A Crisis of Identity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Society for American Archaeology A Crisis of Identity: Late Classic Competition and Interaction on the Southeast Maya Periphery Author(s): Edward Schortman and Seiichi Nakamura Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 311-336 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971781 . Accessed: 28/10/2013 12:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:40:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A CRISIS OF IDENTITY: LATE CLASSIC COMPETITION AND INTERACTIONON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY EdwardSchortman and Seiichi Nakamura Archaeologistsfrequentlyassume that whencultures interact with each otherthe mostcomplex partner dominates the transactions. We propose that this is a misleadinglysimple view of a complex process. A frameworkfor modelingintersocietal interaction and understandingits sociopoliticalconsequences is outlinedhere. This theo- reticalstructure calls attentionto who is actually involvedin the interactionprocess, how these transactionsare carriedout, and what the goals of the contactpartners are. The complex materialpatterns from two neighboring areas of Late Classic (A.D. 600-950) southeastMesoamerica are then examined using the proposedmodel to see what insightsinto ancient interactionprocesses it can provide. Los arqueologosfrecuentemente asumen que las culturasson entidadeshomogeneas que interactuanmutua- mente,y cuando esto sucede,la parte mas complejadomina. En este trabajose proponeque este es un punto de vista erroneoy demasiadosimplista, ya que el procesoes complejo. Las interaccio nes entresociedades se lleva a cabo no por culturas,sino porfacciones dentrode las sociedadesen cuestion.Estas facciones interactuanbajo la perspectivade la identidadsocial, en tanto que categoriaaceptada por todas las partes. El marco de referencia del modelo de interaccionde sociedades y de sus consecuenciassociopoliticas esta disenado utilizando este concepto.Esta estructurateorica pone enfasissobre el agente involucradoen el procesode interaccion,en la forma en que estas relacionesse llevan a cabo y en las metas que tienen las partes en contacto. En dos regionesadyacentes del surestede Mesoamerica(el valle del Bajo Motagua, Guatemala,y la regionde La Entrada,Honduras) durante el Clasico Tardfo(60s900 D.C.), se observarontres patrones complejos con base en datos arqueologicos.Estos son: el patron de las tierrasbajas mayas, el patron del Bajo Motaguay el patron de transformacioncultural intermedia. En este artfeulo,se examinan estos tres patrones utilizandoel modelo propuesto para verque perspectivas emergen respecto del proceso de interaccion en la a ntiguedad. En consecuencia, se proponeuna hipotesisque consideraque la formacion de estos tres patronesde interaccionentre las elites se originapor competenciasobre recursosy por el deseo de las elites de facilitar, controlary monopolizarlos flujos interregionales.Asimismo, en el transfondode la formacion de estos ambientesse supone que se encuentrael conflictoentre Copany Quirigua,durante el siglo VIII. This articleaddresses general questions of interregionalinteraction within the context of a specific portion of the southeast Maya periphery(eastern Guatemala, western Honduras,and E1Salvador). The areasunder scrutiny are the lower MotaguaValley, northeastern Guatemala, and the neighboring La Venta and Florida valleys (togethercomprising the La Entradaregion), northwestern Honduras (Figure 1). Traditionally,southeast Maya peripheryresearch has been phrasedin terms of contrasts and contact between two monolithic cultural entities, the Lowland Maya, representedat the sites of Quiriguaand Copan, and non-Maya. Research has focused on the former with the non-Maya portions of the southeast receiving systematic attention only over the past 25 years. This disparity follows from the often implicit assumption that non-Maya polities were relatively simple, passive recipientsof LowlandMaya innovations (cf. Beaudry1987; Earnestand Demarest 1987; Schortman and Urban 1986). We have also tended to ignore the behavioral implications of the attribution "LowlandMaya." Those of us workingin the southeasthave been guilty, therefore,of two common archaeologicalshortcomings: (1) thinking of cultures(Maya and non-Maya in this case) as homog- enous entities that act and interact as though alive (e.g., see papers in Hodder [1978]); and (2) EdwardSchortman, Department of Anthropologyand Sociology,Kenyon College, Gambier,OH 43022 Seiichi Nakamura, La Entrada ArchaeologicalProject, Colonia Vanessa, La Entrada, Copan, Honduras, CentralAmerica Latin American Antiquity, 2(4), 1991, pp. 331-336. Copyright (B) 1991 by the Society for American Archaeology 311 This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:40:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991 312N.M. < O MOTAGUA Lakelzabal ga zJ j , m ,_,< .J;. : r i,: k: f MS *E; N ( 10 PARAISO <;) > / > 0 W 11 LAS PILAS _r \ 12 EL A BR A rJ / 13 EL PUENTE 14 LAS TAPIAS 15 LOS H IGOS 0 10 20 k m 16 NUEVA SUYA PA 17 RONCADOR 18 AZACUALPA Figure 1. The Lower Motagua and La Venta Regions, illustrating the location of major sites mentioned in the text. assuming that intersocietal transactionsare always dominated by the most complexly organized interactionpartner. We will attempt to undermineboth premises. In doing so two related queries will be addressed with broad implications for the study of prehistoricinteraction processes: (1) What social entities actually take part in intersocietalcontacts?, and (2) How do these transactionsovercome obstacles of languageand mistrust that frequentlyseparate societies? One of us has discussed these points in some detail elsewhere (Schortman 1989; Schortman and Urban 1987). In essence, we argue that intersocietalinteraction is carriedout not by cultures but by factions within them. These factions deal with each other in terms of social identities,mutually agreed upon, self-ascribedcultural categoriesto which are attached specific behavioral expectations (Rapoport 1982:170, 183, 191). In order for this classificationscheme to be useful affiliationsmust be expressedby easily visible, prominentcues such as elements of dress,physique, and ornamentation(Deagan 1983;Wobst 1977). These cues are cultural-orientationdevices that clarifyto the participantswhat categoriesof people are present and, hence, what behaviors to expect (Rapoport 1982:181-183; Wiessner 1983:257). People have a number of different social identities that they can actualize, though limits to the availableset may be imposed by factorsover which individualshave no control(Lyman and Douglass 1973; O'Brien 1986:899; Shennan 1989:28; Worsley 1984:246). This consideration takes us from an appreciation of identities as static features of the social landscapeto the dynamics of their manipulation.Interpersonal interactions, in this view, are seen as competitionsover resources.In orderto succeedin these strugglesindividuals choose from among their available affiliationsthe ones that will give them the greatestadvantages vis a vis other social This content downloaded from 136.159.160.253 on Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:40:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Schortman and Nakamura] CRISIS OF IDENTITYON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY 313 actors who, themselves, are displaying particularidentities (Cohen 1978:388; Handelman 1977: 187-189,193-194; Royce 1982:24,26; Vincent 1974:376).Social affiliations,therefore, form around encountersfocused on specific resources,the importanceof which regularlybrings people together and requirespredictable interaction conducted in terms of agreed upon conceptualcategories pro- claimed by generallyunderstood symbols (Barth1969: 15-18; Cohen 1978:388;Shibutani and Kwan 1965:38-39, 67-68). Salient social identitiescoalesce around a particularlyimportant resource set (Basham 1976:8; Blu 1980:33; Cohen 1978:396). These are the most commonly used affiliations within an individual'srepertoire. They develop where people holdingthe same identity consistently unite in opposition to individuals proclaimingother social identities at the same level of general- ization (Handelman1977:196-197; Shibutaniand Kwan 1965:208-210; Worsley 1984:247).Salient affiliationsserve as the basis for group action to secure and/or maintain control over an important resource(s)(Rapoport 1982:191-192; Worsley 1984:249). This feeling of solidarity is ultimately founded on shared patternsof behavior motivated by similar assumptions, values, and standards of evaluation (Barth 1969:10, 13; Cohen 1978:383, 386-387; Royce 1982:18, 25; Shibutani and Kwan 1965:40-41, 43-44; Vincent 1974:376). The relationbetween salient identities and competitionover importantresources is amply attested in the ethnographicand ethnohistoricliterature. The Hausatrading network in contemporaryNigeria