APAA apaa12035 Dispatch: August 7, 2014 CE: N/A Journal MSP No. No. of pages: 17 PE: XXXXX 1 2 3 4 5 11 6 7 8 Resilience and Vulnerability 9 10 in the Maya Hinterlands 11 12 13 Gyles Iannone 14 Trent University 15 Keith Prufer 16 17 University of New Mexico 18 and 19 Diane Z. Chase 20 University of Central Florida 21 22 23 24 25 ABSTRACT 26 Given their grand architecture, intricately carved monuments, and colorful histories, the largest Maya centers 27 have long drawn the attention of archaeologists and non-specialists alike. Early interest in the infamous Maya 28 collapse was, in fact, initially inspired by the discovery of these “lost cities in the jungle.” This research focus was 29 further stimulated by advances in deciphering the Maya hieroglyphic script, and the recognition that monument 30 erection—or in other words, the written histories of most of the southern Lowland centers—came to a rather abrupt 31 end in the 9th century C.E. IHOPE scholars are attempting to elucidate the conditions that lead to the decline of 32 these impressive centers. In doing so, the trajectories of smaller communities, and or those located in hinterlands 33 between the more prominent centers, have emerged as interesting counterpoints that provide unique, and no less 34 significant, examples of resilience and vulnerability. The emerging data suggest that these communities had specific 35 strengths and weaknesses, which in turn provided them with a particular set of challenges, as well as a specific range 36 of coping mechanisms they could marshal when dealing with their ever-changing environment circumstances (i.e., 37 climate change, resource availability, landscape modifications), and the highly dynamic geopolitical landscape within 38 which they were embedded. This paper will discuss some of the key insights derived from our examination of hinter- 39 land communities, with particular attention being paid to the broader implications of the contrasting trajectories 40 exhibited by these segments of ancient Maya society. [archaeology, Maya, hinterland, innovation, resilience] 41 UNCORRECTED PROOF 42 43 s part of our efforts to explore issues of resilience ern Maya Lowlands that can be geographically character- 44 A and vulnerability in the ancient Maya world, IHOPE ized as encompassing the Caribbean coastal shelf and the 45 scholars are not only examining the heartlands of Maya Maya Mountains. Not only did these centers emerge in 46 polities, but also their hinterlands. These zones, and their varied ecological, economic, and political settings, their 47 resident communities, are intriguing places to study pre- periods of florescence also occurred at different times 48 cisely because of their distinctive characteristics. In this during the broader Maya developmental trajectory. These 49 paper we explore issues relating to resilience and vul- case studies provide a glimpse into the dynamic nature of 50 nerability in three Maya centers located today in differ- socio-ecological development and denouement in the Maya 51 ent parts of Belize (Figure 11.1), an area of the east- hinterlands. ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 155–170, ISSN 1551-823X, online ISSN 1551-8248. C 2014 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/apaa.12035. 1 156 Gyles Iannone and et al. 2 3 4 diversification of resources, in this case cultural resources. 5 . In both cases they provide increasing social-ecological 6 resilience as they broaden the diversity of biological species 7 and cultural knowledge that can be drawn upon for liveli- 8 hood.” 9 Others suggest that hinterland communities have an in- 10 herent level of resilience because distance from polity cap- 11 itals affords them a significant level of autonomy (see also 12 Browman 1997:230). The resilience of hinterland communi- 13 ties may also be enhanced because they are located between 14 competing polities and can, therefore, ally themselves with 15 the polity that is most beneficial to local power structures or 16 institutions, and or the polity that has taken the upper hand 17 in a territorial dispute (Hassig 1992:98). 18 Hinterlands may also have significant vulnerabilities. 19 For example, considerable debate exists concerning how in- 20 novative, and hence resilient, hinterland communities are. 21 Sander van der Leeuw (2007:219) posits that hinterlands 22 are disadvantaged when compared to heartlands because 23 the latter are the centers for innovation; the more periph- 24 eral a settlement is, the “more unattainable the innovations 25 are.” Others suggest that it is during times of stress that 26 loosely integrated hinterlands become vulnerable, because 27 such “modularity” inhibits the transfer of assistance and 28 Figure 11.1. Map of the Maya subarea showing the location of the innovations precisely when they are most needed (Cum- 29 three hinterland case studies. ming 2011:138; Walker and Salt 2012:95–96). Similarly, 30 Kopytoff (1999:33) argues that there is often a significant 31 level of “cultural conservatism” in hinterland communities, 32 Resilience and Vulnerability in the which stifles innovation on the local scale. According to 33 Hinterlands Kopytoff (1999:33–34), although the inhabitants of hinter- 34 land communities tend to see themselves as innovators, with 35 In considering the qualities of hinterlands and how these substantial leeway to create any kind of society they wish, 36 relate to issues of resilience and vulnerability, it is useful to in reality they bring a significant level of conformity to their 37 begin with Igor Kopytoff’s(1987, 1999) distinction between social constructions. This is because they rely on a given 38 internal frontiers, which are zones between two adjacent “political culture,” or “cultural baggage” —including tech- 39 polities, and external frontiers, which are zones formed as a nological traditions and conceptions of power, legitimacy, 40 result of the colonizing expansion of a polity into a sparsely authority, institution building, and political practice—which 41 populated and or less politically complex region. When in- manifests itself in the form of “ideal patterns and ideal 42 vestigating ancient hinterlands, archaeologists study both institutional models, rather than being a matter, as in the 43 internal and external frontiers, but often without making a metropoles, of active practice.” 44 clear distinction between the two. However, the political and In contrast to the aforementioned perspectives, oth- 45 economic integration of hinterlands into broader systems, as ers advocate for more significant levels of innovation, 46 well as the resilience and vulnerability of hinterland com- and hence resilience, in the hinterlands. For example, 47 munities, may vary for internal and external frontiers. Kopytoff’s (1999) “cyclical model” for hinterland devel- 48 Hinterland communities develop in zones that consti- opment underscores the key role played by immigrants from 49 tute “edges.” They may occur not only at the juncture of polity capitals, or metropoles, who move into hinterland set- 50 different political and or cultural units, but also in divergent tings and either set up their own communities or merge with 51 ecological zones. Thus, the location of a hinterland com- those communities established by earlier settlers, thereby 52 munity may support or minimize its resilience. According enhancing the innovative capacity of the hinterland commu- 53 to Nancy Turner and her colleagues (2003:456–457), “cul- nities they now call home. This view does, however, continue 54 tural edges are like ecological edges in that they allow for to favor the idea that all innovation occurs in the heartlands, 1 In the Maya Hinterlands 157 2 3 4 which is a stance that has been effectively challenged by governors emanating from the metropole itself, we see a 5 those who see hinterlands, themselves, as dynamic places of much more tightly integrated geopolitical landscape consist- 6 cultural contact and syncretization, where innovations of all ing of a capital and a series of provinces (Bedford 2009:42, 7 kinds are created, manipulated, and transformed (Lightfoot 48; LeCount and Yaeger 2010:31–39), as well as consid- 8 and Martinez 1995:472). From this perspective, hinterland erable functional specialization, a more limited degree of 9 communities are resilient places precisely because they are response diversity, and a high level of interconnectedness— 10 centers for innovation, rather than vulnerable peripheries or in other words, “hypercoherence” —leading to dimin- 11 passively awaiting the next innovation to be transferred from ished resilience over time (Hegmon et al. 2008; Holling and 12 the heartland. Regardless of whether hinterlands are viewed Gunderson 2002; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Walker and 13 as creators of, or receptors for, innovation—and the previ- Salt 2006:76–77, 164). Of significance here is the fact that a 14 ous discussion suggests that the answer lay somewhere in combination of these integrative strategies may be employed 15 the middle—most scholars agree that the confluence of lo- at any one time (e.g., see Bedford [2009] for a discussion 16 cal and immigrant cultures, the latter often emanating from of the Neo-Assyrian empire, Anderies [2006] for the Ho- 17 multiple metropoles, often leads to the emergence of unique hokom, and van der Leeuw [2005] for Roman Empire in the 18 hinterland communities, complete with differing social iden- Rhone Valley). In summary, as archaeologists