (San Francisco). tions in the Postconquest World (Washington, D.C.) 233-63. Jaeger Liepins, S. 1994. “The Conchita Causeway Settlement Sub­ Grube, N. 1988. ‘“Städtegründer’ und ‘Erste Herrscher’ in Hiero­ program,” in D.Z. Chase & A.F. Chase (eds.), Studies in the glyphentexten der Klassischen Mayakultur,” Archiv für Völker­ Archaeology of Caracol, Belize,. Pre-Columbian Art Research kunde 42: 69-90. Institute, Monograph 7 (San Francisco). Grube, N. 1996. “Palenque in the Maya World,” in M. Macri & Jones, Chr. 1991. “Cycles of Growth at Tikal,” in T.P. Culbert (ed.), M.G. Robertson, M.G. (eds.), Eighth Palenque Round Table (San Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeolog­ Francisco) 1-13. ical Evidence. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Grube, N. & Martin, S. 1998. “Política clásica maya dentro de una Series (Cambridge) 102-7. tradición mesoamericana: un modelo epigráfico de organización Jones, Chr. & Orrego, M. 1987. “Corosal Stela 1 and Tikal Miscel­ política ‘hegemónica’,” in S. Trejo (ed.), Modelos de entidades laneous Stone 167: Two New Monuments from the Tikal políticas mayas: Primer Seminario de Mesas Redondas de Vicinity, Guatemala,” Mexicon IX(6): 129-133. Palenque (México, D.F.) 131-46. Jones, G.D. 1998. The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom (Stan­ Haggert, P. 1965. Locational Analysis in Human Geography (New ford). York). Lacadena Garcia-Gallo, A. & Ruiz, A.C. 1998. “Reflexiones sobre Hammond, N. 1972. “Locational Models and the Site of Lubaantun: la Estructura Política Maya Clasica,” in Ruiz et al. (eds.) A Classic Maya Centre,” in D.L. Clarke (ed.), Models in Archae­ (Madrid) 31-64. ology (London) 757-800. Le Fort, G. & Wald, R.F. 1995. “Large Numbers on Naranjo Stela Hammond, N. 1974. “The Distribution of late Classic Maya Major 32,” Mexicon Vol. XVII No. 6: 112-14. Ceremonial Centers in the Central Area,” in N. Hammond (ed.), Lounsbury, F. 1973. “On the Derivation and Reading of the “ben- Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches (Austin) 313-34. ich” Prefix,” in E.P. Benson (ed.), Mesoamerican Writing Sys­ Hammond, N. 1975 Lubaantun: A Classic Maya Realm. Memoirs tems (Washington D.C.) 99-143. of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard McAnany, P. 1995. Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and King- University, 2. (Cambridge, Massachusetts). ship in Ancient Maya Society (Austin). Hammond, N. 1991. “Inside the Black Box - Defining Maya Marcus, J. 1973. “Territorial Organization of the lowland Classic polity,” in T.P. Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya Political History Maya,” Science 1980: 911-16. (Cambridge) 253-284. Marcus, J. 1976. Emblem and State in the Classic Maya lowlands: Hammond, N., Tourtellot, G., Everson, G., Thomas, B. & Wolf M. An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization (Wash­ 1999. “Survey and Excavation at La Milpa, Belize, 1999,” Mex- ington, D.C.). icon XXI 5: 89-92. Marcus, J. 1983. “Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads,” Harrison, P.D. & Turner, B.L. 1978. Pre-Hispanic Maya Agricul­ American Antiquity 48: 454-88. ture (Albuquerque). Marcus, J. 1989. “From Centralized Systems to City States: Pos­ Hassig, R. 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation (Norman). sible Models for the Epiclassic,” in R.A. Diehl & J.C. Berio Hassig, R. 1988. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political (eds.), Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan: A.D. 700- Control (Norman). 900 (Washington, D.C.) 201-8. Haviland, W. 1965. “Prehistoric Settlement at Tikal, Guatemala,” Marcus, J. 1993. “Ancient Maya Political Organization,” in Sabloff Expedition 7(3): 14-23. & Henderson (eds.) 111-71. Haviland, W. 1969. “A New Population Estimate for Tikal, Marcus, J. 1998. “The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States. An Guatemala,” American Antiquity 34: 424-33. Extension of the Dynamic Model,” in G.M. Feinman & J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic States (Santa Fe) 59-94. 564 Nikolai Grube

Marcus, J. & Feinman, G.M. 1998. “Introduction,” in G.M. Relaciones de Yucatán. 1898-1900. Colección de documentos Feinman & J. Marcus (eds.), Archaic States (Santa Fe) 3-13. inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organización de Martin, S. 1996a. “Lords and Overlords: Decoding Political Hier­ las antiguas posesiones españoles de ultramar. 2. serie, Tomos I, archy at Piedras Negras, Guatemala,” Paper presented at the II. Real Academia de la Historia (Madrid). British Museum conference: Maya Kings and Warfare in the Renfrew, C. 1982. “Polity and Power: Interaction, Intensification, Usumacinta Basin, June 22-26 1996 (London). and Exploitation,” in C. Renfrew & M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Martin, S. 1996b. “Tikal’s ‘Star War’ against Naranjo,” in M. Macri Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge) & M.G. Robertson (eds.), Eighth Palenque Round Table, June 264-90. 1993. Pre-Columbian Art-Research Institute (San Francisco) 1: Renfrew, C. & Cherry, J.F. (eds.). 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and 223-35. Socio-Political Change (Cambridge). Martin, S. 1998. “At the Periphery: Early Monuments in the Rice, D.S., Rice, P.M. & Pugh, T. 1998. “Settlement Continuity and Vicinity of Tikal,” Paper presented at the 3rd European Maya Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region: The Case of Conference (Hamburg). Zacpeten,” in Ruiz et al (eds.) 207-52. Martin, S. & Grube, N. 1994. “Evidence for Macropolitical Organi­ Roys, R.L. 1957. The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. zation amongst Classic Maya Lowland States,” Manuscript, Uni­ Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 548 (Wash­ versity College of London and University of Bonn. ington D.C.). Martin, S. & Grube, N. 1995, “Maya Superstates,” Archaeology, Ruiz, A.C. et al. (eds.) 1998. Anatomía de una civilización Vol. 48 No. 6, November/December, 41-46. (Madrid). Martin, S. & Grube, N. n.d. Chronicle of the Maya Kings (London). Sabloff, J.A. 1986. “Interaction among Classic Maya Polities,” in Mathews, P. 1985. “Early Classic Monuments and Inscriptions,” in Renfrew & Cherry (eds.) 109-116. G.R. Willey & P. Mathews (eds.), A Consideration of the Early Sabloff J.A. & Henderson J.S. (eds.). 1993. Lowland Maya Civil­ Classic Period in the Maya Lowlands. Institute for Mesoamer- ization in the Eighth Century A.D.. Dumbarton Oaks Research ican Studies, Publication No. 10. State University of New York at Library and Collection (Washington, D.C.). Albany, 5-55. Sanders, W.T. 1981. “Classic Maya Settlement Pattems and Ethno­ Mathews, P. 1988. The Sculpture of Yaxchilan. Ph.D. dissertation. graphic Analogy,” in Ashmore (ed.) 351-69. Department of Anthropology, Yale University. University Micro­ Sanders, W.T. & Santley, R. 1983. “Tale of Three Cities: Energetics films, Ann Arbor. and Urbanism in Prehispanic Central Mexico,” in E.Z. Vogt & Mathews, P. 1991. “Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs,” in T.P. Culbert R.M. Leventhal (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in (ed.), Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archae­ Honor of Gordon R. Willey (Albuquerque) 243-91. ological Evidence. School of American Research Advanced Sanders, W.T. & Webster, D. 1988. “The Mesoamerican Urban Tra­ Seminar Series (Cambridge) 19-29. dition,” American Anthropologist 90: 521-46. Mathews P. 1998. “Una lectura de un nuevo monumento de El Scheie, L. 1992. “The Founders of Lineages at Copan and other Cayo, Chiapas, y sus implicaciones políticas,” in S. Trejo (ed.), Maya Sites,” Ancient Mesoamerica 3 (1): 135-44. Modelos de entidades políticas mayas: Primer Seminario de Scheie, L. & Freidel, D. 1990. Forest of Kings. The Untold Story of Mesas Redondas de Palenque. Instituto Nacional de Antro­ the Ancient Maya (New York). pología e Historia (México, D.F.) 113-29. Scheie, L. & Mathews, P. 1991. “Royal Visits and Other Intersite Mathews, P. & Justeson, J.S. 1984. “Pattems of Sign Substitution in Relationships,” in T.P. Culbert (ed.), Classic Maya Political His­ Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: The ‘Affix Cluster’,” in J.S. tory (Cambridge) 226-52. Justeson & L. Campbell (eds.), Phoneticism in Mayan Hiero­ Scheie, L. & Miller, M.E. 1986. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and glyphic Writing. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State Uni­ Ritual in Maya Art (Fort Worth). versity of New York at Albany, Publication 9. (Albany) 185-231. Shafer, H.J. & Hester, Th.R. 1983. “Ancient Maya Chert Work­ McAnany, P.A. 1995. Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and King- shops in Northern Belize, Central America,” American Antiquity ship in Ancient Maya Society (Austin). 48: 519-43. Morley, S.G. 1946. The Ancient Maya (Stanford). Sharer, R.J. 1978. “Archaeology and History of Quirigua, Gua­ Morley, S.G. 1947. The Ancient Maya, 2nd edn. (Stanford). temala,” Journal of Field Archaeology 5: 51-70. Mumford, L. 1961. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transfor­ Smith, M.E. 1986. “The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec mations, Its Prospects (New York). Empire: A View from the Provinces,” American Anthropologist Price, B.J. 1977. “Shifts in Production and Organization: a Cluster- 88: 70-91. Interaction Model,” Current Anthropology 18:209-33. Smith, M.E. 1996. The Aztecs (Oxford). Proskouriakoff, T. 1960. “Historical Implications of a Pattern of Southall, A.W. 1956. Alur Society: A Study in Processes and Types Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala,” American Antiquity 25: of Domination (Cambridge). 454-75. Spores, R. 1965. “The Zapotee and Mixtec at Spanish Contact,” in Puleston, D.E. & Callender, Jr., D.W. 1967. “Defensive Earthworks R. Wauchope (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians Vol.3 at Tikal,” Expedition 9(3): 40-8. Pt.2: 962-987 (Austin). Puleston, D.E. & Callender, Jr., D.W. 1983. “The Settlement Survey Spores, R. 1993. “Tututepec: A Postclassic-period Mixtec conquest of Tikal,” Tikal Reports No. 13. University Museum Monograph state,” Ancient Mesoamerica 4:167-74. 48, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). Stuart, D. 1993. “Historical Inscriptions and the Maya Collapse,” in Pybum, K. A. 1988. The Settlement of Nohmul: Development of a Sabloff & Henderson (eds.) 321-54. Prehispanic Maya Community in Northern Belize. British Stuart, D. & Houston, S.D. 1994. Classic Maya Place Names. Archaeological Records (Oxford). Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No.33. Dumb­ Reents-Budet, D, 1994. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal arton Oaks (Washington, D.C.). Ceramics of the Classic Period (Durham & London). The City-States of the Maya 565

Stuart, D., Houston, S.D. & Robertson, J. 1999. Classic Maya Lan­ Tourtellot, G. 1993. “A View of Ancient Maya Settlements in the guage. Notebook for the XXIIIrd Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Eighth Century,” in Sabloff & Henderson (eds.) 219-41. Texas. The University of Texas at Austin. Turner, B. L. & Harrison, P.D. 1983. Pulltrouser Swamp: Ancient Tambiah, S.J. 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Maya Habitat, Agriculture and Settlement in Northern Belize study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand against a Historical (Austin). Background. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 15 Turner, E.S., Turner, N.I. & Adams, R.E.W. 1981. “Volumetric (Cambridge). Assessment, Rank Ordering, and Maya Civic Centers,” in Ash­ Tambiah, S.J. 1977. “The Galactic Polity: The Structure of Tradi­ more (ed.) 37-70. tional Kingdoms in Southeast Asia,” in S.A. Freed (ed.), Anthro­ Webster, D. 1976. Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, pology and the Climate of Opinion. Annals of the New York Mexico: Implications for Maya Warfare. Publication No. 41, Academy of Science 293 (New York) 69-97. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University (New Thompson, J.E.S. 1950. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduc­ Orleans). tion. Carnegie Insitute of Washington, Publication 589 (Wash­ Webster, D. 1977. “Warfare and the Evolution of Maya Civiliza­ ington D.C.). tion,” in Adams (ed.) 335-72. Thompson, J.E.S. 1954. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization Webster, D. & Fréter, A-C. 1990. “The Demography of late Classic (Norman). Copan,” in T.P. Culbert & D.S. Rice (eds.), Precolumbian Popu­ Tourtellot, G. 1988. Excavations at Seibal: Peripheral Survey and lation History in the Maya Lowlands (Albuquerque) 37-61. Excavations. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Wesson, R.G. 1978. State Systems (New York). Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 16. Harvard University (Cam­ Willey, G.R. 1977. “A Pasión Valley Perspective,” in Adams (ed.) bridge, Mass.). 133-157.