1 STATUS AND POWER: CARACOL, TEOTIHUACAN, AND THE EARLY CLASSIC MAYA WORLD Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase The archaeological interpretation of status and power is fraught with a variety of issues. While it is sometimes possible to identify those individuals of highest status – and, presumably, power - in the archaeological record, for the most part issues of status and power can become a quagmire for archaeological interpretation. While the verticality of social relationships may sometimes be evident in the archaeological record, the horizontal aspects of socio-political relationships are more difficult to document. Status and power also need to be viewed comparatively as they may vary depending on the arena of interaction. Because agency is involved in determining status and power, what the archaeologist records may not clearly or directly reflect ancient reality. This paper examines the archaeological interpretation of status and power in the Maya area using examples derived from Caracol, Belize – with particular attention paid to an Early Classic cremation unearthed during the 2010 field season that has applicability to discussions of broader Mesoamerican interactions and relationships. Introduction does not necessarily imply a certain status or What constitutes status and power in the any unusual power. However, when green archaeological record? The answer varies obsidian artifacts are found in the Maya depending upon context and scale. Both area, they are often seen as being special – status and power are relative terms that the products of long-distance relationships imply a hierarchical relationship between or exchange (e.g., Braswell 2003; Moholy- two or more individuals or parties; this Nagy 1999). The presence of green obsidian hierarchical relationship can either entail artifacts in Maya contexts therefore may proscriptive or consensual actions and can lead to a discussion of status and power vary (to the point of being inverted) because of the exotic nature and long- depending upon the situation. Higher status distance origin of these artifacts. individuals evince more prestige and/or This paper seeks to briefly review the resources than other individuals or groups, concepts of status and power and their but status also can vary depending upon the implications with regards to archaeological relational situation. One may be born with interpretation. To accomplish this, the ascribed rights or status, but other also may concepts first will be situated and defined be achieved through certain life relative to anthropological theory. Next, the accomplishments. Power usually implies terminology will be applied to current usage control, either over people or resources; it in Maya archaeology. Finally, an Early also implies the ability to undertake certain Classic archaeological deposit from Caracol, actions. In life, such relationships were Belize will serve as an example of the issues often in flux and could change over time, involved in analyzing status and power in being dependent upon location and context. the archaeological record. This dynamic aspect of status and power relationships makes archaeological Status interpretation context-dependent. For Linton (1936: 113-114) noted that instance, in central Mexico, green obsidian statuses are “the polar positions . in artifacts from Pachuca are quite common, as patterns of reciprocal behavior,” defining might be expected as Cerro de las Navajas “polar position” as a “collection of rights source is only 50 km northeast of and duties.” While the “rights and duties” Teotihuacan; some 90% of the prismatic define the boundaries for social relationships cores and blades at Teotihuacan are of green and behavior, “privilege” refers to options obsidian (Spence 1996:23). Thus, the use of that exist within these prescribed boundaries green obsidian artifacts in central Mexico and “role” constitutes the dynamic aspect of Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Vol. 8, 2011, pp. 3-18. Copyright © 2011 by the Institute of Archaeology, NICH, Belize. Status and Power status, where the actions of the individual or occasion for the interaction or activity; (3) group put into effect the socially privileged the setting; (4) the polar positions of an rights and duties. Goodenough (1965:3) identity relationship and their arrangement importantly noted that the analysis of status with one another in identity relationships; looks at boundaries and not at the range of (5) the number of identity relationships available behaviors within a specific polar possible within a culture; and (6) the range position: of identities available to an individual simultaneously and their compatibility in “For status analysis, the boundaries (the constructing a coherent social persona. In rights and duties) command our attention any analysis of status, the two polar and not the domain of idiosyncratic freedom positions must be clearly understood. (privileges). As for powers, they and their Goodenough (1965:6) pointed out that “… liability counterparts stem from privileges, while immunities result from rights and the for any identity assumed by one party, there observance of duties. None of them needs are only a limited number of matching to be treated as a feature of status identities available to the other party,” relationships that requires analysis noting that “we take care to employ various independent of the analysis of rights and signs by which to communicate the duties.” identities we wish to assume, so that others may assume matching ones and we can Goodenough (1965:2) further noted that, interact with mutual understanding.” Thus, while the concepts of statuses as “collections there are any number of status relationships of rights and duties” and as “kinds and in a complex society and “the aggregate of categories of persons” have become its composite statuses may be said to inextrictably linked, that these two constitute the identity’s role” (Goodenough definitions should really be analytically 1965:16). separated. While status and role can be difficult to In his important paper looking at the use analyze among living populations, doing so of status and role in cultural anthropology, in the archaeological record is even more Goodenough (1965:3-4) demonstrated the challenging. We traditionally note the use of these terms in modern Trukese difference between “achieved” versus society. He showed that each individual in “ascribed” status as important indicators for any society has a number of different social social complexity, hoping to identify these identities and that each social identity has statuses in mortuary remains by particularly different rights, duties, and corresponding focusing on status differentiation other than appropriate behaviors. Thus, because each that associated with gender or increased age individual has more than one status or social (Peebles and Kus 1977). We also write identity, it becomes imperative to analyze about “elites” (D. Chase and A. Chase 1992) the situational nature of each social and “commoners” (Lohse and Valdez 2004), interaction in terms of status and role. but even our archaeological markers for Goodenough (1965:4-5) further noted that these statuses are not completely secure – the parties in status relationships are not and status must be differentiated from always individual human beings; the party wealth (e.g., Smith 1987). However, that forms the “alter” in a status relationship following Goodenough (1965:6), “various may also be a group of individuals or may signs” can communicate assumed identities even be “animals, inanimate objects, and or “statuses” – and it is these signs or purely imaginary beings” that “may also symbols that can be contextually located in possess rights and/or owe duties.” the archaeological record to aid in the Social identities – or statuses – are identification of status and identity. selected based on several factors (Goodenough 1965:7): (1) the ability to appropriately possess an identity; (2) the 4 Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase Power Complexity has often been cast in terms of While archaeologists generally centralization versus dispersion of resources recognize different kinds of power – social, in the archaeological remains. Authority economic, political, and religious – seeing and legitimacy have come to be viewed as power in the archaeological record again being vested in the state and as being requires the interpretation of ancient reflected in public art styles (Marcus 2007); remains. Like status, power can be however, both power and legitimacy are conceived of as a two-party relationship needed to constitute authority (Smith between actors and respondents. Similar to 2003:108). Less talked about in Goodenough’s view of status, Talcott archaeological reconstructions are the Parsons (1969:279) conceived of power “as differences between coercive and consensual a generalized symbolic medium operating in power, which can also be referred to as the process of social interaction.” In this “power over” versus “power to” (Smith conception, the symbols should be 2003:108) or – more popularly – as archaeologically recognizable. “oppression theory” versus “collective To analyze power in the archaeological action theory” (Blanton and Fargher 2008). record, one needs, first, to determine if Potentially confounding deliberations, power does in fact exist and then, second, to but in actuality overlapping in scope, are make comparisons of kinds of power. Dahl archaeological discussions over hierarchical (1969:83) notes that an