Political Theaters of the Classic Maya Author(S): Takeshi Inomata Source: Current Anthropology, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya Author(s): Takeshi Inomata Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 47, No. 5 (October 2006), pp. 805-842 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/506279 . Accessed: 18/01/2015 16:49 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]. The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:49:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006 805 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators Political Theaters of the Classic Maya by Takeshi Inomata Theatrical performances not only communicate preexisting ideas but also define political reality as it is experienced by participants. Theatrical events thus constitute a critical process of integration and conflict in a wide range of societies and have particularly significant effects on the maintenance and transformation of premodern centralized polities. The study of performances allows archaeol- ogists to explore the interrelations between political, social, and cultural factors and provides an approach to action and meaning different from the one that views the material record as text. The analysis of plazas in Classic Maya society (AD 250–900) suggests that the performances of rulers depicted on stone monuments involved a large audience and that securing theatrical spaces for mass spectacles was a primary concern in the design of Maya cities. Such events gave physical reality to a Maya community and counteracted the centrifugal tendency of nonelite populations. How did large societies of the past achieve a certain degree entities in the premodern world. The way ancient people ex- of cohesion underscored by collectively held cultural and perienced the presence of such political organization was not moral values? Anderson (1991, 6) has argued that “all com- always the same as ours. Whereas today the notion of the munities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact state is internalized in the political consciousness of numerous (and perhaps even these) are imagined” in the sense that individuals, many early states may not have had resources and individuals never know most of their fellow members or meet mechanisms to assert their constant presence in the minds them but nevertheless bear the image of their communion and daily lives of their subject populations. Foucault (1977 (see Canuto and Yaeger 2000). There is, however, a vast gap [1975], 187) noted that, in premodern Europe before the between “primordial villages” and the modern nation-states technologies of discipline were developed, state power was for which Anderson developed his concept. Whereas he has what was seen. Likewise, before the rise of modern nation- emphasized the role of the written media in the creation of alism, individuals’ identities as members of states may often imagined communities, many large communities in the past have been weaker than their identities as members of smaller emerged without much benefit of writing. While avoiding social groups such as kin groups and local communities (An- naı¨ve concepts of a true or natural community, we need to derson 1991). In certain historical contexts, then, subject pop- recognize that human sociality and identity are rooted in our ulations’ perception and experience of authorities and na- sensory perceptions of the presence and actions of others. tional unity were highly uneven, accentuated in the specific Many communities in antiquity were probably not totally temporal and spatial contexts of state-sponsored events such imagined but groups based to some degree on direct inter- as ceremonies and construction projects but diluted or even actions between individuals. In addition, no organization can nonexistent in the routines of daily lives. In those cases, what exist without symbols that give concrete, sensible forms to many individuals consciously recognized and thought about group identities (Kertzer 1988, 15). The values, traditions, may have been the tangible images of the ruler’s body, state and identities of a community are not timeless, transcendent buildings, and collective acts but probably not the abstract entities but anchored in the tangible images and acts that each notion of a state. individual can directly sense. These considerations call attention to the political impli- The relation between the tangible and the imagined aspects cations and consequences of theatrical performances in public of society is particularly important when we examine political events in which many individuals sense and witness the bodily existence and participation of other members and the cultural Takeshi Inomata is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the and moral values of the community are objectified and em- University of Arizona (P.O. Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. bodied. In particular, I argue that the development of large [[email protected]]). The present paper was submitted 21 IX centralized polities would have been impossible in any his- 04 and accepted 14 II 06. torical context without heavy reliance on public events. Classic ᭧ 2006 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2006/4705-0004$10.00 This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:49:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 806 Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 5, October 2006 Maya society (AD 250–900), in which rulers and elites actively sponsored and participated in public rituals and festivals, pro- vides fertile ground for an exploration of the intersection of theatrical performances and politics (fig. 1). By analyzing the spatial contexts of public performances at Maya centers, I examine how public events facilitated and conditioned the integration and identity formation of a community and set the stage for the imposition and negotiation of asymmetrical power relations. Theater, Community, and Power Theory of Performance Recent developments in performance theory, theater studies, and dramaturgic analysis provide a theoretical basis for this study. The concepts of performance used by social scientists have a wide range of meanings. On one end of this continuum is a prescribed act in modern theater. Schechner (1977, 75; 1988, 6–16; 1994) distinguishes theater from other types of performances such as rituals, sports, and games by noting that it requires the physical presence of an audience that observes and evaluates it with an emphasis on entertainment. Beeman (1993, 379) stresses the symbolic reality of theater, in which the performers represent themselves in roles de- tached from their lives outside the performance. On the other end of the continuum is a broad definition of performance as an enactment of what it refers to (Pearson and Shanks 2001). In this view, the emphasis is on what human beings Figure 1. The Maya area, showing the locations of the centers do as opposed to thoughts and abstract structures. An explicit mentioned in the text. theoretical formulation of this perspective is found in the concept of the performative utterance in speech-act theory. Certain utterances do not simply describe social relations but Theatricality is defined in terms of the emotional—including effect them (Austin 1962). Goffman (1959, 22; 1967) has also both positive and negative—responses that the performance proposed a broad definition of performance: “all the activity produces in participants and its symbolic reality, with a se- of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his miotic system distinct from that of unconscious, routine acts continuous presence before a particular set of observers and (Fischer-Lichte 1992, 139–40; 1995; Pavis 1998[1980], 395). which has some effect on the observers.” He has emphasized In addition, theatricality involves the use of material images the theatricality that is present even in everyday activities and in dynamic motion as media of expression and communi- has examined their communicative and expressive qualities, cation in which the human body takes a central role (Grimes through which people project different identities and images 1987; Read 1993, 10). In this sense, theatricality is present in under different circumstances. many contexts outside of the modern formal theater. Al- The present study builds on these diverse theoretical views. though many of the events that I discuss may be called rituals, Nonetheless, the purpose of my research requires a definition I often use the term “theatrical performance” to make my of performance that is tighter than those of Austin and Goff- theoretical approach explicit (see Moore and Myerhoff 1977). man yet broad enough to include various activities which take The significance of these theoretical developments con- place outside of formal theaters (see MacAloon 1984a, 6). cerning performance can be situated in a broader trend in Following Hymes (1975, 13–19), I define performance as cre- archaeology and other social sciences which, inspired by prac- ative, realized, achieved acts which are interpretable, report- tice theory and agency theory, calls attention to what people able, and repeatable within a domain of cultural intelligibility. do (Bourdieu 1977[1972]; Giddens 1984). This view is ac- What distinguishes it is the qualities that are consciously rec- companied by a conceptualization of political processes as ognized by performers and an audience.